CEU eTD Collection Second Reader: Second Supervisor: Nationalism Revived: The “Revival” Process in “Revival”Process Bulgaria. Nationalism Revived:The Memories of Repression, Everyday Resistanceand Professor Istvan Rev Professor Roumen Daskalov Neighborhood Relations History Department in partial Central Central University European fulfillment of the degree of Lyubomir Pozharliev Lyubomir Budapest, Hungary Budapest, Master of Arts 1984-1989 Submitted to Submitted 2012 CEU eTD Collection fiancée Aglaya Kalafatova for the constant support andlove. for theconstant Kalafatova fiancée Aglaya I am also grateful myto mother Petya Kabakchieva, tomy father Raycho Pozharliev andmy for –SvetlaBaeva. proofreading Makedonska Alena organize my transcribers Tilkidzieva and field research, the and Svetlana This be wouldthesis my not possible interviewees without andthepeople whohelpedme Wollen. Dakic,James Uros Rajkovic, Nikolina Kraljic, Katarina Ljupka Ivanova, Particularly years. colleagues andfriends for their and support thought-provoking discussions during these last two my fellow to express mygratitude to like also Iwould but leastProf. NadiaAl-Bagadi. not last and Esmer Tolga Prof. Siefert Marsha Prof. Zimmerman, Susan Prof. Ziemann, Daniel forindustrious their work, inboth classroomthe and behindthescenes. Furthermore, in general I am grateful to the History DepartmentfacultyRoumen Daskalov and Istvan Rev respectively,for feedback their and constructive criticism. and administrative staff the production of this thesis, there are a number of people who should be distinguished. in wayto some has contributed name who everyone I cannot Whilst assistance. and their advice During thecourse of researching this thesisam topic I a number grateful to individuals of for A handful of individuals deserve a special mention. Professor Mathias Riedl, Prof. First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor and second reader, Professor Acknowledgements Budapest, June 2012 Lyubo CEU eTD Collection individual and personal identity, developed by Jan Assmann and argues had Turks that kept of concept the uses thesis This nicknames. as masks, as public signs, asexternal names new their accepted Turks The situation. new the with coping and name new a choosing for “Revivalthe the Turksclearly theprocess of process”, remember renaming and theirstrategies from while themselves estrange Bulgarians andTurks.However, Bulgarians tolerance between religious the about thesis the confirmed study The level. everyday an on tensions ethnic language spoken and their Memories names. of interviewedthe people donotshow signs of the to related Turkish, is ethnicity the Bulgaria, i.e. born”, were parents my and born was and thesense of belonging ahomeland to aresplit. The homeland as is“the understood place I “essential symbolicneither the link”with Turkish their territory,Bulgarianness. Theirethnicity the and identity ethnic Turkish between relation state communist Bulgarian by the constructed “inventing” their Bulgarian origin and changingtheir The names. interviews donotconfirm the for Bulgaria,ita threat by had identity imposing tobere-constructed by aBulgarian on Turks; minority, whose external ‘kin state’, homeland, is Turkey. As this construction was perceived as “Fifth as a Turksasa the During BCPconstructed column” of Turkey, Zhivkov’sregime the in nationness waysthe life.” which ethnicity areembodied andand ineveryday expressed and politics nationalist andintractable intense between is “a disjuncture there al) that (et thesis Brubaker’s municipalities. Theresearch andinhabiting Rogers confirms Turks Bulgarians, two methodology documents,c. The interviewsis both andin-depth of analysis used the Party with living in names. Bulgarian The inmid-eighties with Bulgaria, process wasconducted 20 the of The subject of my MA thesis is the so-called “Revival process”: the renaming of renaming the “Revival Turks process”: my The subjectof so-called isthe MA thesis ABSTRACT CEU eTD Collection on remote from their everyday life agencies such as the Soviet Russia and Brezhnev. andTurks the placed Bulgarians “Revival theof “political responsibility the at top”, process” both relations, neighborhood their keep to However, reflected. self not was then until which consolidatedand identity.code Turkish ethnic acollective ethnic This identity, alternative official powerdiscourse and was likekept what perceived felt and a identity; individualreal an namingthe etc. levels of religiouschildren, Turkish rituals,books, Both reading the opposed speaking Turkish publicly. level The other was ahidden one, which at homesoperated atnight: two levels. by Onewas in demonstrated public, irony, a deliberately,Brechtian way, or by which acted discourse,on totheofficial power code an hadpeopleTurkish alternative created the that hypothesis the confirm interviews The resistance. of form everyday an as be regarded could they such, andas use, public for masks been a ‘persona’; had newnames the lives, while private intheir consistency diachronic individual their of designator’ ‘a rigid as names old their CEU eTD Collection Power DiscourseBCPof the towards the“Bulgarian” Turks...... 23 Second chapter: Approaches to explaining Bulgarian – Turks ethnic confrontation. Politics and FirstChapter: Theoretical Frameworkand Methodology...... 5 Introduction...... 1 Table of Contents “Revival process”...... 29 2. 3. The politics of the BCP towards Turks and Bulgarian citizens: Ideological legitimation of the 2. Fighting against “The Orient within” –Mary Neuberger’s approach ...... 26 2. 1. Religious nationalism orreligious tolerance and ‘komshuluk’ ...... 24 Methodology6. 1...... 20 5.Main1. research hypotheses ...... 18 1. 4. Name and identity...... 15 1. 3. Theoretical perspectivesoriented towards “the view from below” ...... 12 Macro1. 2. historical approaches tounderstanding the “Revival process” ...... 7 1. Disciplinary field and approach ...... 5 2. 3. 3. The debates in the BCP leadership about renaming of Turks –1984 ...... 38 2. 3. 2. The assimilation nationalistic discourse...... 31 2. 3. 1. The “tolerant” period ...... 29 1. 4.2. Jan Assmann’s distinction between personal and individual identity ...... 17 1. 4.1. Pierre Bourdieu’s notion ofname and identity ...... 15 2.1. 3. Brubaker’s concept ofeverydayethnicity ...... 14 1. 3. 1. Everyday forms of resistance ...... 12 techniques and totalization procedures. Symbolicviolence orsymbolic genocide? ...... 10 1. 2.3. The “Revival process” through the ofprism mechanisms of power: individualization 1. 2. 2. Rogers Brubaker’s “nationalism reframed” approach ...... 9 1.2.1. The classical ‘nation-state’approaches ...... 7 CEU eTD Collection Bibliography...... 86 Appendix...... ………………………………………………………...…………...... …….83 Conclusions ...... 73 Resistancein“Revival the Process” ...... 44 Third Memories Chapter: of Renaming, Interplay of Identities and Everyday Forms of 3. 8.3. Conclusion ...... 72 3. 7. The mutual assessment: Bulgarians about Turks, Turks about Bulgarians...... 69 6.Who3. wasresponsible the for “Revival –theview process” from “below”.problem The ofguilt 66 3. 5. The Bulgarians’ response towards the violence during the “Revival Process” ...... 61 4.Forms 3. ofresistance ...... 57 3.3. “We are Turks, ourhomeland isBulgaria” ...... 54 3. 2. “My name” and the public name: the interplay between individual and personal identities ...... 46 Research1. description3...... 44 contingentas a event ...... 41 2. 4. When did the “Revival process” begin? The renaming as a structurally conditioned process and 3. 7. 2. The neighborly and personal relations between Bulgarians and Turks ...... 69 3. 7. 1. The general evaluation of the otherethnic group ...... 69 3. 5. 4. Justification of the process ...... 65 3. 5. 3. “I was not there while the ‘Revival process’ was carried out” ...... 64 3. 5. 2. Fatalism or the impotence of common people opposeto what was happening ...... 64 3. 5.1. Blaming the political institutions atthe time forthe violence ...... 62 3. 4. 3. Everyday forms of resistance ...... 59 Escapes2.4. 3...... 58 3. 4.1. Political resistance ...... 58 CEU eTD Collection (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,2004). 3 Consequences] and Reactions Policies, Regime: Communist ɟɤɢɩɨɫɥɟɞɢɰɢ ɪɟɚɤɰɢɢɢ Kalionski). assimilation of the Turks – Bulgarian citizens. See citizens. –Bulgarian Turks of the assimilation assimilationpolitics starts earlier and is more persistent towards Pomaks, but culminates in the attempts for establishment of “unitedan socialist nation”, based onits Bulgarian, understood as primordial, ethnic origin. The early communist period, from 1950ies on, there is a clear trend towards assimilation of minorities and the whole communist period. Theirthesis is that, inspite some inconsistencies inthat politics, especially the in Bulgarianthe for communist party’s (BCP) politics towards Turks and Bulgarian speaking Muslims –Pomaks, in 2 the midthe 30ies and beginning of 80ies of 20 c./( ɫɪɟɞɚɬɚɧɚ “ word Bulgarian the literally events, translating those for process “re-birth” term use the identity. and roots Bulgarian “true” their to have returned because should Turks from 1985), early expression (a communist propaganda convinced, that they wereactuallyBulgarians.. process The of “Revival” wascalled renaming isFebruary For ethnic firstthe living1985, be inBulgaria,haddifferent. Turks, time to “Revival in whichstarted process”, andDecember 1984 was officially proclaimed asfinished in “moving” of towards directed territory them to the Turkey. been mostly had toethnic Turks hadrelated Those nationstate long history. Bulgarian the Attempts homogenization of Turkish labeledof ethnic theprocess”. “Revival cultural origin, Introduction ȻɚɟɜɚɢȿɜɝɟɧɢɹɄɚɥɢɧɨɜɚɫɴɫɬ mid-19which c., is a of kind historical irony. Nomatter whether this processwould belabeled in movement the liberation national Bulgarian the of process” “Revival so-called to the process 1 Mary Neuburger. The Bulgarian authors Michail Gruev and Alexei Kalionski use the euphemism “Revival process” as a metaphor a as process” “Revival euphemism the use Kalionski Alexei and Gruev Michail authors Bulgarian The The history of those attempts is presented in the book edited by Iskra Baeva and Evgeniya Kalinova: Vazrajdane The topic of my interest is the process of forceful renaming of the Bulgarian citizens of ³ȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɬɩɪɨɰɟɫ 30 ”, while Bulgarians translate it as “revival” because BCP made a reference of madethis of areference BCP itbecause as“revival” translate Bulgarians ”, while ɬɟɢɧɚɱɚɥɨɬɨɧɚ The OrientWithin: Muslim Minorities andNegotiation the ofNationhood Bulgaria inModern . ( ɋɨɮɢɹ : ./ ɂɂȻɆ 80 Äȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɬɩɪɨɰɟɫ ɝ . ”. ɧɚ , CIELA, 2008). [The “Revival Process”. Muslim Communities and the Ɇɸɫɸɥɦɚɧɫɤɢɬɟɨɛɳɧɨɫɬɢɢɤɨɦɭɧɢɫɬɢɱɟɫɤɢɹɬɪɟɠɢɦɩɨɥɢɬɢɤɢ 20 ɜɟɤ ɋɨɮɢɹ 2 The American researcher Mary Neuburger Mary researcher TheAmerican /(“The Revival Process”.Bulgarian State and Bulgarian Turks /in Turks Bulgarian and State Process”.Bulgarian Revival /(“The ɆɢɯɚɢɥȽɪɭɟɜ : ɂɡɞ 1 . Ⱦɴɪɠɚɜɧɚɚɝɟɧɰɢɹ ”. Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɚɬɚɞɴɪɠɚɜɚɢɛɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɬɟɬɭɪɰɢ , ȺɥɟɤɫɟɣɄɚɥɶɨɧɫɤɢ 1 But the story of the so called „ Ⱥɪɯɢɜɢ ”, 2009). ”, (Michail Gruev, Alexei Gruev, (Michail 3 prefers to ɂɫɤɪɚ / ɜ CEU eTD Collection Bulgarian Turks /in the mid 30s and beginning of 80s of 20 c./] 80 Äȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɬɩɪɨɰɟɫ Turkish NationalTurkish Minority Bulgaria.in (1984-1989)].; ɦɚɥɰɢɧɫɬɜɨɜȻɴɥɝɚɪɢɹ police, etc. –provokingprocessbeen police, that and“regulating” have etc. published. expansion, aiming atdetaching regions autonomous from “motherland”.the enemy, which allegedly wasturning Turkish population into Bulgaria’s a vanguard of its prohibited andMuslim forbidden. religion befests and out an to Turkey waspointed external change their names with Bulgarian ones; after just 24 hours, speaking the Turkish language was fulfilled. With the help of an army the ethnic Turks, (Turkish) Bulgarian citizens were forced to be be destroyed,Turkey Bulgaria.hostile Allshould proclaimed to had steps these been shouldbe invented andhistorical new memories should beimplanted; “old”the cultureshould origin common new a language; Turkish the of prohibition the as well as names, personal andtheir“fatherland,” of name changingcollective sense changesolidarity. The of requires of definite a with association the culture, acommon of elements distinctive memories, historical shared and origins common of idea the name, collective their Smith: Anthony by as enumerated beattacked, should identity ethnic of their basiccharacteristics the meant that It state. communist Bulgarian policy the of assimilation the of nature essentialist the indicate clearly words both “revival”, or “re-birth” 4 ɟɟɢȺɧɝɟɥɨɜ ȼɟɫɟɥɢɧ ɝ . ɧɚ At the moment most of the archival documents – decisions of Politburo, reports reports of Secret of Politburo, –decisions most documents moment archival of the At the identity. national be Bulgarian the had “deleted” andacquiescedto Their identity to ethnic 20 ɜɟɤ /( ɋɨɮɢɹ , „ , : ɬɨɨ ɩɨɜɟɪɢɬɟɥɧɨ ɋɬɪɨɝɨ (1984-1989 ɂɡɞ ”. . Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɚɬɚɞɴɪɠɚɜɚɢɛɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɬɟɬɭɪɰɢ Ⱦɴɪɠɚɜɧɚɚɝɟɧɰɢɹ ), ( ɋɨɮɢɹ . : ɋɢɦɨɥɢɧɢ ɫɦɥɬɪɤɬɤɦɚɢɫɟɭ ɭɫɨɨ ɧɚɰɢɨɧɚɥɧɨ ɬɭɪɫɤɨɬɨ ɫɪɟɳɭ ɤɚɦɩɚɧɢɹ Ⱥɫɢɦɢɥɚɬɨɪɫɤɚɬɚ „ Ⱥɪɯɢɜɢ 2 : 2008)[Top Secret.Assimilatory againstCampaign ”, 2009)”, [“The RevivalProcess”.Bulgarian State and ɫɪȻɟɚ ȿɝɧɹ Ʉɚɥɢɧɨɜɚɫɴɫɬ ȿɜɝɟɧɢɹ ɢ Ȼɚɟɜɚ ɂɫɤɪɚ / ɜɫɪɟɞɚɬɚɧɚ 4 There are a lot of a Thereare 30 ɬɟɢɧɚɱɚɥɨɬɨɧɚ ./ CEU eTD Collection requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Anthropology. New York University. May University. York New 2005). of Anthropology. Department Philosophy. of Doctor of degree the for requirements Immigrants from Bulgaria in the Imagined Homeland”. (A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of forCentertheMinority Studies and Intercultural Relations, 1998); Parla ,Ayse.Terms of Belonging: Turkish 6 Bulgaria between Poles of Ethnic Policy ɟɞɩɥɫɬɧɟɧɱɫɚɚ ɩɨɥɢɬɢɤɚ ɟɬɧɢɱɟɫɤɚɬɚ ɧɚ ɩɨɥɸɫɢɬɟ ɦɟɠɞɭ Process”. Communities Muslim andthe Communist Regime ɨɭɢɬɱɫɢɬ ɪɟɠɢɦ ɤɨɦɭɧɢɫɬɢɱɟɫɤɢɹɬ depth depth interviews with andTurks Bulgarians from municipalitiestwo with mixed populations. renaming, during that process and after it. as well their perception of the specific interrelations on everyday level between them, before the Bulgarians of “Revivalthe livingprocess”, in together one municipality; their evaluation of it, usually interviews had been taken by only compare Iwant to Turks, memories the of andTurks to renaming process self the feeling ofidentity Asand of perception Turks? renamed the of impact was the What discourse? official tothe code analternative create resistances these appeared;did everyday by (J.Scott) typenames hadbeeninvented resistance what of Turks, had onlocal been level,carried peoplehow perceived what it, kinds for choosingof strategies ofhow in areanalyses the process of abundant. research ‘points’ the renaming The missing not Bulgaria. interviews from the repressed Turks started, too, as well as research on the Turks, who left Ƚɪɭɟɜ Negotiation of Nationhood in Modern Bulgaria Eastern Studies 'The Turkish minority undercommunist Bulgaria—politics of ethnicity and power', studies, giving the political macro frame and context of these processes. 5 Ali Eminov, Ali Zhelyazkova,ed.,Antonina, The main research ofmy The main concerns MA thesis research are: My is inapproach field and history history. the new social of oral Themethodused isin- , Ɇɢɯɚɢɥ 6 However, oral testimonies of Turkish people, victims of the “Revival Process” are Process” “Revival the of victims people, Turkish of oral testimonies However, Turkish andOther Muslim Minorities of Bulgaria , 1:2(1999): 149-162; Mary Neuburger, , Ʉɚɥɶɨɧɫɤɢ . ɋɨɮɢɹ From Adaptation toNostalgia: TheBulgarianTurks inTurkey , Ⱥɥɟɤɫɟɣ : ɂɂȻɆ ]. , , (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press, 2004). ɂɈɈ ɴɪɞɬɥɢɬ ɩɪɨɰɟɫ ȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɬ . ( ɋɨɮɢɹ , 2008 [Mikhail Gruev and Alexei Kalionski, 3 : ]; Ʌɢɤ ɋɬɨɹɧɨɜ The OrientWithin: Muslim Minorities and the , 1998)[Valeri Stoyanov, , (New Routledge,York: Mahon, 1997); Milena , ȼɚɥɟɪɢ . ɸɸɦɧɤɬɨɳɨɬɢ ɨɛɳɧɨɫɬɢ Ɇɸɫɸɥɦɚɧɫɤɢɬɟ , ɌɭɪɫɤɨɬɨɧɚɫɟɥɟɧɢɟɜȻɴɥɝɚɪɢɹ Journal of Balkan and Near 5 A process of gathering Turkish Population in (Sofia: International The “Revival CEU eTD Collection two Bulgarian municipalities. isthird chapter the analysis interviews of in-depth the with andinhabitingTurks Bulgarians, politics of the BCP towards the through Turks,which I will analyze the research topics. In the secondBulgarian chapter Ipresent the assimilation citizens, and the BCP power discourse. The The thesis consists of three chapters. In the first chapter I develop the theoretical prism x x x x x x x x And, whatfactorsaided overcoming ethnic if tensions, any. and problem the guilt; of The evaluation of the “Revival process”: reasons for it, who is responsible, of Perception homeland; manifestations of neighbourhood solidarity; Everyday forms of resistance (James Scott) against the renaming process and The renaming process and its impact on personal the identity of Turks; renaming; by municipalities) cope with adopted Turks andstrategies, to the the The ways of conducting of the renamingBulgarian neighbors before “Revival process” andin present; the process on and local Turkish between level local on level relations religious and Inter-ethnic (at the two party Turks, livingtowards inBulgaria; communist Bulgarian ofthe discourse power the of characteristics The main 4 CEU eTD Collection history.’” aims to present it as micro-history, and “’historyhistory new social the to related is closely history Oral history. of oral from below’, ‘voices of the less powerful,’conduct in-depth interviews withinTurks both and Bulgarians, living in municipalities.two of those, any solidarity?answer neighbourhood acts of In orderto everyday these Iwill questions ‘hidden from identify we Can campaign? the against resistance everyday it? Was there any of aftermath the renaming upon identificationsthe of whatkind Turks, of coping strategies they did in develop of act violence the of impact the was What municipality? in one together living Bulgarians, and Turks inboth thisare thememories process Whatof areasfollows: questions research main My mid-eighties. the in origin ethnic Turkish with citizens Bulgarian the of renaming 1. Disciplinary field andapproach First Chapter: Theoretical Framework and Methodology history is“micro- hand, one useful the On levels. micro and micro both of necessity the forillustrate to try will the social history only both of itthem. My requires because research one macrohistory levelnoron the microhistory then, when it is attributed arguesthatnew on is JuergenKocka history specific ethnic neither situated social the group. to larger issuesfield is itapproach.focuses My tothehistory social closely also ona since research of related and to historiography and neglected by “the macro-historical of the ordinary often classical people,” 2012). http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/oral_history.html#historyfrombelow (accessed 20 May, 7 Graham Smith, “The Making of Oral History,” The research The and my theappliedresearch questions methodology MA in position field the thesis forceful of focuses ontheprocess myinterest topic of the in introduction, the As stated 7 It is viewed as an appeal for the “democratization” of history on behalf of the voices Making History.The ChangingFace of theProfession inBritain 5 , CEU eTD Collection 10 9 Between Macrohistoryand Microhistory, or History inplural ɱɨɜɟɤɚɢɨɛɳɟɫɬɜɨɬɨ ɤɨɫɨɢɬɢ ɦɢɤɪɨɢɫɬɨɪɢɹɬɚ ɢ ɚɤɪɨɢɫɬɨɪɢɹɬɚ nationalistic discourse and politics of the Bulgarian communist party (BCP). However, the However, (BCP). party communist Bulgarian the of politics and discourse nationalistic the include dissecting These processes chapter. inthesecond work at processes political the of framework macro-historical the outlining first, through this achieve will I levels. historical andmacro micro between interrelation and interplay identity.change the Ipresent itsto group ethnic minority subjected to the repressive politics of the Bulgarian communist state, which aim of people.” ordinary the interests is, in needs, desires hopes, that below, analyzedfrom also assumptions,and terms the of nationalism, which “are essentially constructed from above and cannot be understood, unless ideologies andNationalism“Nations since1780”,the “dual such of phenomena” as book in his notes Hobsbawm Eric As process.” “Revival the with case is the as a community, as prerequisites for innovation – they serve as a criticism.” act and dynamics introduce contradiction, of element an …generate they and frame the beyond go itit results that gives unexpected, the brings city… with often village, district, family, study one of Becausean accurate andstructures. theories narratives, macro-historical the "microindispensablehistory isit because asacritical instance, performs thetask of criticizing macro history.” within the is inserted itwhen, therefore, larger contexts, 8 Ibid., 44. ɪɟɄɨɤɚ ɘɪɝɟɧ  Eric Hobsbawn, Eric The study research objective focuses predominantly on a particular social group -an a particularon social group focuses predominantly The study objective research nationalism minorityThis is when targets in that studying especially true ethnic groups . “ . Nations and Nationalism since 1780 ɨɢɥɚɚ ɫɨɢɦɠɭ ɢɪɢɬɪɹɚ ɝɨɚɧɬɢɫɬɨɪɢɹ ɝɥɨɛɚɥɧɚɬɚ ɢ ɦɢɤɪɨɢɫɬɨɪɢɹɬɚ ɦɟɠɞɭ ɢɫɬɨɪɢɹ ɋɨɰɢɚɥɧɚɬɚ , 2010), 43.