The concept of security and the security culture of the state are always social constructs reflecting the outcome of interactions between state and society. Key categories of security, like dangerous social groups and activities are usually negotiated through these interactions. Politicians, secret agents, gendarms, denunciators, journalists, or the indicted, all shape the broader social meaning in a dynamic way. While in Greater Romania the state attempted to extend its control to ever broader segments of society in order to fend off perceived threats it had to rely on its own personnel and on people who cooperated in this effort, creating room for maneuver for everyone involved in this process. Due to its scarce resources the state could not even control entirely its own representatives, who often pursued a personal agenda different from the state’s own goals. Irredentism, associated with ethnic minorities exemplifies this situation quite well. In an effort to preempt any threat from national minorities with a kin-state gradually led to the association of irredentism with ethnicity, without having control over the latter’s exact meaning. Thus, its practical application depended on a series of factors, personal and structural ones, that finally led to a confusion and to the emptying of the concept that was applied without consistency. It was exactly this development that reconstituted the gap between state and society that actively engaged each other in the resulting process of negotiation. Under the surface of the rule of law and against the backdrop of the image of an ever more powerful state security apparatus, state and society defined together those informal rules of everyday co-existence that were often meant to hide reality from the watchful eyes of Bucharest.
BáthoryLudovic. 2010. “Sistemul de contabilitate secretă a Societăţii Valea Jiului de Sus şi recalcularea producţiei de cărbune (1926–1930)” [The secret accounting system of the Societăţii Valea Jiului de Sus and a recalculation of its coal production (1926–1930)]. Anuarul Institutului de Istorie George Barit49: 309–333.
Borsi-KálmánBéla.2012. “‘Regátiak,’ ‘erdélyiek’ és ‘magyarok’ Ion Gheorghe Duca, Constanin Argetoianu, Armand Călinescu, Grigore Gafencu, valamint Alexandru Vaida Voevod emlékirataiban” [“Old Kingdom Romanians,” “Transylvanians,” and “Hungarians” in the memoires of Ion Gheorghe Duca, Constantin Argetoianu, Armand Călinescu, Grigore Gafencu, and Alexandru Vaida Voevod]. In Emlékirat és történelem. A vii. Hungarológiai Kongresszus (Koloszvár Cluj-Napoca 2011. augusztus 22–27.) azonos című paneljének anyaga [Memoire and history. Papers presented at the vii Convention of Hungarology (Kolozsvár 22–27 August 2011)] ed. PálPritz and JenőHorváth36–60. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat–Nemzetközi Magyarságtudományi Társaság.
EgryGábor. 2012a. “A megértés határán. Nemzetiségek és mindennapok Háromszéken a két világháború között” [On the border of understanding. Nationalities and the everyday in Háromszék between the world wars]. Limes25 no. 2: 29–50.
EgryGábor. 2012b. “Keresztező párhuzamosok. Etnicitás és középosztályi kultúra a két világháború közti Erdélyben” [Intersecting parallels. Ethnicity and middle-class culture in interwar Transylvania]. In Határokon túl. Tanulmányok Mark Pittaway emlékére. [Beyond Frontiers. Studies Commemorating Mark Pittaway] ed. BarthaEszter and VargaZsuzsanna282–302. Budapest: L’Harmattan.
EgryGábor. 2015. Etnicitás identitás politika. Magyar kisebbségek nacionalizmus és regionalizmus között Romániában és Csehszlovákiában 1918–1944 [Ethnicity identity and politics. Hungarian minorities between in nationalism and regionalism in Romania and Czechoslovakia].Budapest: Napvilág.
SpânuAlin. 2010. Istoria serviciilor de informații/contrainformații românești în perioada 1919–1945 [History of the Romanian information and counter-espionage services in the period 1919–1945]. Iași: Demiurg.