Familia românească în comunism:
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Buch |
| Sprache: | Romanian |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Cluj-Napoca
Presa Univ. Clujeană
2012
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Inhaltsverzeichnis Abstract |
| Beschreibung: | Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The romanian family during communist times |
| Beschreibung: | 250 S. graph. Darst. |
| ISBN: | 9789735954055 |
Internformat
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nam a2200000 c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | BV040774997 | ||
| 003 | DE-604 | ||
| 005 | 20130227 | ||
| 007 | t | ||
| 008 | 130225s2012 d||| |||| 00||| rum d | ||
| 020 | |a 9789735954055 |9 978-973-595-405-5 | ||
| 035 | |a (OCoLC)828812354 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV040774997 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | 0 | |a rum | |
| 049 | |a DE-12 | ||
| 084 | |a 7,41 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Dumănescu, Luminiţa |d 1978- |e Verfasser |0 (DE-588)1031650253 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Familia românească în comunism |c Luminiţa Dumănescu |
| 264 | 1 | |a Cluj-Napoca |b Presa Univ. Clujeană |c 2012 | |
| 300 | |a 250 S. |b graph. Darst. | ||
| 336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The romanian family during communist times | ||
| 648 | 7 | |a Geschichte 1945-1989 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Familienpolitik |0 (DE-588)4016418-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Ehe |0 (DE-588)4013630-9 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Familie |0 (DE-588)4016397-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Demographie |0 (DE-588)4011412-0 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 650 | 0 | 7 | |a Verstädterung |0 (DE-588)4063234-9 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf |
| 651 | 7 | |a Rumänien |0 (DE-588)4050939-4 |2 gnd |9 rswk-swf | |
| 689 | 0 | 0 | |a Rumänien |0 (DE-588)4050939-4 |D g |
| 689 | 0 | 1 | |a Familie |0 (DE-588)4016397-0 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 2 | |a Ehe |0 (DE-588)4013630-9 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 3 | |a Demographie |0 (DE-588)4011412-0 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 4 | |a Familienpolitik |0 (DE-588)4016418-4 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 5 | |a Verstädterung |0 (DE-588)4063234-9 |D s |
| 689 | 0 | 6 | |a Geschichte 1945-1989 |A z |
| 689 | 0 | |5 DE-604 | |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025753334&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Inhaltsverzeichnis |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |m Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 |q application/pdf |u http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025753334&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |3 Abstract |
| 940 | 1 | |n oe | |
| 999 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-025753334 | ||
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 909 |e 22/bsb |f 0904 |g 498 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 306.09 |e 22/bsb |f 0904 |g 498 |
| 942 | 1 | 1 | |c 304.609 |e 22/bsb |f 0904 |g 498 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
| _version_ | 1804150105984466944 |
|---|---|
| adam_text | Cuprins
Cuvânt înainte
.........................................................................................9
Introducere
............................................................................................17
Sursele cercetării
..........................................................................22
Explicaţii şi mulţumiri
.................................................................29
Capitolul
1.
Continuitate şi schimbare familială
sub raport legislativ,
1864 -1989.........................................................33
1.
Evoluţia sistemului juridic românesc
cu referire la familie
................................................................35
1.1.
Codul civil din
1865.................................................36
1.2.
Contextul schimbării legislaţiei familiale
..............41
2.
Reglementarea juridică a vieţii de familie în comunism.
..43
2.1.
Codul Familiei din
1954...........................................49
2.2.
Acte normative de după
1954.................................56
3.
Dreptul familiei după
1990...................................................68
Capitolul
2.
La vremuri noi familii noi
sau despre dezarticularea familiei tradiţionale în comunism
........75
1.
România în teoriile demografice asupra familiei
..............76
2.
Industrializare, urbanizare şi schimbare familială
în România socialistă
..............................................................81
3.
Mobilitate spaţială şi schimbare socio-profesională
între generaţii
..........................................................................90
3.1.
Caracteristicile eşantionului
....................................92
Capitolul
3.
Comportamentul matrimonial al românilor
în comunism
........................................................................................103
1.
Despre căsătorie, în comunism
...............................................106
2.
Comportament reproductiv
şi dimensiunea familiei în comunism
....................................131
3.
Despre divorţ, în comunism
....................................................137
Capitolul
4.
Casa şi Familia. Modalităţi de locuire
în timpul comunismului
....................................................................143
1.
Locuire şi locuinţă românească tradiţională
........................144
2.
Un model de locuire est-european
........................................150
3.
Viziunea statului socialist cu privire la locuinţă
.................153
3.1.
Temeliile juridice ale locuirii
...................................153
3.2.
Normele de locuire şi evoluţia lor
.........................162
4.
Dincolo de teorie, practica locuirii
........................................168
4.1.
Casă şi locuire în eşantionul-sursă
.........................170
4.2.
Dotarea locuinţei
.......................................................176
Capitolul
5.
Paradoxurile unei perioade contestate
.......................185
Abstract:
The Romanian family during Communism
...................197
Bibliografie selectivă
..........................................................................243
Abstract
The Romanian Family
during Communist Times
The wave of discontent that engulfed part of the Romanian society
in the context of the economical crisis made the words it was
better before heard ever more often. When asked why , the
nostalgic ones wouldn t hesitate in answering: we had a job, a
home, we had money for our holidays
-
in the mountains or at the
seaside, we had the safety of tomorrow etc. I resumed to these
aspects because they represent, in general lines, the subjects in
focus in the present book: the family and Romanian communism.
In the present book, which is the result of a postdoctoral
project realized between September
2010 -
august
2012
under the
coordination of professors
Traían
Rotariu and loan
Bolovan,
I start
from the premise that the socialist period eroded the basis of the
traditional Romanian family, as the industrialization and
urbanization processes that defined, among other aspects, the
communization process created the necessary context for the
breakage of the traditional familial environment and for the
apparition of new familial types which became a peculiarity of
that time. Massive urbanization, fast industrialization and mass
education were the three causes that I identified as having
generated new relationships inside Romanian families after World
War
И
and until
1989.
I avoided the use of the modern family
denomination for the new structure that appeared as a result of
197
Luminiţa Dumănescu
the
convergent
action of the three above mentioned causes, since
recent theories appreciate that the main elements of the modern
family are contraception and family planning, elements that the
socialist Romanian family could hardly experiment under the
circumstances of the harsh pro-natality policy led by the regime
almost all the time. I chose, for a change, to illustrate the changing
process
-
that I called disarticulation
-
of the Romanian family on
its way towards modernity.
In order to illustrate this disarticulation process
-
a process
that unfolds at the same time with the process of onset of the new
family forms and models
-
I structured the material in suggestive
chapters. After an overview of the general context of the epoch
-
with links towards the situation of other states from the
communist block
-
I reviewed the laws regarding the family, from
the oldest rules until the new Civil Code which became effective at
October 1st
2011.
I chose this extended period both in order to
precisely point out the continuity and breakage moments
regarding the laws on family and in order to show that, against all
odds of everyday life, the first measures to support the family
have been taken by the communist regime. The third chapter
represents the actual nucleus of this book; it is an in depth analyze
of the process of disarticulation of the traditional family and, also,
of the processes of reconstruction of the new family. New families,
new behaviors
-
the reason why chapter four deals with the
matrimonial and reproductive behavior of Romanians. I tried to
go beyond the approach the historians got used to since Gail
Kligman
-
the reproductive life under the nightmare of forbidden
abortions and the whole succession of negative behaviors to
follow. Chapter five discusses the dwellings in communism, with
a special focus on the life in the block , looking for explanations
of the breakage that, during communism, occurred between those
198
Familia
românească în comunism
dreaming of an apartment and the way this living (the crowding)
in communist blocks (the famous matchboxes) is seen today. The
conclusions are as interesting as they can get, since they are based
on witnesses coming from the
80s
directly from the inhabitants of
these apartments, the beneficiaries of the system, lodgers, buyers
or owners. Finally, chapter six systematizes and offers possible
models of the Romanian family during communism. There is the
wrong belief that one system replaced the other, that the
traditional family was replaced by the modern one. I
demonstrated that the two types
-
with various subtypes
-
continued to coexist during communism, as they do today.
The whole analyze carried out for the project The Romanian
Family under Communism followed the continuity
-
change
coordinate, considering that an individual processing of data
specific only to communism (maybe including a comparison to the
situation in the West) would lead to a wrong interpretation of the
period. Through the continuity
-
change relation we can identify
all novelties (regardless of their positive or negative character)
brought by the communist regime in the life of the Romanian
family; they can even be analyzed by comparing them to other
eastern or western models in order to be able, based on all
relevant elements, to propose possible models of the Romanian
family under communism.
According to theories dividing Europe in West and East, the
traditional family is not compatible with modern society!
Zoltán
Spéder
is convinced that, following their transformation
intentions, the countries in Central and Eastern Europe regarded
the industrialized societies in Western Europe as ideal models to
pursue , trying to copy their institutions and organizational
structure in order to become alike! This meant the copying
oí
a
demographies behavior characterized by late marriage and
199
Luminiţa Dumănescu
fertility, co-habitation and extra-marital births or, to put it in other
words, the adoption of the characteristics of the second
demographical transition. But the same authors find significant
differences between countries of the former communist block,
Romania being one of the exceptions from the general trend that
was also seen in Eastern Europe after
1960.
During the socialist period, the pro-natality and family
protection measures (support for early marriage, penalties for its
delay, stimulants to have as many children as possible etc.) were a
characteristic of most communist states. After
1989
we can see on
one hand the weakening of this governmental support (together
with the elimination of restrictions and coercive or punitive
means) and, on another, the increasing age at the time of marriage,
in parallel with the increase of the educational age.
