Workshop 1

Globalization, Secularization and Religion:

Different States, Same Trajectories?

New Religions, Globalization and Multiculturalism:

The Case of the Romanian Neo-Protestants in Serbia

Aleksandra Đurić-Milovanović
University of Belgrade, Serbia
saskadjuric@yahoo.com

ROBERT SCHUMAN CENTRE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES

© 2010. All rights reserved.

No part of this paper may be distributed, quoted or reproduced in any form without permission from the author(s). For authorised quotation(s) please acknowledge
the Mediterranean Programme as follows: “Paper presented at the Eleventh Mediterranean Research Meeting, Florence & Montecatini Terme, 24-27 March 2010,
organised by the Mediterranean Programme of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute.”
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

Abstract

In contemporary society, religious pluralism presents a range of complex challenges to

religious groups and communities. The rise of new religions, in the process of globalization,
change existing nation-state relations, creating de-territorialized religious communities. Our
assumption is that the different interpretations of multiculturalism are not only topics of
theoretical debate, but strongly affect the concrete political processes in society as well as
politics of religious diversity. The questions that we are examining in this paper are how small
religious communities implement identity policies and how multiculturalists discourse
includes certain type of diversity (usually ethnic), while the other excludes (religious). The
aim of this paper is to present position of new religions, Neo-Protestants in Serbian Northern
Province of Vojvodina, using an interdisciplinary approach in the context of global emergence
of evangelical communities such are Pentecostals, but also conservative Protestants such are
Nazarenes. The research is also based on fieldwork with marginalized and, in the public
discourse, often stigmatized religious groups, such are Nazarenes, Seventh day Adventists,
Pentecostals, Jehovah Witnesses or Baptists, which offers the possibility of applying the
methodology of contemporary anthropology and anthropological linguistics, in an
interdisciplinary approach. In the province of Vojvodina, the majority of Romanians are
Orthodox, but during the last century various neo-Protestant denominations have largely
spread. Differing from large confessions, which are usually connected with nations, small
religious communities often give more importance to the religious identity, while national
belonging is less important for them. Examining the correlation between national and
religious identity, we are also interested in social status of neo-Protestants, which are not
recognized by the Serbian law. At the moment, there are over 80 religious groups in Serbia, of
which only seven are officially recognized traditional religions, while the majority of the other
“small religious groups” are of Protestant origin. Using non traditional religious groups
among national minorities this article turns its attention to the position of small and minority
religions, the issue of what are called double minorities, as well as hidden minorities. Since
one of the essential issues of multi-culturalism is the issue of difference, multi-cultural and
multi-confessional communities and their heritage represent an important part in the process
of preserving cultural and religious pluralism in Serbia. Researching and representing in the
adequate way different religions in present day Serbia, will significantly contribute for better
understanding of “the other” specially religious and ethnic minority position. Also research
results will contribute to more detailed religious picture in this part of the Balkans, new

1/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

religions and in public discourse encourage tolerance and eliminating discrimination of

different religious communities in one pluralistic and transitional society. This research also
includes the experience of minorities in welfare systems historically influenced by majority
religious institutions (in this case The Romanian Orthodox Church). We will also
problematize whether minorities are perceived to challenge the values, cultural identities, etc.
of the local majorities, and whether there are detectable differences between Neo-Protestant
communities and other minority groups relaying on the concept of hidden and double
minorities. We would like to discus questions such are: how do multiculturalism and religious
diversity relate to the reformulations of civil society, as well as how religious minorities can
participate in society being more visible for majority.

1. Introduction
Globalization, new religions and the concept of multiculturalism are the topics of current
theoretical debates in humanistic sciences. These debates on globalization implied creating
different classifications that gave rise to several issues: is globalization a new phenomenon, is
it a radical discontinuity or an old idea presented in a modern way; is it a spontaneous
planetary process, result of complex interactions without beforehand determined goal, or is it
a mondialistic conspiracy of secret power centres with the intention to establish global
hegemony and to place the overall mankind under their control? The influence of
globalization to religious changes and creation of new identities represent a challenge to
existing religion-state relations. And exactly due to religious pluralism challenges, religious
migrations and deterritorialization of new religions, is the multiculturalism discourse ever
more significant.
The concept of multiculturalism is connected to the last decades of the XX century and
represents the subject of numerous tracts and debates within different humanistic disciplines.
As a political ideal, as stated by Ulrike Hanna Meinhof and Anna Triandafyllidou,
multiculturalism means, equal possibilities accompanied by cultural diversity in the
atmosphere of mutual tolerance. Thus the combination of recognizing cultural diversity and
adjustment to key values of society represents the essential feature of multiculturalism
(Meinhof, Triandafyllidou, 2008: 14). During XX century the topic of multiculturalism was
much discussed in liberal and communitary circles, which resulted in highly elaborated
discourse on the policy of recognition and rights to minority communities culture (Brus 2008:
370). Certain authors take multiculturalism as a part of political correctness (Scott 1992;
Spencer 1994), then as a policy of recognizing the civil rights and cultural identities

2/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

(Kymlicka 2004; Taylor 1992) and generally as values of cultural diversity. The term
multiculturalism emerged as a set of public policies in the 1970’ in Canada, The United States
of America, Australia, New Zealand, and Western Europe.1 Since multiculturalism poses the
question of identity and its acknowledgment, the usual framework of multicultural discussions
is based on minorities, ethnic groups and social movements. In practice, multiculturalism
refers explicitly to state policies aimed at maintaining harmonious relations between different
ethnic groups, as well as recognition and acceptance of heterogeneity in general. Likewise,
one of the goals of multiculturalism policy represents also defining relations between the state
and ethnic – religious minorities. Discussions on multiculturalism, as well as on the ’crisis of
multiculturalism’ most frequently examine faults and weaknesses in the practice of the
established models while, on the other hand, the majority of states in the world insits on
including the different aspects of multiculturalism in their normative practice.2
The first part of this paper will deal with different approaches to the multiculturalism
concept developed over the previous decades, then the emphasis will be placed on the relation
between globalization, multiculturalism and new religions and finally, we shall try to present
the position of ’double and hidden minorities’ in Serbia on the example of the Romanian Neo-
Protestant communities.

