Page 130 - MIGRATION

Basic HTML Version

closer together but politicians spoil the relationships between people
(Ibid. emphasis
mine S.P.).
That which is important to note here is that both discourses – as two specific ideological
forms – have a “legitimizing function”. Their legitimacy, however, is concentrated in those initial
“foundational acts” which are connected with the time of out-migration in whichever of the two
directions and as such cannot be the
of the mobile man of late modernity. As a result,
which directs the will entailed in each of these discourses, the
directing the
actions of the agents, who are obsessed by it, turns out to be an
Essentially, this is a crisis in the field of inheriting, and such crises are unphasing, i.e. losses of
temporality in that field:
the functioning of the field of inheriting can be traced through its dysfunctions,
i.e. through crises
. In order to restore the symbolic efficacy of the discourse on each side of the
border, i.e. in order to overcome the crises in the field of inheriting “Thracian heritage” or that of
the inheritors of Bulgarian out-migrants, a new“regaining of temporality” is necessary. That calls for
looking for new forms of legitimizing efficacy –
in both cases discussed here this is happening
by means of
the political field
. Let me explain this in more detail.
The fundamental law in the field of inheriting “Thracian-ness” or “out-migration-ness”, i.e. its
in its capacity of a significant marker for retaining groups’ identities, of their social position,
of all that which is ontologically related to the “tendency to perpetuate in one’s very being”
“a Thracian” or
“a Bulgarian out-migrant to Turkey”,
is a social condition underpinning
the possibility of auto-
of the field of inheriting and, consequently, shapes as the stakes in
the symbolic struggle which is being waged in it. It, however, is gradually suppressed by that of
the political field. The “supra-partisan” becomes more and more related to the “partisan” and we
observe an increasing politicizing in these discourses.
In the discourse of UTSB, for example, there
currently unfolds a “re-writing” of this ideologically powerful and foundational discursive segment
– it becomes more and more obvious that “the continuing dialogue between veteran Thracians
and the younger generation with regard to the expediency of such a [political] participation” (from
an interview with Kr. Premyanov at his inauguration as President of UTSB)
leads to the prevailing
view to gradually let go of the core ideological statement of the official discourse ofThracians
articulated as “supra-partisan” organization in the Statute of the association at its very
foundation; while in the discourse on the other side of the border, a gradual erasure of the
differences between the discourse of the organization and the official discourse of Turkish
is going on, the former turning more and more into an“echo”of the latter.
To illustrate the above, I provide here examples from the official discourse of “Thracian
refugees”and consider the contradictions it provokes in the field of inheritance. Even if its speakers
39 In this case I again insist on thinking
, which in practice reveals essences, i.e. that which is revealed is
the “essential” for the group of “Thracian refugees” or for the group of “Bulgarian-Turkish out-migrants”.
40 This dimension is also discussed by Valentina Ganeva-Raycheva in her study of the politics and practices in
constructing memory and heritage with the successors of Thracian Bulgarians (cf. Ganeva-Raycheva 2012).
41 A similar viewwas expressed in one of the last interviews conducted by us in Istanbul with the representatives
of the so-called successors of Bulgarian-Turkish out-migrants. The interview was conducted on 07.05.2012 and, since
it is yet to be transcribed in full and archived, I cannot provide quotations here.