Page 105 - MIGRATION

Basic HTML Version

103
MIGRATION, MEMORY, HERITAGE: SOCIO-CULTURAL
APPROACHES TO THE BULGARIAN-TURKISH BORDER
seemingly most subjective tensions and contradictions, there are often manifested the deepest
structures of the social world and their contradictions, to paraphrase Bourdieu again
8
.
The thus outlined analytical context calls for employing a particular discursive strategy inmy
analysis, a strategy which emphasizes the already mentioned demand for keeping inmind both the
objective structures
in the field of inheriting and the
practices of agents
who are involved and act in
that field. The socioanalytical layering of the mechanisms of inheriting will be conducted in parallel
to an analysis of the discourses and discourse practices of inheriting, which appear in the discourse
space surrounding the discourse of “Thracian heritage”or of “the heritage of Bulgarian-Turkish out-
migrants”. I discuss later on the ideological and performative manifestations of formal discourses
on both sides of the border and render in detail the way in which they are a social condition for the
possibility of certain practices in the field of inheriting to exist.
To this aim I will first outline the theoretical premise at the basis of different modalities of
“inheriting”. Thereafter I will focus on their empirical verification by means of “case studies” which
are representative for the groups in question.
1. Modalities of inheriting
Inhis
Contradictionsof Inheritance
Bourdieudiscusses the issueof inheritingas a fundamental
question of the “
order of succession
, that is, managing the relationship between parents and
children and, more specifically, the
perpetuation of the line and its inheritance
, in the broadest
sense of the term” (1999: 507). The author describes several
figures
embodying that “tendency to
perpetuate in one’s very being” (ibid.), which bring about perpetuation (but also contestation,
rejection, distinction, surpassing), i.e. the inheriting of the social position of that person fromwhom
it is inherited. Whereas Bourdieu’s essay privileges the role of the “father” and“the case of the son”, I
amgoing to try to widen the scope of analysis and talk in general terms about“inheritance”, making
two important distinctions along the lines of types of discourse and particular discursive practices
9
through which the act of inheriting is articulated:
1) inheriting along the lines of “primary socialization” in the family – that is the inheritance
which is dependent on the sex of parents and children
10
, whereby the modalities of inheritance
will vary according to the degree of dominance of the
paternal
(the father as a symbol of “father’s
estate”, of the familial line) or of the
maternal
(the mother as a symbol of the “mother’s hearth”,
8 Undoubtedly, every story or memory about “the time then and there” is filled with tensions, emotional
intensity, with contradictions and
unarticulated
pain and/or trauma (but lived through, therefore
unarticulable
).
For a further discussion of biographical story-telling and how ethnic identity is situated between experience and story
and/or memory of it see in Karamelska 2009.
9 Such an analysis has to be positioned in the context of the so-called historical sociology of discursive practices,
the program of which I am currently developing in the dialogic field between Bourdieu’s reflexive sociology and the
archeology of knowledge by Foucault and in which I put the emphasis on the temporality of discursive practices (cf.
Penkova 2009).
10 Bourdieu reserved “for another occasion the variations of the relations of succession according to the sex of
the parents and the children” (Bourdieu 1999: 507). A discussion along such lines is offered by Deyanov who widens
the scope offered by Bourdieu in the direction of two“symbolic figures”– of the“father”and the“mother” (cf. Deyanov
2010).