2. Theoretical Models of Multiculturalism

If we define a certain space as multicultural one, according to Andrea Semprini, such a
space is primarily observed as space of meaning. In this way, such space is not single, but
there are as many spaces as there are perceptions of different groups (Semprini 2004: 121).
Conceptualization of multicultural space, stated by Semprini, has four models and all of them
analyze the problem of social cohesion. The classical political liberal model separates private
from the public sphere, thus dissimilarities are located mainly in the private sphere of life.
Dissimilarities have not been cancelled; they are constrained within the private sphere.
However, multiculturalists deny that the public space has ever been really open for all and that
real equality has ever ruled. Therefore for multiculturalists the traditional political liberal
model is:
Absolutely incapable of meeting their demands for essential recognition and acceptance of dissimilarities in a
satisfactory way (Semprini 2004: 114).

1
The term multiculturalism was first used by the Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in his speech in 1971,
in order to designate progressive political alternative to assimilative policy for the purpose of promoting equality,
tolerance and inclusion of minority cultural groups (Ang 2005: 34).
2
For multiculturalism discussions see: Modood, Triandafyllidou, Zapata-Barrero, 2005.

3/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

Multicultural liberal model is a model of ’multicultural citizenship’, and it was offered by

Will Kymlicka in the book of the same name. According to Kymlicka, classical liberal model
has never managed to reach the ideal of absolute equality of citizens, regardless of all
generations provided for that by the given legal systems. Kymlicka suggests that mediation
should be established between public and private sphere, where the difference between public
and private is not erased, but ‘dialectulized’ (Semprini 2004: 115). This author is convinced
that such a multicultural pattern provides for higher degree of cohesion and stability of a
society. Charles Taylor’s analysis of individualism places an emphasis on dialogism in a
similar way in the multicultural issues. According to Semprini:
This term is used to show how the identity of an individual is constructed in touch with with the other and
through constant exchange which enables myself to structure itself and to determine itself through comparison
and diversification (Semprini 2004: 87-88).
The third model, according to Semprini, is ’maximalistic multicultural model’ largely
supported by groups demanding different forms of separation or complete political autonomy.
Thus this model denies any possibility of common sphere existence, private and public
spheres are separated. Culturological, religious and identity factors characterize much more an
individual and belonging to a group. As Semprini states, this model is indifferent to state-
nation issues, which are pleadable only if set above group limits. In this way, this model
proposes ’postmodern’ or ’postnational’ multicultural space (Semprini 2004: 116). The fourth
model of corporate multiculturalism observes ethnic groups and social movements as
objective facts, occurred through social changes to which you need to adjust yourself.
Semprini emphasizes that this model is:
Primarily economic, it functions within a pragmatic system and the framework of its development is
international. Corporate multiculturalism is accused of complete construction of heterogeneity, which content is
only subsequently assigned and the rules of its management are only afterwards established (Semprini 2004:
117-118).
Therefore, this model of multicultural space is dominated by economic paradigm. Looking
back at the Australian experience of multiculturalism and its relation to the national identity,
Chandran Kukathas does not think that a dialogue between multiculturalism and liberalism is
such a complex issue, although he observes the given problem, primarily from the theoretical
perspective (Kukathas 1993: 150). Kukathas claims that conflicts between multiculturalism
and liberalism (as phylosophical orientations) should not exist at all, because liberalism is,
according to him, a theory of multiculturalism, i.e. theory of pluralism.
Still, due to multitude of issues concentrated on the problem of ‘cultural diversity’, and
especially due to issues connected to the recognition of such diversities in modern liberal

4/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

democracies, there are frequent efforts to harmonize these two (philosophical) standpoints in
terms of ideas, and first of all in practical sense. This is favoured by ever more frequent use of
the syntagm ‘liberal multiculturalism’. Taylor, for example, thinks that such an approach,
saying that the state should be indifferent to issue of diversity acknowledgment, is insufficient
and even illusory, because it is not the way to meet the demands of those groups with the
basic aim not to be free in order to follow their life style, but it is more important to them to
ensure that their culture survives – now and in the distant future (Taylor 1992). Therefore,
although the arguments of Kymlicka, Taylor and other authors with similar ideas have been
framed within traditional liberal ethics, they at the same time strive to pose different
questions, to undertake more concrete research of cultural policies and to get involved in
debates which have been of marginal significance for traditional ethics (Doppelt 2002: 395).
Kymlicka, for example, conceives the culture and multiculturalism in the following way:
I use the type of multiculturalism which originates from national and ethnical differences. As I have said
before, I use culture as a synonym for folk or nation... more or less institutionally completed which occupies
certain territory and has a distinctive language and history. The state is therefore multicultural if its members
either belong to different nations (multinational state), or have emigrated from different nations (multiethnic
state) and if this fact represents an important aspect of personal identity and political life. This is shortly my
definition of culture and multiculturalism, which, I think, corresponds to the outspread use of these terms
(Kymlicka 2004: 30).
Kymlicka’s definition therefore, greatly coincides to his definition of nation and such a
starting ground is denoted by Perekh, who tries to reconcile the individual liberalism and
recognition of cultural diversities, as ‘liberal nationalism’ in which presence of
monoculturalism can still be felt (Perekh 2000: 101).
As a radical contrast to liberal multiculturalism, conservative criticism of multiculturalism
regards that multiculturalism encourages separatism and represents a threat to national
cohesion. Concept of culture in public political discourse became one of the key notions of
multiculturalism which emphasizes differences and dichotomy within a society, arising from
ever more popularity of multiculturalism idea. Thus, both equality of minority rights and
special status of minorities can be politically problematic (Eriksen 2004: 246). In his study
Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition, Charles Taylor advocates liberalism
which would not neglect the significance of cultural differences. Namely, understanding of
identity in multicultural debates is inseparable from understanding what is considered a
‘difference’ by it (Taylor 1992: 25-74). These concepts have thus become the main
designations for ‘diversity’:

5/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

As a coded word for minority demands to be especially recognized by academic and other cultural
institutions, multiculturalism strives to become the form of identity policy, where the concept of culture starts to
merge itself with the concept of ethnic identity (Turner 1993: 411).
Terence Turner makes a distinction between ’critical’ and ’non-critical’ multiculturalism,
where critical multiculturalism, which is advocated also by himself, seeks to expand
democratic rights by engaging in the critical dialogue exceeding the limits of a group and
within the group’s limits. ’Non-critical’ multiculturalism essentializes culture without
possibility of dialogue and compromise (Eriksen 2004: 252-253). As stated by Semprini,
critics of liberal model of multiculturalism regard that invalidation of an individual within a
group and denial of such groups to waive the individuality of their identities and integrate in
the higher community represent the most serious threat of multiculturalism to democratic
political systems (Semprini 2004: 85). Likewise, critics of multiculturalism regard that
multiculturalism ghettoizes minorities preventing them in a way to integrate into society
(Kymlicka 2003: 18).
The issues such as differences, acceptance of differences, acknowledgement of rights,
group, individual, issues of community preceding a person, and identity preceding the
selection of the following identity, right to citizenship, citizen status, even the very range of
always criticized liberal reform, are regarded in multicultural controversies as issues
essentially related to cultural identity (Milenkovi 2005: 66). However, one of the key
problems of multiculturalism is exactly emphasizing of diversity. As stated by Steven
Vertovec transnational challenges of the old or new multiculturalism require that actual
recognition of diversity include not only superficial understanding of cultural diversity and
belonging to certain community, but a more sophisticated idea that includes multiple or hybrid
identities, but also diversity exceeding the framework of national states (Vertovec 2001: 19).
Grillo distinguishes ‘weak’ multiculturalism where cultural diversity is recognized only in
private sphere from ‘strong’ one which recognizes cultural specificities and differences in an
institutional way (Grillo 2000). Forms of ‘strong’ multiculturalism can be identified in
requests of national minorities for different institutional supports. As an example of ‘weak’
multiculturalism, we can indicate small religious communities, which are legally registered,
declaratively provided with their confession of faith, however, without any greater
institutional support of the actual multicultural policy. Multiculturalism which is not
understood only as tolerance or cultural diversity, but as a request for legal recognition of
rights of ethnic, race, religious or cultural groups has now been established in the majority of
liberal-democratic societies (Fukujama 2007: 9). New context of diversity recognition, as

6/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

emphasized by Dietez, requires in a way a stability of borders and divisions established not
only between dominant majority and subordinate minorities, but also between each of the
minority groups (Dietez 2007: 12).

3. New Religions and Multiculturalism

Religious pluralism represents a great challenge in the modern world for all religious
communities. Globalization has added new perspective to the study of religious mobilty, be it
a result of migration or because ideas, practices and traditions „migrate“out of their original
contexts. Multiculturality is a growing factor in many countries with the result that new
communicaties and new religions challenge the world „old order“. Relation between
globalization and new religions refers primarily to raising new religions above the local
context and expansion of new religions worldwide. New religious groups or movements are
communities existing and functioning outside dominant religious culture (in our case outside
Christianity). Phenomenon of new religions, as stated by Gordon Melton, does not differ
whatsoever from the phenomenon that we observe in old religious traditions. New religions
therefore, in a way copy and borrow many things from old religions (Melton 1999: 4).
According to a theologian Ernst Benz, traditional science of religions has up till now, in
general been oriented towards key historical religions which were represented as main types
of six ’major religions’ in terms of teaching, liturgy and organization. Phenomenon that we
came across in new religions does not differ anyhow from the phenomena present in old
religions, thus new religions tend to imitate and borrow from the old religions. Regardless of
numerous offered definitions, the issue when did these new religions appear still remains
disputable. On the other hand, critics of new religions are questioning whether new religions
are new at all, indicating that there are no new religions with up till now unknown forms of
religious experience, thus:
Even those religions that occur with the awareness of novelty are not found outside the historical
continuity of the previous forms of religion history (Benc 2005: 107).
We can speak about new religions if they themselves refer to new revelations given to
their founders through certain summons and missions. The characteristic of all new revelation
religions is a request for universality based on the awareness of the fact that the previous
religions failed (Benc 2006: 107). Studies of new religions have greatly focussed on the ’new
religions of the later date’ that occurred on the West after the Second World War. Thus certain
authors classify communities established in XIX century as new religions while others
classify only those established in XX century and later on. Gordon Melton, however, accepts

7/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

the thesis that new religious movements started to spread mid- XX century, but he explains
that as a consequence of new missionary enthusiasm present in many eastern religions of that
time. But new religions also can be the ones that aspire to give an answer, from a special point
of view, to religious issues occurred by the newly arisen situation in the world. The whole
series of new religions appeared with the thesis that the forthcoming integration of the
humankind in a unique global society requires a new world religion that will integrate all
previous historical religions that were connected to partial cultures.
The issue of religious communities in debates on multiculturalism certainly plays an
important role, although national framework often represents a dominant paradigm in the
great number of theoretical concepts of multiculturalism. According to Turner:
As a coded word for minority requests for special recognition in academic and other cultural institutions,
multiculturalism strives to become the form of identity policy, where the concept of culture starts to melt with
the concept of ethnic identity (Turner 1993: 411).
However, multiculturalism limited to national framework represents a very rigid way of
its interpretation. A great number of theorists who speak in favour of multiculturalism
’exclude’ religious communities from their considerations or treat them rather vaguely.
Western theorists, especially Anglo-Saxon ones, deal to a great extent with the issues of e.g.
Muslims, but also of new religions and their integration into society. In his numerous studies
on religious minorities in the Great Britain, Tariq Modood emphasizes that:
Multiculturalism should certainly include religious communities, however, such relation of the state and
non-traditional religions requires neutrality; in the society where religious minorities are marginalized, the policy
of multiculturalism requires also public recognition of religious minorities, while the theoretical shortcomings
will become practical problem (Modood 2000: 194).
Similar to Modood, Malory Nye also opens an important debate of the relationship
between multiculturalism and new religions on the example of the Hare Krishna community
in the Great Britain (Nye 2001).3 Nye analyzes how and where can the diversity of religious
communities be located in multicultural policies of identity, as well as what is the attitude of
the state towards new religions. The challenges of all new religions facing the shortcomings of
the discourse on multiculturalism can be viewed through the example of the Hare Krishna
community, exactly at the moment of public presence in certain environment. Perception of
religious communities and their cultural practices, which are sometimes conservative or

3
The study of Malory Nye places an emphasis on the problem which originated on the occassion of construction
of the Hare Krishna temple in the centre of a London suburb and a controversy that lasted for fifteen years
between this community and local community. Thus through legal battle of believers to preserve the temple, this
study shows that limitations in the multiculturalism policy lie exactly in locating of diveristy, in this case a
religious one, on the certain space.