[Jurgen Kocka, Social History between Microhistory Globaland History,” in , 10 ɥɢɬɪɹɚ ɦɨɟɬɟɨ ɱɢɫɥɨ ɦɧɨɠɟɫɬɜɟɧɨ ɜ ɢɫɬɨɪɢɹɬɚ ɢɥɢ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990), 10. 6 ]. 9 . ( ɋɨɮɢɹ 8 On the other hand other the On : Ⱦɨɦɧɚɧɚɭɤɢɬɟɡɚ ” In: ” Ɇɟɠɞɭ CEU eTD Collection was reinvented as the nation state as"an asthe beingimagined- thenation nation was reinvented political created state territory should be united as a single this inhabiting people the territory, aspecific over power the political strengthen legitimize culturaland or ethnic entity. For this reasonhomogenize the modernto strives statethat center authoritative unitary a as emerges nation-state modern The territory. given a given territory a over power andcultural asaform political appears of nation-state the 1780, after in particular inor“imagined” as described by Benedict Anderson. Ericeconomic, Hobsbawm argues that in modern times, Smithmention to just few. All these authors defend the thesispolitical that the nation state is constructed historians,prominent such Ernest Hobsbawm,as Gellner,Anderson, Eric Anthony Benedict and administrative many focus of been has research the identities national of formation as the aswell nationalism terms. In studies. nationalisms order to and nation-state to refer will conceptualization theoretical first the homogenization, 1. 2. Theclassical approaches‘nation-state’ 1. 2.Macro historical the“Revival tounderstanding approaches process” my relevant totopic. andconcepts approaches renaming the about process. my focusmemories of paper willdeal of with neighbours the their Turksand the Bulgarian In the last 40 years, the problems associated with the genesis the peakof national for BCP politics represents As the “Revival process” of the nation state and theoretical the present now shall I distinction, level micro and macro the Following 7 CEU eTD Collection of solidarity for significant sectors of of population;” the sectors for significant solidarity of a sense “homeland,” aspecific with association an culture, ofcommon elements differentiating more or one memories, historical shared ancestry, name,amyth common of proper by as “acollective Smith described identity, ethnic of creation the a dominant on predicated sovereign." and limited inherently both as imagined is] [that community 13 12 extended editon) (London: Verso, 2006), 6. 14 common economy with territorial mobility for members.” for mobility territorial with economy common historical legal a and members, for all common mass duties and rights memories, acommon culture, public myths common homeland, or territory historical “a are: identity” national of features fundamental “the Smith, Anthony to According canon. cultural and historical specific andgroups imposing a acommondominant ethnic identity, language,official driven by a achieved byforceful cultural homogenization, aimed atabolishing differences among ethnic their falsity/genuineness,but by stylethe inwhich arethey imagined.” by not be distinguished areto “communities case, In member. this as a community him/herself regard must individual every individual; in every alive be kept must community” “imagined 11 ethnic their to contradicts it because alien, as imposed be will identity national constructed thus the is, Bulgaria in minority Turkish the as minority, a distinct for However Smith. Anthony by out pointed features, “follows”the all identity ethnic Bulgarian based on identity dominant the national a of establishment the for politics party’s communist Bulgarian The theories. those identities. Anthony Smith, Ibid., 6. Ibid., 21. Benedict Anderson, The forpressurehomogenization cultural by can Bulgarian the state be examined by National Identity Imagined Communities: Reflections ontheOriginandSpreadNationalism of (Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada Press, 1991), 14. 8 14 and should suppress any ethnicother andshouldsuppress any 13 The national identity is often 12 This “imagining” is “imagining” This 11 The notion of an (Revised and CEU eTD Collection Turkey, the core of the former Ottoman empire, which Bulgaria belonged to before gaining belonged to Bulgaria of which empire, formerthe Ottoman Turkey, core the Turkish minority, which the relations of the Bulgariandissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia,the inafter my opinion, itstateestablished is also a valid countries, the explanationin for nationalisms – contemporary both the explain to constructed the bourgeois one and the communist one - to its construed as construed belonging by ethno-cultural affinity.” be can or belong, they which to “homeland” national external the and live, they in which states nationalizing newly the minorities, national linking “atriad, from descend nationalisms new Thus, homeland.” national “external their as Brubaker by named state, another from strength and legitimization derive They state. independent newly the of nationalisms the to response terms.” cultural nation’ namewhichin “involve nationality,a ‘core claimsmadeinthe of ethno- or defined newly independentnationalisms states,” of as“nationalizingYugoslavia. Hedefines them a variety19 the from opinion, in his is different, which nationalism, of nationalisms, which appeared after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and 1. 2. 2. Rogers Brubaker’s “nationalism reframed” approach by perceived“kin asintermediated the minority,of state” Brubakerargues. the asRogers be will state nation the and minority the between relations the more, Something identification. 16 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2004), 5. 15 Ibid., 4. Rogers Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood National andthe Question in theNew Europe In his book 15 At the same time, minority nationalisms (or ethnic nationalism) appear as a as appear nationalism) ethnic (or nationalisms minority time, same the At Nationalism reframed was considered always 9 , Rogers Brubaker analyzes contemporary to be linked to its external “homeland” – “homeland” external its to linked be to 16 Although Although isparticularly triad this th century form. His book focuses on CEU eTD Collection 17 event.” nationhood, nation-ness and“nation” as“a practical category,institutional form and contingent buton group, nationfocus asan the authentic noton ishis aspect of approach Brubaker’s as assimilation mainlyfocusedcampaigns, on Bulgarian-speakingAnother Muslims.important has of expulsions livingBulgarian in forced as Bulgaria state Turks periodically organized well the reason, this For Turkey. and minority Turkish the both from fear thus, and officials state independence. The possibility frequentsuspicion such alinkageprovoked amongof Bulgarian individualization techniques with totalization procedures, its goal being the creation of its of the goalbeing creation the individualization totalization with procedures, techniques combines is modern state the Foucault that The of thesis modern and the subject. power that of Michel Foucault, whose main theoretical focus is on the relation between the modern citizens, the next question is - why renaming is so important, what type of violence is that? genocide? individualization techniques and totalization procedures. Symbolic violence or symbolic 1. 2.3. The“Revival process” through prism the of mechanisms of power: as a contingent event, to which the role of political elites was crucial. appeared and conditioned samethe structurally time at was process” “Revival the that illustrate will I analysis, next my In predicted. fully be not could behaviour and policies nationalistic of consequences the elites, role so political of concrete the on also but prerequisites, structural Ibid., 7. 17 For the explanation of that exactly procedure, I think that the most relevant approach is approach relevant most the that I think procedure, exactly that of explanation the For Bulgarian Turks, the process of is renaming onthe my focus of research Since the Thisis a of dynamic understanding a “nation”, construction of the on dependentboth 10 CEU eTD Collection 20 19 htpp://www.oocities.org/saidyyoungman/fouc01.htm (accessed May 15, 2012). Structuralism and Hermeneutics 18 oriented oriented complete cultural towards homogenization itsof population. The nextquestions aim to previousthe identifications. all obliterate and abolish to aims which genocide,’ ‘symbolic resembles rather it violence, soft moreone, violent. The labelled bepressure on violence,it Turks canassymbolicthe is but not which hadbecome ‘symbolic violence,’ non-recognizable partof with theiranother existence, and replace ‘accepted’ by one trying to lasting long identifications precisely people’s attacked party Communist –the just opposite the exemplifies case TheBulgarian contested. is not or language, in such a way that it remains unnoticed. The soft violence is so ‘self evident’ that it Bourdieu For violence, violence symbolic isatypesoft of thedominant hidden within discourse undercommunism issuitable thatoccurred term inBulgaria.decidedthe events not the for that after reading But truth” on isthem,be expected which acknowledgedto by andby themselves others. the of the communist state – it wished to categorize the Turks as Bulgarians, to impose the “law of which should be by Thisrecognised is individualandthe by others. the approach precisely the knowledge.” self- or hisby identity a conscience to tied own and and dependence, elsebycontrol someone in modusmodern his subject ambivalent and – assubjugated asindividuality, “subjectto as Pierre Pierre Bourdieu, Pierre Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, “Why study Power: The Question of the Subject of the Question The Power: study “Why Foucault, Michel All the theoretical approaches discussed above explain the politics of the nation state, Bourdieu’s“symbolic violence”. label term Pierre I wasinclined - using to this process 18 The individual identity is created by categorization, imposition a law of imposition truth, of categorization, by is identity created The individual Masculine Domination Practical Reasons: On the Theoryof Action Practical Reasons: A theory of Action theory of A Practical Reasons: , by Dreyfus and Hubert Paul Rabinow (Brighton: HarvesterPress, 1982), (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1998). 11 (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1994). 19 ” , afterword in and Masculine Domination, Michel Foucault :Beyond 20 I CEU eTD Collection Press, 1984). 21 of similar deviations and resistance,if only one bothers to look for them. it find arguesis and innumerableits examples thatpossiblediscourse Certeau to daily (mis)use, day-to-day resistance ofsuppressedgroups.In history the relationshipthe of between power the deviations. It is precisely there, in the twisting and turning of common practices that such with coexist identify. people Nevertheless, hard capitalizednot we to onand they are see the deviations official language tothe by dailylifeasa fade and produced counterpoint away thus, Michel these to languagefrom Accordingde Certeau, anonymous elites. the deviation of the atype of invention masses, the isitof the imposed contrary, Onthe from not above. invented, daily is that life states In Certeau fact, etc. laws, commodities, science, language –religion, belief system isand an of elite-driven population such the presumption apassiveconsumer that ideologies is sufficient.and meanings not Such a subject-object approach beginsthe from production of and by order power beliefs, bymeans elites political of concepts, knowledge, the emphasizing philosopher, French the to According life. everyday the of invention Foucault’s approach and conceptof opposes the thediscourse dominant with notionthe the of book Michel de Certeau’s andJamesScott. Certeau 1. 3. Everyday forms ofresistance 1. 3.Theoretical orientedperspectives towards “the viewfrom below” politics? state of the procedures totalization of the objects answer whether the dominant can discourse fully subjugate people andwhether they are passive Michel de Certeau, de Michel In conceptualizing those forms of resistance, I was inspired by two authors –Michel de inspired authors In formswas by of those two I conceptualizing resistance, The Practice ofEveryday Life , trans. , trans. StevenRendall (Berkeley, University of California 12 The Practice Life ofEveryday 21 question’s CEU eTD Collection 24 23 1985). finally itis income and overland,work, a struggle power.” experience isevaluated…and by whichcurrentcontrol symbols “struggle and concepts the to and justice of definitions own their construct they way, this In behaviour.” preferred correct, “normal, is the what define people” “ordinary villagers, fellow of commenting in the or stories moral simple in telling how illustrates book Scott’s cash. and grain, rights, property work, over struggle the with associated are resistance forms of serious More resistance. of physical acts on,” and so sabotage, arson, slander, ignorance, 22 rulingillustrating“cultural andGramsci’sthesis hegemony”, the conflicts between classes of in “basis andsuperstructure,” factboth total Marx’ criticizes aboutthe thesis domination of the consciousness,” “class “class,” as such concepts using Marxist, orthodox be an to glance first Struggle Ideological EverydayFormsof Hegemony andConsciousness: resistance are„.. resistance day-to-day practices with theirhidden forms ofresistance againstpower. Suchforms of their in actors social are peasants that asserts Scott contrary, the On revolutions. and rebellions peasant of interms of all above thought are they actor, asocial seen as are When peasants agrarian production. figuresabout as“appendage”to is andonlycommented subordinated, be passiveisbecause it to and neglected by often perceived peasants, researchers, focusesseveral within dominant socialsciences.of onthe the presuppositions group Scott anthropological studyWeak: EverydayForms ofPeasant Resistance, on the life of Malayan peasants from the village Sedaka. He criticizes Ibid., 27. Ibid., xvi. James Scott, James Scott takes on the feat of looking for such examples. In his book In lookingfor suchexamples. feat takes the of on James Scott Weapons Weak: of the Everyday Forms of PeasantResistance . foot dragging, dissimulation, desertion,false compliance, pilfering,feigned 13 23 which he calls “Brechtian” or “Schweikian” 22 he has summarized the results of his (New Haven: Yale University Press, University Yale Haven: (New 24 Thus, in his final chapter Scott, who seems at Weapons ofthe CEU eTD Collection Princeton University Press, 2006), 16. 25 aboutmultiple, fluid, identities for unstable specific andlook forms national of ethnic and themethodologicalbehind the of ethnicas understanding groups collective individualsas as well individualisminevident everyday practices self-understandings.and challenge Theauthors thesubstantiality of rational choice life.” everyday theories.in andnationnessin areembodiedpolitics expressed and andwhichethnicity the ways They try to escapenationalist intractable “intense and the arisesa stark between disjuncture is that thesis authors’ the clichés ethnicity innationalist the the and Cluj in interethnic life contemporary of milieu social and historical the presents part first The politics relations ethnicity as perceived from below. is Thebook composed of mutuallytwo from parts. complimenting and nationhood above, understanding towards oriented of approach an with above, from politics “ordinarynational while the Clujeni” Brubaker his andhis team “nationalismsupplement approach, reframed” which explains second part– the focuses view e fromon thebelow. everyday1. 3.2. Brubaker’s concept ofeveryday ethnicity The “work” resistance in powerdiscourse. a situation imposed of vigorously of theeveryday of limits were the and what its characteristics were what if yes, and invented, one. dominant the to alternative code, anormative create who peasants of resistances symbolic the and hegemony Rogers Brubakeret all., In In my research, I shall test whether an alternative discourse to the dominant one was Nationalist Politics andEveryday EthnicityinaTransylvanian Town, 25 Nationhood and nationalism are related to political claims, while ethnicity is ethnicity while claims, political to related are nationalism and Nationhood Nationalist Politics andEveryday EthnicityTransylvanian ina Town 14 (Princeton: Rogers CEU eTD Collection 29 28 (London: SAGE, 2005), 299-305. 27 26 by formed “’discontinuous, is, reality whose novel, modern a resembles life Grillet: Robbe argues, lifeis not“a andfinalizedcoherent whole.” 1. 4. 1. Pierre Bourdieu’s notion of name and identity 1. 4.Name andidentity. related individualto the identity. names are andnames.Butpredominately language markers spoken arethe ethnicity,such markersof for should look Theresearcher questions. byaskingdirect beto captured difficult ‘identification’) is not always conscious since it is term identity the ethnic(Brubaker prefers by Anthony Smith. The categories, the described a practical relation to the world and is often significanceother of for book this my is that ethnicityberesearch regardedentirelycannot in study. The inBrubaker’s mentioned all categorizations explicate the Icannot renaming since inbe my a goodhypothesis tested my study of of to research, the theprocess remains focus ethnic soften communities, ethnic the Whileconflicts. andpreventfor tensions this could make both by faced issues, life everyday common the Exactly ones. non-ethnic with imbricated are not ethnicityalone act that ethnic that concluding butdoes ethnic categorization, categorizations acts of different describe and distinguish correctly Theauthors “enacted.” as and “embodied” history as “a sum of the events of an individual existence, seen as ahistory,” as seen existence, individual of an events the of “a sum as history interpretativeaffiliatedidentifications,butnot “’Ethnicity’ whicharestable withis groups. as an used prism, a way of making sense of the social world,” Ibid., 299. Ibid., 299. Pierre Pierre Bourdieu, “Biographical Illusion,” in Ibid., 15. Pierreinshort text Bourdieu, his Identity: aReader Biographical Illusion, 15 29 Bourdieu cites the French novelist Allain , ed. Paul du Gay, Jessika Evans, Peter Redman 27 criticizes the notion of life of notion the criticizes 26 it is it perceived as 28 because, he because, CEU eTD Collection 34 33 32 31 30 Djemile Ahmed, a Bulgarian sociologist from Djemile Ahmed, from sociologist aBulgarian thisasidentity,Turkish origin,describes a split afterTurks renamingthe did how process, with they cope attack the on their personal identity? the person will lose the symbolicintowhat itactually is formed -“’discontinuous, by juxtaposed elements without reason’” and centre that holds acknowledged. If the nameis“robbed”the biography individual andchanged, the of turn could him. If this is true, what happened to the andas multitude of social experience, a roles. as apastinconsistent both where heappearsasanagent.” whichis instituted, guaranteestheidentity of biologicalthe individualin all fields possible assigning anidentity.” of are rites in way baptismal required the arguesthat and world’ ‘a fixedpoint aturning multiplicity of occupied positions. Bourdieu also cites Ziff “who describes the proper name as beyondname individual synchronic unity,a diachronic gives consistency and the the (Kripke’sdesignator’ ‘designatesexpression), the same object in world.’”every possible name,self. the of is institutions mostcourse evident The proper which,these as ‘a of rigid reason, without each juxtaposed elements unique.” of them being that isbeing predictable,” that tends to identify normality with identity, understood as the constancy to oneself of a responsible which world, “social the that is answer Bourdieu’s possible is self-consistency and integration Ibid., 301. Ibid., 301. Ibid., 301. Ibid., 301. Ibid., 300. The name ties a person to society because through it the person is perceived and is itperceived person the through because society to aperson The name ties Thus, Bourdieu’s view suggests thatthepersonalname viewThus, Bourdieu’s suggests holds theintegration a Self, of 33 Through this norm “naming,of “aand constant durable social identity 31 invented many “institutions integration of and unification of the 34 That is why the signature authenticates the personal identity. personal the authenticates signature the is why That 16 30 If isthequestionthis true, is how 32 The CEU eTD Collection 37 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011). 