LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

in the forms that carry its meanings.

      Foni (voice) is ideologically loaded, resulting in heteroglossia. Despite a direct reference to the “High” and “Low” linguistic traditions of the Italian Renaissance (Lepschy et al. 1996:71), it further reflects discourses of authority—be it ethnic, national or anthropological (Clifford 1986). In the present case, foni, expresses the associations’ heteroglossia and echoes nationalistic discourses, albeit on a micro level, as they have been developed around Europe. Similar to various European cases where linguistic minorities carve a historical niche that could possibly legitimize their ethnic claims, Grecanico associations at once make a case for belonging to both Ancient and Modern Greece.

       Tracing the Roots 1960–1980: La Jonica dei Greci

      Since their inception in the 1960s, Grecanico associations have produced fearless regimes of truth regarding how Grecanico language and culture should be handled on local and global scales. The key protagonists of the associations proclaim truths about the minority and have managed to condense Grecanico language and culture into their own personas—they stand as “culture keepers”. The truths, filtered into channels of local and global governance, have secured legal recognition, copious sources of funding, international partnerships, and opportunities for cultural tourism.

      The first association dealing with Grecanico language and culture, La Jonica dei Greci di Calabria⁴ was formed during the late 1960s in Reggio Calabria and dedicated to addressing the Questione Grecanica, the “entire recovery of the cultural heritage of the Greek linguistic minority” (Nucera 1984/5:43). Alluding to political, economic, and cultural urgency, the Questione Grecanica, implicated in a wider parliamentary interrogation of Calabria (Pellicano 1970), was one aspect of the “politics of difference” (Poppi 1992) taking place across Italy. For instance, the “Ladin question” was a debate over the consolidation of cultural and linguistic difference of the Ladins in northern Italy. The debate that began in the late 1970s or early 1980s in the Val di Fassa found partial resolution through the proposal of the Ladin language as the primary distinctive feature of the minority. Ladin was eventually recognized as a dialect, although this was “not enough to constitute the difference that mattered” (117).

      The Questione Grecanica was addressed by a group of local intellectuals and was the outcome of the intense linguistic interest in the Grecanico language that commenced as far back as 1820 after the research of Karl Witte in the region of Aspromonte (Karanastasis 1984:xiv). In 1820 commenced a continuous argument over the origin of Grecanico—does it stem from Ancient Greek or from later Greek vernaculars spoken by populations who moved to Calabria during the Byzantine era?⁵ The origin of the language is not only a matter of linguistics but also conceals deeper claims to cultural ownership and appropriation.

      Professors Domenico Minuto, Franco Mosino, Barone Adesi and Father Engels—none of Grecanico origin—were the first people to conceive of the creation of a Grecanico association, La Jonica, based on ethnic and linguistic claims (Campolo 2002:234–35). Together with a small number of young intellectuals originating from the area Grecanica, the professors initiated a public campaign to raise awareness of the Grecanici minority and improve their living conditions. It was imperative for the founders of La Jonica to restore the “collective consciousness of pride” of the Calabrian Greeks and introduce them to their glorious past. This invitation was extended to the inhabitants of the Grecanici villages in the area Grecanica and Grecanici migrants residing in Reggio Calabria. The inclusive character of the association made membership also open to non-Grecanici (2002:236).

      Jonica’s policy revolved around what was perceived as a collective good⁶ of an inclusionist nature (Olson 1965), the collective “awakening” of the Grecanici who were plagued by feelings of inferiority. According to the association’s rhetoric, the Grecanici should fully comprehend and embrace the value of their glorious Hellenic past. Based on this principle they should re-evaluate their whole political existence. In the public discussion that followed during the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, cultural and linguistic matters were conflated with what was colloquially termed cultura Grecanica (Grecanico culture). In publications that reflect the thinking during that era, cultura Grecanica was further associated with folklore, religion and tourist development. Thus, among other Jonica initiatives, we find the attempt to restore Orthodoxy in Calabria, the organization of conferences toward the renewal of interest in Byzantine traditions, the effort to enhance relations with the Greek state and improve cultural tourism in the area (Petropoulou 1995:203). The major result of Jonica’s persistent action was that on the advice of the AIDLCM, the regional law regarding Grecanico language was revised so that “the regione respects the tradition of the populations of Greek and Albanian origin, cultivates the development of historic, cultural and artistic heritage and favors the teaching of the two languages (Greek and Albanian) where they are spoken” (Regional law no. 519/56 1971).

      For almost a decade, La Jonica was the main association dealing with the Questione Grecanica. Yet members of the association soon “created new associations with different political valences” and opposing attitudes (Nucera 1984/5:61). According to Elisabetta Nucera, it was the differing political ideologies between the council of La Jonica and its constitutive members that hastened the dissolution of the association. Nucera here refers to the opposing political disposition of the younger members of La Jonica who were active members of the communist party and “could not bear the fact that the administration of the association was in the hands of a fascist” (1984/5:72). Political mistrust was further coupled with suspicions of financial corruption. According to Filippo Condemi, secretary of the association, “I asked for the archives of La Jonica but they were never given to me. I also proposed to the council that we should speak in Grecanico. I find it only logical: a group that deals with the problems of the Greek minority to speak in Grecanico. It did not pass” (72–73).

       Zoi ce Glossa: Other initiatives During the Period 1970–1980

      Filippo Condemi founded the association Zoi ce Glossa^GO (“Life and Language”) in 1974. The objective of the new association—consisting mainly of Grecanici originating from the village of Galliciano—was twofold: to rouse the migrants from Galliciano from the feeling of quotidian inferiority in relation to the rest of the Reggini and to use any possible political and social source for the “survival of Galliciano” (Nucera 1984/5:74). Yet it soon became apparent that the association would have to include Grecanici originating from the villages of Roghudi, Chorio di Roghudi, and Bova. This was a political tactic, ultimately doomed, to establish relationships with village administrators.

      The policies of the first two associations were similar regarding the recuperation of the Grecanico language, culture and identity. Politically, it seemed that La Jonica had a more inclusive and international character while Zoi ce Glossa was more exclusive and localized.⁷ In 1984 in Reggio Calabria the majority of Zoi ce Glossa founders created a new association called Centro Studi G. Rohlfs Zoi ce Glossa (Center of Studies G. Rohlfs, Life and Language). The council of this “non-profit” (article 4 of the constitution of the association) association was organized and run exclusively by Grecanici from Galliciano, Roghudi, and Chorio di Roghudi since they “originated from villages that are still today Greek one hundred percent” (Nucera 1984/5:79), while people from Bova, Bova Marina, and Roccaforte were allowed to join as non-executive members. Briefly, the other associations of the time dealing with Grecanico, mainly based in Bova Marina, were the Circolo Culturale Greco (Greek Cultural Circle) founded in 1972 in Bova Marina, Jalo tu Vua^GO (“Bova Marina”) founded in Bova Marina in 1972, Cosmo Cinurgjio^GO (“New World”) founded in 1975 in Bova Marina, and Apodiafazzi^GO (“Dawning”) also founded in Bova Marina in 1977. The majority of the founding members of the aforementioned associations were council members or ordinary members of Jonica (Nucera 1984/5; Campolo 2002). Their curricula exhibited an impressive agenda geared toward the salvation of Grecanico language and culture. To varying degrees their politics affected the operations of the Grecanico associations in Reggio Calabria since board members cooperated on common targets (Campolo 2002).

       Civil Society in Italy

      In his definition

Скачать книгу