Page 122 - MIGRATION

Basic HTML Version

120
MIGRATION, MEMORY, HERITAGE: SOCIO-CULTURAL
APPROACHES TO THE BULGARIAN-TURKISH BORDER
It is precisely this initially private experience gained in the course of primary socialization in
the familywhich should be normalized and rendered in accordancewith the requirements of school
normative order in subsequent secondary socialization. This needs to be emphasizedbecause in the
“30’s generation”, according to our classification, we include those who were born in Bulgaria and
lived there until the age of 10–13. In other words, their primary socialization (following Berger and
Luckmann) happened in a completely different social space (that in Bulgaria) from that which they
are to “inhabit” now as a result from their secondary socialization at school and later on as adults
(Turkish social space). This is an important motive because the social conditions for production
and use of the agent in the two social spaces are completely different. This is what fosters different
modalities in the degrees of inheriting“Bulgarian”and“Turkish”inheritance, since the normalization
of private experience cannot happen in full measure, without residual: the residual which has not
been normalized or envisaged will be suppressed and turned into “unconscious”, glimmering only
in the form of alodoxic acts and social lapsus (in the sense attributed by socio-analysis).
This mechanism underpins the process of justifying the private expectations and desires
of the parents who bestow “inheritance” to their child – when the “inheritor” accepts inheritance
and in his turn endows his parents with successful inheriting. The example in this vein of successful
reciprocal endowment of “accepted inheritance” is “S.K.” who moved with his parents at the age of
13. He graduated from a “good high school, profile “tourism”” in Turkey and started working in the
Hilton in Ankara. His parents have“given”him the opportunity to study English at school; he already
knew Russian from his school years in Bulgaria; they keep speaking Bulgarian at home so as not to
forget it – i.e. they have created successful social conditions so that the process of inheriting could
“happen”. Since his parents insisted, he left the position which offered excellent from an economic
point of view prospects and applied for a university degree: “My mother: Son, why don’t you go to
study at university? – That’s how she pleaded. […] I applied, they admitted me and I left the job, the
money – everything, so I became a teacher and stayed here” (From the interview with S. K., archive
IEFSEM).
Still, theremay appear another case of contradictory inheriting: when the inheritor refuses to
accept inheritance, but when his very refusal in practice confirms yet again that inheritance which
he eventually accepts. In such a case, we will be faced with a particular situation of
strangeness
,
as in the case of “Lela”. “Lela’s” figure is a
border case
– she paradoxically inhabits both worlds,
similar to the already mentioned case of Dilyana/Aishe, but the result from this strangeness is not
rejection, it is
acceptance of inheritance
. With regard to this case I evoke the phrase of “yet-to-
be-habituated” Turkish social space. At different moments during the interview “Lela” shared the
following: “I already like it here. Initially, however, when I came here I was horrified.”And“If I had my
say, I would have stayed in Bulgaria and I wouldn’t have come here”.
Such a dual social position is the condition underlying the possibility for the duality entailed
in the relation between
going-return
which is characteristic of this case. How, where, when and
why Lela “goes” or “returns” is always problematic. Her biographical and social strategies turn out
to be connected with
habituating “strangeness”
, passing through a number of
strategies for
rejecting
, as well as through those for gradual
reconciling
with it. Accepting the inheritance which