Page 131 - MIGRATION

Basic HTML Version

129
MIGRATION, MEMORY, HERITAGE: SOCIO-CULTURAL
APPROACHES TO THE BULGARIAN-TURKISH BORDER
declare that they are“convinced people should live in peace and foster good neighbourly relations”
and that the “Thracian societies in Bulgaria think that in the 21
st
century this can be achieved
through economic and social integration in the EU”, as well as that “the current activities of UTSB
have their European dimensions in the initiative “Thrace without borders” as a core territory for
the free movement of people, capitals and ideas” (cf. the Preamble of UTSB on the organization’s
website), this discourse is in fact increasingly being filled with political and ideological clichés,
directed at “retribution” against the present political opponent and adversary.
What is important to note here is that all this is possible because in the field of inheriting
“Thracian inheritance” there is a deficit of legitimizing resources. And as a result from the loss of
symbolic efficacy and the emergent crisis in the field of inheriting, there gradually appears the
production of a replicating network of ideological mediations which acquire a range of expressions
(in our case in point they are politicized and acquire the form of performative political accusations,
warnings, justifications, etc.). This is the way in which they “glue it together”, attracting layers of
“surplus symbolic value” in the form of political and ideological affects and effects. That which
emerges is a replicating discursive network, which aims at connecting the
ideological layers
(the condition underpinning the possibility of symbolic efficacy of the official discourse on the
inheritance of “Thracians”) to the
political layers
with a view to achieve political (and/or economic,
legal, etc.) dividends.
Such ideological “re-writings” are the condition for the possibility to overcome the crisis in
the field of inheriting Thracian heritage and to shape a new
illusio
for the agents, who are involved
and acting in it. If – and when – this happens, that will mean that the Union of Thracian Societies in
Bulgaria has successfully
“inherited itself”, i.e. itwill haveovercome its owncore“contradictions
of inheritance”and it will have become an“heir to itself”.
In practice, this will suggest that it has
successfully directed the will, entailed in its discourse, not towards the “past” (as is the case with
every mythological pre-modern discourse, according to Lyotard) but towards the already claimed
“future”, which has“European dimensions in the initiative“Thracewithout borders”as a core territory
for the free movement of people, capitals and ideas”. In other words, the field of inheriting Thracian
heritage - understood as identity and social position, i.e. all that which is described as a “tendency
to perpetuate in one’s very being” of its inheritors - will have gained a new“temporality”.
Translated from Bulgarian by Milena Katsarska
References
Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann. 1966.
The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge
. NewYork: Doubleday.
Bokova, I. 2003.
“Podvizhniyat chovek”–v mrezhata ot toposi [Mobile man – in the network
of topoi], in
Аntropologichni izsledvaniya [Anthropological Research],
edited by Pl. Bochkov vol. 4.
Sofia: New Bulgarian University/Yar Publishing House, 78–98.
Bochkov, P. 2002.
„Rodinata” v diskursa na sravnenieto [“Birth country” in the discourse of
comparison], in
Аntropologichni izsledvaniya [Anthropological Research]
, edited by M. Elchinova, vol.
3. Sofia: New Bulgarian University, 57–76.