8/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

isolated from the broader society, can significantly contribute to more comprehensive
presentation of the pluralistic society.
Identity policy represents the request for greater cultural and social visibility and
acceptance of individuality of different minority groups. As a term – identity policy represents
requests of different minorities for recognition of their specificity and their identity which are
usually shaped by legislative action which, according to Semprini can include simple legal
exemptions to special privileges, or even ceding the rights to political autonomy and self-
government (Semprini 2004: 44). However, a fault is often found with multiculturalism that it
jeopardizes social and political unity as well as instigates increasing isolation of certain ethnic
and religious communities (Semprini 2004: 109). When the public discourse on
multiculturalism deals with the existence of several religious communities in one space, it
primarily refers to existence of traditional religious communities, while numerous non-
traditional ‘micro-communities’ exist without developed interreligious dialogue. Public
discourse plays a very important strategic role because it makes a distinction between new
religions and ethnic religions. Thus traditional religious communities are accepted as a part of
cultural identity, while the existence of new religions and small religious communities is most
frequently ignored. Subjective feeling of cultural diversity, which sometimes results in the
feeling of social exclusion, is most frequently present in members of small religious
communities, chiefly due to fact that they are characterized as a negative social phenomenon
or sect by the public discourse.

4. Double and Hidden Minorities in Serbia

Since multiculturalism represents one of the key discourses’ in understanding of modern
society, it also strongly problematizes the position and rights of minorities in relation to
majority (Semprini 2004: 35). Minority identity, which requires tolerance of the majority
environment in modern society, very often does not demonstrate the same degree of tolerance
towards members of its own minority community. Are therefore, members of minorities
tolerant enough to offer the same degree of tolerance to their own minority which is different
as far as confession is concerned? These issues could be added to the question whether
tolerance means the life of two closed, separate and stabile groups with neither conflicts nor
understanding? Are tolerance and recognition of rights to have different communication
symbols, negotiation, redefining and change of relations between different groups? The
minority-majority relation changes depending on the context; therefore – if we take the ethnic

9/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

minority of Romanians, among them there are members of small religious communities who
represent minority even compared to their own community of Romanians in Vojvodina.4
Minority communities, either ethnic or religious, sometimes does not have their political
elites which would direct their identity structure from ’within’, but the public and scientific
discourse on such groups is formed from ’outside’. Discursive strategies of constructing the
religious self-identification demonstrate exactly that small religious communities often do not
stand as political subjects. However, Habermas warns of all the consequences of an identity
policy ‘opened’ too much by the legal system for preservation of cultural minorities’
specificities (Habermas 2003). Thus Pascal Bruckner dismisses cultural rights because they
allegedly lead to creation of parallel societies of ’small, closed social groups each of them
with its special norms’ (Bruckner, in Habermas 2008). On the other hand, certain authors such
as Fitzgerald speak about the policy of recognition which sometimes results in ’policy of
exclusion’, since excessive insisting on diversity can ’obscure similarities’ (Fitzgerald 2000:
11).
Although we have dealt in the previous text mostly with the problem of the small religious
communities’ position, the issue of minority-within-minority opens another different aspect of
multiculturalism and identity policy. Due to the fact that they belong to the ethnic minority
which is mostly monoconfessionally oriented, Neo-Protestants Romanians and other national
minorities belonging to small religious communities have a dominant confessional identity.
The perception and voice of those in question is rarely heard in research of small religious
communities. By religious ghetoization, certain communities try to ’protect’ their religious
identity through isolation from the broader environment. Thus, so called religious subcultures
are formed, which according to Peter Berger, represents space where religious communities
do not tolerate influences from the external world and they do not want to accept modern

4
The Romanian national minority in Vojvodina today counts about 38,000 people, living in 40
settlements of Central and Southern Banat. The change of state borders after the First World War and
disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was crucial for creation of the Romanian national minority in
the territory of Serbia, when new sovereign states were created. The decision on dividing Banat between The
Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Kingdom of Romania was made at the international peace
conferences after the First World War. About 40 settlements with Romanian population remained in the territory
of the Serbian Banat. Historical records show that the Romanian population have lived in the territory of Banat
even at the beginning of the Middle Ages. Romanians had been mentioned in the area of the present Serbian
Banat in XIV century together with other inhabitants who are today considered the indigenous people. During
The Habsburg Monarchy in XVIII and XIX century the planned colonization of Banat started and during this
time Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks, Czechs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Ruthenians were settled. Romanians
populated these areas during great migrations of the Balkan nations due to the Turkish occupation (1552-1716),
and especially during the late colonization during the Austrian domination (1716-1776). See more in Maran
2009, Popi 1993.

10/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

ideas (Berger 2008: 14).5 If we place an emphasis on the phenomenon of visibility, hidden
character of certain religious communities and the position of minority-within-minority
represents the very space for creation of such ’ghettoized’ communities. Environment often
does not recognize ’hidden religious minorities’, since the public discourse on
multiculturalism and minorities most often emphasizes ethnic pluralism.
Members of small religious communities in Serbia are to a great extent aware of their
stigmatized position and stress it as a part of their religious elitism. However, certain
researches demonstrated that the stigmatized position of small religious communities’
members is sometimes a matter of their free choice.6 Pursuant to the Law on Religious
Communities there are seven traditional churches and religious communities in Serbia that
have historical continuity of several centuries: Serbian Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic
Church, Slovak Evangelical Church, Christian Reformed Church, Evangelical Christian
Church, Islamic and Jewish religious communities. Non-traditional religious communities are
classified as denominations and small religious communities. Among them, there are dozens
of Neo-Protestant small religious communities, but also new religious movements, pro-
oriental cults, as well as different alternative religious communities originated from
Christianity. Since Serbia is a secular state, it’s Constitution and individual laws guarantee
religious freedom, which implies freedom of worship of all registered religious communities,
as well as ban of religious discrimination.
Other religious communities are not easily accepted in a society with expressed
traditionalism and dominant tendency towards monoconfessionalism, where Serbian Orthodox
Church represents a dominant confession. However, on the other hand, advocating
multiculturalism and tolerance, especially in Vojvodina, seems sometimes as favouring one-
sidedly understood concept of multiculturalism. Our assumption is that ways and possibilities
of different interpretations of multiculturalism do not only represent the themes of theoretical
debates, but strongly influence the concrete political processes in the society. Different
aspects of religious diversity and multiconfessionality can be observed also through different

5
For radical puritanical Evangelistic Protestantism and global rise of conservative Protestant christianity see
Martin 2008.
6
Researching the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Romania and conversion of new believers into this
religious community, the Romanian sociologists Pitulac and Nastuca emphasize that the believers are aware of
stigmatization to which they are exposed when they start their ’door to door’ missioning: ’ Jehovah’s Witnesses
are more than any other religious community exposed to negative social reaction since their teaching conflicts
the official religion, priests and Orthodox doctrine. Door to door preaching characteristic for Jehovah’s
Witnesses exposes them to negative social reaction and stigmatization’ (Pitulac, Nstua 2007: 82). Authors
define such behaviour as a theory of rational choice, i.e. subjective rationality of the small religious communities
members during conversion into another confession.

