This is the first section of the first Bulgarian draft report. If you would like to read it in its entirety, you can download it as a PDF.
Bulgaria is a special case in the context of RITU Project. Although it generally follows the West European model of development, Bulgarian case has characteristic features of its own:
Bulgaria gained its independence in 1878 when it was carved out from the multinational Ottoman Empire. For five centuries, within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire, the Bulgarians had lived side by side with various peoples speaking different languages and professing different religions. As late as 1876, the Abdul Hamid Constitution proclaimed the Islam a state religion. In the Empire the communities were organized on a religious principle (the Millet system) with no account of ethnicity; equality was out of the question (Bulgarians are rayah), and yet the fact is that there existed religious autonomy and latitude, much more strongly expressed than in the world Western Christiandom of that time. Practically there were not any conflicts on ethnic basis. Complex processes of mutual penetration of different ethnicities and religions had been taking place. Without crossing the boundaries, a whole system of peaceful co-existence was established. The co-existence, however, did not mean tolerance.
Modern nationalisms blew up this pre-modern world. In the last century of the Empire the building up of the Bulgarian and also of the other Balkan nations and national states began with the differentiating “us” from the “others” in terms of ethnicity, religion and language. In the period of the National Revival, Bulgarians determined themselves as speaking Bulgarian language and professing Christian Orthodox.
In general, Bulgarians, who have been living for hundreds of years in a contact zone of different civilizations, cultures, religions under the power of two cosmopolitan empires, consider themselves tolerant with regard to religion and nationality and claim that they do not feel xenophobic. The habit of co-existence with different ethnic and religious communities have made them tolerant, which was combined with feeble religiousness, lack of fanatism and a kind of condescending attitude and curiosity to the “otherness”. At the same time Bulgarians have a “catastrophic” social consciousness formed in the course of centuries under foreign rule, and a kind of immanent pessimism that results in a defensive line of conduct to the “other”. On the one hand, this leads to feeling of menace because of their small number, on the other - to reticence and feeling of being privileged in combination with negative attitudes to the other communities1.
Building up their state, Bulgarians perceived the others in the following triad: non-Bulgarian, non-Christian, non-Orthodox. This determined their negative stereotypes of Catholics, Jews, Turks and Pomaks, which were quite prominent in the second half of 19th c. They felt closer to Greeks and Gagaouz, who belong to another church, but the negation remained.
Scientists have come to the conclusion that the most positive stereotype formed on the basis of compassion is that of the Armenians in Bulgaria chased by Turks and forced to leave the country.
Probably this is due to their sparsity, urban character, stable economic status, high culture and personal integrity with Bulgarians. Surveys show that the following epithets are generally connected with the image of the Armenians: efficient, accurate, precise, hardworking, disciplined, clever, highly qualified2.
The stereotype of Turks is based both on their physical presence in the role of the “other” and on the typical of the Balkans folkloric thinking, expressed in the literature and humanitarian studies of the 19c. In the Revival, the image of the Turk found a counterpart in the image of the enemy striving to strengthen his own identity. For this purpose, the focus point was on the brutality and outrage. After the Liberation this image which had been transformed into an image of the subject, became more nuanced and directly related to the Bulgarian foreign policy and its task – liberation of the nation that had remained under Ottoman rule in Macedonia and Odrin region of Thrace. Actually, it was the school with its school manner of teaching native history and the Bulgarian literature that helped for the creation of this image. In the Cold War period new characteristic features were added to the image of the Turk as an enemy - Turkey is a NATO member state, “fifth column”, an instrument of foreign policies and propaganda. Since the 1970s it had been implied that some Bulgarian territories might be cut off in favour of Turkey /following the Cyprus model/. In addition, there was the suggestion of Islamistic propaganda. The stereotype underwent some changes in the period of 1984 -1990. Some Bulgarians preserved it but without the strong negativity since the renaming of Turks evoked compassion and tolerance on the part of the intelligentsia and urban population. Others accepted this event as a cause for mistrust deepened by the frustration from the Turkish emigrant wave /summer of 1989/ which in those hard times deprived whole regions of labour force.
The contemporary sociological surveys confirm these observations. Bulgarians tend to strongly dramatize the cultural differences with Turks and in critical situations their stereotype of deep fear, animosity and suspicion gets activated. When the “others” are characterized, they are described as united, skillful, diligent, clever but at the same time hostile, suspicious, cruel, likely to get into conflicts. Only in regions with mixed population, there exist ambivalent opinions based on personal experience in communication3.
What is really interesting is how the stereotype of Jews has been changing. In the period of 15-19c. their image was strongly negative. Bulgarian farmers perceived Jews as mercenary frauds and liars, while Bulgarian Christians – as deceivers and traitors. Thus, the whole ethnic group lived in isolation and mixed marriages were condemned. Nevertheless, in the 1st half of 20th century Jews managed to overcome the isolation and integrate economically / most were workers, merchants, craftsmen, middle-class people/, socially and culturally /especially as regards social-democratic and communist ideas/, even in terms of life-style did they manage to get incorporated. It is not by chance that in the 20s and 30s no large-scale anti-Semite organizations existed in Bulgaria, as it was in Romania and Hungary, and in the period of 1941- 1943 Bulgarian people of various social strata came up in support of Jews. From contemporary point of view, the Jewish minority is one of the most integrated, not only because of its small number but also because of its feeble religiousness and identity which has been changing into Bulgarian. The common stereotype has become definitely positive – Jews are generally accepted as intelligent, open-minded, efficient and pragmatic4.
Until mid 19 century the Bulgarian-Roma co-existence went on quite smoothly. The attitudes to Roma varied from good neighbourly economic relations to reticence, suspicion, and even complete rejection. Yet, they were not chased as in Catholic West Europe or enslaved as in Vallachia. The negative attitude is an outcome of the modern society. In the beginning, they were not considered dangerous - they do not have a State of their own. That is why the attitude of indifference and negligence without mass repression has remained. The inability of Roma to adapt to the changes burdens their image with the stereotyped features of nomads, parasites / after the beginning of the industrial age/, natural criminals /no one takes into account the fact that this is their way of living/, Bohemian revellers /because of their own festivals/, uncivilized liars /from the view- point of the European Christian culture/. The tolerance to Roma imposed by the totalitarian regime after the World War II – Roma themselves say that no one dared to insult them - has been transformed after its fall in 1989 into complete mistrust, ostracism, extreme hatred and negativism /some foreign authors directly speak of racism/. Their sharp marginalization during the period of transition contributes to that. According to the surveys of 90s, Roma are depicted as thieves, bruisers, speculators, liars, frauds, criminals, dirty, ignorant, primitive. Interestingly, it is only in that respect that the negative stereotypes created by Bulgarians, Turks and Jews coincide to a great extent /respectively 85%, 81% 70%/, which is valid for the whole Eastern Europe. Because of these significant social boundaries many Roma are forced to avoid self-identification and “be Turks” or “be Bulgarians” to survive or hopefully stay occupied.
The image of Pomaks /Bulgarian Muslims/ is also overburdened with prejudices. Bulgarian population considers them religious fanatics that cannot be trusted or relied on, while Turkish population does not accept their different language. In the long run this religious group has lived in isolation, constantly forced by Bulgarians to reject its religion and specific culture; matrimonial relations with representatives of this group are also acceptable.
© London Metropolitan University