The communist period may also be structured in sub-periods,
according to the marital behavior of Romanians. In the first stage
of communism, which spans until Nicolae
Ceauşescu
took the
power, one talks about a crisis at familial level, in the context of
the efforts of the state to disrupt the society. The elements defining
this crisis were massive industrialization, collectivization, rural
exodus, schooling, the use of female work force. They have all
influenced the family life, but we should not forget that people
had just overcome a devastating war and the comeback to a
normal life could not have happened overnight. The years after
1967
brought the consolidation of the family, through positive
measures, like the ones supporting mothers and children, children
allowances etc. but mostly through coercive measures
-
mentioning the forbidding of abortions is more than enough, but
we should also consider the limitation of access to contraceptive
means and the severe laws regarding divorce. According to the
data from the National Institute for Statistics, between the inter-
200
Familia românească în comunism
war
period
and the
90s,
except for the few years with no data
-
the war years and those immediately after
-
there are some
variations of the nuptiality rate but these are considered to be of
conjectural nature. We can see it pass over 9%o during the inter-
war period, fall between
1940 - 1946
(actually because of lack of
data), while after
1947
and during the sixth decade it passed
11
%o.
Professor Rotariu proposes as explanations the making up for the
marriages that did not happen during the war, the re-marrying of
war widowers and the apparition on the marital market of more
numerous generations born in the inter-war period. There is no
doubt this was the course of events, since in the mid
60s
the
nuptiality rate returned to its level from the inter-war period, then
decreasing to its historical minimum in
1969 -
7%o. During
1977 -
1978
it increased again, reaching 9,2%o, then during the eighth
decade it would stabilize at
7 -
7,5%o. The reason for these
fluctuations resides, according to Traian Rotariu, in the different
sizes of generations who were born before and after World War II.
Therefore, the changes at social level wouldn t have influenced the
matrimonial behavior throughout this period. It is true that the
constraints of the state were not specifically aimed at the
nuptiality of Romanians, except for the supplemental taxes for
bachelors. But, even if we cannot see a causality relation between
the social context and climate and the evolution of the volume of
marriages, there have surely been modifications regarding the
marriage as a family funding act (mainly regarding the choice of
the partner) and I shall discuss them hereunder.
The data from our sample shows that, regardless of their
dwelling pace, most of Romanians
-
around
65% -
live in nuclear
families. The differences appear when we consider the declared
number of children and the presence of other persons in the
household
-
an indication we associated with living together with
201
Luminiţa Dumănescu
other family members. Thus, the families without children usually
live alone:
73,3%
in the rural area and
76,8%
in the urban area. The
proportion of nuclear families with one child is almost
9%
lower
in the urban area with respect to families without children
(68%)
while in the rural area the proportion remains unchanged. The
proportions change a lot for families with two children from the
rural area, which are nuclear families in less than half of the cases
(47,1%),
while the rest live together with other family members. It
has to be noted that, even if it is slightly lower, the proportion of
families with two children in the urban area remains high:
65,7%.
Therefore we can see that in the rural area, the higher the number
of children, the higher the number of persons who compose a
household together with their parents. Lacking supplemental data
-
for the time being
-
we will just suggest that the preference for
the extended family is associated with the birth of at least two
children in the responders families. We should have more data in
order to draw a conclusion supporting the hypothesis that a
traditional reproductive behavior implies a traditional way of
dwelling, having the parents of one of the spouses aside. We
cannot rule out the possibility that in the rural area this type of
dwelling is also determined by the lower availability of dwellings
compared to the cities, where the state would offer the workers
rented dwellings at symbolic process, usually correlated with their
income. The research in
Buciumi
showed that households
consisting of husband, wife and children
(41,8%)
were predomi¬
nant and even where more familial nuclei lived under the same
roof, the young ones preferred to live
independentíy
from their
parents, namely to administer their budget, food and time on their
own.
The theme of family life under communism cannot disregard
the problem of dwellings and dwelling throughout this period.
202
Familia
românească în comunism
The
massive
changes
in the structure of the population and in the
way of living, brought both by industrialization and forced
urbanization, generated the ample project of building dwellings
for workers in towns and villages. The blocks were the stars of
the golden age, rendering possible the gigantic plan of
industrializing the country. They sheltered successive waves of
workers, most of them coming from villages, mostly peasants left
without their land, seeking new means or ways of living.
In the beginning years of communism an apartment in block
in the city was the dream of youngsters who had nothing. In the
60s
the block offered to many the chance of a home. Post-factum,
namely after
1990,
the opposite started to happen, people trying to
escape from blocks, while the apartments built during
communism were labeled as matchboxes , improper to dwell
and live in. Nevertheless, the ambivalence
oí
the Romanian
society continues to show itself more clearly than ever: a large part
of the population seeking for a dwelling continues to prefer to buy
apartments in old blocks which, ironically or not, are considered
to be better built than new blocks, where the builders often
disregard minimal quality requirements. How can this ambiva¬
lence explained then?
Seen and analyzed post-factum, the disruption of the tradi¬
tional dwelling and the massive move towards cities can be
analyzed from at least
4
points of view: the official one (of the
communist
state which elaborated the
systématisation
plans and
supported the construction of blocks to accommodate those
brought to work in industry); the point of view of those who were
moved (expropriated peasants who left for the cities, youngsters
who left to study etc. for whom the apartment meant, at that time, a
target); the point of view of those affected by the urbanization
plan
-
those whose houses were going to be demolished in order
203
Luminiţa Dumănescu
to make space for the future workers neighborhoods and,
eventually, the point of view of those who did not live the
communism on their own but who,
22
years after, come with the
so-called theories of the ghettoization of the country ! Although
this is beyond the scope of the present study we shall stop, where
necessary, at these aspects of living in communism.
Following the massive process of internal migration,
generated by industrialization, the communist state started a vast
program of building blocks which, according to some authors,
may be divided in three periods:
1948 - 1968,1969 -1979
and
1980
- 1989.
During the
forst
period, the problem of dwellings was not
a priority for the new regime, most urban plans continuing those
from the inter-war period
-
low height blocks, with a maximum of
5
levels but usually with just
4,
with a small garden in the back
and access alleys. The multi-familial dwelling was in the trend.
After
1952, 7
to
11
levels blocks started being built in Bucharest,
according to
HCM
2448.
The habit quickly extended to all major
cities.
The specialists consider that the old style blocks were the
most successful socialist buildings, supporting their ideas with the
evidence that they were designed by the same architects of the
inter-war period, so the breakage from the inter-war, classic city
was not yet obvious and, even more relevant, these apartments
were intensely sought after.
The systematization drafts replace the systematization plans,
the available nationalized land allows for the development of wild
urbanism
in the outskirts of the cities. These groups of blocks did
not require demolishment, they went beyond the traditional limits
of the city.
1966
is also a turning point in the construction of
Romanian dwelling, with the acceptance of private property
apartments and their increased comfort. This was the mainly
qualitative period in the construction of dwellings.
204
Familia
românească în comunism
Between
1950
and
1960
the typical projects still referred to
various constructions: blocks for the most urgent requirements ,
private houses, brick buildings, prefab buildings etc. The two-
room apartment was the symbol of that period; the state rarely
asked for apartments with three
о
more rooms to be built. The
typical project of an apartment followed the rules regarding the
dwelling space strictly, so the useful area did not exceed
38
sqm.
One could identify at least three major ways for documenting
and analysing the influence of the state on the family in
communist Romania:
(1)
the legislation,
(2)
the industrialisation
and urbanization and
(3)
mass education. Each of these is
responsible for a plenty of changes inside the family institution:
the legislation
-
especially through the Family Code
(1954)
impose
the principles of the equality between men and women
-
both in
the public and private life
-
and subminated the power of the
father in the family and the power of the husband inside marriage;
the industrialization and urbanization had changed of proportion
between the traditional and the nuclear families. Forced
industrialization, the steep and continuous increase in the demand
of work force led to the first break with the past: the big rural
families are displaced, disrupted and this break allows their
members to occupy the jobs generously offered by the party.
Attracted by the mirage of the city, by the benefits of living in
blocks, young people spire to these jobs and leave the villages. The
nuclear family lives geographically further and further away from
the household, from its roots. Eventually, the mass education had
meant the acceleration of the process of women emancipation and
changed their status on the marital market. Although many
researchers of the socialist period tend to give to the equalitarian
policies of the state just a superficial character, a more theoretical
than an actual one (Zembrzuska
2000,
Massino
2010,
Massino and
205
Luminiţa
Dumänescti
Shanna 2009),
one cannot deny that the socialism offered women a
chance to be educated and to get a job
-
with a corresponding
income
-
and a social statute never enjoyed before. In
1970,
for
instance,
75%
of women were working (INS
1975).
Researchers talks about the family changes using terms like
affecting: „the communist regime has affected deeply the evolution
of the Romanian family or brutal turnovers: „through the brutal
and painful social turnovers it enforced a new way of social
organization, a new economical, social and political context, a new
way of life (Ghebrea
2004) .
We agree that the measures of the
communist regime took the family life of Romanians by assault,
but we incline to believe that the purpose of this assault was to set
the society on new bases, different from the traditional ones and
not to disrupt the familial social order, as Gail Kligman
(2000: 57)
or many other authors suggests. The disruption described seems
to be more a result than an effect of this policy. Trying, by all
means, to strengthen family life
-
as main private institution
-
and, through the family, the state, the communists ended up
destroying the old norms and values, enforcing principles the
contradicted the individual rights stipulated by the international
Conventions they adopted ant to which the Romanian state
adhered at the same time whole it harshened the laws regarding
the private life. It remains to be established to what extent what
was easily defined as „destruction after
1990
had actually
contributed to the spreading of the modern family in Romania!