36 “Revival process””]. ³ȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɩɪɨɰɟɫ individual and personal. 35 perception and the imposed public roles masks.and self- intimate the of coexistence unproblematic the explaining in helpful very is identity” “I duality oforganic regarding notion the inBulgaria, eighties such asin public sphereoccurs the and thebetween private when a split But culturally. andsociogenically aredetermined which topersonalrelates publicallyuniqueness andsocialization to social performed both of roles, Political Imagination, 1. 4.2. JanAssmann’s distinction between personal andindividual identity classification given by Jan Assmann beto most productive and appropriate. suffer from state repression.” from state suffer youyourbecause a“Turk”ethnic nor will own then considered an to outsider community; identity leadswhich to loss:actually “you you because canneither be“Bulgarian,” will be Ibid., 113. Jan Assmann, Jan ɠɦɥȺɯɦɟɞ Ⱦɠɟɦɢɥɟ  In his book This firstdistinction at glance appears sophisticated,since the processes ofindividuation recognition.” death,existence, physical and basic needs. identity Personal relates to social accountability and Individual identity relates to network. contingencies of life,social incorporating the in such key elements place asbirth and special own his individual the give that talents and qualities, irreplaceable. Personal identity, ontheotherhand, isthe embodimentofof all roles, the with the b) remain constantconstant across the various phases of their development. It is the awareness, beginning of theindividual through features that distinguish a) them significantly fromeveryone else and motif of one’s own body, of an irreducible self that is unmistakable and “ Cultural Memoryand EarlyCivilization: Writing, Remembrance,and Political Imagination Individual identity coherentis the self image that buildsitself upin the consciousness ɋɨɰɢɨɥɨɝɢɱɟɫɤɢɩɪɨɛɥɟɦɢ . “ . 37 ɂɦɟ ”)”[Jemile Ahmed,”)”[Jemile “Name, Renaming andDouble Identity.Bulgarian During Turks the Cultural Memoryand EarlyCivilization: Writing, Remembrance, and 36 Jan Assmann distinguishes between two types of – “ Iidentities” types between of two distinguishes Assmann Jan , ɪɢɟɭɚɟ ɞɨɧɢɞɟɧɬɢɱɧɨɫɬ ɞɜɨɣɧɚ ɢ ɩɪɟɢɦɟɧɭɜɚɧɟ 35 But after analyzing some of the interviews, I found the , 1-2 (2003): 177. 17 . ( . ɴɝɪɤɬɬɪɢ ɨ ɪɦɧɚ ɜɪɟɦɟ ɩɨ ɬɭɪɰɢ Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɬɟ CEU eTD Collection Princeton University Press, 2006), 16. 39 38 for analyzing them,hadformulated I followingthe hypotheses: hypotheses research 5. Main 1. specificdropped it. topic, soI Ihaddecided this isvery that the“Revival ismemory process”. about acollective whether there collective and memory individual and torelate them my with looking research, for an answer memory, important an topic in oral history. Initially intendedI reflectto upon the debates about consciousness of its members and its motivating influence on their thought and actions.” recognition by its individuals.participating is It asstrong or as weak as its presence in the associate themselves. It, “we”-identity iscollective or a theimage that group has ofitself and with its members which therefore,“The irreducibility. of hasfactor the lacks it and no membership of existence reality is asymbolic It “fluent.” of its own, but comes into being through Rogers Brubaker et al., Ibid., 113-114. nationness are embodied and expressed in everyday life.” are expressed ineveryday and nationness embodied intractablebetween intense nationalist andin politics waysand whichethnicity the and inKeeping mindtheresearch used aswell questions theoretical the conceptualization issue the of to is identity related andcollective individual between The distinction ismore identity collective the irreducible, is which identity, individual the Unlike Turkish minority belinked to tothe “kin – Turkey.state” the considered party communist Bulgarian the that is politics assimilation strong the A) NationalistPolitics and Everyday Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town The study will confirm Brubaker’s thesis that there is “a disjuncture there is that thesis Brubaker’s confirm will The study 18 39 One of the reasons behind (Princeton: 38 CEU eTD Collection code in code oldnorms. to retain order ethnic normative official the opposed directly resistance, as considered not although which, self. as a requirement to personalidentity the wouldbuthave not impacted theindividual distinction of the two aspects of the “Iidentity,” the renaming would have been accepted and haveled asplitidentity would Ahmed).followingto (Djamile Assmann’s But Jan of process renaming wouldhave a strong been to blow identity the of renamedthe Turks of Iwillhypotheses.Turks, launch According P.Bourdeu’s two arguments, the to a way as to “forget” their own actions. in top” happenedsuch “political atthe of what responsibility the placed and Bulgarians from renamingis pushedout tokeepthe balance, consciousness.the In order both Turks this balance, shattered atbut “Revival process” The aggressive. sametimenot the relations unstable, but now it appears(mis)use of history the of ethnic interrelations. This balancemakesspecific ethnic to be neighbourly co-existence andhidden fears,mostly whicharedependent on political the restored due to the fact that the process of D) C) B) There had beenmany forms of everyday carried outby resistance Turks, Considering the impact of renamingthe onthe process individual identity The relations between Turks and Bulgarians are “torn” between 19 CEU eTD Collection (London: Routledge,1998), 116-119. 40 interviews.ableorganize to the facilitated by the fact was interviewees my to access Furthermore, Bulgaria. in regions other to in contrast that resistance, my familyfiercest the with met was is renaming originally districtsthe Kardzali and Haskovo in the that important also from Haskovo and throughis It scale. largest on the was accomplished and earliest the started population Turkish for the relatives, campaign assimilation the where Rhodopes, I was South-Eastern the in lies town the Second, Roma). engulfing several little villages with a traditionally mixed population (Bulgarians, Turks, advantage of existingthe curativemineral Overwaters. the years municipality the has grown Mineralni Bani, Haskovo,Southern Bulgaria and Dulovo, Silistra, Northeastern Bulgaria. Turks. and Bulgarians - mixed population follows: a municipalities as with The villages are life. defined as a single-issue testimony, as itis focused on one particular theme in the interviewee’s article their from classification al)’s (et Slim Hugo 6.1. Methodology joined the respondent and started answer questions.andto joined respondent started the Hugo Slim, et al., “Ways ofListening,” in 40 IthappenedI had thatunintentionally two groupinterviewsconducted people two when I carried out my research in two villages,different inlocated Bulgarian my I carried out two two research First, resortmunicipality, the Bani, Mineralni createdin was socialismduring totake for twovillages these I selected thefollowing reasons: The main methodIwill conduct use myto research is in-depththe interview. If I use The Oral History Reader 20 Ways ofListening , ed.Robert, Perksand Alistair Thomson , the interview can be can interview , the CEU eTD Collection topics, discussedin interview: the Kazalbashi, eight Bulgarians and one Tartar Muslim. day the had done interviewsI of 25 fourdone,them out with sixteen Muslim Turks, women, with the answer: “O, this had passed, Idon’twant to talk about that past”. At the end of Bulgarians. in compared to research beinginterested of the more topic the Turks and the other soon, Next, tothe womencontact gave the respondent –one effect” “snowball the followed interviews the reasons: more often refusedto thefield with andsome knowledge acquaintances. to answerenter whichme years ago, to in allowed three areasome research the have an ethnographic done myI that was reason research questions,Another too. renamed, were and Turks as defined were nevertheless especiallyThe second Turkishreasonsome days and later followed wasnot with such violentit resistances against asin South. the for with started campaign “Revivalprocess” the is municipality my that thistowards interest research choice The in Dobrudzha. Bulgaria, of part North-Eastern in the lies town The is Roma. and Bulgarians exactly theKazalbashi and Muslims.(Aliani) avanishing minority of Tartar The one thirdis other multiplicitypopulation.two thirds Almostof peopleareMuslim,the asmaller amongof Turks, them group of Muslim minorities, which You can You find the questionnairein Appendix,whilethe hereIwill the mainpresent keep I tried ethnic tothe and gender balance,butitturned difficult,following dueto the The municipality itsof Dulovo with 27 belonging villages is also with a mixed Bulgarian neighbors before “Revival process” and now; x Inter-ethnic and religious relations on a local level between Turkish and Turkish between level local a on relations religious and Inter-ethnic 21 CEU eTD Collection responsible, the problem of guilt manifestations of neighbourhood solidarity. renaming; withcope bytheTurksto municipalities)two adopted andstrategies, x x x x x The evaluation of the “Revival process” – reasons for it, who is of Perception homeland Everyday forms of againstresistance renaming and process The renaming and process its impact on personal the identity of Turks. The ways of conducting of the renaming process on local level (at the 22 CEU eTD Collection the midthe 30ies and beginning of 80ies of 20 c./( ɫɪɟɞɚɬɚɧɚ ȻɚɟɜɚɢȿɜɝɟɧɢɹɄɚɥɢɧɨɜɚɫɴɫɬ 42 International CenterforProblems of Minorities and Cultural Interaction, 1998), 11–12. Antonina Zhelyazkova,ed., 1990–1997: 30,000–60,000 1989: 360,000 1968–1978: 130,000 1950–1951: 155,000 1940–1944: 15,000 1913–1934: 10,000–12,000 1878–1912: 350,000 calculated by Antonina Zhelyazkova as follows: 41 Bulgarian. them finally effacing in population theethnicspecificity Turkish the inorderto Bulgaria declare of politicsthe and discourse of power (Foucault) Bulgarianthe fully Communist Party, aimed at in further detail At shall analyze end,the I Neuburger). (Mary differentiation symbolic cultural Bulgarians: whether they are based on religious grounds (Justin McCarthy) an or expression of and Turks between confrontation the explain best that approaches the present shall I chapter, "Pomaks."this In or as "Bulgaro-Mohammedans" to referred Muslims Bulgarian-speaking the to tracein detail cultural the homogenization including efforts, assimilation policies targeting while those who remained were subjugated to assimilation to subjugated were remained while thosewho Those related ethnicto Turkshad been mostly to oriented forcefultheir to Turkey,emigration Politics andPower Discourse oftowardsthe BCP the“Bulgarian” Turks. Second chapter: Approaches toexplaining Bulgarian –Turks ethnic confrontation. The history of those attempts is presented in bookthe editedby BaevaIskra and Evgeniya Kalinova: Approximate emigrationof Muslims (mostly Turks but also Pomaks, Cherkhez, and Tatars) from Bulgaria is The cultural homogenization attempts by the Bulgarian nation state havehistory.long a state nation by Bulgarian attempts the homogenization The cultural 30 ɬɟɢɧɚɱɚɥɨɬɨɧɚ Between Adaptation and Nostalgia:The Bulgarian Turks inTurkey ./ 80 Äȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɬɩɪɨɰɟɫ ɝ . ɧɚ 20 ɜɟɤ ɋɨɮɢɹ /(“The RevivalProcess”. Bulgarian State and Bulgarian Turks /in : ɂɡɞ 23 . Ⱦɴɪɠɚɜɧɚɚɝɟɧɰɢɹ ”. Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɚɬɚɞɴɪɠɚɜɚɢɛɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɬɟɬɭɪɰɢ 42 . In this chapter, I will not attempt not . Inthis Iwill chapter, „ Ⱥɪɯɢɜɢ ”, 2009). ”, (Sofia: ɂɫɤɪɚ / 41 ɜ CEU eTD Collection Jersey: The Darwin Press, 1995). Press, Darwin The Jersey: 43 Ethnic CleansingofOttomanMuslims1821-1922 book hisfamous In McCarthy. is Justin Empire Ottoman the and Muslims 2. 1.Religious nationalism or religious and ‘komshuluk’ tolerance easily identified as enemies. Those, who challenged the aspirations for national independence, national for aspirations the challenged who Those, enemies. as identified easily were they Thus, religion. other any professed people, who towards particularly intolerance generated religion, on based nationalism, this a consequence, As communities. religious Ottoman highit. paid price a Empire nationalism for from Anti-Ottoman arose the within loyalty forlanguage.instead tolerance,andreligious of centuries thereceiving of respect Thus, theethnic ate same livedthe housing sameand under groups evenspoke food, similar Turkish religions isolated Ottoman communities, in all and theoppressed even Empirethe though the and other Muslims between demarcation the reinforced religion of Freedom determination. repositoriesfor of that,centuries werethat the Turks didnot practice forcible conversionof to Islam an (the Janissaries,cultural who were exceptionfamous integration policies for ethnic andreligious groups in Ottomanthe Empire. McCarthy argues traditions to the or assimilative wereno autonomy. There relative awarded were local from the population, officialand were the empire.the Only the rulers were required tobe Muslim, while the restpolicy, of the subjects, generally only source forvariouswhich allowed andcultural self-governance autonomy religious within communities not ofthe collective rule).the former Ottoman Christianself- territories. inhabited nearlymillion, theanother andexileof million death 5.4 the who to Muslims 5.06 of His arguments churches are based to the existence wereof the millet system, Justin McCarthy, Justin One of the most prominent scholars on Christian militant nationalism regardto militantnationalism scholars with prominentonChristian One most the of Death and Exile. TheDeath andExile. cleansing ethnic Muslimsof Ottoman 1821-1922 24 43 he argues that religious nationalism led to led nationalism religious that argues he Death andExile. The (Princeton, New (Princeton, CEU eTD Collection the authorities.the They moreloyalty thestate theirdemonstrated than to including once, through writes: “The Turks, who remainedin their native places, did notcause any particular trouble for 1998), 13. Turkey, Adaptationof theBulgarianEmigrants in Turkey,” in Balkan and Near Eastern Studies 44 hostility and tension between the groups. two such constructedthey fromnot are “above” bypolitical elites, butare part of everyday the between between Turks and Bulgarians Muslimsare actually conflicts andas and Christians, McCarthy’s position forced Turkey following massemigration in establishmentof to the Bulgarian the isstate 1878. important for my MAmovement, which innocent in crueltowards was exceptionally Turkish peasants 1878 and thesis because it presupposes the independence Bulgarian cleansing model isapplicable to thatthis Muslims.He agues, of that the conflictsaccording McCarthy, to Christian religious nationalism wasone mainof reasonsfor ethnic Thus, followed. that uprisings nationalistic actasan for all which wasto example other the masstheir exile and ethnic cleansing. of movements liberation the newnations,or the infidels. butonly as outsidersled or to This considered himself. Muslimsbepart not God againstTherefore, were believed as going were to with the Turkish term Turkish with the majority Bulgarian the and minority Turkish the between relations characterizes Zhelyazkova many commonscholarly positionrituals, – that the folk religious helped syncretism of theavoid two religions, everyday which resulted in conflicts. Contrary to McCarthy’s thesis, Milena Mahon, “The Turkish minority under communist Bulgaria—politics of ethnicity and power,” ed. Antonina Zhelyazkova (Sofia: International Centerfor Minority Studies and InterculturalRelations, Other scholars such as Milena Mahon and Antonina Zhelyazkova Antonina and Mahon Milena as such scholars Other McCarthy’s surrounding is basedontheevents thesis revolution in1821, the Greek komshuluk 1:2 (1999): 149-162; Antonina Zhelyazkova,“The Social and Cultural , roughly meaning neighborliness.”, roughly “good Zhelyazkova 25 From Adaptation to Nostalgia: The Bulgarian Turksin 44 defend opposite the Journal of CEU eTD Collection (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,2004). 47 2012). http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/society/socio_relig/socio_relig_frame.html (accessed February 7, 46 forMinority Studies and Intercultural Relations, 1998), 13. Adaptation toNostalgia: The Bulgarian Turks in Turkey, 45 forces.” political external by or manorial) or (financial religion propertyless,is only itwhen threatened byenslavement either forces or by domestic oriented to little andeconomically so dependentevents, andnatural nature,on processes rational so organic to systematizationonly in the magical type of religiousness.Weber writes: “Thelot of peasants is so strongly tied that in general the peasantry will become a carrier of confirmed the hypothesis of religious tolerance. position, arguing againstscholarly second the of rather the leads acceptance to Zhelyazkova, and Mahon such scholars the existence of religious sounds the historical combined with by convincing, and,when and anthropological research tensions. The results from empirical study of everyday life and the mutual baseda of centuries, smoothly specific characteristics on the respect of over traditions, functioned Bulgarians, and Turks Muslims, and Christians of co-existence peaceful of system theirin army in enlistment theBulgarian and The participation manywarsBulgariafought. the construction of construction Bulgarian identity. national inthe of She EdwardSaid’s follows his approach time through the prism of cultural and postcolonial studies. The approach is associated with the 2. Fightingagainst “The Orient – within” Mary Neuberger’s approach Mary Neuburger, Max Weber, “E. Religiosity of Social Strata. (E.1) Peasant,” in Peasant,” (E.1) Strata. Social of Religiosity “E. Weber, Max in Turkey,” in Emigrants Bulgarian of the Adaptation Cultural and Social “The Zhelyazkova, Antonina The prominentsociologist Weber Max arguesthatthepeasants arepagans, believing In her book her In The Orient Within: Muslim Minorities and theNegotiation of Nationhood in Modern Bulgaria The Orient Within, komshuluk .” 45 47 Mary Neuberger offers yet another explanation, this explanation, yetanother offers Mary Neuberger 26 ed. Antonina Zhelyazkova (Sofia: International Center 46 This methodological presumption Sociology of Religion of Sociology From CEU eTD Collection book “ “paved the road” to modernization: “these notions of essential sameness drove the samenessdrove essential notions of “these modernization: to “paved road” the Neuberger thatnationalism offers well arguments grounded is tool the with which communism internationalism. supported and fatherland” no have “workers that presumption basic Marx’s to due ideas, nationalist to alien as perceived is communism Often communism. and identity. essentialist true, theirjustifyingto callfor return the wasBulgarian, the and andblood thus, theirthat origin Bulgarians Islamized fact in were in Bulgaria living Turks and Pomaks that belief the imposed important for the Bulgarianwhich economy, explains the emigrate resettle Turkey nearby or forcefullystate minorities villages/cities, to to or push to Muslim – under the both bourgeoisseveraltraditions, religion benames, whichand neededremoved. way to Theeasiest of thiswas doing and communist migration remnants werebe perceived embodied to rule, intheirwayof everydayhabits anddressing, waves.incarnate These remnants of “dark” weresuddenly past. the the to perceived Bulgarian state, However,called (Bulgarian-speaking Pomaks inhabiting Muslims)Turks, and territory the of the since in period.“Oriental”“dark” remnantsthe Muslimminoritiesthe post-1878 so- past of the – the Muslim nationalthe identity as purely Bulgarian the European, independent began state population clearto out all assert and hybridity this overcome to order In Semi–Oriental.” and European once at was Self was character of the Bulgarian national identity from the very beginning: “the Bulgarian national perception of the Ottoman Empire as oriental. She argues that this duality resulted in the hybrid isbook civilizational interplay by permeated and constant European the gaze between the the The Europe.” by Western “other” as the Eastern cast or Orientalized werethemselves Balkans Orientalism” One of the most interesting theses of the book concerns the interrelation of nationalism of interrelation the concerns book the of theses interesting most the of One byadopting a methodologicalkey premise within heranalysis “the that 27 CEU eTD Collection towards Turks, Bulgarian citizens, like Baeva and Kalinova. 