11/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

theoretical concepts on multiculturalism and thus it can be perceived how small religious
communities in Serbia carry out identity policies, as well as to which extent are they included
in creation of public discourse. Since the topic of this paper is globalization, multiculturalism
and position of new religions, as well as ways of practicing of identity policy and degree of
participation in the society, one of the goals is to demonstrate that multiculturalism is very
often contextually adjusted to identity policy, which includes certain communities, while it
excludes the others. Existence of a type of selective pluralism can be observed on examples of
small religious communities which neither want, nor can use possibilities that national
minorities have. Ghetoization but also autoghetoization of certain religious communities
represent a kind of an indicator of their position in Serbia. Although affirmation of
multiculturalism, intercultural dialogue and multi-conffessionality is often emphasized in
Serbia, especially in Vojvodina, this premise most frequently refers to national minorities,
their integration into the society, lingual policy and institutionalization.7

5. Neo-Protestant Romanians in Serbia

As the best example illustrating everything that we have discussed so far, we shall take
Neo-Protestant Romanians in Serbia as the largest minority Neo-Protestant community. Apart
from the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Romanian national minority in Serbia (Vojvodina)
belongs also to other confessions, Greek-Catholic (Unite Church), Christian Nazarene
Community, The Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Christian Baptist Church, Pentecostal
church. In the recent period, there has been an increasing number of Romanian believers in
Baptist and Pentecostal Churches in Serbia, but also a great number of missionaries strongly
supported by institutions from Romania, The United States of America, Canada, that come to
Serbia. Neo-Protestant Romanians represent a minority-within-minority or a double minority
in today’s Serbia since they belong to different small religious communities, but at the same
time they are members of ethnic minority in Vojvodina. Although Romanians in Serbia are
predominantly Orthodox by denomination, numerous small religious communities give a new
dimension of religious identity of this, but also other ethnic minorities in Vojvodina today.

7
In terms of that we mention the project of the Provincial Secretariat of Regulations, Administration and
National Minorities that started in 2005 under the name Affirmation of Multiculturalism and Tolerance in AP
Vojvodina. The period from 2001 to 2005 marked the beginning of formation of institutional and legal
framework for this and similar projects. The project is currently in the fourth, final phase, and apart from the
preservation of national minorities cultures, an idea of strenghtening of trust between nations and young people
in Vojvodina is also mentioned as one of the goals of the project. For more see website:
http://www.puma.vojvodina.sr.gov.yu/

12/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

Using the example of today’s largest Neo-Protestant Romanian community of Nazarenes8 in

Serbia, we shall try to see how religious minorities very often choose themselves to be
autoghetoized and excluded from the society. Due to their marginalized and stigmatized
position, a little has been said about Nazarenes, while communities where they live, especially
the rural ones, often ignore their existence. Religious pluralism in Vojvodina and
’stratification’ of religious identity of Romanians represented the subject of researches of
Neo-Protestant religious communities started in 2008 in Vojvodina.9 Thus the subject of
today’s small religious community of Romanian Nazarenes10 opened up numerous questions –
what is the position of minority religious communities in Serbia, how members of minorities
in small religious communities experience themselves in relation to majority but also to
majority confession, to which extent are they accepted by the environment and is the closed
and ’hidden’ character of small religious communities the only way of their survival.
The position of very closed and conservative Neo-Protestant community as a whole, not
only its Romanian part, can be in a way connected with the concept of ’hidden minorities’.11
Austrian historian, Christian Promitzer, one of the creators of this concept, states that the term
hidden minority tries to describe small populations or groups that think that their joint origin
is significant for their identity. However, the status of these groups in relation to the state is
not solved. They either do not demand to be recognized by the state as national minorities or
they are not allowed to do that:

8
The Christian Nazarene Community represents the first Protestant religious community among Serbs. The first
Nazarene prayer homes were formed in the area of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy at the end of the 20th century.
The Nazarene community was in an extremely bad position during the I and II World War, because they refused
to take weapons and spent a lot of time in prisons due to their expressed pacifism. The relation of the state
towards Nazarenes was very unfavourable because of their pacifism, even after the official recognition of the
Nazarene community in the comunist Yugoslavia back in 1977. As stated by the historian Bojan Aleksov,
according to census from 1953, there were 15 650 Nazarenes in Yugoslavia, which represented the most
numerous Nazarene community in the world. After the II World War a large number of them emigrated to the
USA and Canada, leaving about 900 christened members in Serbia. The largest Nazarene community in Serbia
with about 500 members is located in the Romanian village Lokve in the Southern Banat, Vojvodina. Therefore
our research is directed to the Romanian Nazarene communities in Vojvodina, where the village Lokve
represents very important community and a kind of ’cultural-religious phenomenon’. For detailed historical
review see Aleksov 2006.
9
The research started in 2008 in the Romanian villages in Vojvodina and includes semi-guided (semi-open)
interviews, observing with participation, archiving of audio and video material as well as transcribing and
analysis of recorded conversations. For results of these researches see uri-Milovanovi 2009.
10
Today, Nazarenes are registered as a religious community, they have only 900 believers (half of them are
Romanians), thus it is certain that Nazarenes and their culture are dissapearing.
11
Hidden minority is a conditional term, terminus technicus, which was proposed by the interdisciplinary group
of researchers from the University of Gratz at the beginning of 2000 and which was supposed at the beginning to
cover several offcially unrecognized small ethnic groups in Austria, Slovenia and Croatia. A few years later, in
2004, a collection of papers Hidden Minorities in the Balkans was made as a result of the joint work of different
researchers, dealing with field research of ’hidden minorities’ in the area of the South-East Europe. See more in
Sikimi 2004.