Since the introduction of the Civil Code in
1865
and until the
1947,
the Romanian society passed through two devastating wars,
through political and social changes that have definitely
influenced the everyday life of the average citizen. Family life
began and ended according to the updated
CivÜ Code,
the dowry
was still an important factor in contracting a marriage, with the
206
Familia
românească în comunism
marriage itself actually being a civil contract. The family continues
to play an important role in the young people choices, still having
the right to oppose to the marriage even if, for those of age, the
parents consent was not mandatory any more. In the inter-wars
period the civil marriage remains the only officially accepted way
of forming a family. A family that was still a patriarchal one, with
the husband being the head: he has the lead, assures the econo¬
mical stability and has a power of decision that is granted by the
law. The woman, his consort, deals with the administrative
matters and is the mother of his children. If she lives in the city she
has a social life; if she lives in the country, she is the slave of her
husband (Vasile
2009;
Pârvulescu
2009).
At the same time,
compared to the period before World War I, in the inter-wars
period the number of divorces shows a significant increase, with a
larger percentage of marriages that broke after less than five years
(Scurtu,
2001).
However, a revolution in terms of rights occurs for
the first time in
1929,
when women are given the right to vote
locally and then, before World War II, when the
1938
Constitution
gives women the right to vote for the Parliament. This was the
situation in
1947,
when the communists took the power.
Engaged on a radical process of changing the society, on a
soviet path, the communist power used the laws in order to realize
the partnership between state and society, an almighty state and a
totally subdued society. The life and death of individuals were
given the same value as the distribution of tasks for achieving the
five-year plans. An almighty state, as the Romanian one tried to
be, had to be based on many subordinated individuals. Many and
subordinated
-
these are the key words. Both of them
-
multiplication and subordination
-
were carried out through law
and through the terror of law.
207
Luminiţa Dumănescu
The process of regulation of the family life in socialism
resided in a series of legal acts, laws and decrees which either
reinforced previous laws
-
like the decree
462
of
1948
concerning
the abortion, or introduced new legal principles, the aim of which
was to change the institution of the family according to the new
socialist society. In order to achieve this goal the communist state
used both compensatory and punitive measures.
In the process of family regulation one can identify two types
of measures: the general ones, affecting the whole society
-
for
instance the laws concerning the equality between men and
women
-
and the special legislation concerning the family life
-
family formation, reproductive life and divorce. We can add the
measures concerning the family support and protection
-
maternal
leave, allowance for children, childcare.
Equality was a key principle in the civic conduit of socialist
states and Romania was not an exception from the general trend.
In April
1948
was published the first communist Constitution
whose 16th article stated that all citizens of the Popular Republic
of Romania, regardless of gender, nationality, race, religion or
cultural level are equal in front of the law . Article
21
grants
women the same rights as men, reinforcing article
16:
The
woman has rights equal to those of man in all fields of state,
economical, social, cultural
-
political and private law life. For the
same work, the woman has the right to the same salary as man.
After proclaiming the protection that the state offered to the
marriage and family (art.
26),
the legislator reinforces the
protection granted to the mothers and children under the age of
18,
who benefit from special protection, stated by law (art.
26).
The duties of the parents are equal, both for children born inside
and outside the marriage (art.
26).
208
Familia
românească în comunism
The
1952
Constitution
reinforces the principle of equality
between genders, article
83
referring to the same rights
proclaimed by the legislator in
1948,
but developing the fields in
which this equality manifests itself: the woman has the same
rights as man in work, salary, rest, social insurance and teaching .
The protection the state granted to the family, to the interests of
mothers and children is also reaffirmed! It was for the first time
when a legal text referred to the support for mothers with many
children and for single mothers, to the paid leave for pregnant
women, to the organization of maternities, nurseries and
orphanages (art.
83).
This law is very important
f
rom
the historical
point of view since, unlike the previous constitutional texts,
including the
1948
one, the new law turns over the relation
between the individual and the state. The reverse of the normal
relations, in favor of the state, comes from the way the
fundamental rights and freedoms granted by the constitution
were expressed and guaranteed, the words citizens rights and
freedoms being turned into rights and obligations , but only in
chapter
VII
out of X (we have to consider that all previous
Constitutions listed the rights and freedoms immediately
following the articles regarding the state territory). At the same
time, the rights were only granted on the condition that they were
exerted according to the interest of the working people and for
the reinforcement of the popular democracy regime (art.
85).
The
introduction of certain restriction in the exertion of the
guaranteed rights would gradually lead to the impossibility of
their actual exertion, accentuating the state of disorganization of
the personal life and of fatalism characteristic to that period. The
individuals had to conform and display a formal integration
with the values and norms that were coercively reinforced by the
communist state (Banciu
2001:218).
209
Luminiţa Dumănescu
The Family Code
(1954)
The principles of the equality between men and women in the
public sphere, stipulated in the first two communist origin
Constitutions were going to be extended to the field of private life
-
the equality between woman and man in the family
-
since they
were legalized through the family Code, the law that regulated the
marriage and family relations, effective February
1st 1954.
The
1865
Civil Code, which was basically a paternalist one, assured the
supremacy of man in the family life. Settled by law in the position
of liead of the family, the man decides in everything that concerns
the life together and the woman has to listen to him. Unlike the
1865
law, the Family Code proclaimed the full equality between
man and woman in everything regarding the marriage. The
Family Code was based on three main principles:
•
the free agreement of the future spouses regarding the
marriage
•
the principle of full equality of spouses in the rights and
obligations in the personal and patrimonial relations
•
the principle of the care of the state for the marriage
and family (the transfer of authority from the
individual patriarchate to the state patriarchate (Miroiu
2002).
The fundamental change came from bringing the woman on
position where she was equal to man (art.
25)
and from removing
any family (parents, grandparents, tutors) intervention over
marriage. The spouses mutually agree about where the would stay
and live (let us remember that in
1865
it was stipulated that the
woman had to follow her man wherever he deemed necessary); all
goods acquired during marriage became common goods and each
spouse had to bring a contribution proportional to his/her
possibilities to support the family expenses. The spouses had to
210
Familia
românească în comunism
care
for each other and offer mutual support when needed and
were equally responsible for the accumulated debts. If we
compare the above mentioned stipulations to those of the
1865
Civil Code, it is clear that the new law concerning the matrimonial
life breaks the tradition of the supremacy of the husband in the
family, of the man in private life, this democratization off family
life totally turning over the previous relations, at least at a formal,
declarative level (in the real life, especially in the rural area, the
situation was not exactly like that; the studies realized after
1989
showed that the social conditions called for and legitimated the
dependency towards men, in spite of the equalitarian declarations
-
Baban
1994: 12).
At the same time, the extension of the state
protection over the family life meant, at least at a declarative level,
the introduction of economical and social measures with the
purpose of assuring the stability and familial cohesion in order to
allow the family to fulfill its functions: to perpetuate the
population, to raise, educate and form the young generation for
the social life
(Albu
1988: 8).
This principle would subsequently
justify the intervention of the state in the most intimate details of
family life; likewise, through the subsequent coercive measures,
the family with children (preferably as many as possible) was
going to be considered the model of the communist family. The
official ideology considered that the need of care for the marriage
and family had found its consecration in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, according to which the family represents the
natural and fundamental element of the society and has the right
to be protected by the society and by the state . This protection
does not aim to nationalize the marriage and the family, but only
to create the material and spiritual premises to avoid the family
being a closed cell like in the past, but a cell that can organically
integrate in the society
(Albu
1988
:8).
211
Luminiţa Dumănescu
According to the Family Code, the legal age for marriage is
18
for men and
16 (15
in exceptional cases) for women (art.
4).
An
element of novelty in the Romanian matrimonial law was the
obligation to mutually declare the state of health, those suffering
from certain conditions being forbidden to marry (art.
10).
The
marriage can only be done in front of the representative of the
civil state service of the locality in which at least one of the
spouses lives (art.
11).
Article
16 -
the one considered to represent
the main break in the matrimonial law
-
stipulates the mutual
agreement of the future spouses as an essential premise of the
marriage and obliges them to be present at the civil state service to
express their agreement personally and in public (art.
16).
Equally revolutionary to article
16 -
which removes the need
for the parents consent for the children s marriage
-
are article
25
-
which, taking the stipulations of the effective Constitution,
introduces the equality between spouses: the man and the
woman have equal rights and obligations in the marriage (Family
Code, art.
25) -
and
26 -
which stipulates that the spouses have to
mutually decide in everything concerning the marriage. All the
patrimonial rights and obligations of the spouses (detailed in
articles
29 - 36),
among which the mutual contribution to the
household expenses (art.
29)
and the quality of common goods
given to the goods acquired during the marriage (art.
30)
come
from these two articles.
The reproductive live and the divorce
The communist state started out the process of demographic
support through coercive measures: the first step was to revise the
article
482
of the Penal Code, incriminating the abortion.
Compared to all previous studies
-
including Kligman, who
considered the forbidding the abortion in
1948
was a premiere
212
Familia românească în comunism
following the
moscovite model
-
we have to point out that the first
legal measures against abortion are to be found in the first
juridical acts of Valachia and Moldova in the first half of
19*
Century (Roman
2007)
and also in the Penal Code of
1865,
in
article
246
(modified by the law of February
174 1874)
which
introduced punishments for all those who deliberately induced
the interruption of pregnancy, either with or without the woman s
consent. Self-understood, the law punished the doctors, the
surgeons, the midwives, the pharmacists and all those who
proved to be guilty of complicity to interrupt the pregnancy
(1865
Penal code, art.
246).