49 48 The politics and discourse of the Bulgarian Communist Party is the topic of the next section. modernizerituals. traditional their by to necessity the livingin wasdictated Bulgaria Turks towards politics the that insisted Party Communist Bulgarian The model. civilizational new the is similar–theliving Turkishin population wasbe andBulgaria integrated incorporated to in logic The norm.” “civilizational new the as proclaimed was which development,” “socialist the was not associatedrather withvalues process directly butmodel European Sovietwith the and modernization of the legitimation The at intertwined. least or they were closely discourse However, Iwouldmodernization nationalist arguethatthe washidden rhetoric under the life”)of by Pomaks of “modernize”and Turks trying to their way dressing of habits. and focused meaning onaltering“way (aword “bit” the state the determines “thesuperstructure,” (meaning Bulgarian were inlineone), efforts that with Marxist dogma“the that base” minorities.of In theits effortsbooknation.” Bulgarian the into Muslims integrate by toexplicating “delete” attempted to of twentieth the century projects that Bulgarizing assimilation modernizing, the Muslim the violentidentity policiesand to impose of the the European communist one state towards Muslim This explanation, in one or another degree, is shared by some Bulgarian authors, writing on assimilation politics on assimilation writing authors, Bulgarian by some shared is degree, oranother one in explanation, This Ibid., 6. 48 28 This is thesis developed in lastthe four chapters 49 CEU eTD Collection communities,” in nationalism. TheCommunist regime, Macedonian question politics and the toward ethnic and religious Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɢɹ ɴɪɫ ɩɥɬɤɬɤɦ ɬɢɟɤɬɢ ɟɢɝɨɧɬɨɛɳɧɨɫɬɢ ɪɟɥɢɨɝɢɨɡɧɢɬɟ ɢ ɟɬɧɢɱɟɫɤɢɬɟ ɤɴɦ ɩɨɥɢɬɢɤɢɬɟ ɢ ɜɴɩɪɨɫ 51 50 Neuburger also outweigh the state’s desire to deal with the shame from five centuries the under five centuries from deal with shame tothe desire state’s the outweigh also Neuburger by stressed lived..The arguments with population Turkish where hadborders Bulgaria, additionally fact Turkey strengthened that bythe was a capitalistmember country, aNATO and were in triad the country Tensions - Turkey. Bulgaria,a powerful but not homelandwhose was asaminority, nevertheless, Turkish population viewedthe Thestate, byBrubaker. described citizensTurks, of Bulgaria, hadalways been built upon previouslythe mentioned triad agree that they were inconsistent. they were agree that 2. 3.1. The“tolerant” period legitimation ofthe“Revival process” 2. 3.Thepolitics ofthe BCP towards TurksandBulgarian citizens: Ideological develop their national developnational theirculture. the rights provided under1947, theTurkish hadbeen community recognized asanational minority and were guaranteed Art. in constitution 79:"socialist" first the In etc. theintroduced, were right schools high and schools secondary to learn and practice Turkish school was Zagora,established inStara and for admission quotas in of youth Turkish their mother tongue of schools thenumberincreased,apedagogic languageTurkish restored, periodicals were and to power, the Zhivkovmodel. policy came followed themultiethnicto Turkish Soviet The ɚɞɪ Ɇɚɪɢɧɨɜ ɑɚɜɞɚɪ  Neuburger 2004, Gruev and Kalionski 2008, Baeva andKalinova 2009,etc. In fact, despiteIn fact, the guaranteed minority withinrights attitude towards period, this the the All aboutscholarsBCP’s whowrote policies theBulgarian-speaking towards Muslims , ɫɴɫɬ . ɂɜɚɣɥɨɁɧɟɩɨɥɫɤɢ HistoryofPeople’s Republic of Bulgaria , “ , ɬ ɧɟɧɰɨɚɢɴɤɦ ɧɚɰɢɨɧɚɥɢɡɴɦ ɤɴɦ ɢɧɬɟɪɧɚɰɢɨɧɚɥɢɡɴɦ Ɉɬ 51 ( ɋɨɮɢɹ 50 : CIELA 2009), 506[TchavdarMarinov, “internationalism” From to Itwasgenerally until 1956 when argued that Todor 29 , ed. Ivaylo Znepolski]. . ɨɭɢɬɱɫɹɪɟɠɢɦ Ʉɨɦɭɧɢɫɬɢɱɟɫɤɹɬ ”, ”, ȼ ɫɨɢɧɇɪɞɚ Ɋɟɩɭɛɥɢɤɚ ɇɚɪɨɞɧɚ ɧɚ ɂɫɬɨɪɢɹ , Ɇɚɤɟɞɨɧɫɤɢɹɬ CEU eTD Collection Baeva and Kalinova, 2009. Kalinova, and Baeva 53 52 to besanitized etc. and educated that they couldjoin the ‘workers class’. They should wear urban clothes, the BCP proclaimed, so inbebe settlements, hadto built modernized that –factories they had to their was important it morality. Therefore, and life ‘newworkers’ the to and place was taking that industrialization pointthe of their beliefsbutalso religious interms of clothing, they were alien to the is only not from traditionalist. That be why, BCPargued, moreor the conservative percieved to cultivation invillages mainly andengaged infarming,and were primarily tobacco with were isgeopolitical. other while the from Turks Bulgarians. The refers so-called first one tothe issue, modernization/ civilization very large –155 000. first wave infollowingof emigration 1950-51, the establishment of communistthe regime, was along the southern border as "a constant ulcer for our country." our for ulcer constant "a as border southern the along defined Party Democratic Workers (January Dimitrov "thenon-Bulgarian 1948), population" Social Bulgarian of the Committee Central the of seession plenary the During Asia.” "wehave cautiously "andgo period: operate with "Turkey "tolerant" has Turks in to the that to inGeorgi Dimitrov importance tothe 1945 testifies of borders duringitsand Turkey the by A statement model. ‘civilization’ Socialist establish the new needto andthe ‘Yoke’ Turkish Modernizationpolcies are Turks towards the describeddetail by 2008, Kalionski, in Gruev Neuberger,and 2004, Cited in TchavdarMarinov, 2009, 507. The modernization argument defined the Turks as backward at the time. They lived time.the They at as backward defined theTurks argument The modernization Throughout entire the theargumentsdistinguishperiod, communist BCPused to two the 53 30 52 It is not coincedental that the that coincedental not is It CEU eTD Collection To assimilate means to become similar (whenthe word is used in-transitively) ormake similar, or treat as similar54 “In general and abstract sense, the core meaning is increasing similarity orlikeness. Not identity but similarity. defined as what Brubaker calls “transitive type of assimilation.” canbe state communist late Bulgarian the of politics theassimilation sense Inthat Bulgarian. and to“fully”in identity as order partof nation," become socialist "unified the a understood lifestyle, as was the policyBulgarian identity.become Theyhad to – just Bulgarians not through adopting amodern until the end of the fifties,impose an“authentic” andTurks to delete the identity to "Bulgaro-Mohammedans” of but also in terms change.was newgoal The began to thefocus sixties, early the Since identity. their “attacking” of self-consciousness Turkish minority.. At the same time, BCP had also attempted to “modernize” them, thus, softly 2. 3. 2.The assimilation nationalistic discourse became particularly obvious following adventof the Zhivkov.Todor Gruev, Thegeopolitical Neuburger etc. stood behindargument assimilation the policy, which traditional by rituals, whichare sjunetclothing, the indetail religious described (circumcision), of banning the through repression leddirect legitimization alsoof the to hand, latter the other the On etc. schools factories, opening by conditions welfare their of improvement the "capitalism." On the one hand, themodernization argumentjustified the politics in namethe of spatial first the reconfirmed becauseborder “socialism" temporal itborder, demarcated and The Turkey. and Bulgaria between edge the ,on states two between and ‘old’, and ‘new’ - the associated with Turkey.Thus, they were perceived tobe on the border line between two epochs By the end of 1950s, BCP’s policy partly encouraged the ethnic affiliation of the inThe asfaras they argument Turksas'foreign' were geopolitical spatial terms, defined 31 54 CEU eTD Collection No.3 56 55 in France, sequels its Germany and and immigration theon Unitedperspectives States,” Changing Ethnic andof Assimilation? Racial Return “The Studies, Brubaker, Rogers Vol. In: 24, degree” No. 4,of (July nor 2001):of either/or 534. amatter is assimilation and state end the on is accent the sense second In the of degree. matter complete absorption. In the first sense the accent is on the process, animal notinto on somefinal state thence and assimilationand isa blood, into food tissue….toconvert absorb organs into the system, bodily to the incorporate’as (Oxfordnature, English own Dictionary)of its Assimilationsubstance inthis a sense implies into it ‘convert treating as similar). In the specific and organic sense, the real meaning is transitive. To assimilate something is to (when itisused transitively). Assimilation isthus the process ofbecoming similar(or of making similar, or 1964, theBCPcalled removal Secretariat the of for "the old andnoxious traditions customs" March on its meeting At Bulgarians. Islamized asforcefully by state the perceived been chillingly straightforward.” “full assimilation” was of Muslims,” goal whose Turksand the theBulgarian in policy toward Hugh According byWarhola cited Poulton, to andBoteva this markedplenum a“sharpchange favoring identity Turkish ethnocultural and began theirrestricting rights and freedoms. leadershipAccording historian theTchavdar Bulgarian party Marinov, revisedits the policy to ‘manifestationsagainst ofnationalism and fanaticism religious among the Turkish population.’ fight the regarded document the of issue central The minorities. Muslim for policy assimilation heldCommittee aplenum, which new it during accepted directives concerning the new adoption of a politics to “reinvent” Turks as Bulgarians. and assimilation politics autonomy,provoked "Bulgarian" requested case which the Turks that Turkey could "steal" part of the Bulgarian thefearthat was precisely existence. It into came argument, geopolitical the combined with population or tear off part of Bulgaria’s territory in J.Warhola andO. Boteva,“The Turkish Minority Contemporaryin Bulgaria,” Tchavdar Marinov,2009, 8. (September2003): 255-278. The first victims of the new politics were Bulgarian-speaking Muslims, who had always until defended by It wasnotdiscourse, “cultural-historical” the Neuburger, that then Researchers usually cite October 4, 1958 as the crucial date when BCP’s Central 56 32 Nationalities Papers Vol. 31, Vol. 6, 55 CEU eTD Collection bordering Bulgaria. Therefore, the language of the party leaders was twofold –on the one hand, situation with Turkswasmorethe Turkish complex. Theyspoke had and amighty state, kin renamingthe process. is notaccidental thethat novel intowas afilmadapted in 1986and in promoted 1987, following people,living Mountains, in Rhodope the is “proven” by theirnative belonging to land.this It the of identity Bulgarian the that reader the persuades Donchev Anton place.. takes conversion the where village, in the exactly born was process, the out carried who Janissary, cruel the story of the violent Islamic conversion of the Rhodopi mountain population. It turned out that 58 57 novel Donchev’s Anton In 1964, Bulgarian. Rhodopi ‘authentic’ asserting started ‘true,’ the of image the texts writer) speaking still Muslim lived.population Nikolai In Haitov’sthe1960s, (famous Bulgarian Mountains,largest Bulgarian-the in wherethepartof yoke," "Turkishthe the Rhodope mainly accompaniedboom by ina novelsfocusing conversion" "forced on the of Bulgarians the during Pomaks werechanged. of names the the resistance Blagoevgrad district, where many people were convicted and interned. wheremany were convicted Blagoevgrad district, people placetook renamingthe against campaign: one vividexample was in villagethe of Kornitsa, latermet with resumedin wassuspendedbut and resistance 1972-73. In March 1973,rebellions renaming campaign amongwas initiated Bulgarian-speaking the Muslims. Thecampaign was names." "Turko-Arab the and fanatism" "religious The process ispresented in detail in Mary Neuburger’s and Gruev and Kalionski’s books. Cited in TchavdarMarinov, 2009, 502. While BCP forthe origin the Bulgarian-speakingthe Muslims of the was self-evident, Intentionally or not, preparation for the renaming of the "Bulgarian Muslims" was Time of PartingTime of (“Vreme razdelno”) was published, which tellsthe published, razdelno”)(“Vreme was which 33 57 During the same month, the first violent 58 But in spite of the CEU eTD Collection 60 59 here, at the meeting we may permit ourselves to use such talk..." and declared that: one: "progressive" from the assimilation" imperialist chauvinistic, reactionary, "rough, the between distinguishes he specifically so measures he Zhivkov be assimilation could conducting accusedof was awarethat apparent that Central meetingCommittee held on 28 December, 1967: Turkish population in Bulgariawas actually inBulgarian Zhivkov’s speech Todor at aBCP the that argument the with face-to-face camefirst I asBulgarians. be presented hadto Turks hand, be ethnic and on the when discussingidentity theTurkish other careful the they had to Ibid., 66-67. Baeva, Kalinova, 2009, 66. questions.” our Turks].system, forsocialist By our Bulgaria. for country, the our Otherwise, for issue essential way, an Turkey resolving We are will Turkey... onestartincluding making world, the partclaims throughout onof communism our victory The lands,of basis. and theinternational unions [withTurkish intelligentsia is already raising these Furthermore, Zhivkov realizes that "itis not convenient to use the word assimilation, but world." the from erased be will Bulgarians, we, population Gypsy the and Turkish around theBulgarian population. wecreate Communist If thisnation centered on the Republicbut ofBulgaria, not centered around the Turkish and Gypsy population, but The similarity thesis with is of that Donchev’s obvious. Insameit speech, the becomes people." population living in ItisTurkey. connected with Bulgarian the land,with Turkish theBulgarian the from different radically is story Their i.e. Bulgarians. Mohammedanized Janissaries included These Bulgaria. to came garrissons Turkish Only exceptions. be the Turks enslave the country, the Turks did not settle in Bulgaria. Of course, there may "The union will happen on the basis of our socialist system ... on a unified on a ... system socialist our of basis the on happen will union "The " although because origin, by Turkish not is Bulgaria in population Turkish "The 59 We are in ofWe favor creatingaunited are Communist nation People’s in the 60 34 CEU eTD Collection 63 62 documents. Ibid., 27. party Communist the in arguments as given are reasons these but facts, objective as reasons these present ɴɠɜɚ ɚɝɟɧɰɢɹ Ⱦɴɪɠɚɜɧɚ Process”.Bulgarian State and Bulgarian Turks/in the mid 30ies and beginning of 80ies of ( 20 c./ ɴɠɜɢ ɴɝɪɤɬɬɭɪɰɢ ɛɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɬɟ ɢ ɞɴɪɠɚɜɚ and Evgeniya Kalinova: 61 eighties, the Turkish is population 800,000(9%of total the Bulgarian population). Turkey’s foreign shifted. its Unlike policy previousdrastically strove policy, togather which Bulgaria andontheBalkans." BCPthe declared Politburo"create anew probably most seek that Turkey will to Cyprus in implementationinmeeting measures Bulgaria. the of In during 1971, summer of assimilation a a minority. into diminish will majority Bulgarian the that fear the lays numbers these Muslims increased.” and Roma between and Bulgarian affiliation Turkey process the is that argued It population. Bulgarian of the than that is greater 4 times rate nearly growth natural and itspopulation inthecountry) total the isTurkish population (8,8%of 772,000 “In important1975, the reasons standingbehind measures. assimilative the as of most one the declining population and Turkey’s expansionist policy. sameare the debate on "Bulgarian the plaguedby the for fear of Turks," continual Bulgaria’s international communism,butbehind all talkthis the lays visible fearof Turkey. The arguments Bulgarians bewill The lost. reasoning behind measures such assimilation calls for avictory for areat Turks If around same timethem, is the and Turkish. nation the the Bulgarian created Ibid., 27. Ibid., 28. Ipresent these reasons as they are given inthe introduction to the first volume of the book edited by Iskra Baeva The inCyprus crisis theseventies was as regarded a serious begin reason the to The demographic issuewas mentioned amongoften party and secretservicedocuments This statementinconsistency and shows clearly the of Zhivkov’s words. ambiguity „ Ⱥɪɯɢɜɢ ɫɪȻɟɚ ȿɝɧɹ Ʉɚɥɢɧɨɜɚɫɴɫɬ ȿɜɝɟɧɢɹ ɢ Ȼɚɟɜɚ ɂɫɤɪɚ ”, 2009].”, The authors of the introduction– Evgeniya Kalinova and Iskra Baeva / 63 ɫɟɚɚ ɧɚ ɫɪɟɞɚɬɚ ɜ These concerns were provoked by Politburo’s conviction that conviction by Politburo’s provoked were concerns These 30 35 ɟ ɧɱɥɬɧɚ ɧɚɱɚɥɨɬɨ ɢ ɬɟ ./ ȼɡɨɢɟɧɹɩɪɨɰɟɫ Äȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɬ 80 ɝ . ɧɚ 20 ɜɟɤ 61 / [“The Revival [“The / ”. In the early Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɚɬɚ ɋɨɮɢɹ 62 Behind : ɂɡɞ . CEU eTD Collection 65 64 interests.” use hometownsaimed from in "fifth withinTurkishTurks to Bulgaria asacolumn of their "all Turks from the former Ottoman Empire back tothe mother homeland," its current strategy of international reactionary circles, oriented against Bulgarian national security.” national Bulgarian against oriented circles, reactionary international of under centuries of Ottomanism. Their main goal prove Turkishminority under ofOttomanism. the Their maingoal that centuries to was become of who Muslim forcedto allegedly on roots were Bulgarian the population, Turkish the series of historical workswerepublished from byscholars Academy Bulgarian the of Sciences thesis its of launchedBulgarian hadbeen origin byZhivkov. . At beginningthe a of 1970s, ambitions. nationalist masking for reasons enough strong were NATO of member a and country capitalist new invented was enemy –Turkey “Fifthand column” its inBulgaria – theTurks.Beinga work,failingideology the rhetoric to was benationalism of agoodsubstitute. appearedtoA communist the that itwas already clear where a situation In identity. national Bulgarian identity the triad.in re-imagine “imagined” ethnic of construct the Turks order the to They for theparty As by thepolitical leaders. unimportant helpedto describedelites Brubaker, itsWhetherwhich to homeland. soughtareturn “Bulgarian” the Turksfelt way that was living in Bulgaria asa Turkish identity of a minority, closelylinked its to “kin state” Turkey, Turks of identity ethnic the construct to started officials party The policy. assimilation for the assimilation policy was legitimated as a response to the onslaught of Pan-Turkism. Ibid., 103. Ibid., 27. The constructed as a “hostile” Turkish ethnic group has to be “disarmed” and thus the legitimation as used was discourse, geopolitical Icall which Turkey, with fixation This 64 Afamous Bulgarian pronounced thepoet Turkslivingbe inBulgaria “a to reserve 36 65 The CEU eTD Collection 67 66 haveonehomeland Turks the that reiterates The discussion about the renaming process. uttered the ofimposingtopic Bulgarian cultural and historical heritage onTurks. around revolves wholediscussion the heritage, cultural with a distinct group ethnic a specific is note interesting Turksare electronic Zhivkov states the although that that to clearly media.It tospeakonlyTurks ban Bulgarian. They whetherdiscussed language to all Turkish printand forcing inlanguage places all thepublic the of total Turkish leadwhichprohibition could to schools, in shouldlanguage be optional the Bulgarian Turkish whetherquestion the posed timidly members Politburo the of One time. the at Turkey to affinity growing their considering “Bulgarian for creation among Turks,” critical the consciousness” particularly “socialist the of is Thediscussion Bulgarians. areactually Turks the that conviction of BCP’s indicative already labeled secret.” as“top Also,have in mind employed that the terminology “Bulgarian isTurks” were Bulgaria, in situation Turkish of the deliberation tothe dedicated documents, all the discussion minutes are published inBaevaKalinova’s book. and the and decision May8,1984.The taken on in BCP politics," socialism nameof andTurks the special by decision titled:Politburo further "Forthe unification integrationand of Bulgarian the in it. ismost a illustrated regarding needfor Thisstressed the debates clearly the ambivalence time same the at but assimilation outright for call not did which rhetoric, ambivalent their and Bulgarian roots meanings. analyses oflinguistic/semantic its Iteven authentic origin.had torecover population to came down Turkish personal names and names of sites, towns and villages in search of Ibid., 151. 137-162. Kalinova, Baeva, Up until the start of the forceful renaming campaign, the party documents preserved 37 66 It is worthwhile to note note that to is worthwhile It 67 Not a single word is CEU eTD Collection 68 discussion is the elaboration of a "Classifier of Bulgarian names." Bulgarian of a "Classifier of elaboration the is discussion TheCommittee. minutes are published inBaeva The book. and Kalinova’s topic of the BCPCentral the at Politics” “Ideological Department the of leadership the of meeting Turks” with renamingcampaign,the arethe minutes discussion from from 24,1984 October a 2. 