13/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

Hidden minorities those autochthonous ethnic groups either not willing to be recognised as a national
minority or too small to develop their own representation can serve as a quid pro quo of foreign policy. Through
ethnic and political entrepreneurs from outside, even a rather weak ethnic group can become a legally recognised
minority or – to put it more clearly – at least its representatives can improve their symbolic status (Promitzer at
all. 2009: 22).
Promitzer emphasizes that each research of hidden minorities is a process of vizualisation,
but at the same time, they are deprived of their hidden status by publication of the research
results. He also states that it is not any ’hidden phenomenon’ from the scientific point of view,
but something which has’been held back’ (Promicer 2004: 19). The already mentioned issue
of visualization of hidden minorities belongs to numerous open issues in the field of research
ethics. As members themselves mainly have left no written trace of themselves, but others
speak of them now, the very scientific research is a kind of visualization. The religious
community of Nazarenes in Serbia can be analyzed within the proposed concept.
There are many potential risks while researching ‘hidden’ religious communities. In
Sikimi’s study Ethnolinguistic fieldwork: risk conceptualization (2008), contemporary
qualitative fieldwork risks are analyzed. Among physical and emotional,12 there is also the
‘fieldwork failure’ phenomena which could happen while working with ‘micro communities’,
when the researcher is completely aware of the fact that mistakes must not happen, because
the research cannot be repeated (Sikimi 2008). As field research demonstrated (partially
published in uri-Milovanovi 2008, 2009), the relation of Nazarenes towards the broader
social environment is characterized by high degree of self-isolation. Based on our researches,
we can suppose that the self-absorbed character of the Romanian Nazarenes is mostly
conditioned by their position of the minority of the minority. The Nazarene community in
Vojvodina, as well as other Neo-Protestant communities, is ethnically very heterogeneous and
church services are done in several languages. The Nazarene community is therefore
multiethnic as a whole, however, religious identity represents in a way a border in
multiculturalism.
Hidden religiousness still exists in numerous small religious communities in Serbia, for
fear not to be characterized as a negative social phenomenon – sect. The distance that
members of majority confessions keep towards other religious communities can represent also
an important element in the formation and strengthening of religious identity of those
communities. The existence of sects and denominations, as emphasized by sociologist of
religion Milan Vukomanovi, represents a phenomenon characteristic for pluralistic societies

12
More on emotions in the field in: Cylwik 2001.

14/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

(Vukomanovi 2001: 122). However, what is regarded a ’prototype’ of the Christian church
(Orthodox or Catholic) in some parts of Europe, can in other cultural environments seem
unusual and distant. One of the ways of discerning the sect from a church is exactly the value
conflict with the dominant culture. Vukomanovi gives an example of the Old Amish as a
religious group that developed an alternative value orientation that do not lead to
acculturation.
While researching the position of minority religious communities, sociologist Zorica
Kuburi emphasizes the existence of ‘social distance towards different confessions’, in other
words the different level of acceptance and rejection:
Dominant religion (the Serbian Orthodox Church has tendencies to become a state religion due to its historical
role) has a mostly negative attitude towards other small religious communities, sects, religious associations. The
fear of rejection and common attacks on members of religious communities is best seem visible on their religious
buildings that often have bars on doors and windows (Kuburi 2008: 97). 13

The similar case is with the Romanians in Vojvodina; if a group of Romanians does not
belong to the Romanian Orthodox Church, the environment, especially the minority elite,
usually ignores its existence. However, the dominant fear that exists in the Nazarene
community of any kind of integration has been developing through the relation of the state
towards Nazarenes during the newer date history. At the beginning, during the I and II World
War, the Nazarene aldermen and believers spent from five to ten years in prison because they
refused to carry guns, and later on during the communist era, because they refused to become
members of the communist party, to take an oath, participate in voting, as well because they
were against collectivization of property. Their increasing self-absorbedness today certainly
represents a consequence of such state policy.

6. Concluding remarks
Different understandings of globalization and multiculturalism does not only represent
topics of theoretical debates, but also strongly influence the creation of relations between our
social and political system and environment, but on the other hand they also influence the
processes developing within the society. Beside being greatly meritious for recognition and
acknowledgement of diversity, multiculturalism very often leads to essentialization of certain
communities identity. The very dilemmas ’whether to support the essentialization of identity
by multicultural policies, or to sacrifice the anthropological critique of culture animation

13
For attacks on small religious communities in Serbia see Bjelajac 2005.

15/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

through identity policy in order to undo the injustice?’ according to the anthropologist Milo
Milenkovi, the relations of anthropology and multiculturalism have been reproducing the
debates on reductionism, determinism and essentialism for already three decades. (Milenkovi
2008: 48).
When Neo-Protestant Romanians in Serbia are concerned, as well as in the case of other,
double or triple minorities, the dominant theoretical framework cannot properly contribute to
the understanding of complex position of the minority of the minorities which exceeds one of
the usual forms of diversity in multicultural theories – ethnic. Although the liberal theories of
multiculturalism could be the most applicable ones, with the emphasis of cultural diversity
issue, even they reduce the cultural diversity mainly to – ethnic diversity. However, certain
elements of theoretical assumptions of the problems offered by Will Kymlicka and Charles
Taylor which are based, as we have seen, primarily on recognition of basic human rights, but
also on acknowledgement of cultural communities and groups, with emphasized diversity
potential in relation to the environment, can be applied to the minorities of the minorities.
Turner’s ’critical multiculturalism’ which sets new borders of the critical dialogue outside and
within the very groups, represents certain step further, towards more flexible interpretation of
multiculturalism which would include different forms of group identity. Thus according to
Eller:
The greatest benefit of multiculturalism would be if we understood it in a sense that culture and cultural
relativism are used within it for the purpose of demonstrating the repressive nature of dominant cultural
synthesis, while pluralism and cultural relativism are thereat no equivalent to ethic and epistemic nihilism (Eller
1997: 253).
Likewise, in the case of the Neo-Protestant Romanians, as a double minority, i.e. a
minority-within-minority we could apply also Semprini’s thesis according to which
culturological, identity and religious factors more significantly determine the individual and
belonging to a group that can be indifferent to the ’state-people’ problem. Since the issue of
preservation of minority groups identity is always the issue of a society policy, failure to
accept those minority groups which in a way do not fit into generally accepted concepts of
diversity, is a characteristic of the reductionism. Strong reduction of cultural diversity
elements does exist in the state practice, which does not recognize ’different shades’ of
diversity of authentic minority groups. The strong institutional support enjoyed by the
members of national minorities at different levels is in this way, shaped also by legislative
action where special character of these communities is recognized.