Subsequently, the
1936
Penal Code, adopted
under Carol II, punished (through the same article
482)
the crime
of abortion, regardless of the fact that it is realized with or without
the consent of the pregnant woman (see
Rotar
2008
for a valuable
evaluation of the social impact of the decree). Article
484/1948
settled the exceptions that allowed for a pregnancy interruption.
First of all, the prosecutor s office could authorize a pregnancy
interruption following the request of the doctor, to avoid an
imminent danger threatening the woman s life . Then abortion
was also allowed if the pregnancy was aggravating
a preexistent
condition, again threatening the woman s life and, thirdly, if any
of the parents suffered from any debility that might have
transmitted to the child (Penal Code, ait.
482,484).
The revision of
article
482
of the Penal Code (we have to point one more time that,
up to that moment, in terms of legislation, the communists had
not created anything; they just reissued the
1936
Penal Code under
the name The Penal Code of the Popular Republic of Romania),
realized in
1948,
was made under the circumstances of the
decrease of living births. The law was not invented, it had existed
since
1936;
the revised article
482
defined the abortion as being
the crime committed by those who, using any means, interrupts
213
Luminiţa
Dumänescu
the normal course of pregnancy . There was a distinction between
the abortion committed without the woman s consent
-
which
was punished with correctional imprisonment from
2
to
5
months
-
the abortion committed by the pregnant, unmarried woman
herself, or who gave her consent to someone else to cause it
-
correctional imprisonment from
3
to
6
months
-
and the one
committed or consented to by the married woman
-
punished
with correctional imprisonment from
6
months up to one year.
The medically authorized abortions, under the conditions stated
by the
1936
Penal Code, were not punished. Again, the doctors
had the possibility to decide about interrupting the pregnancy.
Given this succession of
coercitive
legislation regarding abortion,
given the continuity of the prohibition of this birth control
method, the surprise expressed by some authors about the lack of
effects following the revision of article
482,
since the number of
living birth did not increase in the rhythm expected by the
authorities, was not justified at all; the communist laws brought
nothing new in this field, the abortion had also been incriminated
before
1948
and, likewise, the doctors had the great authority of
deciding about the opportunity of this intervention.
An element of exception is the Decree
456
of October 19th
1955,
which removed the criminal attribute associated to the
abortion, under the condition that is was performed by a doctor
and in those cases where the pregnancy was a potential risk for
the woman s health (Colection
1955:
Decree
456).
In the evolution
of the laws regarding the interruption of pregnancy and in the
tradition of Romanian law regarding this aspect we face the first
break: for the first time, abortion is taken out of the criminal
sphere and accepted as a medical act performed in order to save
the woman. This is the very year when abortion was legalized in
the USSR, after the
19
years when Stalin had forbidden it.
214
Familia
românească în comunism
Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej
had discretely started to step away from
Moscow. The only article of the decree stipulates that the
interruption of the normal course of pregnancy performed by a
doctor for medical reasons, namely when the continuation of the
pregnancy endangers the woman s life or when one of the parent
is suffering from a severe hereditary disease is not considered to
be an abortion (Collection
1955).
The
1956
Hungarian revolution, the uprisings in Poland and
GDR, the application of the soviet model of liberalization of
abortion rushed Romania to eliminate any restrictions regarding
the interruption of the normal course of pregnancy. Without
copying the text in the preamble of the
1955
soviet text (the aim of
protecting the women form the painful effects of illicit abortions
-
Coliver and Howiako
1995: 270),
the Great National Assembly
issues the Decree
463
of September 30th
1957
that allows for
pregnancy interruptions (Collection
1957:
Decree
463).
In just two
articles, the decree stipulates that the interruption of the
pregnancy can be done at the request of the pregnant woman
(art.
1)
and that the interventions are to be done in state medical
units, following the instructions of the Ministry of Health and
Social Care (art.
2).
The
1957
act and measure of forbidding
abortions in
1966
are the two separate pieces in the whole
legislative process regarding the abortion, discussed by most
researchers. As recently justified
(Rotar
2008)
these two moments
are rather the peaks than the edges of an otherwise long process in
the history of Romanian law! By reducing the whole history of
pregnancy interruption to just these two totally opposing
moments, the researchers have not just ignored the whole legal
tradition in the field (which started with
Pravila de la Govora
in
!640, continued with
Pravila lui Matei
Basarab,
found
again
in
Legiuirea Caragea
or the Calimah Code before being written in the
215
Luminiţa
Dumãnescu
1865
Penal
Code
-
Rotar
2008: 74)
but have also accredited the
idea that the interdiction of abortion would be a specifically
communist act, these analyzes which were taken out of the context
having a premeditated purpose, namely to show how diabolic the
regime was! Nevertheless, if we look at the law at least as it
evolved since
1865,
the
1957
liberalization is actually the moment
that breaks with the tradition, legalizing an act that has
continuously been, for hundreds of years, under the incidence of
criminal laws! Since the whole historiography of the socialist
reproductive policy focuses mainly on the two moments
(1957
and
1966)
we shall not insist on those, especially because of the lack of
any novelty elements that we could possibly bring. We just point
out that, from the point of view of continuities or ruptures in the
legislation regarding the family, the liberalization of abortions in
1957
was the second great rupture point (after the introduction of
equalitarian principles in the matrimonial life).
The year
1966
saw the most laws regarding family and private
life, all the
4
important decrees issued then showing
Ceauşescu s
extraordinary preoccupation to use any measures
-
both
punishments and stimulations
-
that would lead to the strongly
desired raise of birth rate and to the enforcing of the familial
institution. October
1966
remains unforgettable in the history of
Romanians private life: over a few days span, the stipulations
regarding reproductive life and divorce were going to change,
through two decrees that were going to change peoples lives for
the next
23
years. The day of October
1st 1966
puts an end to the
period when abortion had been free and even encouraged1
1
Decision no.
384
of June 26th
1964
of the Ministerial Council regarding the
distribution of cashings from sanitary units that performed pregnancy
interruptions on request stipulates that
65%
of the cashed amounts should
return as
a stimulent
to the medical personnel and only
35%
would be used to
cover the actual medical costs
(Colecţia
1964:
Decision
184).
Subsequently,
216
Familia
românească în comunism
through Decree
770,
which was going to bring Romania the fame
of the country with the most severe and absurd reproductive
policy in Europe. According to the data processed by
Baban,
for
every living birth there were recorded four abortions,
1,115,000
abortions on reques having beed performed only in that year
(Baban
1994: 1).
The loss was huge for the paternalist state,
considering that
80%
of all conceptions were interrupted by
abortions
(Baban
1994:1).
Both the stipulations and the effects of
Decree
770
are widely known and we have no new data that
would justify a detailed approach in the present study. We just
want to point that, seen in the light of the break
/
continuity
report, this measure
-
seen exclusively from the legal point of
view and not from the point of view of the effects it caused
-
brings the policy of the Romanian state back to
1936,
when the
eugenic and the medical abortions were legitimate. The reversal of
the ratio between living births and abortions on request until the
target of
4/1
demanded, from the perspective of a state which was
trying to reach a population of
30
million in
2000,
the enforcement
of severe measures of limitation of adverse demographical
consequences on a long term. At the same time, especially through
the severe consequences on the normal life of individuals caused
by this coercive legislation, the
1966
moment gets the particular
statute of a unique case in the Romanian family history. In
1972,
letter
d
of art.
2
of Decree
770
was modified, lowering to
40
the age
when a woman could legally request an abortion (Decree
53/1960).
In
1982
the age limit went up two years
(42)
while in
1985,
under the conditions in which the fertility had dropped
under the generation replacement level
(Mureşan
2000: 112)
around
1986,
doctors would be paid their full salaries only on the condition
that employees from the state industry reached the birth target set by the state
(Baban
1994:1).
217
Luminiţa
Dumänescu
Decree
411
was issued, raising again the age limit to
45
and
stipulating five more cases in which the procedure was considered
to be legal (see Kligman for the history of Decree
770
and its
modifications).
The Romanians kind of got trapped inside their marriages,
since the legislation regarding the end of a certain marriage was
also very restrictive in the communist times. The idea of the state
was that once enrolled in this institution
-
the family
-
one must
remain in it until the end, no matter the circumstances. The
legislation concerning the divorce was developed accordingly. It
has to be said that compared to the period before World War I, in
the inter-wars period the number of divorces shows a significant
increase, with a larger percentage of marriages that broke after
less than five years (Scurtu,
2001).
The freedom specific for the
inter-wars way of life, associated with the bourgeoisie, was not
tolerable for the communist state and the divorce was restricted
since
1954.
Article
37
of the Family Code stipulates three situations
that can lead to the end of a marriage: the death of one of the
spouses, the legally declared death of one of the spouses and
divorce. We are interested in the divorce, since the subsequent
evolution of the laws was going to introduce the real break from
the past in this aspect (see below, Decree
779
from
1966).
If we
take the law literally, it seems permissive when it stipulates that
any of the spouses can file for divorce when, because of justified
reasons, the marriage can not go on (we base this idea on the lack
of researches on the divorce cases of the period; as we already
know, the law and the real practice are not always the same).
Unlike the
1865
Code but consistent with law
18/1948,
the
legislator does not specify the reasons that can lead to divorce,
leaving the decision to the court. But, unlike the same Code, the
new law puts the interests of children in the first place when the
218
Familia
românească în comunism
reasons that
motivate
the divorce request are being considered
(art.
38).
The other articles of the law (art.
39 - 44)
stipulate the
relations between the future former spouses
-
alimony until the
divorce is pronounced, alimony until a new marriage of the man
who, because of a work impairment occurred during or before
marriage is not able to support himself, the custody of the under
age children given to one of the parents
-
after listening to
children above
10
and with the implication of the tutelary
authority, the rights and obligations of the divorced parents
towards their children.