3. 3. The debates in the BCP leadership about renaming of Turks – 1984 assuch. areclearly measures defined minority assimilation Turkish the importance,” main discussed issues. But in the addendum to the decision,labeled “very top secret, of extreme formulates the itself carefully nation.” Thedecision in socialist “unified integration their the – Bulgaria,making vital it they share that common the values, whichsocialist would require framework. want any loose atheoretical practice party not around anddid theory and the to time thisfor between words, be thepolitical wasacontradiction Inother not convenient apparatus. creation a namelist period alengthy oftime, research extensive which of required over would Bulgarian “theoretical” Aroundtranscription. time,first this the problems appeared. the First, have to had names foreign The origin. foreign of names included also later which names, their child. The tone of the discussion was relatively soft. mixed name help makeanadequatefor selection with marriages of them aim the to a Bulgarian supposed tohave function onlya recommendatory andinitially atfamilies was directed of Ibid., 175-184. The only Party document, which clearly connects which integration The onlythe of “Bulgarian connects document, the clearly Party At the beginning, the proposal called for the preparation of a Classifier of 38 68 The “Name Classifier” was Bulgarian CEU eTD Collection Bulgarian names, as well as modern ones. modern as aswell names, Bulgarian non-Christian, traditional, exclude would hand, other the on This names? Christian authentic listnames, Bulgarianinclude ethnicidentity should of the only usage Name the through coincide with not? Christian the Calendar Name And or if maintain party the wished to the Thus,if a generally applicable Classifier names ofBulgarian was shouldapproved, fully it in Calendar. Name analogue no Christian with the names also modern were there Furthermore, lead would names to Turkish of documentation legitimatingthe Koran, the from names after children their named theClassificier was how to deal with the relation between the name and religion.Koran. As Muslims often Thus,nationalistic aspect Another politics. arising from inclusionthe namesof Turkish in theName the presence party’s the to in be contradiction whichwouldone, theOrthodox alongside calendar, name Muslim the of acknowledgement ofto lead would it explanation, TurkishBulgarian equivalent their with names Turkish include names would Classificier Name Bulgarian official the that Assuming was to be rejected. finding its Bulgarian historical roots. as beinterpreted namecan a Turkish of equivalent aBulgarian for search the Furthermore, be reduced. identifier name would asan of a role bilingualism, the with useof the that suppose meanings. their and I with names Turkish the byasecond names,followed part Bulgarian include to was part first the clear: was Names of Classifier the of order and arrangement bemeaning. byanexplanation accompanied The theirBulgarianof Turks,whichwereto includinglistfrightening beanIndex ofnames, Turks. The meant to namesof the the was labeled “A Classifier of Names of During discussion, the athird problem raised concerningwas name daycelebrations. A Turk, working at the Ideological list Ideological recommendedbe A Turk,working name at the Department, thatthe Bulgarian Citizens, 39 ” not of “Bulgarian names,” to avoid names,”to of “Bulgarian ” not CEU eTD Collection 70 69 to include Orthodox calendar names, "which are perceived as Bulgarian." names.”the of character conclusion followed: logicalNext the “We “politically correct” should keepthe Bulgarian names." of millions to amount will list the in Bulgaria, names foreign for looking go we “If themconcluded: andoneof problem the of complexity the understood Department Ideological “real”authenticformulated name.Though notin Bulgarian or such membersof the a way, the problem with the collection Bulgarianof names, asit wasnot easy defineto what constitutes an names revealed adeeplyrooted Turkish ignoring Name wasutopian.of The question Classifier to declare all foreign names, which were far more numerous than the Turkish ones,as thantheTurkish numerous more werefar names,which declare foreign to all that obvious was it hand, other the On name. a Bulgarian constituted what for criterion no was there hand, one the On dilemma. a serious faced names, Bulgarian common on based nation, philologists andhistorians, whowere draft to a solution. Bulgarian A etymology. was working set up,consisting group of such scientific experts as others) names was to be drafted Additionallyin to the Bulgarianthe Name Classifier , alistnear of foreign (Turkish, Armenian, Arabicfuture and (no specific set for thepreparationdate was mid-1985. The first Bulgarian the Classifier Name of date set), with their respectivebe butunexpressedThe name any that dangerous. Turkish would messagewas direct, political restriction on Turkish namesinevitably would lead torestrictions on Bulgarianthe too. ones Ibid., 178. Ibid., 177. Thus, the final decision limited the number of names on the list to 5000, which wasalso thelistThus, limited decision names numberof on final to the the for aBulgarian ideal project the ultimately that conclusion the ledto debates All these The debate indicates that the ideology of the Bulgarian identity Bulgarian unified and identity ideology of the Bulgarian the that indicates The debate 69 40 70 Itis evident that the CEU eTD Collection 71 day, December 25,1984and officially ended inFebruary 1985. "Revival massive The process." renaming actions in Kardzjali started the district on Christmas name start it the beby werealready appeared that at available of indexes drawn up 1985, the Tatyana Vaksberg, butthe isdocument notpublishedyet. Although officialthe Name list had to population." is such wherethere districts prepare “to BulgarianCommunist citizensin renamingthe originof all Party Turkish of of committees the of district the secretaries first andthe of Interior departments district the 1984 as December when 10, date the then Stoyanov,the Dimitar Interior, Minister of ordered campaign. If there was such a decision, it was probably destroyed. Gruev andprocess and asacontingent event Kalionski give 2. 4.When did the “Revival process” begin?Therenaming as a structurally conditioned politics. violent and nationalism. 'theoretical' dilemma, which revealed theclash logic between and realpolitik andideological unresolvable an presented This Turkish. were names family Bulgarian some ignored, be to andwererecommended dangerous as wereperceived names Although Turkish the essentially Bulgarian, was absurd. But to prohibit all foreign names was also not acceptable. Gruev Kalionski,and 139. No Politburo decision was every discovered for the launch of the forced renaming forced the of launch the for discovered every was decision Politburo No nationalism ideological of viathepositions practice wasresolved inthe The dilemma 71 This is based on an investigation of based is This journalist, aninvestigation on of the 41 CEU eTD Collection 72 Islam, came to light…It isinterestingin light…ItIslam, many this situation that citizens came to Turkish-speaking until thenveiled truth majority facefact the the hadto committees the activities, scholarly of extensive andasaresult endeavor “Turkish-speaking” Bulgarian citizens) and from mixed children marriages. In course the of this “Turkish-speaking citizens” (Stoyanov never uses“Turks” for Turks,living the inBulgaria, are of the study family roots the to wereestablished local committees of process: a description the today. The terrorist acts justified the gendarmerie’s further violent actions against the Turks. an answer without aquestion still isservices by secret the wereordered attacks these Whether police. agents secret of the were perpetrators four that the out itturned police archives, secret and the railway station committed by acts Varnaairport atthe was influencedby terrorist renaming process Turks two in Plovdiv in the summer is sudden the of the start possiblethat “Bulgarian” groups.It illegal, terroristic Turkish of 1984. Later self-organized, politics andthe expansionist from threat Turkey’s on, constant the refersone to with the opening ofmain Thefirst he hastwo arguments. In infactBulgarians. renaming, process the of describing the was towards oriented restorationthe of a historical– that truth living Turks the in Bulgaria were Stoyanov, the renaming– between Pomak, a and a or beBulgarian Turk shouldwith Bulgariannames.For registered was simply a necessaryvoluntarily, in started which 1982, with a regulationstating that childrenfrom mixed marriages stage in the wider 10 December date, the “Revival process,” which Gruev Kalionski,and 138. Furthermore, Stoyanov changing the suggests that Furthermore, of istheir wasvoluntary. names Here titled memoirs the In of of the Turkish-speaking citizens living in the border regions have Bulgarian roots. The th that Turkish-speaking citizens are actually Bulgarians, converted to Bulgarians, converted areactually citizens Turkish-speaking that , is not mentioned. He represents the renaming process as smooth and smooth as process renaming the represents He mentioned. not is , The Threat by the former Minister of Inferior, Dimitar Stoyanov, 42 72 CEU eTD Collection vol. 4],vol. 401. 74 73 role. acrucial played political elites the at the same structurally time conditionedevent, andmanifestedasacontingent during which was process” happen. “Revival to Thus, the later, bound sooner this was actof orviolence that indicate lists, name the around debates protracted the and policy general BCP’s Nevertheless, accidentally. started “Revivaloccupation process” the probably and canconcludethat why, one the ordered who surrounding clarity lack of the Dueto process. startof renaming the the launch such a step." he dareto would years until ittaken have General would nextSecretary tothe matter this his personal "I decidedtake for associates: to this responsibility historichad renaming.If leftI instigated the mass of Bulgarianrenaming Stefan Turks. Tzanev writes Zhivkovboasted that to who is it inKardjali,unclear, committee BCPdistrict the at firstsecretary the Zhivkov or Whetherit Stoyanov, was theKardjali by villageswereoccupied troops. December 25,1984, result is a The strangers. complete recently until only relatives, and family between meetings crowded numerous the are exciting So roots. ancestral their out seeking in interest show to begin ɋɬɟɮɚɧɐɚɧɟɜ Ⱦɢɦɢɬɴɪɋɬɨɹɧɨɜ There are different versions as to who exactly is to be held responsible/accountable for be is heldresponsible/accountable who exactly to asto versions different There are Following the "spontaneous" desire of Kardjali’s citizens to change their names, on names, their change to citizens Kardjali’s of desire "spontaneous" the Following partial , Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɯɪɨɧɢɤɢ renaming with Bulgarian names.” , Ɂɚɩɥɚɯɚɬɚ 74 ( ɋɨɮɢɹ vol. 4, ( : Ⱥɥɛɚɬɪɨɫ ɋɨɮɢɹ 1997),[Dimitar Stoyanov, Threat] The 166-167. : ɂɡɞ 43 . Ɍɪɭɞ 73 (Italics mine, L.P.). , 2009), , [Stefan Tzanev, Bulgarian chronicle CEU eTD Collection April April 30 Bulgarians – three men, one woman, and eleven Turks – nine men and two women. one of which was a group interview with three personsmen, – Turks. The respondents are: four Sarnica.Karamantci, 13interviews,following Iconducted villages: Mineralni Tatarevo, Bani, inthe wasconducted research April 2012. The April –20 during period 13 carried the out The pilotresearch was done during the period August -September 2011 and the second trip was study IcarriedMineralni Bani district, AtMineralni Bani,Haskovo and outtwo trips. Dulovo. 3. 1. Research description alongside will ethnic, of sense belonging. chapter thesequestions. The be structured interrelationan answeridentities of –individual,types differentthe the regarding personal,of Who did they hold responsiblefor its occurrence? After analyzing the answers, Iwill try findto later? years evaluate twenty-seven the “Revivalprocess” didboth How yes, whattype? groups if and resistance Was thereanyeveryday Wasnames? thereanyidentity crisis? theirchoose did they How concerningtherenamingmemoriesare process? Turks the the of follows: what livingTurks, neighbors. and inBulgaria, ThemainBulgarian their researchquestions areas “RevivalProcess”Resistance inthe Third Chapter: Memoriesof InterplayRenaming, and ofIdentities Everyday Formsof The next research site was Dulovo, Silistra district, where I had been from April from whereIhadbeen 24 Silistra district, wasDulovo, research site The next municipalities: in two wasconducted my field research chapter, in first the As described The focus of thirdwillthe analyze chapter be the25interviewsto with conducted th 2012. The research research inthefollowing2012. The was carried of town settlements: Dulovo, villages 44 th to CEU eTD Collection leaduseful specificillustrate usto typologies, experiences meaning and presentthe of the they but can be regarded as representative, cannot interviews the methods, am qualitative using As I Bani,DmeansDulovo. –MBmeansMineralni andthesite the sex,indicate ethnicity the I In brackets, in arenumberedchronological anonymity. respondents’ order. Thethe interviews several people, whointroduced me to the respondents based on the “snowball” principle. of help the with possible became interviews the Asawhole, research. in another commented and be tested it should but attention, process deserves special that talk about to women answerthe now, was“not probably when they up.” grow The unwillingness Turkish the of insistingupon on whether they will tell story the their grandchildren of “Revival the process,” isall “Oh, women Only in has passed.” past, the topic this of commented: the conversation, the questions. Often menthe “responsibility”the took ofbeinginterviewedupon or hearing the Men predominate among respondents,process. renaming the of experience the emphasizes the research of focus the because larger, due to the fact that women Muslim. eightBulgarians and is numberofTurkishthe one respondents Tartar Naturally, often refused to answer the number of people whom interviewedisI twenty-nine:four sixteen Muslim Turks, Kazalbashi, total Thus, the interviews. interviewsof weregroup the two fact that duetothe expected, than one with a Tartar Muslim. interview one of wasagroup which Kazalbashi Turkishthree four with women, with Muslims, twelveinterviews: conducted fourChernik, three with with Turks, Bulgarians, Okorsh,Ruino. I Quotations, taken from the interviews, are indicated by preserveindicated in to from interviews, are order a number Quotations,the taken The numbertotal interviews is of Thenumberof twenty-five. was largerrespondents 45 CEU eTD Collection “tool” in the renaming process. the renaming in “tool” akey as applied and invented quickly was classifier “scientific” a such chapter, previous the in shown as decision, 77 ɋɨɮɢɹ [“The Revival Process”.Bulgarian State Bulgarianand Turks the /inmid 30iesand beginning of c.]80ies of 20 ɩɪɨɰɟɫ 76 (Albany State University of New York Press, 1991), 50. 75 1985. For less than monthsthree more than people800,000 wereforcefully renamed. identities 3. 2.“My name” andthe public name: theinterplay between individual and personal it tells us less about events. As Alessandro Portelli claims, “thefirst thing that makes oral history different …is that Bulgarian names,Bulgarian policy, but unaware, were summoned to the municipality where they were given a list of “real” wasformal thefollowing: procedure considered beBulgarians the by Turks,who were to party they they deal beinguse with banned to their old one? occupied did positions? How people copewith situationthe havingof anew name andhowdid individualthe a diachronic consistency and unity, synchronic beyond themultiplicity of names? If they choose at all, was Pierre Bourdieu right in claiming that the personal name gives Although the debates about the name list regarding the “true” Bulgarian names could not reach an acceptable an reach not could names Bulgarian “true” the regarding list name the about debates the Although ɂɫɤɪɚȻɚɟɜɚɢȿɜɝɟɧɢɹɄɚɥɢɧɨɜɚɫɴɫɬ Alessandro Portelli, “What Makes Oral History Different,” in ”. : The in campaignstarted renaming December and 1984 ended officially inFebruary The questions that greatly interest me in this paragraph are: how did people chosetheir me are:howdid people in this interestparagraph thatgreatly The questions ɂɡɞ Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɚɬɚɞɴɪɠɚɜɚɢɛɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɬɟɬɭɪɰɢ . Ⱦɴɪɠɚɜɧɚɚɝɟɧɰɢɹ 77 from which they had to choose. events than about their about than „ Ⱥɪɯɢɜɢ ”, 2009),”, 29. ./[Iskra Baeva and Evgeniya Kalinova –editors] meaning 46 / ɜɫɪɟɞɚɬɚɧɚ .” 75 The Death of Luigi Trastulliand Other Stories 30 ɬɟɢɧɚɱɚɥɨɬɨɧɚ Äȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɬ 80 ɝ . ɧɚ 20 76 The ɜɟɤ / CEU eTD Collection approach, the right approach” Int.3,m.T.MB). felt uneasy and tried to help: “These teachers, intelligent people, knew that this is not the right way,is it not the suggesting that he willname, cope heroic successfullynew boya the with give to the situation.trying godmother, Most a as probably acted this teacher is due The to theworker.” fact that “wonder as the teacherknown 80 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011). 79 Double Identity.(Bulgarian DuringTurks the “Revivalprocess”)”]. ³ȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɩɪɨɰɟɫ 78 identity,” (J a strong blow the identity to renamedthe of a split Turksandwould lead to possibly identity part of the interviewees refusedyou would be Nickolay" (Int.3, m. T.MB). to choose forbestname sothe you arevery me,studious, told my then teacher But remains. something a name fromletter coincide,knowingto Ognyan. Theyallowed so first changed the Orhan without from to the been "I'd a name: proposed choose to them help to trying by children Turkish the to sympathy showed list.teachers few Very name. choosen newly the of approval or “Whennotification without changed were no one "write down the first thing that comes minor document: soulless, as formal likesigningto renaming a the and absolutely procedure mind” (Int 13, m. T. MB). In many cases, the names innames, order to check which of hypothesesthose two bewill validated. analyze the reactions of requirementto the personal identity the havebutwould theindividual impacted not self.I will Turks, as they remember them, who were forced to change their The meaning of the name “Nickolay” is “victorious”, “the one who conquers peoples”. Also, Saint Nickolay is Nickolay Saint Also, peoples”. conquers who one “the “victorious”, is “Nickolay” name of the meaning The Jan Assmann, C ɠɦɥȺɯɦɟɞ Ⱦɠɟɦɢɥɟ  ɟ mile Ahmed). Following Bourdieu,my initial hypothesis was theprocessthat of renaming would have What were the reactions of the Turks to this blatant disregard of human dignity? First, humandignity? of disregard blatant this to Turks of the reactions Whatwere the remember interviewees the all that mention must I analysis, the with continuing Before 79 I formulated another hypothesis: the renaming would have been accepted as been a have therenaming wouldaccepted hypothesis: formulated another I 78 ultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, andPolitical Imagination. . “ . But upon reading Jan Assmann’s distinction of the two aspects of Assmann’s Butuponreading “I the two of the Jan distinction ɂɦɟ ”)” ɨɢɥɝɱɫɢ ɩɪɨɛɥɟɦɢ ɋɨɰɢɨɥɨɝɢɱɟɫɤɢ , ɪɢɟɭɚɟ ɞɨɧɢɞɟɧɬɢɱɧɨɫɬ ɞɜɨɣɧɚ ɢ ɩɪɟɢɦɟɧɭɜɚɧɟ 80 47 , 1-2,2003 :177 [Jemile Ahmed, “Name, Renaming and Renaming “Name, Ahmed, [Jemile :177 . ( . ɴɝɪɤɬɬɪɢ ɨ ɪɦɧɚ ɜɪɟɦɟ ɩɨ ɬɭɪɰɢ Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɬɟ CEU eTD Collection chose Dana. name ‘Dana’the in means When Turkish ‘calf.’ asked why she chosethename meaningless. was nonetheless new something names external beas to them, empty remembered, hadto an sound, which but the perceived women identity, the retain inner To their people...” elderly of change the names my To alot. added:“Wecried, threeTurkishson, wecried now, the women identity. Laughing their blow to aheavy as process renaming the women perceived time,the the memories andat stated that they continuedThe names to usewere theirjust a facadeold were mockingnames their previous and nameschoices. Thenamesmean not did anything for them. for theat home.public, Of notcourse, forf. them, T. D.).these which While areis retellingwhyretrospective all theEncho. ‘Little’ Encho,their oldinterviewees Encho and the youngster Encho, there were three Enchovtsi”renaming (Int. 14, also was son his and Encho him called experience, also we in-law, father a had I Encho. was husband my the women laughed, her butwecalled Galya... thesamename, had she Angelova, I wasGalinaEncheva daughter - it seemed and as mother a as not if sisters, like they names, same the had I and daughter “My D.). f. T. 14, (FGI mineis he O,same” the answered. yourWhat’s newname?Blagovest, and asked: his brother called husband Jenkova..,My Mladenova Stela am I Jenkov, Mladenov Blagovest was husband irony, of a sense with relatives, declaring, their all for names same the choose they that noted interviewed, I that women, Turkish three The easily. remember could they which name, a or one, old their of letter first the with starting aname, chose either People formal. andpragmatically is fictitious choice the Second, them. to external is completely name new “given” the since identity, anew on take to refusal theofficialchooses, name” 4,m. yougives MB).This some (Int. asa interpreted T. could be The complete alienation from the name is illustrated in a story about an old woman, who that this “so it was easier to remember.” “My remember.” to it“sowas easier this that 48 CEU eTD Collection 81 the same time funny and at the same time…” The absurdness went even further because iteven further same same because the the timeand at absurdness went funny The time…” is It at hisgrandson. after benamed grandfather it the Kalin.be Let Let process. us reversethe following: ”I know that you [Bulgarians] give your grandchildren the names of their fathers. Let where they asked what name he would like to adopt as his father’s name. His response was the municipality the improviseforced at once to predictand was ableeverything to But hewasnot all names. the of accepted commission since the renaming purpose his strategy its served end, In “falcon.” meantthe italso and similar name sounded hisTurkish He choseKalinbecause movie “Kalin from Eagle.” the the His acharacter sonwasnamedafter be name Bozadziev.” my family I suggested that Bozadzia.call So grandpa himuncleBozadzia, to Everybody used in region. the (Bozadzia) “My boza-maker fathera famous was his father: occupation of similar soundingforhis himself, wife and his Forthe familydaughter. name,he chose the night before he decided, rumormunicipality.his the aboutthe the renaming heardof he had case,In so process, already which “slavic” from Dulovo the Tartar of name a70-year-old story the of is such example Here one heroes. his family would equivalentchose. He choseto their names Turkish with name or for names of heroes and movie hiddenpersonality forgettingwithout herformer name. stars, playing the sheher her, keeps role or they dehumanized that declaring herself, consciously depersonalized of either woman elderly The resistance. everyday of act Brechtian is atypical this James Scott, and at the same time sends a message – youname...” (Int. 14,treat f.T.D.) The mockful remark illustrates usthe absurdity of the likerenaming process animals, you fool us. In theDana, she answered: “Isense have a calf (‘dana”) in myyard and when ofI look at her, I shall recall my “Kalin the Eagle” is the first Bulgarian communist movie after the regime change in 1944. in change regime the after movie communist Bulgarian first the is Eagle” the “Kalin The third strategy was theconscious strategy of choice bylooking forBulgarian names 49 81 CEU eTD Collection name i.e.