16/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

Even if the Neo-Protestant Romanians received equal rights to use different possibilities
and privileges which can be exercised by the members of the Romanian national minority in
Vojvodina, they would not accept them regardless of being Romanians, because of their
extremely dominant religious identity. Members of small religious communities do not see
themselves in the prescribed type of dominant multicultural model, while the state on the
other hand does not see Nazarenes as ’usual’ type of minority identity. Thus the problem of
the minority of minorities in this context brings to a spotlight Taylor’s issues of the state
indifference towards issues of recognizing the diversity. Only the form of diversity which is
socially acceptable is included in the practice of multicultural policy. The relation of the state
towards authentic identities of micro-communities, such as Neo-Protestant communities in
Serbia, is very often reduced to declarative acceptance and discourse on tolerance. If we apply
Grill’s distinction between ’weak’ and ’strong’ multiculturalism, such an attitude represents
the characteristic of ’weak’ multiculturalism which cannot be applied to national minorities
which ’strong’ multiculturalism accomplishes through different forms of support,
inclusiveness and privileges. In accomplishing rights offered to them by the multicultural
practices, national communities sometimes misuse such rights in relation to religious and
other minorities. Thus, multiculturalism essentializes the ’desirable’ type of diversity which is
in this case ascribed to national minorities. If the shortcomings of the established political
practice and theoretical concepts are merged, where double minorities are not visible on one
hand, while on the other hand those very minorities, as in the case of Nazarenes, do not want
to fight for their status, in the course of time, one of the communities and its culture vanish.
Postcultural theory, which has been developed for already a long time by anthropologists, and
that became a commonplace also in many non-disciplinary theoretical debates, conflicts in
every sense essentialistic aspects of multiculturalism, which are seemingly the most present in
the modern political imagination. In this way, apart from critical tendency towards
essentialization from the perspective of humanistic sciences, which is regarded as a
shortcoming of all indicated theoretical concepts of multiculturalism, it is necessary to
increase the degree of ’sensibility’ towards the more complex types of minority identities.
The position of Neo-Protestant Romanians in Serbia can be viewed within the proposed
concepts of hidden minorities and minority of minorities. If the concept of multiculturalism is
limited to national minorities and traditional religious communities, ’others’ remain outside
the system within which they might want to differently articulate their rights and thus become
more visible to the majority. Minority religions are often forced to adjust themselves to the
dominant political/cultural/religious discourse for the purpose of meeting the challenges of

17/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

religious discrimination and violence. Theoretical concepts of multiculturalism that we have

indicated in this work, interpret differently multicultural space and diversities that are
included in multicultural policies. However, shortcomings of the specified theoretical
concepts can be seen in one-sidedly understood multiculturalism, which is declaratively
inclined to national minorities, which essentializes the usual form of minority identity and
represents the obstacle in recognition of a different dimension of pluralistic society, dialogue
and tolerance.
Paradoxal and mutually contradictory processes are present in such an unstable world,
radically changing the assumptions on which our understanding of culture, tradition, identity,
economy, inter-state relations rested. Instigation of productive diversities, which are
developed through continuous cultural interaction, represents the basis for preservation of
cultural and religious pluralism in these areas. Referring to the idea of ’visibilization’ of
hidden minorities, complex religious and ethnic identities, this paper is aimed at opening the
discussion on different interpretation of multiculturalism and types of identities ’prescribed’
by social and political elites within social system. Very often one-sidedly understood
multiculturalism includes only certain diversities (ethnic), while it excludes others (religious).
Inducing the need for researching increasingly omnipresent new religions and Neo-Protestant
communities in Serbia and in the Balkans, is aimed at senzibilisation of social and state
institutions towards the problem of double or triple minority identities.

References:

Aleksov, Bojan 2006. Religious Dissent between the Modern and the National – Nazarenes in
Hungary and Serbia 1850-1914, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, Balkanologische
Veröffentlichungen Band 43.
Ang, Ien 2005. Multiculturalism. New Keywords: A Revised Vocabulatory of Culture and
Society. Internet document: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/newkeywords/PDFs
Sample Entries-New Keywords/Multiculturalism.pdf.
Barker, Eileen 1999. But who s going to win? National and minority religions in post-
communist society, Facta Universitatis, Ni, 49–74.
Baumann, Gerd 1999. The multicultural riddle: rethinking national, ethnic and religious
identities. Routledge, New York.

18/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

Berger, L. Piter 2008. Desekularizacija sveta: preporod religije i svetska politika [The
desecularization of the world. Resurgent Religion and World Politics], Mediterran
Publishing, Novi Sad.
Bjelajac, Branko 2005. Napadi na manjinske verske zajednice u Srbiji tokom 2002. i 2003.
godine [Attacks on small religious communities in Serbia in 2002. and 2003.], Religija
i tolerancija 3, Novi Sad, 170–179.
Brus, Stiv 2003. Religijska kultura u savremenoj Britaniji. In: Britanske studije culture
[British Cultural Studies], eds. Morley David, Robins Kevin, Geopoetika, Beograd,
199–210.
Clarke, Peter Bernard 2006. New religions in global perspective. Routladge, New York.
Cylwik, Helen 2001. Notes from the field: emotions of place in the production and
interpretation of text, Journal of Social Research methodology 4, 3: 243–250.
Dietez, Gunther 2007. Keyword: Cultural diversity: a guide through the debate. Zeitschrift fur
Erziehungswissenschalf, Volume 10, number 1/March, 7–30.
Doppelt, Gerald 2002. Can Traditional Ethical Theory Meet the Challenges of Feminism,
Multiculturalism and Environmentalism? The Journal of Ethics 6: 383-405
uri, Aleksandra 2008. Kulturni identitet Hrianske nazrenske zajednice – Rumuni u
Vojvodini, [Cultural identity of Christian Nazarene community – Romanian Nazarenes
in Vojvodina], MA thesis, unpublished, Faculty of Political Sciences University of
Belgrade.
uri-Milovanovi, Aleksandra 2009. Doing fieldwork in a small closed community -
Romanian Nazarenes in Voivodina, Symposia. Studies in Ethnology and
Anthropology, issue no. 1/2008 (forthcoming).
Habermas, Jürgen 2003. Toward a cosmopolitan Europe. Journal of Democracy 14, 4: 86–
100.
Habermas, Jirgen 2008. Dijalektika sekularizacije. Granice multikulturalizma, Nova srpska
politika misao (sreda, 30. april).
Eller, Jack David 1997. Anti-Anti-Multiculturalism. American Anthropologist 99, 2: 249-256.
Eriksen, Tomas Hilan 2004. Etnicitet i nacionalizam [Ethnicity and nationalism]. Beograd,
igoja, Biblioteka XX vek.
Fitzgerald, Thomas K. 2000. The multicultural movement and its euphemisms. Multicultural
education, Winter, 8/2, 1-8.
Fukujama, Frensis 2007. Identitet i migracije [Identity and migrations]. In: Granice
multikulturalizma [Boundaries of multiculturalism], Nova srpska politika misao.