Just a few days after the interdiction of abortions was
published, in
1966,
Ceauşescu
issues Decree
779
which stipulates
the exceptional character of divorce, which was considered to be
too permissive in the form it had been stipulated in the Family
Code. According to the reformulations of article
37
marriage
ends with the death of one of the spouses or with the legally
declared death of one of the spouses . Only in exceptional causes
the marriage can be ended through a divorce: when because of
justified reasons the relations between spouses are so severely and
irreversibly damaged that the continuation of the marriage is
impossible for the one requesting its termination (art.
38).
At the
same time, a waiting period is introduced, with the purpose of an
attempt of reconciliation, as well as a substantial tax
-
between
3000
and
6000
lei
-
with the obvious reason of discouraging the
divorce. Actually, as it was written in the reasons for the
modifications of this Decree in
1969,
through Decree
779
we got a
substantial improvement of the family care and consolidation
system (p.
176).
The marked decrease of the number of divorces
in
1967,
to only
48
(Mureşan
2000:116),
showed that, at least for
the moment, the law had reached its target. Paradoxically, the
return to a relaxed legislation regarding divorces did not lead to a
219
Luminiţa Dumănescu
spectacular
increase of their number, this
indicator
having the
lowest increase among all demographical indicators after
1990
(Rotariu
2010).
However, if we refer strictly to the legal text, the
changes are substantial: we go back to the freely agreed divorce
(in
1993)
on the condition the marriage is at least one year old and
there are no children. Any of the spouses can file for divorce
without the need of bringing any evidence. The reconciliation
period was maintained in
1993,
however being reduced to only
2
months (Voinea
1996: 67).
Family
support,
maternal leave, children allowance, childcare
There is no doubt and no one can deny that the first steps in social
policy and family protection were developed by the communist
state. It is also true that these policies were formulated and
enforced in a discriminatory way
-
like fathers granted with the
right to cash the allowance for children, allowance only for the
children of the working people (not for peasant s children or
those involved in the minor ~private~/ sector) and so on.
The year
1956
was going to bring new premieres for the
Romanians in the field of social policy for the families: the
establishing of kindergartens (Decree
368/1956)
and the onset of
the first state financial aid for children (Decree
571/1956).
The
kindergartens, according to the law, had nothing to do with the
education of children; according to their definition, these state
institutions were meant to allow the mothers to participate in the
productive and in the cultural
-
social activity (art.
19).
The
kindergartens were organized in such a way to allow women to
work; a
9 - 11
hours working program was considered to be a nor¬
mal one, the
6
hours one was a reduced program, while for women
in the countryside seasonal kindergartens, that were opened in the
period when the field had to be worked, were organized.
220
Familia
românească în comunism
The
second
premiere
of the regime was the onset of the first
financial aid for children, the state allowance. Article
1
of the
Decree showed why the allowances were necessary: in order to
raise the living level of employees and pensioners with children .
The allowance was given to the families in which one of the
parents met the following criteria: a permanent employee of a
state institution, pensioner, military
-
if he had been employed
prior to joining the army, working student, a person with a
physical handicap. Also taken into consideration for the state
allowance were the children of writers, artists, painters, sculptors
and composers on the conditions that they were affiliated to
professional unions and the children who benefited from the heir
pension. Excluded from the payment of the allowance were the
families of the owners of small businesses: those who had
revenues from commerce, had alcohol distilleries, tractors, wool
processors, oil presses or peasant mills (art.
3).
Article
5
excluded
those who benefited from scholarships and the children who were
raised by the state or communities. Actually, the state allowance
for children, as it was set in
1956,
was to be benefited of only by
those working in the state industry, a form of aid for working
people with children. Article
3
set the amount of the allowance
-
100
lei per child, the age until it was paid
- 14,
depending on the
salary or pension of the parent. If the salary was under
1200
lei per
month, the father (entitled by law to cash the allowance
-
with
some exceptions) received the allowance for all of his children. If
the salary was between
1201
and
1500
lei he would get the
allowance only from the second child; from the third child in case
the salary was between
1501
and
2000
lei; only from the fourth
child for those having salaries over
2000
lei. The decree stipulated
both the way the allowance was granted
- 3
month after
employment for an undefined period (art.
13)
and the conditions
221
Luminiţa Dumănescu
that could lead to the cancelling of the allowance: more than
3
unjustified absences from work in a month resulted in no
allowance being paid for that month; if the employee requested
for an unpaid holiday in addition to the
15
days of legal holiday as
stipulated by the Work Code he would also lose the allowance for
that month. Hence, losing the job meant losing also the state
allowance for children. This decree was going to undergo a series
of modifications throughout the
45
years, the most important,
which should be discussed at the right moment, being the one
occurred in
1960.
If the law gave the husbands (fathers) the right to benefit from
the state allowance for children, the mothers would be
encouraged, in the same year, through the Decision no.
2168
of the
Ministerial Committee, to donate mother milk for feeding the
children who do not have the chance of being fed with motherly
milk: orphans, children of mothers suffering from tuberculosis,
immature children (underdeveloped) (The Collection
1956:
Decision
2168).
The points where the mother milk was collected had been
established since
1953.
The decision stipulated not just the price of
milk
(30
lei per liter, in a time when one liter of cow milk was
about
1,70
lei!!!), but also set a series of awards based on the
quantity of milk donated in a certain period of time. Hence,
mothers who donated between
50
and
60
liters in
3
months were
awarded
100
lei; those who donated between
51
and
70
liters were
awarded
150
lei; those exceeding
70
liters were awarded
200
lei.
The law regarding family life does not record any significant
change until
1960,
when Decree
285
regarding the modification of
condition for the state allowance for children was issued (Decree
285/
August 10th,
1960).
Apart from the raise of the threshold
under which a state employee could benefit from the allowance
for all of his children, the decree introduces the differentiation
222
Familia
românească în comunism
between the
urban
and the rural areas
(100
lei in the urban area,
50
lei in the rural one). The same article stipulates a series of
exceptions from the rule, nominating categories of working people
who could benefit from the
100
lei allowance even if they lived in
the rural area: those working in mine, drilling, cement industry,
sailing and aircraft crew, medical-sanitary and pharmaceutical
personnel, military, party presidents and secretaries, namely all
those who were working hard to build the socialism (ait.
3).
The
maximum age until which a child can receive the allowance
remains the same
- 14
years (with the same exception regarding
the invalidity), only the
1971
decree extending the maximum age
for receiving this stimulant to
16
years. The law was going to be
constantly modified and completed as the society was planning
new five-year targets: with every raise in salaries and every new
social category that had to be stimulated or rewarded for the
contribution in raising the socialist Romania, the law of the
allowances was being modified. Such changes occurred in
1964,
1966, 1968
(including the students families in the categories that
received the allowance),
1969
(the amount was raised with
30
lei
for those in the first category),
1971, 1977, 1985
(with a
simultaneous raise in the state allowances for children, the
allowances for mothers with many children and for the wives of
those fulfilling the military service
-
Decree 410/December 26th,
1985).
Decision no.
880/1965
introduces, under the name of
maternity allowance the maternity paid leave for pregnancy and
confinement as well as for caring for the sick child (Collection
1965:
Decision
880).
The employed woman was entitled to a
112
days
paid leave
- 52
days before birth and
60
afterwards (art.
14),
receiving during this period an allowance that was proportional to
her monthly salary and previously length of service. Therefore, if
223
Luminiţa
Dumãnescu
the woman had a length of service of over
12
months, she would
receive an allowance of
90%
of her salary;
70%
for a length of
service of
6
to
12
months and
50%
for less than
6
months (art.
15).
It is also important to note the protection of the job, introduced by
article
16,
which stipulated that the employer was not allowed to
unilaterally cease the contract during the
112
days.
One year after this decree was issued, a Decision of the
Ministerial Committee sets the amount of the pregnancy and
confinement allowance to
100%
of the monthly salary, regardless
of the previous length of service for the employees having at least
three children.
The fact that the new leadership of the party was trying to
raise the birth rate by any means is also confirmed by Decree
954
of December
1966
regarding the birth allowance. Actually, this
decree abrogates article
5
of a
1950
Decree which had set an
allowance of
1000
lei form mothers giving birth to the tenth and
the following children (Collection
1950:
Decree
106).
In the spirit
of the measures of stimulating the birth rate and of the support of
families with several children it is advisable that the allowance be
granted to all mothers giving birth to the third and following
children is written in the motivation. Just a few days later came
the Decree regarding the increase of income taxes for people
without children (Collection
1966:
Decree
83),
which brought a
10%
up to
20%
(depending on the income and tax payers category)
increase in the taxes paid by people older than
25,
men and
women, regardless of their civil state, who had no children.
Bxcepted were only the invalids, those who could prove that they
had children but they had died and those supporting the children
from a previous marriage of their spouse. This law, considered by
most specialists to be a discriminatory one, together with the other
three from the autumn and winter of the same year, represented
224
Familia românească în comunism
the state s New Year gift for its citizens, working people from
towns and villages!
In
1967
and
1968
the state creates the conditions for the
employment with half the normal program for women with
children up to
7
years (the Decision of the Ministerial Council no.
54/1967)
and extends the state allowance for children for the
children of students attending the day courses and of PhD
candidates with scholarships (Decree
1045/1968).
Until that date,
the families of students only benefited from a unique allowance
for pregnancy and confinement from the students association with
the amount of
750
lei.
