Page 127 - MIGRATION

Basic HTML Version

125
MIGRATION, MEMORY, HERITAGE: SOCIO-CULTURAL
APPROACHES TO THE BULGARIAN-TURKISH BORDER
difference between the two cases. With Dilyana/Aishe, the fact that she
refuses
to accept her
inheritance leads to the creation of a particular experience of ‘phasing’ in the unproblematic unity
of her biographical trajectory. It is this which allows us in our subsequent research ‘un-phasing’ to
trace (but only retroactively) the ways in which all borderline experiences and turns in the life of
Dilyana/Aishe, marking separate new phases in her biographical trajectory, allow her in practice to
“outsmart”the biographical machine and escape from its normalizing gaze which watches whether
the biographical choices made by the agent are right. Such liberation from the “nooses of power”
Foucault would call exercising “infinite acts of freedom”.
In the case of K.M., however, every biographical phase is directed towards
accepting
inheritance and
by means of it
“outsmarting” the biographical machine which has not given him
suitable social and biographical life chances in the first place.
In both cases though, we see a form of virtuosity, of “double play along the rules against
the rules” and – even if opposites – these two are two forms of “supernormality” and, as we know,
“supernormality” in the vocabulary of Husserl is related to“exceptionality”, not “exclusion”– i.e. to all
those who “can access certain things which are not accessible to the average man”.
So far my analysis paused on and emphasized the different discursive practices and
strategies by means of which everyday agents occupy a position and act in the field of inheriting –
in contradictory and/or non-contradictory ways. I would say that these are those “
small narratives
(as opposed to what Lyotard described as “
grand narratives
”) through which everyday agents
“acknowledge and recognize” themselves as acting legitimately in the field of inheriting. The
question is - where do they gain their legitimacy from? In other words, if they are, so to speak, the
everyday life theories of the practices of inheriting, which are those “professional” (in the sense
attributed by Bourdieu) ideological theories that ensure the condition for the possibility?
In the following paragraph I will dwell on the ideological efficacy of the official discourses
on the inheritance of “Thracians” and “Bulgarian-Turkish out-migrants” – the way they are revealed
through the official discourse of the Union of Thracian Societies in Bulgaria (UTSB) and through the
discourses of the official speakers of the Federation of Bulgarian Immigrants in Edirne.
4. Ideology and performativity in the official discourses on inheritance on both sides
of the Bulgarian-Turkish border
Hereafter I consider the official discourses which are representative for the group of
“Thracian refugees from Edirne Thrace” or for the group of “Bulgarian out-migrants to Turkey” and
which by virtue of their emergence become the legitimizing resource for the respective group,
acknowledging its “existence” and making it publicly valid and legitimate. An analysis along such
lines is important for several reasons.
On the one hand, insofar as their performativity is entailed in making the group visible, i.e.
“acknowledged and recognized” (by its counter-agents and by authorities), these official discourses
may be defined as those “grand narratives” (in the sense attributed by Lyotard), the function of
which is to retain community’s homogeneity, i.e. its identity as the group of “Bulgarian Thracians”or
as the group of “Bulgarian out-migrants to Turkey”.