Page 268 - Hrobat Virloget, Katja. 2021. V tišini spomina: "eksodus" in Istra. Koper, Trst: Založba Univerze na Primorskem in Založništvo tržaškega tiska
P. 268
mary
Žmegač 2010). The symbolic boundaries remained strong for decades, up
until the present day as the immigrants who arrived in Istria more than
seven decades ago still find it hard to identify as Istrian.
Otherwise, the Slovenian immigrants in Istria who still felt to be ‘on
their own land’ and under the influence of the nationalist discourse re-
garded the Istrian Italians as foreigners. The Istrian Italians and immi-
grated Slovenians live by ignoring each other, each with their own con-
flicting collective memory, especially the latter under the influence of the
Slovenian national discourse about victimisation without any knowledge
of the complex past in Istria. It is also interesting that most immigrants
failed to learn the language of their environment, i.e. Italian, as in that
period Slovenian had already prevailed. Contrary to immigrants from in-
land Slovenia, the Slovenian Istrians blame external protagonists for the
conflicts in Istria.
The most pushed out segment of Istrian society, the ‘ultimate others,’
are the last immigrants from the former Yugoslav republics who came as
workers in the 1960s and 1970s. This group of immigrants lacks the most
internal cohesion compared to those who established themselves as a so-
ciety before them. The first immigrants and native Italian Istrians estab-
lished with the newcomers an orientalising discourse aimed at setting up
a symbolic boundary. Although there is a strong discourse on multicultur-
alism and co-existence in Istria, the ‘Balkan others’ are eliminated from it.
This clash is evident in the self-perception of the urban high culture that
had been invaded by the ‘Balkan’ or ‘rural’ culture. Owing to Istrians’ sense
of superiority, the newcomers felt pushed out from society, like aliens or
at least in a cognitive dissonance with the official Yugoslav discourse about
the ‘brotherhood and unity.’ On the other hand, immigrants from the for-
mer Yugoslav republics display a feeling of being accepted in the new social
environment, but mostly in the sense of ‘all equal, all workers,’ which does
not highlight ethnic differentiation but (in)equality in the power balance
within the workers’ community.
The symbolic boundaries in Istrian society are multi-phasal, but most
are constructed based on the length or ‘primacy’ of residency and related
to the fantasy-laden social ranking (Elias and Scotson 1994). Although in
the period of establishing a community in the post-exodus period, the eth-
nic element from the pre-exodus phase was refuted and priority was given
to the newly-established element of the ‘primacy’ of residency, it is im-
possible to claim that ethnicity was completely ruled out – it remained an
important ‘definer’ of groups in the framework of the orientalising dis-
266
Žmegač 2010). The symbolic boundaries remained strong for decades, up
until the present day as the immigrants who arrived in Istria more than
seven decades ago still find it hard to identify as Istrian.
Otherwise, the Slovenian immigrants in Istria who still felt to be ‘on
their own land’ and under the influence of the nationalist discourse re-
garded the Istrian Italians as foreigners. The Istrian Italians and immi-
grated Slovenians live by ignoring each other, each with their own con-
flicting collective memory, especially the latter under the influence of the
Slovenian national discourse about victimisation without any knowledge
of the complex past in Istria. It is also interesting that most immigrants
failed to learn the language of their environment, i.e. Italian, as in that
period Slovenian had already prevailed. Contrary to immigrants from in-
land Slovenia, the Slovenian Istrians blame external protagonists for the
conflicts in Istria.
The most pushed out segment of Istrian society, the ‘ultimate others,’
are the last immigrants from the former Yugoslav republics who came as
workers in the 1960s and 1970s. This group of immigrants lacks the most
internal cohesion compared to those who established themselves as a so-
ciety before them. The first immigrants and native Italian Istrians estab-
lished with the newcomers an orientalising discourse aimed at setting up
a symbolic boundary. Although there is a strong discourse on multicultur-
alism and co-existence in Istria, the ‘Balkan others’ are eliminated from it.
This clash is evident in the self-perception of the urban high culture that
had been invaded by the ‘Balkan’ or ‘rural’ culture. Owing to Istrians’ sense
of superiority, the newcomers felt pushed out from society, like aliens or
at least in a cognitive dissonance with the official Yugoslav discourse about
the ‘brotherhood and unity.’ On the other hand, immigrants from the for-
mer Yugoslav republics display a feeling of being accepted in the new social
environment, but mostly in the sense of ‘all equal, all workers,’ which does
not highlight ethnic differentiation but (in)equality in the power balance
within the workers’ community.
The symbolic boundaries in Istrian society are multi-phasal, but most
are constructed based on the length or ‘primacy’ of residency and related
to the fantasy-laden social ranking (Elias and Scotson 1994). Although in
the period of establishing a community in the post-exodus period, the eth-
nic element from the pre-exodus phase was refuted and priority was given
to the newly-established element of the ‘primacy’ of residency, it is im-
possible to claim that ethnicity was completely ruled out – it remained an
important ‘definer’ of groups in the framework of the orientalising dis-
266