“Gibbon” of nickname – the the Iskrenov;fansof be Bojidar CSCA of wanted to the take to wanted Levski of fans players: football after named be to wanted who children, symbolical without order, problematizing it. in hedenied, incarnates new the hiddensymbolical order meanings. Thushe new deniesthe the absurdnessnames areof domesticated. the The whole narration situation.of this man goes with a joke, humorous, stressingfor the family,When revealedthe symbolical for meanings purposes the But external world.againonly of the arerelevant names of the only in the safe haven reality of meaning wereconstructed between and sound the theinterplay strategies, combination all these of home. ofIn suchthe a wayold the newandnames “public” ishisRussian, is name wife’s publically –his correct” “politically were which names, he chose son Furthermore, is namedoccupation hisof father and meaningthe former hisson’s nameissome preserved to extent. after uncover his name hand,other he from to -the family alinkageto kin arises the sought a hero the On name. son’s his of pronunciation the and names first daughter’s his of from similarity the the names soundmaking through first suretheirnew nameshad thesame and twoletters first preserving the way the in harmony sought he hand, one the On communistkin. his finally and meaning its name, his preserve from anything man devised to the strategy the of complexity can one the observe movie. accounts these name.Through under one fatherwas registered make his sure administration to Nevertheless, the with struggled respondent the months next in the Thus, name. a different him given his wholivedin withappeared that together sister, father nextvillage,theirthe hadalready the “During they childhood, our madenameschanged butwe our fun it.of There were Here are the next examples of choices of names of heroes and movie stars. 50 CEU eTD Collection external sign lookingor for ahiddenmeaningin new the onesand usingas nicknames, them become them. hoping to characters, favorite here the magic function of the name comes andisof undermine possibility: would However, thepurpose renaming. there maybe another into play, where children chose the namesjudged such Inthe Bulgarian asprovocative. namescontext, andinappropriate sound ridiculous of their canbe violence,then, preferences their exerted the of aware werealready people young these unless what degreethese more nicknames.choices weredeliberate Wecanonlysurmise than to gamethe nicknames, that which of suggests newnameschoosing the wereperceived nothing as The choice new resembles names the of for anypolitical power. inaccessible by its owner and as mightbewell. symbolic resistance from the a character name of a The choice of character. played Sergey’s actors, Bulgarian to Bulgaria to take part in the anti-fascistmain character is Sergey, a Bulgarianresistance. boy born in the Soviet Union. As a grown man, he returns Stefan Danailov, one of the most popular Milestone in Danailov Stefan as Sergey was example for my brother movies... from characters Jenna, Kalli. namesthe They adopted It offootballwas widespread stars. totake namesthe of called things happened. Iremember thatamong kids the older in 7 named after Stoichkov... Kids took nicknames” (Int. No. 6, m.T. MB). “A lotof interesting Blake’s 7 Blake’s Both Both strategies of choosing names –“adopting” ameaningless name actas to an Thus, officially the nameaccepted wasladen hidden meaning,with recognizable only “ At Every Milestone” At Every ” ( Int. No 3, m.T.MB). . Many students chose the names of the main characters from this film: Blake, was the most popular television series during communism. The communism. during series television popular most the was 51 th and 8th grade, there was a film At Every CEU eTD Collection (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 2011), 113. 82 masks.names asformer of kepttheir People individual ‘arigid designator’ their diachronic public and roles imposed and the self-perception of coexistence intimate the unproblematic notionthe of organic “Iduality regarding the identity” isvery helpful in explaining the inBulgaria, suchintheeighties as occurs andpublic sphere the between private When asplit Assmann was related to their public social roles, to “socialto accountabilityaccording and identity and recognition.”personal their of part was name new The enacted. and is embodied al, by Brubaker et like one, described ethnic just the identity, becauseindividual biography,their totheirbody self-image,and kepttheirperson.” Theinterviewedrelated coherent Turks distinction, Some untouched. make remained mentioned,name “the of Turks the doesnot the conclusions.my But is conclusion theirindividual that identity, andhere Ishall use Assmann’s different to come could traumatic researching memories, painandpsychologists, suppress the may memories retrospective the that realize I bewilderment. of or Self him/her “losing” identity. of None Turkish the a seriousrespondents talked about splitinhis self-perception, of identity, the more he feels bound to it” (Int. N 9, m.T.MB). weused(neighborhood) our names, we spoke Turkish. Themoreyou press lose a manhisto Nikolay or me called Niki, never neighbors “My m.T.MB). 5, (Int.N. Ziad” him calling theWe kept Ziad. was whole village calledwas some Aledin,me There Orhi”names. old the by he other each becamecalled always “We (Int. names. Turkish Alyosha, their retained families No. but 3, we wentm.T.MB). on calling sphere in butprivate ones, him public werethe names “In new The consent. asmasked identified can be Aledin. the The“mahala” other boy, he Jan Assmann, Jan And here I shall return to the two hypotheses regarding the linkage twohypothesesthe nameAnd between regarding Ishallto the and here return Cultural Memoryand EarlyCivilization: Writing, Remembrance,and Political Imagination 52 82 CEU eTD Collection 83 this is a contest about owning the life history isthis about owninghistory life is“astruggle over howthe past this a contest the of aperson, hand, other the On control. (normative) external and autonomy self-defending between – rivalry meansfact, it thatthelife of field along-lasting namebecomes every person a double with of In discourses. of different amatter only isnot street the for other andthe use for domestic one – names two of presence The elimination. political external by is threatened which continuity, identifyingher/himself asasubject Third,it family of only socialistthe state. guarantees protection underthe newborn the itplaces because value has areligious It form resistance. of interesting of Allah. Thisnames." has newborn two home, every at baptized also shows Zhivkov acknowledged:fact wechanged “The that their names, meansnothing. They are a reluctancethe commenting When home. at names to let the newborn babiesmunicipality,but with names,they their wereregistered Bulgarian theirtrue received spend its entire life“passportization.” forced tothe as opposed identification domestic of the resistance used only for official needs, such as entering into a school or taking a new job, etc. This isnames were thepassport family,home, theof amongfriends and whereas at using the old names life,private butdelegitimation to publicthe of sphere. for publicuse. renaming Thus, the lednot process only oppositionthe to between and public consistency, found which they more andmore lives. intheir private Theirnew names were only Baeva and Kalinova, 31. Kalinova, and Baeva The phenomenon of the double name is also found in the naming of the newborn. In the In newborn. the of naming in the found is also name double the of phenomenon The So, the duality consistedSo, theduality duality‘I identity’ names.of corresponded tothe It of Thesis about the“Revivalprocess” about Thesis 53 83 The hiddennamingis exceptionally an in March in March 1988, CEU eTD Collection Anthropology. New University,York May 2005), 12-13. submitted inpartial fulfillment of the requirements forthe degree of Doctorof Philosophy. Department of 85 University Press, 1985), xvii. 84 identity. a new, Bulgarian, identity for ethnic Turks,in the topromote order their Bulgarian national createTurkey. leadershipisbelongingBenedict why This to Andersson) to as decided Party the of imagined (inthe sense inBulgaria thusthemselves Turkish population territory, the that and Turkish the with link” symbolic “essential their was which identity, ethnic Turkish had citizens. They had pretended been, or tohave beenconvinced, that the Turks,livingin Bulgaria, the nation state is premised on autonomous and spatially distinct units, Ayse Perla argues that idea As the etc. of ancestry common tocommon territory, identities are related both and that 3. “Weare Turks, our homeland isBulgaria” resistance. form of everyday be them most widespread asthe defined samecan rejecting time atthe new and adopting names and and shall be present labeled,” understood Ayse Parla, James Scott, preface to preface Scott, James This was the initial link. presumptionexperience of the BCP leaders’ is,ita specific of not the lived privileges of that people to territory; a group attitude strong conflationor of ethnicity and place, which in turn posits the inalienableinteractionto right the inaparticularly results relation organic alleged Turks,This of origin). as their place Bulgarian of be may mayspecific people designated place(which not inaspecific group or withaffiliation,is seenasorganically,irrevocably primordially defined, a rooting that territory, but a more essential,Anthony postulates Smith identity national that based is on ethnic dominantidentity the symbolic 85 Terms of Belonging: Turkish Immigrants from Bulgaria intheImagined Homeland “belonging to a particular territory is a major identity ismarker… Ethnic aparticularidentity amajor“belonging territory to Weapons Week: ofthe Everyday Forms ofPeasantResistance 54 84 as Scott explains. Thus, all the strategies for (New Haven: Yale Haven: (New . (A dissertation CEU eTD Collection painful even moreevent, painful than processthe of Iwasstruckby renaming. finding.this of leftTurks for Turkey. Fornearly half of respondents the “Excursion”this turned tobe a sothe in “Big called 1989,when lot and was border excursion” Bulgarian-Turkish the opened a above. given example the similar to answerswere you return?” The “Why did changeI decided to it with questions:two other “Whydidleaveyounot Turkey?” for and answers, is correct which why suggestive, politically is provoking too question the realised that answerI After this receiving m.T.MB). N 3, life.”(Int. give his preparedto even for Bulgaria, country, his for ready is us of Each Germany. not America, not Turkey, not homeland, their is the following answer: “Almost all Turks feel, I'm sure, very worthy Bulgarian citizens. Bulgaria led belonging, to place of question about the which Atbeginning Iusedadirect – Bulgaria. the born been had parents their where and born been had they place the understand they homeland by Nevertheless Turks. as themselves perceive they Evidently Muslim. are rituals religious their that and TV, Turkish watch music, Turkish to listen they that said they origin, Arabian with their spokeTurkish al.–by relatives et asdefined they Brubaker enacted”, “embodied and manifested, clearly and“essential symbolic link”with territory. The Turkish ethnicity interviewedthe of Turkswas fellow-villagers who are Turks, their names were of Turkish and ‘we want our names’”(Int.16, f.,T,D.) people had cars.....Nobody livedneither. They here,wehad builtbig houses, all families had animals, a foreign I've country. never hadgo a anddesirelive to inTurkey. My parents said ‘we forme is I,forliked Ineverwanted, Turkey, Turkey example some didn’t. not. want to leave for Turkey. Everybody said talked about when became people evident asahomeland of Bulgaria The significance the and identity ethnic Turkish the between arelationship confirm not do interviews The “Then the ‘big excursion’ began. We were forced to travel Some to travel Webegan. forcedabroad. were excursion’ “Then ‘big the 55 CEU eTD Collection perception of homeland and sense of belonging will probably become evident. become probably will 87 ofbelonging sense and of homeland their in perception Differences space. and time both of distance the from events past the perceive will Bulgaria, left who those, evaluate the “Revival process”from atime distance, by butonly they not still share a common conditioned life space are they withas Bulgarians; differ, temporal, but also by spatial distance.probably Those Turks who remained behind and live togetherwithBulgarians recollections They valuable. very be would groups three those among remembrances of the A comparison returned. never who those also but returned, and left had who those 86 generic line,which shouldin be present ethnicity.the The ethnicity justis ahabitus (Bourdeau), adeeper to is nosensitivity In a way wereborn”. there my parents andwhere Iwasborn where and the sense of belonging ethnicity the Rather, origin. of land to symbolic a homeland ethnically the to bound not is in Bulgaria, areliving split - the homeland is understood as belongingmore sense case twodiffer. iscomplex. the of identity Inour The ethnic of Turks, “the place and identity ethnic between interplay the is that am saying I What approach. methodological itbecauseneither would require noradifferent togroups.Ican related deny confirm this not are identities thatsuch fluid.Brubaker argues than more rather are stable, complex are and construction,nor the one which BCP party functionaries assumed beto true. The identifications I interviewed follow neither thelink, through presented Anthony conceptual Smith’s number. a significant they are lilacs, violets,my mother was still alive...” (Int. 12, f. T. MB) And so on, and so forth. mountain, the I remember Sviretz, village, mountain small in a lived I girl little As a here. over ishadbutfor was welcomedmy usin Bulgaria. It Ipinedmyhomeland, Turkey, childhood my parents, my grandparents. My homeland is where my family is” (Int. 9, m. T.MB); “People here, born are they here, is family my because Turkey for leave not did “I one: Another process. Gruev Kalionskiand argue that those who returned 40are %,see Gruev Kalionski,and 2008, 193. and Bulgaria left never who Turks only not be interviewing should step next the research, this with continue I If Of course, this is the case of those Turks who had not left Bulgaria or had returned renaming the when talked about and itwe answer, appeared This isaspontaneous 87 Still the ethic identification and sense belongingof of the Turks 56 86 , but , CEU eTD Collection result – the total result– total the of renaming Turks –theeventsthe of 1984-1985 areestimatedas a prison. And my brother and my father were also beaten (FGI,No 4,MB, Turks) in son and father see you here away, right jail in goes real not is that says someone If invented. was no true resistance - should be interpreted in this light: existence ofimplicit the as somerather but resistance, their idealdownplay to Turks the of atendency as standardunderstood for such. The not be should opinion interviewees the of responses the Thus concept. is aproblematic itself "heroism" of one respondent - abovethat in fact,and thethere consequent like theone described acts government’s decisions), verbal to objection (includingdisobedience punishmentssent areto prison not (FGI perceived4, m. T. MB). In the contextand that the "Ayshe of yesterday aswill becomeof Aninka today". Becauserepressionheroic. of that he was in quickly and strict From measures thishisabout friend’sfather, whowas talking against publicly about absurdity the renamingthe campaign point any of view governmentregulations arenotin heroicthis One register. of interviewedthe Turkstold astory meetand failure to point dissatisfaction the or of of that discontent viewexpressions everyday participants in those events often perceive only acts3. 4.Forms ofresistance of heroism as forms of resistance. aconcrete family live, andto history. local people where place Fromthe to “narrowed” in away concrete, more is homeland the whereas (Brubaker), embodiment an For many, resistance "through talking" is no resistance. Perhaps in view of Perhapsin is view of overall noresistance. talking"the For many, "through resistance "How will youOnly resist. youwith talks, say is this not true, everything that is The problem of resistance against the renaming campaign is not as clear as it seems. The 57 CEU eTD Collection 88 renaming. for documentsTurkey, with emigration they requests with hopethat wouldto avoidthe the whatwas happening,by someTurksquickly preparedandsubmitted about rumors the regard.First,that asrenaming didnot begin insimultaneously all of regions country,the driven 3. 4. 2. Escapes MB) Karamantzi. inprotest Bulgaria. against On a meeting the“revivalprotested they inthevillageprocess”, of a such was there time first the of respondent, one me, said you reminded "Now imprisonments. and villageterroristpublic barricades,-quick againstor acts), protests wasimmediate trials and state against forms spontaneous of resistance evaluated as political sabotages, (including the Turks, and the spontaneous riots and by illegal created organizations, “Revivalprocess”of againstthe activities It comprisesthe of meetings of the local population. The reaction of the 3. 4.1. Political resistance approach, theinterviews with andTurks reveal Bulgarians generally typesthree of resistance. an environment of violence,totalitarian has thecharacteristics of lineopposition. In with this inis typethe andby less which, that “heroic” the recognized everyday resistance, respondents - shouldboth of types of combine actions approach of thisresistance study. reconstruction The in viewof the arenecessary These remarks helplessness. kind of of a particular manifestation The village of Karamantzi is 10 km away from Mineralni Bani. Escape attempts, whether legal or not, generally failed. I will mention two examples in examples two mention I will failed. generally not, legal or whether Escape attempts, 88 They arrested those seven people to intimidate the rest of society."