In the years following the interdiction of abortions, the policy
of the communist regime towards the population and family has
fluctuated continuously, alternating compensatory and punitive
measures. Each congress of the Romanian Communist Party
brought the raise of salaries and stale allowances (in
1985
the
allowance had reached
300
lei in the urban area and
200
lei in the
rural one) or punitive measures against those who failed to fulfill
their duty (to procreate) towards the party and country or who
employed illegal actions in order to bypass it. At the same time,
the monthly tax of people without children was raised, they
having to pay, depending on their monthly wage, between
80
and
925
lei (the preamble of the Decree stated that those without
children had the duty to contribute to the raising of funds that
were necessary to form and prepare the young generations of
citizens). In the same year
1985
an allowance of
1500
lei per month
for mothers with more than one child and a supplemental
500
lei
one for those with at least five children were introduced. But all
these stimulating measures came in a period when the living
conditions of the population were constantly degrading (freezing
225
Luminiţa Dumănescu
winters without heating, huge queues for food, the birth rate
terror, the deterioration of medical care and so on).
The first legal measure taken by the national salvation Front
in the first day of governing was to abrogate Decree
770
and
legalize abortion. A new Constitution was adopted in December
1990,
bringing back the fundamental rights, freedoms and
obligations of citizens to the place they had been in the democratic
constitutions before
1945,
in Chapter II, right after the general
principles regarding the state of law and the national symbols.
Although the principle of caring for the family as the main form of
living together was maintained, the marriage rate decreased after
1990,
at the same time with the advance of other forms of living
together (see Dohotariu
2010).
The mutually agreed union or the
concubinage situation was recorded as a separate line during the
2002
census and recent studies show that it keeps on gaining a
substantial advance, especially for young people. Although the
minimum legal age for marriage has remained unchanged, a
tendency of delaying the marriage and the moment of having
children can be seen. In this context, the fertility has again
dropped under the level of generation replacement. The transition
towards the statute of being a parent seems to last longer than
ever, the factors causing this situation being as various as possible
(Hărăguş
2008).
Industrialization, urbanization, mass education and familial
change in socialist Romania
Marriage remains the main type of union between partners, even
ή
towards the end of the communist period concubinage gets a
relatively higher ratio (Muresan
2007, 246).
But what really
happens at this time is the change of proportion between the
traditional and the nuclear families. Forced industrialization, the
226
Familia
românească în comunism
steep and continuous increase in the demand of work force led to
the first break with the past: the big rural families are displaced,
disrupted and this break allows their members to occupy the jobs
generously offered by the party. Attracted by the mirage of the
city, by the benefits of living in blocks, young people spire to these
jobs and leave the villages. The small nuclear family, more and
more numerous from the point of view of its social structure, lives
geographically further and further away from the great family,
from its ancestors. We fit perfectly in the model that Goody
described as being specific to European socialism (Goody
2003,
178).
Indirectly, without having made a goal out of it, to socialism
contributed, through the effect of its various measures undertaken
in order to promote the industrialization of the country
(industrialization being the key word for „new , modern society,
compared to the agricultural system, specific to traditional
societies -Scurtu
2001),
to the foundation of the „modern
Romanian family. Epistemologically speaking, there is not much
of synonymic relation between communism and modernization
but, as we shall prove, in site of the above mentioned paradox, the
modernization of the Romanian family, according to the most
widely used definitions of the present time, occurred during
communism. We shall nevertheless avoid to calling all the
modifications „modernization since we lack the totality of
elements that would allow us to categorize the socialist Romanian
family as being a modern one. We chose, for a change, to illustrate
the changing
-
so called by us „disruption
-
process of the
Romanian family on its way towards modernity.
In order to understand the notion of disruption of the
traditional Romanian family it is necessary, on one hand, to define
the characteristics of this family and, on another, to identify the
elements that give substance to this disruption or, to put it other
227
Luminiţa Dumănescu
way, to mark the differences that transform the traditional family
into a modern one. If these elements are induced by the specific of
the socialist regime we can already define the first working
hypothesis of this study: the modern Romanian family (that
modernism identified in the great theories on the European
family) was defined during communism, regardless of how much
we do or do not agree with this idea. The three pillars supporting
the foundation of modernization are defined above and we shall
insist on them at the right moment, adding, as a consequence, the
emancipation of women and the equalitarian statute
-
at least by
law
-
with men. Let us take them one at a time.
•
The traditional Romanian family went through various
forms, according to the medium it came from, the
geographical environment, the social statute of its
members etc. According to the time we are talking
about, we find as a dominant model either the
patriarchal family
-
where children get married and
remain in place, creating a genuine household
-;
the
stem family, where one of the children remains in his
parent s house after marriage, taking over the
obligation of caring for his parents when they grow old
but also the benefit of rightly inheriting their fortune or,
even at a reduced scale, the nuclear, neolocal family,
placed in the proximity of the family it originated from.
•
The modern family is represented by the nuclear family
-
which is, as La Play presents it, a „degraded form of
the family, an unstable form, maybe because of the
exaggerated individualism of its members and of its
high need for independence.
Regardless of the uniformization introduced by communism the
environment will continue to have an important role in defining
228
Familia
românească în comunism
the Romanian family. Even if the systematization process
attempted to extend the urban lifestyle and its facilities into
villages, two different worlds continue to manifest. According to
Trebici, when we analyze the different types of families, we have
to consider at least three elements which have different
manifestations in the urban and in the rural areas, in spite of the
socialist cultural model in use in both environments: different
natality, different mortality, different nuptiality. Trebici proves
that in spite of the behavioural uniformizations, the rural fertility
remained clearly superior to the urban one during communism,
regardless of the false impression that the trend was being set by
the urban natality (Trebici &Ghinoiu
1986,150).
In Romania industrialization began in
1949 - 1950,
followed
by a quick movement of population from villages towards the
urban centres on the way to industrialization. If at the
1948
census
there were
3.486.999
inhabitants, their number had raised to
5.667.559
in
1965,
to reach
11.540.494 (50,4%
of the population) in
1985
(INS
1965,1985).
At the same time with the industrialization
and the urbanization of the country, immediately after the war
and after communists took the power, an act with deep
significance and effects that last until the present times occurs: the
nationalization of buildings, through Decree
92
from April 20th
1950,
an act which not only would destroy the private property
(for a while) but would also deeply change the social structure, a
large part of the population passing suddenly to a lodger statute.
There are plenty of studies that, analyzing the phenomenon of
inhabiting the communist Romania, show that, even not in equal
proportions at least in variable ones the flee of former land owners
towards cities meant a ruralisation of the cities. These disinherited
over night brought into their new destinations attitudes and rules
that were specific to the rural environment they were born and
229
Luminiţa Dumănescu
raised in. There are numerous documented situations were the
outskirts of the cities looked more like villages, with poultry cages,
stables and grocery gardens around the blocks (Cesereanu
2006).
The
1966
census was already showing the extent of the
relocation of Romanians into cities: over
60%
of those interviewed
were born in other places than the ones they lived in
(1966
census). The
1977
census took notice of a migrational flow „village
-
town of
78,4%,
the other way being nevertheless not at all
negligible
(21,6%).
We can identify several mechanisms which led to such a big
increase of the urban population:
•
people left without land as a consequence of the
collectivization of the agriculture
-
a violent process
that took place between
1949
and
1962 -
the peasants
fled to the cities to become workers, driving up the
number of those seeking work and shelter at the same
time
•
taking advantage of the benefits of mass education, of
the opening of apprentice schools towards the children
of peasants these leave the homes they were born into
and head towards cities to study. Soon after graduating
they join the work force, make families and either
remain in those cities or, following a governmental
repartition they end up in various places, both different
and remote from the starting point
•
a third way was the changing of the statute of localities,
many communes being turned into urban communes or
cities. The law of the territory issued in
1972
tried to
legalize the phenomenon of the disappearance of
differences between villages and cities by bunding
blocks in the until previously rural areas.
230
Familia românească în comunism
No matter which of the three aspects is being analyzed, the end
result of the migration process towards cities was the disruption
of the traditional family
-
regardless of the way it may have
looked like in various provinces or areas of the country2.
This massive movement of the population
-
both from rural
towards urban and inside these two categories, especially at a
rural
-
rural level
-
led to a change in the inhabiting way. We were
interested in seeing these aspects beyond theory and these is why
we go beyond the specific limits of history entering, through
sources and methods, into sociology. At the same time we have to
confess that although this project intended from the very
beginning to make use of sociological researches, the hazard also
played a major role in what concerns the sources of the present
work and of works to follow, but this would be discussed at the
appropriate moment.
The migration towards cities, as a form of the quest for
Wellness
has its origins at the beginning of modernity; there was
also a significant flow between the wars, but this was a natural
one, without any form of control of the state. Moreover, it was a
seasonal movement due to those going to the cities in order to
-
It is regrettable that not even until today the
specialiste
have not elaborated a
model or possible models of the Romanian family, either traditional or
modernized, to be taken as landmarks in the great synthesises on the
European family. Stating this I do not mean phenomena like nupuahty,
natality, marriage proportion
-
namely those features that are specific to the
Eastern European pattern as defined by
Hajnal
(1965);
instead I m aiming at
Mason s definition
(2001)
which defined a familial system as one being
founded on blood, heredity or marriage, where every individual has social,
economic and sexual rights and responsibilities, a system where we could see
who was living with who and at what time during their lives, how me
individual sees himself in relation with the other members of the tamiiy ea.
Unfortunately we have many narrow studies, parts of *e iocal^ot me
particular and no synthesis dedicated to the Romanian family system (or
systems) across the time.
231
Luminiţa Dumănescu
supplement their income or to those who had no means of living
and tried their luck in the cities (Scurtu
2001).
The census realized by the communist authorities in January
1948
showed that
22%
of those interviewed (approximately
3,5
million people) lived in cities (INS files
2002).
Actually, every
subsequent census showed that the urban population had
increased with
1,3
to
2
million people with respect to the previous
census, the most significant increase occurring during
1966 - 1977.