19/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

Kymlicka, Will 2004. Mulitkulturalizam: multikulturno graanstvo [Multicultural

Citizenship], Podgorica, CID, Zagreb, Jesenski i Turk.
Kuburi , Zorica 2008. Stepen religioznosti i verska distanca u Vojvodini i Srbiji. In: Religije
Srbije – mrea dijaloga i saradnje, Beograd, BO-CiREL, 97–121.
Kukathas, Chandran 1998. Liberalism and Multiculturalism: the politics of indifference,
Political theory, vol. 26, No. 5 (Oct., 1998), 686–699.
Kuper, Adam 2005. Culture and Identity Politics. In: Klausen J. The Islamic Challenge:
Politics and Religion in Western Europe. Oxford University Press, 3–5.
Maran, Mir a 2009. Kulturne prilike kod Rumuna u Banatu 1945-1952, Vr ac, Visoka kola
stukovnih studija za obrazovanje vaspita a „Mihailo Pavlov“.
Martin, David 2008. Porast evangelizma i njegove politi ke implikacije [The Evangelical
Protestant Upsurge and its Political implications]. In: Desekularizacija sveta (ed. Piter
Berger), Novi Sad, Mediterran publishing, 51–65.
Melton, Gordon J. 1999. The rise of the study of new religion, Paper presented at CESNUR
99, Bryan Athyn, Pennsylvania.
Milenkovi , Milo 2005. Postkulturna antropologija i multikulturne politike [Postcultural
anthropology and politics of multiculturalism], In: Problemi kulturnog identiteta
stanovnitva savremene Srbije (ed. Kova S.) Beograd: Filozofski fakultet, 61–74.
Milenkovi , Milo 2008. Problemi konstitucionalizacije multikulturalizma – pogled iz
antropologije. Etnoantropoloki problemi. Odeljenje za etnologiju i antropologiju.
Univerzitet u Beogradu – Filozofski fakultet, 45–57.
Modood, Tariq 1998. Anti-essentialism, multiculturalism, and the “recognition” of religious
groups, Journal of Political Philosophy, Volume 6, No. 4, 378–399.
Modood, T,. Triandafyllidou, A., Zapata-Barrero R., 2005. Multiculturalism, Muslims and
citizenship - a European approach. Londres: Routledge.
Malory, Nye 2001. Multiculturalism and Minority Religions in Britain: Krishna
Consciousness, Religious Freedom, and the Politics of Location. Surrey: Curzon
Press.
Perekh, Bhikhu 2000. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory.
Basingstoke, Macmillan Press/Palgrave.
Pitulac, Tudor; N stu Sebastian 2007. Choozing to be stigmatized: rational calculus in
religious conversion, Journal for the study of religions and ideologies, No. 16, Spring
2007, 80–97.

20/21
 11th MRM Meeting – 24-27 March 2010

Popi, Gligor 1993. Românii din Banatul sârbesc, secolele XVIII-XIX pagini de istorie i
cultur, Panciova, Libertatea.
Promicer, Kristijan 2004. (Ne)Vidljivost skrivenih manjina na Balkanu. Neka teorijska
zapaanja [(Un)visibility of hidden minorities in the Balkans. Some theoretical
observations], In: Skrivene manjine na Balkanu [Hidden minorities in the Balkans]
(ed. Biljana Sikimi ), Beograd, Balkanoloki Institut SANU, 11–25.
Promitzer, Christian,. Hermanik Klaus-Jürgen., Staudinger, Eduard (Eds.) 2009. (Hidden)
Minorities: language and ethnic identity between Central Europe and the Balkans,
Lit, Berlin.
Scott, Joan W. 1992. Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity. October 61, The Identity in
Question: 12–19.
Semprini, Andrea 2006. Multikulturalizam [Multiculturalism]. Beograd, Clio.
Sikimi (ed.) 2004. Skrivene manjine na Balkanu [Hidden minorities in the Balkans].
Beograd: Balkanoloki Institut SANU, Posebna izdanja 82.
Sikimi , Biljana 2008. Etnolingvisti ki terenski rad: konceptualizacija rizika [Ethnolinguistic
fieldwork: risk conceptualization], Beograd, Zbornik radova Etnografskog instituta
SANU 24: 81–95.
Smatlak Liao, Monica 2006. Keeping home: home schooling and the practice of conservative
protestant identity, Nashville, Tennessee.
Spencer, Martin E. 1994. Multiculturalism, ’Political Correctness’ and the Politics of Identity.
Sociological Forum 9, 4: 547–567.
Taylor, Charles. 1992. Multiculturalism and “The Politics of Recognition”. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Tsing, Anna 2000. The global situation. Cultural Anthropology, August, 15(3), 327-360.
Turner, Terence 1993. Anthropology and Multiculturalism: What Is Anthropology That
Multiculturalists Should Be Mindful of It? Cultural Anthropology 8, 4: 411–429.
Vertovec, Steven 2001. Transnational challenges to the „New” multiculturalism, paper
presented to the ASA Conference held at the University of Sussex, 30 March–2 April
2001.
Vukomanovi , Milan 2001. Sveto i mnotvo – izazovi religijskog pluralizma [Secret and
pluralistic – chalenges of religious pluralism], Beograd, igoja.

21/21