(FGI 4, m. T. 58 CEU eTD Collection use of use of Turkish language. On one hand all continuedTurks toraise in children an entirely also such a form. typical everyday form of resistance. The naming of the children with Turkish names at home, is as public mask, while “under”is it Turkishthe name, the sign of individual the identity,is a everyday The resistance. phenomenon dual of names - one for public use, acting asnickname, 3. 4. Everyday forms ofresistance everyone thinks that it won’t happen to him, but..."(Int. N 3, m.T.MB). yeah, so unknown, the on count You villages. in other or forests the in either "Yes, miracle. a inaccessible explained villages. this but act Oneinterviewee mountain simple in ashaving faith close to most fled people Therefore, forces. military and police of help with the settlements the stations, and on the other hand, because during the renaming process the authorities had split off areas, however,implementation of the renaming policy was more difficult ant slower in wascities. Escape remoteto difficult,(Int. No 5,m.T.MB). Escape attempts toward cities were basedon on the fact that theone hand,m.T.MB). And another: "My family even fled to the forests and stayed there for a whole week.”because woods.the You know ofnot togetcaught, away, youknow,but...” tohide, the key control mass character. andbarns, wereof on roads from rural the population,and trying tohide in nearby the inaccessibleforests, mountain areas, huts train renaming wouldbehide to in inaccessible in andwildareas or bigthe Cases cities. of people Other examples relate to non-compliance with the regulations which aimed to limit the limit to aimed which regulations the with non-compliance to relate examples Other Nearly all strategies for “choosing” the new name could be regarded, as forms of escape to sympathy, attempt evoking true itthis respect somewhat and naive, Another, "But duringthe to Revivalprocess alotofpeoplehadfled 59 (Int. No 3, CEU eTD Collection 89 and semi-traitors: perceived werethus as tried punish,to those who were part of theirgroup but who also were part of the BCP apparatus in etc. services, medical serve,cases bad delayedrefusal of service or to citizens for nationality of in– stores, Bulgarian questions finesthe and becamemore frequent. punishments), of spite places(in inpublic use Turkish of andexclusive is casesof deliberate the more,What speakinglanguage,but “Theyat home”we kept itMB,Turks). the banned Turkish linguistic Turkish environment.“Well,everyonein spoke their families” (FGI4,m. E.g. in the small village stores. hidden had…we also which some books, inTurkish.were Wehid these things. were important tothem:hid thingspeopleTurkish also that MB) animal an during the night. We wereslaughtering the night.” during (Int. 6,m. T. slaughter to one first the be me made they Bayram Kurban the at that, of and, because timethat at was aparty secretary you I know. lollipop, for candy, Turks continued to celebrate their religious fests, although secretly. In their way they Somewhat more hostile towards the ordinary BulgariansTurkish? There were such cases” (Int. No. 3,MB,Turk).was the refusal to comesanswer their myme father that isin and store the waiting she’s for him.suddenly man Then anda tells She matter? the what’s here, do you do what say, I takesin Turkish. hello hi, her I tell so her, embrace I and bench the on sits she store, the of usfront in mother my to the police for an interrogation - why did we speak 89 in Bulgarian excuseunder the understanding of not theirlanguage. Therewere also “We hideare importantus. thatSo things to wehad Turkish tapes, razaman Kurban Bayram, Bayram secretly wecelebrated example, “For “So I walk through the centre, I’m in the 9 inthe I’m centre, the through walk I “So 60 th grade, a teenage, and I see anda I teenage, grade, (Int.6, m. T.MB). CEU eTD Collection authors such InHanna Hannaauthors and respect, Jean-Paul this Sartre, ArendtTodorov. as Tsvetan violations,rights the indifference itself is equal complicity.to Thisis a topicup brought by human In times of serious cohabitants. their Turkish violence against faceof inthe indifference 3. 5.The Bulgarians’response towards theviolenceduring “Revival the Process” forthcoming consolidation by was pointed out Turkishboth andBulgarian respondents. ethnicso Turkshave identity. strongly Before thatperiod not onthisidentity reflected Its individualthe and thecollective ethnic identity. Thisalternative strengthened code the Turkish felt identity was perceived a– and what as real and theofficial discourse kept opposed power during the naming Bothlevels night–the rituals, reading religious of children, books. Turkish speaking Turkish publicly. by demonstrated irony,in “call aBrechtian me way – in Dana” or openly – Turkish), (calf The other levelalternative was the hidden one, whichcode operated to theat homes, official or is anexception. Yet that rather friends. power discourse. use the old names of neighborstheir Bulgarianscontinued to andcollegues. some Still of the It thatnobeshould Turkish resistancesympathy the byBulgarianswasmentioned, note only to acted on two levels – one was public, The interviews with Bulgarians show a high degree of estrangement, passivity and passivity estrangement, of degree high a show Bulgarians with interviews The an created people had really Turkish the that interviews from is the all What clear allmany There arewhich be describedhere.It cannot of examples everyday resistance, (Int.9,m.T.MB). them” burn would they things these caught they if because them, hid We allowed to leavenot are you it lowerbecause wall, than the on waisthanging is level,which Koran, the thishave we isBible the way our religion teaches us. They used to come to our home, to enter our house. You know, as you have the 61 CEU eTD Collection 127. 90 and tolerance apply only to daily relations of family and neighborhood. help mutual Borrowingintimacy, if is as It salt or neighbors. the to relations of systems different radically two of (Int.1, m. B. MB). even television. Ijustwatch ‘Cause want don’t to be brainwashed, evenindegree” theslightest goes on to say: “I never dealt withm. interviewee B. MB).Thesame motives” (Int.1, me, political they Accordingare purely to politics and don’t read about it ... don’t read the papers or 3. 5. 1. Blaming the political institutions at the time for the violence infoundfour interviews types: to the according guilty for their indifference, but they seek excuses for their behavior. Iclassify the reasons that I indifferently, of which some of them were theirconviction” (Int.1, m. B. MB). neighbors.my is This accept. not should one that thing basic first is the That Itpersonality. your with is not clearinterfere can one “No personality: of whetherviolation is a name one’s away taking that acknowledges they feel farthreat.” greater area normal people statement:“There but monsters, stronger arefeware they intoo be numbers truly to dangerous; makesintroduced “banalityevil,”Arendt aneven whereasPrimoLevi expression the of Cited in Thus, the theme of isThus, theme through a deliberate of avoided the personal responsibility establishment we don’t that is understand. “Well, something this The same political person states: many identity violation the and of of they accepted personality However, people interviewees of severity: one the areawareof renamingact’s the Bulgarians ɐɜɟɬɚɧɌɨɞɨɪɨɜ [TsvetanTodorov] “ 90 ɇɚɩɪɟɞɟɥɚ 62 ” [On the Limit]the ” [On ( ɋɨɮɢɹ : ɇɚɪɨɞɧɚɤɭɥɬɭɪɚ , 1994), CEU eTD Collection indifference. Within thisdepends onme” (Int. 1, m. B. MB). context,Bulgaria.nothing ifwould,little about think manI Even family. pertaining a I’m to to too a secondpolitics. Thefollowing is Bulgarians avowal of one of the “Iam by revealing: possessed things with disengagement and solidarity of lack typea-sociality, implications: negative displays himself” of explanation after looks “Everyone proverb Bulgarian commonplace here, the discussed of events the context the In survival. and family of horizon narrow the to population Bulgarian the confines can be basic Allof this rights. valueto the civil of respect with andcivic culture consciousness identified in shortfall a indicates circumstance this Indirectly, whole. the on in themselves valued persons forshoulder with at the table andin workplace,the uncovers the deficiencies of perceiving them as the causesreactions against of the massor lack protests this, of the Alongside socialism. inBulgarian “political” of the character political repression the of pseudo- the raises in question consciousness relationship totheTurks the Bulgarians’ of the same people one has been sitting shoulder processes. political by official victims of role the to into insofar, asthey are drawn Turksstandsout, the towards attitude and distantthe estranged thisinformal friendly atmosphere life.Butagainst and daily framework the non-ideologized of bread, payingvisits ortreating onfestive the neighbors is occasions commonly withinaccepted Thus, the gap between the public and private and, as a consequence, the specific split specific the asaconsequence, and, and private thepublic gapbetween Thus, the 63 CEU eTD Collection law but islaw but moral unavoidable ground for condemnation issounds, which applicable tothe by condemnation for reason no is ignorance that he concludes Therefore, camps. concentration in occurred the what regarding people amongGerman justifications the finds similar were such that one shouldn’t local ask questionsandsituation thepolitical situation the to because feltalso uncomfortable know a great deal”imposedinformation blackout on campaign the of andthus:renaming (Ibid, Int. 2, m. wasan there that mentioned It wasoften here” (). happened hadexactly of what experience B. MB.). Tsvetan Todorov“direct lacking time, thus the at region inthe not hewas that declared theinterviewees One of 3. 5. 3. “I was not there while the ‘Revival process’ was carried out” Only with sympathy?” (Int.1, m. B. MB) you help“What can with? little people. on nothingthat statementdepends morethe general in befound can also This resignation and no fatalism can one that counteract. disaster natural the Party, they are obliged“Since they [the immediate performers of the repression – my remark, L. P.] are tocommanded by carry it out” force. political as overwhelming asan unavoidable, interpreted of The events were 1984-1985 (Int 2, m. B. MB). The events are 3. 5.2. Fatalism or the impotenceofcommonperceived peopletoopposewhat was happening as a It struck meIt in that all interviewsthe with Bulgarians excusethis is lucid.particularly 64 “ To speak frankly, we CEU eTD Collection 91 machine of regime. communist machine of the and on the other hand, of the full de-politization, atomization imposed by the repressive on onehand,the of worldthe view of a closed family oflifeprinciple by accepted Bulgarians, “Revival Process” avowed by the interviewees themselves are to be understood in the context, affairs" (Int. 21. M. B. D). minority its aid,at Turkey influence theauthoritiesin interferecan and internal Bulgaria’s emigrate,Turks howwill influenceTurkey Bulgaria? Andin way,that with Turkishthe the all If country. in the life political the influence can they minority Turkish this through thus, minority in Bulgaria, because this here is the fifth column of the Turkish special services. And as Turks ‘a fifth column’ and ademographic as problem. examples even becausearetwo-the pork), problem. they Turks, Here demographic the eat with all of its arguments – the role of the Turkish propaganda, historical arguments (they are not 3. 5.4.Justificationof the process was going on, this was becauseit didn’tknow.” want to informedwhat about not ifreally was that population the can bestated “It situation. Bulgarian Tzvetan Todorov,1994, 148. In the final account, the predominant reasons for passivity and indifference during the "Turkey’s goal "Turkey’sforceis goal all notto emigrate to Turks to Turkey,to counta but on Turkish Two of the Bulgarian men, both from Dulovo, support the official position of the BCP 65 91 CEU eTD Collection The interviewee asfollows: responded was responsibleWhoTo thefor question: the“Revival Process?” answers: some interviewees did not blameRussia was shared by respondentsthree in Mineralni bani in and four Most Dulovo. any of their villagers at thattime Russia -only andLeonid answers),three or “blaming” Brezhnev–theexplanation, concrete Bulgarians BCP the of secretary general Zhivkov (the police, Todor secret the they Party, the away: further and knew. further Here responsibility the are transferred explanation Each politicians.” the – “They following; the youprocess?” blame anddo with most respondents, somebody?” answered a fewexceptions, problem of guilt 3. 6.Whowas responsible forthe“Revivalprocess” –theviewfrom “below”. The apply it throughout the Caucasus region” (Int.9, m.T.MB). would they itsuccessful, became If Russians. by the was an experiment process “I know a Turkish documentary about the “Revival process” andit said that this Russia” (FGI 14, f.T.D.). was commander the then back know for Bulgaria. You bebetter itwill names, in itBrezhnev there thatthen if Russia,supposedly decided was you the change existnotthings anywhere inthe passed do they world…Then a rumor, wasit Zhivkov “Todor did. one nation They forwanted Bulgarians.such only But 15, m. T. D) Bulgaria. Back spokeabout the‘purethen they nation’, ‘united (Int. nation’ etc. aim influence, the makewas sureto Turkey have tht didnot influence in such and such stuff….Personally, security state the clearly, regime –“The process?” blame forthis was to “Who my opinion is that the regime was under Russian for the“Revival was responsible questions:”Whodo you think To the concrete 66 CEU eTD Collection for a long as for a was theparticipation in group, time of a MRF the participation of Shukri voluntarilyTahirov, who name the took of Zagorov, wasdiscussedOrlin Turks vote widely for it. and Turks of mainly consists leadership its because Bulgaria in Turks ethnic the for party a as perceived generally 92 governmentcarried outthe “Revival on Process” basisthe a proposal of by some Turks. And they used such peoplefor the “Revival “Well,Process”: you some from must people government, the better. know as Shukri Tahirovethnic Hereis group. what group intervieweesof one inMineralni Bani whoissaid about guilty – Orlin Zagorov. Theyforgive theoften behavior of the Bulgarians say than that of nowthe “traitors andthat betrayers” from thethe Turkish statements is the forgiveness of their neighbors impressiveisinm. the Turks’ most MB). What revolting” (FGI4, T. or spreading propaganda of them andaccused authorities the them to have reported could somewhere someone, because againstcannot turn authorities. the They Fear... couldn’t have expressedtheir freely opinion “Even if they wanted to say opinion: similar interview a expressed group in the focus men m.MB). The participating 3, T. anything, they couldn’t if aTurk”(Int. machine,no youare aBulgarian matter or stand up state possiblethe against to have said it because theydone anything in reality. knew that you it. justified them of Two problem. the disregarded As I mentioned above, generally the Bulgarians accused the state and the politicians or just Movement for Rights and Freedoms – a Bulgarian party founded in 1990, which defines itself as a centrist party, acentrist as itself defines which in1990, founded party a Bulgarian – Freedoms and Rights for Movement However, two facts must be mentioned. First, the interviewees are more inclinedmore to are the interviewees bementioned. must First, twofacts However, The donotaccuseTurks their neighbors and Bulgarian mention have they that not could “ Similar likeSimilar us, they also suffered from severe anxiety. Itwasn’t 67 . 92 deputy in “Revival the ” The CEU eTD Collection neighbor’s jars” (FGI 4, M. t. mb). cost 1000 BGN,for50. Ieven youcow buy it 100 or they rememberfrom wouldthe he took we call them hagglers in the folk’s language, they come with their cars and, for example, if a emigration with irony, understanding and even a sense of humor. From a moral standpoint, Turksregarded the profiteeringthe from hurried Turk’s the Bulgarian people. Whatis theirfault? It’s not theirfault” (FGI, 4, m. T. MB). policy.was astate Normal that jealousy. Because with people, believers. We never generally such weare now, “Look forgiveness: Turkish the demonstrates statement interviewee dwell on the past. We neverfollowing which the events, mutualrequired compromises andtolerance. Thefollowing want to avenge or to lookmostThis appearsprobably so forced due tothe co-existencedecades for Bulgarians with at things whonever emigrated. Turks, with inthe interviews is stronger the “forgiveness” Furthermore, for vengeance. is an act of distinguishing oneselffrom “revivers,”the amoral a questcondemnation and not is notresponsible for his“reviver” father’s Butactions. even itwhen is spokenfrom this guilt, “Revival process” and ismoreinclined toblame, whereas his son explicitly says themayorthat This is an argument between fathera (M1) and his son (M). The father was in prison during the same” (GI 4, m. T.MB). now he’s mayor…” M: “Now, this is a different thing…” M1: “It’s not different, it’s all the Process.” “Our present mayor, his father worked for National Security then…” M1: “Yes, and 68 people, they did not do it, I mean, “ There were cases inwhich, cases There were CEU eTD Collection their children also go to school and play together. Neighboring families visit each other. “The other. each visit families Neighboring together. play and school to go also children their Turkish and Bulgarian families in worktogether the same enterprise on or fieldthe andthat neighborly of members that hears frequently One violence). the after and before (both friendly 3. 7. 2. Theneighborly andpersonal relations between Bulgarians andTurks yetbeen which havenot Bulgarians, overcome. towards suspicions articulates definitely awhole and as Bulgarian of the community distrust asdemonstrating concealed interpreted be they somethingthey it againstundertook this process, that they disagreed with it. Party secretaries as well. But Ihave noinformation that heard and superiors managersapprove of people older their say friends, did not Bulgarian that “I’ve massive. common or is not which particular persons, to only pertain “Revival Process” Due totheabove approval Bulgarian mentioned, any expressions of of behavior during the agreement share theirlivingleast territory requirea minimal and which at degree of tolerance and national Bulgarian virtues Bulgarian national But, on otherhand,the it is noteworthy all that interviews lack positive appraisements of any m. MB). T. (FGI 4, aswell” communicate we should together, have communicated forefathers our years many so “For demonstrated. is benevolence hand, one the On reserved. more disciplined,”“nice m. people” (Int.1, B.MN).However, Turks’evaluation the Bulgariansof 3. 7.1. Thegeneral of theotherevaluation ethnic group 3. 