At the same time, the population of the communes decreased or
remained at constant levels, with respect to the choice of the
reference point. If we consider the whole
1948 - 1992
period we
shall see a
2
million people decrease in the rural area. Of course,
this is just raw data, without taking into account the natural
growth of the population. What is nevertheless striking is the huge
disproportion between the growth of the urban and of the rural
population respectively. We also have to mention that the rural
population is no longer made up exclusively by peasants but,
according to the plans for the collectivization of the agriculture
and of
systématisation
of the rural area, we find several categories
of peasants (most of them working for the cooperatives, only a few
with individual properties), a thick layer of workers (mostly in
agriculture) and a thin layer of intellectuals and clerks. At the
1977
census, for mstance,
44,6%
of the active population of the villages
declared to be workers while the peasants were split between
those working for the cooperative
(39,2%)
and those with
individual properties, whose ratio had been reduced to just
6,7%
of the whole rural population (Trebici&Hristache
1986,45).
Comparative researches socialism
-
post-socialism focused on
the topic of entering adult life and leaving the parents house
show that the medium age when young people left home in the
80s
was
20
years for boys and
18
years for girls (Muresan
2007,24).
232
Familia româneasca în comunism
The author proposes three possible explanations for which the
young ones left or separated from the parents house: a) before
what is called in specialty terms first union: for studies, to serve in
the army (for boys) or just to escape the parents authority; b) to
form such a first union
-
which automatically assumes a place to
live for the newly formed couple and c) forming a pair but in the
parents house
-
in this case we talk only about separation. These
reasons are important enough to bring forward one of the major
resources that was at the base of the modification of the structure
of the Romanian family: the dwelling. After the communist state
had turned the industrialization of the country into its main
purpose the construction of dwellings for the working class
became a priority. Through various means
-
including cheap long
term loans granted to the population
-
the number of dwellings
exploded.
There is no doubt that the collectivization of the agriculture
has played a key role in the changing of the family structure, the
expropriation creating a new class
-
the landless peasants
-
but we
incline to believe that the mirage of the city, combined with the
desire of the young ones to escape parental from tutelage was
determinant for this transformation. Children and youngsters left
the villages to get teaching and education in the schools in the
cities, to prepare for an occupation or for a skill in order to get a
job. The data shows that at that time most of those who had left
did not want to return to live in the villages they had left (Neamtu
et al
1970, 247).
At the same time the rural family had to face the
fact, the changing of functions brought by the collectivization
determining the diminishment or even the cancelling of the
traditional functions (see in the first place the transition to the
form of collective
cooperatist
„property )· We can nevertheless
encounter continuity factors in the behaviour of the village
233
Luminiţa Dumănescu
community, where the structure of familial authority, the
distribution of the roles of the members, the work and mutual
help system, the education for work in the under aged etc.
(Fulea&Tamas
1989,153)
are to be noted.
The sample this study is based on fully confirms the above
mentioned mutations. The analyze of the current residence of the
subjects shows that
63,4%
were born in the rural area and only
36,6%
were born in cities. As it was to be expected, considering the
premises we started from, most of the subjects came to the cities at
adult ages:
35,2%
were over
20
when they moved. About
20%
came to the cities at ages when they were studying, between
16
and
20
years.
9,6%
of the subjects had ages between
11
and
15
years at the time of moving while
5,5%
had ages between
6
and
10.
The latter two categories most likely belong to the context of
family relocations since it is unlikely that these groups belong to
the interbellic system of sending
10 - 15
years old children to
masters in cities (Scurtu
2001,109-110).
We also get an interesting image if we analyze where the rural
inhabitants came from. Although
83,3%
were born in villages,
only
55%
of the subjects were born in the village they were living
in, about
30%
of the originating from other villages. We also have
17,7%
of rural inhabitants coming from the urban area. The
analyze shows they are mainly intellectuals and clerks who work
in their fields: teachers, professors, physicians, agricultural
engineers, technicians etc. Even the questionnaires lack specific
data to confirm our hypothesis; we believe they got to the villages
following the system of governmental repartitions, the effects of
which we shall discuss in a future study.
As for the gender we see a relative equality when it comes to
moving between different environments: about
60%
of men and
women living in cities were bom in the rural area; it is only in the
234
Familia
românească în comunism
rural area where the proportion of men born in the same locality
they lived is slightly higher than that of women:
85%
men versus
76,3%
women. This data does not match the date from the
1977
census which shows a greater proportion of women for the
process of internal migration. Considering these figures we may
add that women have the majority among those relocating inside
the rural area.
For the young students the state built campuses, for young
workers it provided hostels while married workers suddenly
became good candidates for a dwelling from the state. Actually
any worker who was a member of the party and of the union
could get an apartment where he could enjoy a certain degree of
comfort, previously unknown to some: running water, access to
services (nurseries, kindergartens etc.).
At this moment and on the background of these mutations
another phenomenon occurs, giving the Romanian traditional
family the final hit: for most of the population the power of
parents to decide for their children becomes history. All evidence
shows that during the 20th Century the autonomy of marriage
increases, even if the parents continue to play an important role in
the matrimonial
Ufe
of their children, especially in those parts of
Europe where the extended family continued to exist among and
together with other familial forms (Therborn
2004,107).
At the same time, in
1966
all women under
30
were schooled
and illiteracy was eradicated (at least on paper) (Rotariu
2003,
241).
Schooling meant the acceleration of the process of women
emancipation. All communists laws insist on the equality
between men an women both at work and in private life as we
described before.
Marriage remains the only way of founding a family and the
proportion of married people in the population remains high for
235
Luminiţa
Dutnãnescu
the whole period although the nuptiality rate decreases constantly
starting from the
60s,
from
11,6
marriages per
1000
inhabitants in
1956 - 1958
to
9
marriages per
1000
inhabitants during the next
two years
(1959 - 1960)
reaching
7,3
in
1984
(Trebici&Ghinoiu
1986, 79).
What change, as we have already shown, are the
mechanisms of founding a new family. Between the wars the age
at the moment of marriage was very young
-
even the
1930
census
considered the population above
13
for marriage which was more
a business of the parents than of the future spouses. We know the
rules regarding marriage, which had to respect certain social
layers like military or priests Scurtu
2001, 130).
Generally, in the
inter-wars period, similar to what was previously going on,
marriage happened inside the same social group, defined by
fortune, social status, studies and the differences in social statute
generated real dramas. Very recent studies (Cucu-Culic
2012,159-
170)
prove a degree of marital homogamy, which was increased
for several social categories (intellectual or peasants who marry
predominantly inside their own group), for those born before
1939.
The authors conclude that the structuring of the society for
this generation was a masculine one, where production activities,
work and all other activities generally belonging to the public
space belonged to men. On the opposite, the data for the
generation that married in the
60s
shows
a déstructuration
of the
class relations but also a closing of the social group of intellectuals
who were going to marry in higher proportions inside their own
group. One decade later, the highest degree of homogamy was to
be found among the qualified workers,
62,8%
of who were going
to marry between them but the
déstructuration
continued, all
other social categories marrying in important proportions with
qualified workers (the most numerous were the clerks
- 50%,
workers from the commercial sector
- 46%
and unqualified
236
Familia
românească în comunism
steep and continuous increase in the demand of work force led to
the first break with the past: the big rural families are displaced,
disrupted and this break allows their members to occupy the jobs
generously offered by the party. Attracted by the mirage of the
city, by the benefits of living in blocks, young people spire to these
jobs and leave the villages. The small nuclear family, more and
more numerous from the point of view of its social structure, lives
geographically further and further away from the great family,
from its ancestors. We fit perfectly in the model that Goody
described as being specific to European socialism (Goody
2003,
178).
Indirectly, without having made a goal out of it, to socialism
contributed, through the effect of its various measures undertaken
in order to promote the industrialization of the country
(industrialization being the key word for „new , modern society,
compared to the agricultural system, specific to traditional
societies -Scurtu
2001),
to the foundation of the „modern
Romanian family. Epistemologically speaking, there is not much
of synonymic relation between communism and modernization
but, as we shall prove, in site of the above mentioned paradox, the
modernization of the Romanian family, according to the most
widely used definitions of the present time, occurred during
communism. We shall nevertheless avoid to calling all the
modifications „modernization since we lack the totality of
elements that would allow us to categorize the socialist Romanian
family as being a modern one. We chose, for a change, to illustrate
the changing
-
so called by us „disruption
-
process of the
Romanian family on its way towards modernity.
In order to understand the notion of disruption of the
traditional Romanian family it is necessary, on one hand, to define
the characteristics of this family and, on another, to identify the
elements that give substance to this disruption or, to put it other
227
Luminiţa Dumănescu
types of family, according to the dominant criteria a family is
based on: the choice of partners, residence, power relations inside
the couple, parent
-
child relations, the functions of the family, the
structure of the family, the stability degree and the importance in
the social ensemble (Hut
2005, 88).
We do have to mention that the
spreading of the nuclear family does not eliminate the extended
family; it is its increased proportion among the population that
leads to the apparition of those characteristics of the matrimonial
behaviour that are specific to modernity.
During the communist period, the Romanian family passes
through a series of functional and structural transformations,
influenced by the social dynamic
-
urbanization, industrialization,
mass education
-
and by its own way of dealing with this
dynamic. We cannot deny that during this period the balance
inclines in favour of the nuclear family, that the traditional family
-
smaller or larger, by case or by the environment it came from
-
is
dislocated, disrupted especially by the young ones leaving for the
cities, either to work or to study. The disruption is facilitated by
the existence of dwellings: any worker who was a member of the
party and of the union received sooner or later a dwelling from
the state, with a rent set according to his income. This explosion
and, then, availability of living space was generated by the need of
the party for work force and the work force „from cities and
villages benefited from the advantages that no other social
system had offered to such an extent by then.
