Generation is one mode of social separation. It categorizes people according to their location in historical time, or in relation to each other (Nugin, Kannike & Raudsepp 2016: 14). Karl Mann-heim defines generation as a cultural phenomenon that can only be understood, when examining it relation to social and historical context. (Mannheim 1952: 290–292). Unlike an age-based categorization, for example young or old, generational classification focuses on external influ-ences in human development (Nugin, Kannike & Raudsepp 2016: 14). Thus, it focuses on the social changes and certain socio-cultural, technological and political circumstances, which in-fluence certain generation. These inin-fluences affect generations throughout their lives and reflect in their self-consciousness and their conceptions of other generations. (Nugin, Kannike &
Raudsepp 2016: 14.) Thus, generation can be considered an important, identity defining ele-ment.
One of the most influential theorists in generation studies is Karl Mannheim, and many theorists have based their research on his ideas. Mannheim was the first to make a division between two main approaches to generations. The first approach is referred as “naturalist”, as it defines gen-eration simply by birth cohort, and thus understands gengen-eration as something that is given in birth. The second approach highlights the significance of social and historical context, and thus implies that generations emerge from shared experiences and are dependent on changes in so-cieties. (1952: 276.)
However, there are also other approaches in generation studies than Mannheimian. One option is to define generation according to their success in certain social spheres. This approach can be useful when studying for example second generation of immigrants, or the third generation of Soviet people. (Nugin, Kannike & Raudsepp 2016: 16.) This option of defining generation could be useful for my thesis, since I am studying a generation grown after the socialist period in Hungary. However, I have chosen not to approach my research question from this angle, since my study focuses on certain people’s experiences, not a success of their generation. Suc-cess, or their experience of sucSuc-cess, is of course relevant, but nevertheless, the focus of my study is different.
23
As stated before, generations can be seen as natural. The naturalist conception of generation is based simply on the year of birth. This approach is used especially in marketing research. Ac-cording to this approach, all members of this generation, regardless of their social, ethnic and other societal differences are the same. It creates a picture of homogenous group of people, based on their location in historical timeline. (Nugin, Kannike & Raudsepp 106: 16–17.) Alt-hough I do define my informants based on their birth year to some extent, in my study I do not see generation as a natural thing, but rather something that emerges from surrounding environ-ment and common experiences. Neither Mannheim views generation as a natural object but produced through common experiences. These common experiences create a shared perspective among the members of a generation. (Yurchak 2006: 30.)
When speaking of generations in the field of social sciences, it is important to keep in mind that the word has a dual meaning. Firstly, it can refer to a certain birth cohort including everyone born in a certain historical period. From the other perspective, generation only includes certain elite, who has societal impact. (Nugin, Kannike & Raudsepp 2016: 14.) In this study, generation is understood as something that includes everyone born in certain historical period, right before the Soviet Union collapsed, or after it. Thus, Mannheim’s first conception of generation is ap-plicable in this study.
On the other hand, Mannheim’s second perception of generations is also relevant for my study.
In this narrower perception of generation, Mannheim defines generation through reflexivity and the ability to create new identities, meaning thought and actions in society. Thus, a generation becomes apparent during major social changes. (Nugin, Kannike & Raudsepp 2016:15.) During these severe social changes, the young are the first to experience and negotiate the new social conditions. Instead of being only objects in social change, these generations become agents that shape the transformation. In this approach, generation is also not homogenous, since they have different experiences, political views and social statuses. (Mannheim 1998: 183). This concep-tion of generaconcep-tion has also been referred as lineage. (Yurchak 2006: 30). Generaconcep-tions are not only shaped by national developments, but also constructed in relation to generational structures in other countries. Global events and processes also have their impact in shaping generations.
(Nugin, Kannike & Raudsepp 2016: 17.)
The two conceptions of generation do not have to be in contradiction with each other. It is possible to understand generation both as a cohort and as a group of people that have shared experiences. The first conception of generation emphasizes the age difference between
24
generations and assumes that people of same age have some things in common with each other.
The latter emphasizes the difference between generations due to their experiences. This con-ception also assumes that there is a bond between children and parents, and the understanding of generation emerges from the differences between them. (Yurchak 2006: 30-31.) I view my informants as a generation that has common experiences due to the surrounding circumstances and although they are categorized by their birth year, the comparison between children and parents is significant.
As my analysis will later show, the informants often understand their own generation in relation to their parent’s generation. Categorization by the birth year is important, since I am examining the experiences of people grown after the Soviet era. However, this brings us back to the un-derstanding generations through common experience of major societal changes. Thus, for my study understanding generations in the terms of latter perception is more relevant than under-standing them merely as a cohort.
25 4. ANALYSIS
I examine the research question from local and global perspectives. Thus, the analysis is also divided thematically in two parts: local and global. First, I examine the informant’s conceptions of being Hungarian from local perspective. Firstly, the aim is to construct a general picture of how the respondents understand being Hungarian. This includes a question how they define who can be labeled as Hungarian, and who would they exclude from this group? Analyzing local-level lives includes obviously global aspects, since local identity is often constructed in relation to others, “them”. Also, as stated before, the transnational approach takes on account the fact that local lives are affected by global procesess. Naturally, globality is vice versa linked to locality, and the respondent’s conceptions of “us”. As I explained earlier, local identities are often constructed people’s awareness of a place or a region and its characteristics, and this awareness often leads into a feeling of unity and togetherness.
Dividing analysis in these two parts appears logical, because it enables analyzing the respond-ent’s observations of their identities in both scales. When analyzing the informant’s conceptions of their identities in relation to globality, my aim is to form an understanding, how they perceive their identities as Hungarians in relation to “others”, particularly Europeans and the EU. This part of the analysis also includes questions related to mobility, multiculturalism and interna-tionality.
As stated before, scholars have argued that there is a process going on, which can be referred as “Europeanization of the local” or “localization of Europe”, and thus regions are losing their previous meanings, and gaining new ones. Therefore, this study also analyses the new meanings of local and global that can be found, when discussing with the informants. The interviewee’s conceptions of the EU are especially intriguing due to the complex nature of the relationship between Hungary and the EU. In addition, it can be said that the EU is going through a critical period. Thus, understanding how the informants view the EU and its significance to Hungary is essential.
Considering the fact that all informants for this thesis were studying Finno-Ugric studies, it is also relevant to examine, if they construct their identity in relation to their Finno-Ugric roots.
Thus, the significance of Finno-Ugric connection is also examined in the process of the inform-ant’s identity forming process. In addition to the fact that Hungary belongs into the same eth-nolinguistic group with Finland, it is relevant to presume that there is a deeper awareness of
26
this kinship among the interviewees, due to their studies. The aim of this part of the analysis is to function as a bridge between analyzing the local and global aspects. As I argue later, the feeling of Finno-Ugric kinship can strengthen both local and global aspects of identity.
The feeling of kinship with other Finno-Ugric peoples might highlight one’s identity as a Hun-garian, and therefore strengthen the local identity. On the other hand, as the analysis will later show, Finno-Ugric connection can also provide opportunities for the interviewees to be mobile and international. As an example, some of the informants expressed a strong desire to migrate especially to Finland. Thus, it can be argued, that perceiving one’s identity as a part of larger, ethnolinguistic group, can result as feeling more international, and strengthen internationality as a part of identity. Therefore, emphasizing the Finno-Ugric kinship as a part of one’s identity can function as a gateway to mobility and internationality.