Page 120 - MIGRATION

Basic HTML Version

118
MIGRATION, MEMORY, HERITAGE: SOCIO-CULTURAL
APPROACHES TO THE BULGARIAN-TURKISH BORDER
social capital as a resource – for instance,“Bulgarian out-migrants”,“BalkanTurks”,“Balkan emigrants”.
Name attribution is important because it is related to the issue of
identity
– ‘I-am-such-and-such’,
and at the same time to the issue of
identification
– the way in which I regard ‘the-one-who-is-such-
and-such’. Along such lines, one can also describe the role of various discourses (official, national,
political, ideological, and everyday) which are employed by the official spokespersons of Bulgarian-
Turkish out-migrants and by means of which they attribute, prescribe, affirm, restore, revoke, etc.
different identities. All these nominations used to attribute social essence and belonging become
the
stakes in the competition for appropriating the accumulated social capital
which can easily
be transformed into a different kind of capital – economic, symbolic, cultural, religious, political, etc.
What is more, they are stakes in the symbolic struggle for denying or acquiring recognition and
delegation.
In parallel to the above-outlined strategies, we also observe reverse
strategies for rejecting
membership
, which are in practice refusals to delegate the rights to the social representation of
the group of Bulgarian out-migrants and which obstruct the process of social capital concentration
and its abuse. It is not co-incidental that one of our informants shared the following in an interview:
Recently I don’t trust those, especially this or that organization, becausemy observations
aremostly negative. Instead of conducting some cultural activities and events, theymostly serve
their own interests. I don’t trust themanymore. They are active only around elections, when they
come to just take the votes of the people, they use people. Only around elections do they come
and mingle with people, so as to tell them you will do this and that. This is not right and this is
why I don’t trust them
(F., archive IEFSEM)
.
So far I delineated a number of strategies which serve to retain the “inheritance” of the
group of Bulgarian out-migrants in Edirne at the institutional level and at the same time – following
the logic of “double play” as articulated by Bourdieu – I identified the social agents (individuals or
groups) who, occupying discursive positions
28
in the space of “inheritance” discourse production,
take advantage of it so as to attain their own practical goals.
Hereafter I will touch upon several examples of how “inheritance” is being inherited at
the
endogenic level of the practices of everyday agents
, taking into account the three modalities of
receiving/giving inheritance which I mentioned earlier. To ensure a comparative basis for my thesis
statements I will give examples from the case studies which involve what we called “the 20’s and
the 30’s generations” (Zlatkova, Penkova 2011, 2012).
3.1. The practical logic of giving/receiving inheritance
I this section I dwell on explicating the hidden logic of the acts of inheriting, drawing upon
particular empirical cases which emerged in the course of our field observations in Edirne.
28 For a more detailed account of the theoretical project rendering a sociology of discursive practices in which
I develop the notions of discursive field, discursive position in that field, discursive habitus of the agent acting in the
production field of a given discourse, etc. see Penkova 2009.