7.Themutual assessment: Bulgarians about Turks, Turks aboutBulgarians. The tone here is definitely warmer and more cheerful. The relations are predominantly are relations The cheerful. more and warmer is definitely here tone The Bulgarians appraise almost alwaysTurks positively.The industrious,“friends, are Turks with regard with . Turkssee Bulgarians only as with people, which boundthey are to ” (Int. 3,m.T. MB). This selective attitude, however, can 69 to religion and morality. and religion to is CEU eTD Collection nowadays are not what they be: arenotwhat they nowadays used to went toplay on the street. Everything’s normal with normal people” (Int. 2, M.B. MB). and it he took and one little the to it gave she called, they’re how know don’t I them. fried just give“Come, come”himAnd to him something. shegave a hadof asort shething, kebapche, example, For recently relations. human about is it myknow, you grandsondemonstrative, just not is it was... respect playing on the road and thismekitsi.Andmy There’s wife too. say absolutelynothing, howto it, well,this wedemonstrate neighbor. Emin’s wife, she tells him: the church, because she is old and needs help” (Int. 12, f. T.MB). Or just without any occasion:to her with went even I eggs, me dyed gave neighbor my Bulgarian together, Easter celebrated table, all of them the the for it brought they’ve boys, the for baklava brought they’ve before, moment a just “Look, said: sweets during the so-called so-called the sweets during are ubiquitous; they typically ethnicdishessuchasexchange traditional Turkish baklavaor interviewees mention exchangethe of gifts duringBulgarian and Turkishholidays. Examples the other group. other’s religious holidays, traditions, rites Which ismore,and rituals. is eachholiday open to In this way, the period of celebration removes all ethnic differences. All respect for the others, they have celebrated together all the holidays the all together celebrated have they others, the for respect a been always has There ideal. you, assure I been, always have neighbors the between relations ù eker Bayram eker But for some people, both Bulgarians and Turks from Dulovo, neighborhood relations “When they have their Bayram their have they “When Both Bulgarians and Turks expressed their mutual respect and reverencefor each [Bulgarians and Turks – my[Bulgarians and Turks– L.P.] remark, Õ . We were eating together until a few moments. And they are still on the on still are they And moments. few a until together eating We were . ù eker Bayram Õ , the other neighbor’s wife always comes here with here comes always wife neighbor’s other the , Õ or dyed eggs on Easter. One interviewees of the eggsonEaster. dyed or 70 together ” (Int. 3, m. T. MB) ” (Int.1, m. B. MB). “We . CEU eTD Collection and inaction inand inaction facethe of this violence. indifference neighbors’ their forgive to ability Turks’ the explains also That state. Bulgarian violentact againstof Bulgarians such and between after Turksbythe the relations the Turks a normalization the acertain to extent can explain people between specific interaction specific the neighbors andfriends tothe level ethnicity of makes that nationalism And, viceversa,possible. doesn’t concern their neighbors.in Bulgaria” from his Turkish neighbors, who are “good people” (Int 21, m. B. D.). It as “actas a Turks a whole, indistinguished for Fifth Turkey who interviewees Dulovo column is preciselysurrounding Turks.Itis how unclear they appraise in Turks general. of One Bulgarian the the transition “friends,” they speakof as“nice Whenandrefer tothe differences. people” Turks Bulgarians from the context of togetherness. specific of the confirmation specific are shared anddonotdivide people, for they an are occasion for common celebration and ismutual help. even and holidays established upon why religious the That coexistence and are The Turks’ answers illustrate a certain distancing from Bulgarians as a whole, which whole, a as Bulgarians from distancing acertain illustrate answers Turks’ The the emphasize rather “Turks” and “Bulgarians” abstractions the contrary, On the itIn case, neighborly the beyondany and appearsthat ethnicity reach relations religion appeared, which pushed this ethnichostility fore”the to 15, (Int m. D.). T. then relationsthe wereideal. After that you know,though, nationalist parties friendly,especially arealivedin any without our Back neighborly, reservations. tension" for along weresmall, time. You butit was like that,Bulgarians, Turks, "ethnic such noas There was term together. lived alifetime have people, who between created artificially The tension was other. opposing each started people “Look, this was a clumsy process. From the whole thing, the result was that the 71 CEU eTD Collection politics in general. politics the and thepublic delegitimized andprivate between whetherpublic division thisdramatic as to in their lives public they theirused new names only as an mask.official The question remains beyond the state-controlled publicspace. individual The identity was maintained athome, while like itused tobebefore.The Turks tried preserve lives to everyday home,their within the andlifemustcontinue after be sought cannot guilt life andcoexistence, level everyday the of state committed thisact, in violent by which somechance Bulgarians part. and On Turkstook butprocess, they notlook do for culprits and do not blame is anybody. It asif some “foreign” Bulgariansinterviewed the while do respondents, Turkish the not among vivid still are renaming forceful want the to remember the events. People remember the3. 8.Conclusion humiliating renaming The interviews show that the “Revival process” is far from forgotten. The memories of Thememories forgotten. far isfrom process” “Revival that the show The interviews 72 CEU eTD Collection relation of relation identity “essential ethniclink” symbolicof a Turkish and the with territory. Turkish the launched, which led to “restoring” their Bulgarian names. Bulgarianwas argumentof origin their reconstruct this had Bulgarian.For the them purpose as in was Bulgarian breakdown to depiction ashostileidentity step the next to of order to Turks The policy. assimilation the legitimize to used was discourse, geopolitical call I which Turkey, with fixation leaders. This for theparty way unimportant feltthat was Turks “Bulgarian” the Whether loyal. were which Turks the homeland,Turkey to or was ‘kinstate’, external whose Zhivkov’s regime the BCP During and"capitalism." “socialism" of becauseit was ademarcation border, temporal depicted the Turks as a thefirst “Fifth reconfirmed border spatial The Turkey. and Bulgaria between edge the on states; two column” of Turkey, as were perceived between theas border epochs on two – the ‘new’ andthe‘old’ –andbetween a minority, defined Turksas'foreign' in spatial asfaras terms, with they were associated Turkey. Turks argumentit The meaning “civilized”Bulgarians. should themoregeopolitical that “reach” into itdevelop ‘workers’ anewurban words, civilization. In should modern, become other was backwardandrural and population should Turkish claimedthat the Modernization politics it. put as “thewithin” purge Neuberger Mary Orient wish tothe to related former was weredriven Turks towards the by main motivations two –modernization and geopolitical. The andin the BCP’sBulgarian discourse. citizens, Theassimilation addition to power politics Conclusions The interviews do not confirm the construction by the Bulgarian communist state communist Bulgarian the by construction the confirm not do interviews The In the second chapter I presented the assimilation politics of the BCP towards the Turks 73 CEU eTD Collection Bulgarians are “torn” between neighborly co-existence and hidden fears,which are“torn” neighborly between Bulgarians are dependent co-existence greatand by the not areprovoked Turksand asawhole between relations they politicians. So, they are though now, some tensions are there that Some of them argue respondents. of the most This beforetogether. period typical situation the for “Revival the was by confirmed process”; everyday level Bulgarian and Turkish had neighbors no they tensions; religiouscelebrated fests study confirmed the thesis of tolerancebetweenreligious Bulgarians and Turks. On an do nothave features. any essentialist familya concrete identifications, peopleplacestable, history. although where liveandto Both local the to “narrowed” way in a concrete, more is homeland The (Brubaker). embodiment which should be in present notion the of ethnicity. isThe ethnicity just ahabitus (Bourdeau), was born and my parents were born”, so in a way there is no sensitivity a to deeper generic line, and thesense of belonging ahomeland to aresplit. The homeland as is“the understood place I livingTurks inBulgaria isnotbound tothe ethnically symbolic land of origin. Theethnicity more complex interplay between ethnic identity and a sense of belonging. The ethnic identity of is There stable. fluid,are they not are identities Their functionaries. BCP of one the that nor instance, for Smith Anthony of construction conceptual the neither follow not do and complex more are identifications The Bulgaria. born: been had parents their where and born were they place the understand they homeland word the by However, Turks. as themselves perceive Turkish andthey music, Turkishlisten TV, to rituals their watch areMuslim. religious They Arabian said and origin.that namesTurkish of They arefellow-villagers whoareTurks.Their defined it(Brubaker etall 2006). They Turkishlanguagespoke the with their relatives and al) “embodied asBrubakerinterviewees wasevident, (et The ethnicity and enacted”, the of Memories of the interviewed people do not show signs of ethnic tensions either. The 74 CEU eTD Collection public sphere. only oppositiondiscrediting between life, publicto butalso to private and the legitimacy the of lives,private new and led names wereonlyforuse.Thus,the renaming not the apublic process individualdesignator’ of diachronic theyfoundtheir consistency, more which more intheir and renamed Turksandtheimposed rolespublic andmasks. Peoplenames kepttheir old ‘arigidas the of self-perception intimate the of coexistence unproblematic the explaining in helpful very identity” between individual andidentity),(a distinction personal Assmann, by is defined Jan masks, as external notion asnicknames.of The signs, public “I regarding duality organic choosing anewnameandcoping thetheir situation.Thenames new with Turks accepted as for of clearlyrenaming and process strategies Turks the the occurred, their events remember those when absent been had they because it, witnessed not had they that argument repeated and are“pushed”a distant very into the past. events away a foreign agency to areprescribed events Process” “Revival the for reasons the a way In such experimentfuture their Caucasus policies towards whowere striving for national emancipation. to or nation, the unite to BCP the help to either experiment”; “this perform to politicians Bulgarian the ordered who Brezhnev, Russia and the Soviet as such lifeagencies everyday from their remote top”, “political the happened at of what responsibility the placed Bulgarians andkeep the both Turks frombalance, to consciousness.renamingis In order pushedthe out processof fact the that duetothe be restored itnow butappears to thisbalance, shattered aggressive.“Revival process” The not sametime at the though unstable, makes ethnicrelations balance specific This interrelations. ethnic of history the of (mis)use political the on mostly However, while Bulgarians estrange themselves from the “Revival process”, with the with process”, from “Revival the estrange themselves whileBulgarians However, 75 CEU eTD Collection totally alienated from totally publicsphere.the alienated as life private and relations family resembles which representation be political could this of care about everydaythe not livespolitics consequence of didTurkish The people. BCP the of after Process”; “Revival Turks the for the publicmeet: life wasdelegitimized they cannot respondents. self-reflected.was not This consolidation by was pointed out both Turkish andBulgarian time that until which identity, ethnic Turkish consolidated code alternative This identity. ethnic anddiscourse what keptwasperceivedfelt andas arealidentity; anindividual and acollective Bothchildren, levels readingetc. official religiousthe books, rituals, opposed Turkish power publicly.level The inhomeswas thehidden other one, which atnight: operated naming the of irony,in aBrechtian way –“call me (calf) Dana” deliberately, –or i.e. speaking Turkish levels. by two officialacted on code to the powerdiscourse. waspublic, It One demonstrated an alternative created had really people Turkish the that hypothesis the confirm The interviews The political “realm” and everyday one operate in different logic, the problem is logic, problem inthat the different operate andeveryday one “realm” The political form resistance. of asan everyday benames defined already could old the The usageof 76 CEU eTD Collection - - When and how did this process begin? - B. - - - - - A. How the process of renaming was carried on, by whom? isWhat most your lurid remembrance of “Revivalthe process”? processto this colleagues friends, neighbors, Bulgarian reactions of their resistances. The Questions about the“Revival Process”. The process renaming. Everydayof if yes, which one? friends, did they know your beliefs and rituals, didyou celebrate common feasts, yes, whatdidyou did dotogether, you knowthe and beliefs yourrituals of Did you have friendsany close belonging otherethnicity tothe and religion,if united them? Did the two ethnic groups have any disagreements, if yes – on what issues; what tothe socalled prior process”: Friends/Colleagues “Revival doyou your evaluate How your with relations Bulgarian Neighbors/ in were themainWhat village/town? the differences wouldHow you describe the lifein village/town the back then? Relationships with their Bulgarian neighbors. Sense of identity The life beginningof at the 1980s (before the“Revival process”). Guide for in-depth interviews . APPENDIX I APPENDIX 77 . CEU eTD Collection - C. ------How do you evaluate this process now? Evaluationof the“Revival process”. The problem of guilt. in what way, if not– why? process”? Were they sympathetic youto ornot, did they help you ornot, if yes – “Revival the Bulgarianyourneighbors/friends/colleagues to hadreacted How why did you return? If why not, youdid stay in Bulgaria? Did you gotoTurkey the openingafter of bordersin the 1989? yes, when If and practice “sjunet”? you to continue Did Koran? forbidden? Didyou hide forbidden any –likethings music, books, Turkish Didyouin totalk in continue language, it fact of spite the Turkish that was not –why? Were they any resistances against the “Revival process”? If yes – of what type, if Didyourlife change substantially? didyouHow manage tokeepyour oldlife? didHow you feel and copein a situation when in practice you had names? two newthe one? How did your relatives/friends/colleagues call you – with your old name or with name? Bulgarian new this exactly you name did you chose and why exactlyDid you havethe opportunity choseyour newto Bulgarian name,if yes, what this? If not, what was the logic of giving 78 CEU eTD Collection yes, where, how do they feel abroad, do they miss their old place of living? - Are members thereyour any family of are living if and who abroad, working - Do your Bulgarian neighbors/friends/colleagues respect your religious feasts? factor for overcoming it? important most the was what “no”, is answer the If now? tension ethnic there - Is the before are renaming there any situation If changes? yes, what had changed? - andneighborhoodlivenow? Compared howdoTurks In your tothe Bulgarians D. Evaluation ofthe situation now. - - - - should know about it? If yes – why, if not – why= youryou grandchildren think processshouldDo that beremembered, that this of situations. Do you feel the influence of this process now, if yes in– what way,in what type guilty. as youregard whom persons anyspecific arethere blame isthat, Who to all for reasons? the been have what isWhat your explanation aboutit, whyit exactly hadstarted in mid1980ies, 79 CEU eTD Collection dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Anthropology. New Doctor York of University, May 2005. degree the for requirements of the fulfillment partial in submitted dissertation Parla, Ayse. Parla, Bulgaria Neuburger,Mary. New Jersey: The Darwin Press, 1995. Justin. McCarthy, Journal ofBalkan and Near Eastern Studies Mahon, Milena.“The Turkish minority under communist Bulgaria—politics of ethnicity and power” In 1982. htpp://www.oocities.org/saidyyoungman/fouc01.htm (accessed May 15,2012) Structuralism and Hermeneutics Foucault, Michel. “Why study Power: The Question of the Subject.” In: Eminov, Ali. of California 1984. Press, Certeau, Michel de. Michel Certeau, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. in France, Germany and the United States.” In Brubaker,Rogers. “The Return of Assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town Brubaker, Rogers, Margit Feischmidt, Jon Fox and Liana Grancea. Redman. London: SAGE, 2005. Brubaker, Rogers. 531-548. Bourdieu, Pierre. “Biographical Illusion.” In Bourdieu, Pierre. Bourdieu, Bourdieu, Pierre. Bourdieu, Imagination Jan. Assmann, London: Verso, 1991. Anderson, Benedict. BIBLIOGRAPHY . Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004. . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Terms of Belonging: Turkish Immigrants from Bulgaria in the Imagined Homeland Turkish and Other Muslim Minorities of Bulgaria Cultural Memory and Early Civilization: Writing, Remembrance, and Political Practical Reasons:On the Theory of Action Masculine Domination Death and Exile. The ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821 -1922 The Orient Within: Muslim Minorities and the Negotiation of Nationhood in Modern Nationalism Reframed: Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe The Practice of Everyday Life Everyday of Practice The Imagined Communities: reflections onthe origin and spread of nationalism ,edited by Hubert Dreyfus & Paul Rabinow Brighton: Harvester Press, . Princeton: Princeton University 2006.Press, . Cambridge: Polity 1998.Press, . 1: 2, (1999): 149 —162. Identity: aReader Ethnic and Racial Studies . Translated by Steven Rendall, Berkeley: University Berkeley: Rendall, by Steven . Translated 80 . Cambridge: Polity 1994.Press, . New York: Routledge,1997. , ed. Paul du Gay, Jessika Evans, Peter Nationalist Politics and Everyday Michel Foucault :Beyond , Vol. 24, No 4 (July 2001): . Princeton, . (A . . CEU eTD Collection ɋɬɨɹɧɨɜ 1.]. Process”.Bulgarian State and Bulgarian Turks /in the mid 30ies and beginning of 80ies of 20c./ Ⱦɴɪɠɚɜɧɚɚɝɟɧɰɢɹ ɛɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɬɟɬɭɪɰɢ Ȼɚɟɜɚ Secret. Assimilatory Campaign against Turkish National Minority in Bulgaria.(1984-1989)]. ɧɚɰɢɨɧɚɥɧɨɦɚɥɰɢɧɫɬɜɨɜȻɴɥɝɚɪɢɹ http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/society/socio_relig/socio_relig_frame.html Weber, Max. “E. Religiosity of Social Strata. (E.1) Peasant”. In Nationalities Papers in Bulgaria Contemporary in Minority Turkish The Boteva Orlina and James Warhola, accessed May 20,2012). Ⱥɧɝɟɥɨɜ Primary Sources In Bulgarian Turkey Zhelyazkova, Antonina, (ed.), in 7,February 2012) http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/oral_history.html#historyfrombelow Profession inBritain Smith, Graham. “The Making of Oral History”. In Anthony. Smith, Reader Slim, Hugo, Paul Thompson, Olivia Bennett and Nigel Cross. “Ways of Listening,” In Peasant Resistance Consciousness: Everyday Formsof Ideological Struggle” in Scott, James. “Preface”, Chapter 1 “Small Arms Fire in the Class War” and Chapter 8 “Hegemony and Trastulli and Other Stories Different.” History Oral Makes “What Alessandro. Portelli, , .Sofia: International Center for Problems of Minorities and Cultural Interaction, 1998. Interaction, Cultural and of Minorities Problems for Center International .Sofia: , Edited by RobertPerks and Alistair Thomson. London: Routledge, 1998. ɂɫɤɪɚɢȿɜɝɟɧɢɹɄɚɥɢɧɨɜɚ , , Ⱦɢɦɢɬɴɪ ȼɟɫɟɥɢɧ National Identity . . xv-xxii, 1-27,304-350. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. „ . Ɂɚɩɥɚɯɚɬɚ ɋɬɪɨɝɨɩɨɜɟɪɢɬɟɥɧɨ . Vol. 31,No. 3,( September 2003):255-278 / , Ⱥɪɯɢɜɢ ɜɫɪɟɞɚɬɚɧɚ . Albany State University of New York Press, 1991. ”, 2009). [“Baeva, Iskra, and Evgeniya Kalinova, edit. Between Adaptationand Nostalgia: The Bulgarian Turks in . ɋɨɮɢɹ . Reno, Nevada: University of Nevada Press, 1991. . 30 ɫɴɫɬ (1984-1989 ɬɟɢɧɚɱɚɥɨɬɨɧɚ : . Ⱥɥɛɚɬɪɨɫ . Äȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɬɩɪɨɰɟɫ Ⱥɫɢɦɢɥɚɬɨɪɫɤɚɬɚɤɚɦɩɚɧɢɹɫɪɟɳɭɬɭɪɫɤɨɬɨ ). Making History. The Changing Face of the 81 , 1997. [Stoyanov, Dimitar, The Threat] ɋɨɮɢɹ 80 : ɂ Weapons ofthe Week: Everyday Forms of ɋɢɦɨɥɢɧɢ ɝ n Alessandro Portelli, Alessandro n . ɧɚ Sociology of Religion 20 ɜɟɤ ”. , 2008. [Angelov, Vesselin Top / Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɚɬɚɞɴɪɠɚɜɚɢ Ɍɨɦ 1.( ɋɨɮɢɹ The Death of Luigi The Revival The ,: The Oral History : ɂɡɞ , (accessed , (last . , Vol. CEU eTD Collection Ɍɨɞɨɪɨɜ ɋɨɮɢɹ ɋɬɨɹɧɨɜ Edited by Ivaylo Znepolski]. Tchavdar, From “internationalism” to nationalism. The Communist regime, Macedonian question and question the politics toward ethnic Macedonian and religious communities”.regime, In Communist The nationalism. to “internationalism” From Tchavdar, Ɇɚɤɟɞɨɧɫɤɢɹɬɜɴɩɪɨɫɢɩɨɥɢɬɢɤɢɬɟɤɴɦɟɬɧɢɱɟɫɤɢɬɟɢɪɟɥɢɨɝɢɨɡɧɢɬɟɨɛɳɧɨɫɬɢ ɇɚɪɨɞɧɚɊɟɩɭɛɥɢɤɚȻɴɥɝɚɪɢɹ Ɇɚɪɢɧɨɜ Regime: Policies, Reactionsand Consequences Kalionski Alexei and Mikhail, ɤɨɦɭɧɢɫɬɢɱɟɫɤɢɹɬɪɟɠɢɦ ȽɪɭɟɜɆɢɯɚɢɥ process””]. “Revival the During Turks Bulgarian Identity. Double and Renaming ³ȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɩɪɨɰɟɫ Ⱥɯɦɟɞ Secondary Sources chronicles ɐɚɧɟɜ , , ɋɬɟɮɚɧ : Ⱦɠɟɦɢɥɟ , , Ʌɢɤ , ȼɚɥɟɪɢ ɐɜɟɬɚɧ vol. 4]. ɑɚɜɞɚɪ , 1998) [Stoyanov, Valeri, , . ɢȺɥɟɤɫɟɣɄɚɥɶɨɧɫɤɢ Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɯɪɨɧɢɤɢ . , . “ . “ ɇɚɩɪɟɞɟɥɚ ɌɭɪɫɤɨɬɨɧɚɫɟɥɟɧɢɟɜȻɴɥɝɚɪɢɹɦɟɠɞɭɩɨɥɸɫɢɬɟɧɚɟɬɧɢɱɟɫɤɚɬɚɩɨɥɢɬɢɤɚ ɂɦɟ Ɉɬɢɧɬɟɪɧɚɰɢɨɧɚɥɢɡɴɦɤɴɦɧɚɰɢɨɧɚɥɢɡɴɦ , ”).” ɩɪɟɢɦɟɧɭɜɚɧɟɢɞɜɨɣɧɚɢɞɟɧɬɢɱɧɨɫɬ : ɋɨɰɢɨɥɨɝɢɱɟɫɤɢɩɪɨɛɥɟɦɢ ɩɨɥɢɬɢɤɢɪɟɚɤɰɢɢɢɩɨɫɥɟɞɢɰɢ The “Revival Process”. MuslimCommunities and the Communist . , ɋɨɮɢɹ ɫɴɫɬ . Ɍɨɦ ɂɜɚɣɥɨɁɧɟɩɨɥɫɤɢ : . Turkish Population in Bulgaria betweenPoles ofEthnic Policy ɇɚɪɨɞɧɚɤɭɥɬɭɪɚ ³ȼɴɡɪɨɞɢɬɟɥɧɢɹɬɩɪɨɰɟɫ 4. ɋɨɮɢɹ ]. 82 : ɂɡɞ , . History of People’s Republic ofBulgaria . Ɍɪɭɞ 1-2 (2003). [Ahmed, Jemile, “Name, , 1994. [Todorov, Tsvetan ɋɨɮɢɹ . , 2009, [Tzanev, Stefan. ɋɨɮɢɹ . ( . : CIELA, 2009, 506 [Marinov, Ȼɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɢɬɟɬɭɪɰɢɩɨɜɪɟɦɟɧɚ Ʉɨɦɭɧɢɫɬɢɱɟɫɤɹɬɪɟɠɢɦ ”. Ɇɸɫɸɥɦɚɧɫɤɢɬɟɨɛɳɧɨɫɬɢɢ : ɂɂȻɆ , CIELA, 2008. [Gruev, On the Limit ”, Bulgarian ȼ ɂɫɬɨɪɢɹɧɚ , ]. , . ].