High-Born, Low-Born

excerpts Many were the reasons of marriage in the countryside once, but the most important was the family of the chosen one. If the family – the "seedling" – was bad, the young people from such families had a hard time getting married, and only exceptional personal merits or special circumstances could make them acceptable to partners from respectable families. But what was a bad family? Slobs, drunkards, thieves, liars, spendthrifts, troublemakers – in brief, people "without fear of God." Although the material condition mattered, those who had become rich by unorthodox means were not easily accepted, if ever, or, in Maria Andronicescu's words (from the village of Fundu Moldovei, Suceava county), "So-&-so (we don't give names, although she did) got rich, but an X will always be an X!"In traditional society, the good families were deep-rooted in the respective community; financially powerful, but as a result of honest work; respected, owing to a conduct that followed the laws of church, the people and the land; verified over several generations from the perspective of the character and biological features of the descendants. A good family was known by all. Foreigners, even rich ones, were not accepted unless they proved to abide by the rules of the community, and in areas such as the historical Maramures, the young people also were required to put forth documents attesting to the antiquity of their families before getting a good-family partner. In other words, the family was an identity label on each individual. In fact, the family name appeared late, and people were known by appurtenance. A person was known as "Maria, daughter of Grigore, son of Vasile", and when one met a child, they would ask "Whose son are you?", not "What's your name?"If the criteria for judging people, based on the quality of the family, were so deeply entrenched, wherefrom came the bad-family upsurge we are facing everywhere today? The causes are profound and hard to tackle in a few lines. I assume systematic efforts were made to change the structure of values until the genuine ones disappeared. When correct evaluation standards no longer exist, the arbitrary rules, and morality becomes obsolete, even ridiculous, ending up in the trashcan. What was the course of action? It began by a systematic campaign meant to destroy values and promote non-values. The elite was physically decimated and discredited. "Mister" and "Mrs." were replaced by tovarashi [Russian for comrade] or gentlepeople turned tovarashi either out of opportunism or driven by good intentions – and false impressions. Property was stolen, and too little was said and written about how collectivization was achieved, to cite just an example. In the village of Valea Ciorii, Ialomita county, a well-to-do peasant who had refused to give up his land was tied to a cart and driven around the village for two days, but still refused to join the collective farm. His land was confiscated, and by the end of the 70s he had remained the only one who had withstood the pressure.Who took control over the villages instead? The managers of the earliest collective farms were selected from the ranks of the laziest and most squandering, because they were also the poorest, had a "good record", and were the first opportunists who joined the new power. What had they got to lose? Thus, bad families came to the front. At the same time, the intellectuals of the village were steadily brought into disrepute, forced to obey the orders of people who could hardly read and perform jobs far below their qualifications, humiliated on every occasion, and paid a salary that did not exceed that of a tractor driver at the best. The first wave of spectacular overthrows in the hierarchy of values sent a powerful message: Anything goes!The leaders did not pick specialists from the lower ranks that may have acted as real advisors, but yes-men. Massive, enforced industrialization started and tens of thousands relocated to the cities, in search of jobs. Families were dismembered; some remained in the countryside, some went to the city. The known judgment standards were no longer fit in the new circumstances and people had to adjust. It was more important to give the foreman a present than work hard. Salary raises varied with seniority and connections instead of competence anyway. Managers were being promoted according to the same principles. However, employment was high, even if poorly paid, there was housing, even if cramped and under-equipped, as well as food rations – and everything was "given" by the state. This may have been the most significant leap in the way of judging reality and, implicitly, the others and yourself – the leap from individual responsibility to almost total dependence on the state. The period after 1990 found a well-prepared ground. In the economy, the chaos, whether deliberate or as an effect of pure incompetence associated with theft, spawned a class of people who got rich overnight, by questionable means often disclosed by the press. Financial scandals without any legal consequences, the invasion of "bad families" and gross incompetence basking on TV screens and in tabloids, stars born overnight, personages overflowing in the media praised for imaginary merits have added to the dumping of real values. Thus, not only do "bad families" asphyxiate us, but they have also become personalities worth "cultivating", following, and publicizing. Dilema, no. 495 (September 2002)


by Alina Ioana Ciobănel