The leaving of the young ones for the cities, this abandonment
of the nest, had two main consequences: the weakening of the
familial authority regarding the choice of the partner and the
redefinition of the characteristics of the marital market. At the
same time, the reform of the education and the obligativity to
graduate at least
10
grades opened the gate for women
238
Familia
românească în comunism
emancipation wider than ever
-
in conjunction with the new
equalitarian statute set by the Constitution and by the Family
Code. Under these circumstances, the families change their
structure
-
social-professional homogamy,
autoreproduction
and
the closing of certain social groups (especially for workers and
intellectuals), exogamy and opening for the groups formed by the
so-called „functionaires who were more willing to cross the
social statute barriers and to form misalliances.
Having in mind the entire period before
1947
we conclude
that three main breaks occurred in the the family life under the
communists: those related to the equality between spouses, to the
reproductive life and to divorce. We must also point that the new
legislation brought innovations in the sphere of social care, since
almost the entire set of supportive measures for families with
children (state allowance, paid maternity leave, various aids for
mothers with more than one child) were introduced then.
As we already stated, in order to have a write image, we
should see the communist period in its temporal and social
context. It is not enough to just analyze the main laws, decrees and
instructions issued between
1947
and
1989
in order to be able to
reconstruct the family life over a span of
40
years! We may be
surprised seeing the extent in which this legislation was only
based on revisions of older laws and we have to admit that,
talking about legal principles, they did not innovate much,
especially regarding the coercive measures. Conversely, they did
innovate by temporarily allowing unexpected rights and
freedoms, and it is in this innovative legislation where the rupture
with the former legislation regarding the family is to be found.
I have presented from the very beginning my hypothesis
regarding the situation of the family during communism. I wrote
in my Introduction that all the sources I have analyzed indicated
239
Luminiţa Dumănescu
that the traditional family underwent serious disruptions during
communism, that the new family was different in the way it was
formed, in its characteristics and functions from the one it came
from and that, in spite of this disruption
-
like a mechanism made
up of various pieces
-
because of adverse social conditions the
Romanian family, in its various forms, got stronger out of
socialism.
All analyzed data shows that, like in previous periods, the
universality and precocity of marriage are characteristics that
perpetuate during socialism. But the typology of the families
changed fundamentally, in the context of the synergic action of the
three factors mentioned at the beginning of the book
-
industrialization, urbanization, schooling
-
and of other factors of
secondary importance.
In the
80s
the sociologists were preoccupied by the new
image of the Romanian family, especially of the rural one. The
same authors mentioned in the previous chapters
-
Rotariu,
Aluaş, Zamfir, Rebedeu
and others
-
conducted extensive
researches in order to reveal the new typologies of the Romanian
family. Their researches focused on the rural area, the area that
underwent the most spectacular changes if we only think about
the structuring of peasants in several categories, according to the
degree of collectivization of each area.
All modifications mentioned in the chapters of this book
affected the functions of the family, some of them being lost
making place for new, context specific ones while others were
redefined and developed. First of all, the economic function of the
family underwent a radical transformation; in the absence of
private property people reoriented towards various forms of
employment and the ensuring of subsistence from products of the
own household became insignificant in most cases. Going deeper
240
Familia
românească în comunism
we can see that the communism brought the biggest professional
reconversion ever in the whole history of Romania. A forced,
violent one, enforced from the upper levels and with the most
various consequences. At the same time, as the various researches
on the rural area have revealed, even when left without their land,
the peasants found some of the most ingenious ways of survival.
|
| any_adam_object | 1 |
| author | Dumănescu, Luminiţa 1978- |
| author_GND | (DE-588)1031650253 |
| author_facet | Dumănescu, Luminiţa 1978- |
| author_role | aut |
| author_sort | Dumănescu, Luminiţa 1978- |
| author_variant | l d ld |
| building | Verbundindex |
| bvnumber | BV040774997 |
| ctrlnum | (OCoLC)828812354 (DE-599)BVBBV040774997 |
| era | Geschichte 1945-1989 gnd |
| era_facet | Geschichte 1945-1989 |
| format | Book |
| fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>02296nam a2200529 c 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV040774997</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20130227 </controlfield><controlfield tag="007">t</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">130225s2012 d||| |||| 00||| rum d</controlfield><datafield tag="020" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">9789735954055</subfield><subfield code="9">978-973-595-405-5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)828812354</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV040774997</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">rum</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-12</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,41</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Dumănescu, Luminiţa</subfield><subfield code="d">1978-</subfield><subfield code="e">Verfasser</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)1031650253</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Familia românească în comunism</subfield><subfield code="c">Luminiţa Dumănescu</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Cluj-Napoca</subfield><subfield code="b">Presa Univ. Clujeană</subfield><subfield code="c">2012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">250 S.</subfield><subfield code="b">graph. Darst.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The romanian family during communist times</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="648" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1945-1989</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Familienpolitik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4016418-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Ehe</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4013630-9</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Familie</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4016397-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Demographie</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4011412-0</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Verstädterung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4063234-9</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="651" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Rumänien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4050939-4</subfield><subfield code="2">gnd</subfield><subfield code="9">rswk-swf</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Rumänien</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4050939-4</subfield><subfield code="D">g</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Familie</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4016397-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">Ehe</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4013630-9</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="3"><subfield code="a">Demographie</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4011412-0</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Familienpolitik</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4016418-4</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="5"><subfield code="a">Verstädterung</subfield><subfield code="0">(DE-588)4063234-9</subfield><subfield code="D">s</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2="6"><subfield code="a">Geschichte 1945-1989</subfield><subfield code="A">z</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="689" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="5">DE-604</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025753334&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Inhaltsverzeichnis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="m">Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2</subfield><subfield code="q">application/pdf</subfield><subfield code="u">http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025753334&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA</subfield><subfield code="3">Abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="940" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="n">oe</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-025753334</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">909</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0904</subfield><subfield code="g">498</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">306.09</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0904</subfield><subfield code="g">498</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="942" ind1="1" ind2="1"><subfield code="c">304.609</subfield><subfield code="e">22/bsb</subfield><subfield code="f">0904</subfield><subfield code="g">498</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
| geographic | Rumänien (DE-588)4050939-4 gnd |
| geographic_facet | Rumänien |
| id | DE-604.BV040774997 |
| illustrated | Illustrated |
| indexdate | 2024-07-10T00:33:38Z |
| institution | BVB |
| isbn | 9789735954055 |
| language | Romanian |
| oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-025753334 |
| oclc_num | 828812354 |
| open_access_boolean | |
| owner | DE-12 |
| owner_facet | DE-12 |
| physical | 250 S. graph. Darst. |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publishDateSearch | 2012 |
| publishDateSort | 2012 |
| publisher | Presa Univ. Clujeană |
| record_format | marc |
| spelling | Dumănescu, Luminiţa 1978- Verfasser (DE-588)1031650253 aut Familia românească în comunism Luminiţa Dumănescu Cluj-Napoca Presa Univ. Clujeană 2012 250 S. graph. Darst. txt rdacontent n rdamedia nc rdacarrier Zsfassung in engl. Sprache u.d.T.: The romanian family during communist times Geschichte 1945-1989 gnd rswk-swf Familienpolitik (DE-588)4016418-4 gnd rswk-swf Ehe (DE-588)4013630-9 gnd rswk-swf Familie (DE-588)4016397-0 gnd rswk-swf Demographie (DE-588)4011412-0 gnd rswk-swf Verstädterung (DE-588)4063234-9 gnd rswk-swf Rumänien (DE-588)4050939-4 gnd rswk-swf Rumänien (DE-588)4050939-4 g Familie (DE-588)4016397-0 s Ehe (DE-588)4013630-9 s Demographie (DE-588)4011412-0 s Familienpolitik (DE-588)4016418-4 s Verstädterung (DE-588)4063234-9 s Geschichte 1945-1989 z DE-604 Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025753334&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Inhaltsverzeichnis Digitalisierung BSB Muenchen 2 application/pdf http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025753334&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA Abstract |
| spellingShingle | Dumănescu, Luminiţa 1978- Familia românească în comunism Familienpolitik (DE-588)4016418-4 gnd Ehe (DE-588)4013630-9 gnd Familie (DE-588)4016397-0 gnd Demographie (DE-588)4011412-0 gnd Verstädterung (DE-588)4063234-9 gnd |
| subject_GND | (DE-588)4016418-4 (DE-588)4013630-9 (DE-588)4016397-0 (DE-588)4011412-0 (DE-588)4063234-9 (DE-588)4050939-4 |
| title | Familia românească în comunism |
| title_auth | Familia românească în comunism |
| title_exact_search | Familia românească în comunism |
| title_full | Familia românească în comunism Luminiţa Dumănescu |
| title_fullStr | Familia românească în comunism Luminiţa Dumănescu |
| title_full_unstemmed | Familia românească în comunism Luminiţa Dumănescu |
| title_short | Familia românească în comunism |
| title_sort | familia romaneasca in comunism |
| topic | Familienpolitik (DE-588)4016418-4 gnd Ehe (DE-588)4013630-9 gnd Familie (DE-588)4016397-0 gnd Demographie (DE-588)4011412-0 gnd Verstädterung (DE-588)4063234-9 gnd |
| topic_facet | Familienpolitik Ehe Familie Demographie Verstädterung Rumänien |
| url | http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025753334&sequence=000003&line_number=0001&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA http://bvbr.bib-bvb.de:8991/F?func=service&doc_library=BVB01&local_base=BVB01&doc_number=025753334&sequence=000004&line_number=0002&func_code=DB_RECORDS&service_type=MEDIA |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dumanesculuminita familiaromaneascaincomunism |