Glavna urednica / Editor-in-Chief Mirjam Milharčič Hladnik Odgovorna urednica / Editor-in-Charge Marina Lukšič Hacin Tehnična urednica / Technical Editor Irena Destovnik Mednarodni uredniški odbor / International Editorial Board Synnove Bendixsen, Ulf Brunnbauer, Aleš Bučar Ručman, Martin Butler, Daniela l. Caglioti, Jasna Čapo, Donna Gabaccia, Jure Gombač, Ketil Fred Hansen, Damir Josipovič, Aleksej Kalc, Jernej Mlekuž, Claudia Morsut, Ihklas Nouh Osman, Nils Olav Ostrem, Lydia Potts, Maya Povrzanović Frykman, Francesco della Puppa, Jaka Repič, Rudi Rizman, Matteo Sanfilippo, Annemarie Steidl, Urška Strle, Kristina Toplak, Adam Walaszek, Rolf Wörsdörfer, Simona Zavratnik, Janja Žitnik Serafin Lektoriranje / Proofreading Peter Altshul (angleški jezik / English) Irena Destovnik (slovenski jezik / Slovene) Oblikovanje / Design Anja Žabkar Prelom / Typesetting Inadvertising d. o. o. Izdala / Published by ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovensko izseljenstvo in migracije / ZRC SAZU, Slovenian Migration Institute Tisk / Printed by Collegium Graphicum d. o. o., Ljubljana Naklada / Printum 150 Naslov uredništva / Editorial Office Address INŠTITUT ZA SLOVENSKO IZSELJENSTVO IN MIGRACIJE ZRC SAZU p. p. 306, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija Tel.: (+386 1) 4706 485; Fax (+386 1) 4257 802 E-naslov / E-mail: mgliha@zrc-sazu.si Spletna stran / Website: https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/twohomelands http://twohomelands.zrc-sazu.si © ZRC SAZU, Inštitut za slovensko izseljenstvo in migracije, Založba ZRC Revija izhaja s pomočjo Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije in Urada vlade Republike Slovenije za Slovence v zamejstvu in po svetu / Financial support: Slovenian Research Agency and Government Office for Slovenians Abroad Ljubljana 2020 Revija Dve domovini • Two Homelands je osrednja slovenska znanstvena revija, namenjena objavi izvirnih znanstvenih in strokovnih člankov, ki obravnavajo različne vidike migracij. Revijo je leta 1990 ustanovil Inštitut za slovensko izseljenstvo Znanstvenoraziskovalnega centra slovenske akademije znanosti in umetnosti in izhaja dvakrat letno v slovenskem in angleškem jeziku. Vsi članki so dvojno anonimno recenzirani. The journal Dve domovini • Two Homelands is dedicated to publishing original scientific articles about various aspects of migration. The journal was established by the Slovenian Migration Institute of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts Research Center (ZRC SAZU) in 1990 and is published twice a year in Slovenian and English. All articles are subject to double-blind peer review. Povzetki in indeksiranje / Abstracts and indexing: FRANCIS (Sociology/Ethnology/Linguistics of Francis), IBZ – International Bibliography of Periodical Literature, IBR – International Bibliography of Book – Reviews, Sociological Abstracts, IBSS – International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, MSH-Maisons des Sciences de l’Homme, SCOPUS, Social SciSearch, Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition. Letna naročnina 18 € za posameznike, 28 € za institucije. Annual subscription € 18 for individuals, € 28 for institutions. Master Card / Euro Card and VISA accepted. Naročila sprejema / Orders should be sent to: Založba ZRC, p. p. 306, SI-1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija Fax: (+386 1) 425 77 94; E-mail: zalozba@zrc-sazu.si VSEBINA / CONTENTS TEMATSKI SKLOP / THEMATIC SEC TION LOUIS ADAMIČ / LOUIS ADAMIC JANJA ŽITNIK SERAFIN The Relevance of Louis Adamic for the 21st Century Pomen Louisa Adamiča v 21. stoletju 7 KSENIJA ŠABEC Representations of Native Americans in the Works of Louis Adamic Reprezentacija ameriških staroselcev v kontekstu Adamičevega pisanja o (novih) priseljencih 23 JOHN PAUL ENYEART Trieste and Louis Adamic’s Transnational Identities Trst in transnacionalne identitete Louisa Adamiča 41 LEONORA FLIS Social Engagement and Multiculturalism in Louis Adamic’s Literary Journalism and Documentary Prose Družbeni angažma in multikulturalizem v literarnem novinarstvu in dokumentarni prozi Louisa Adamiča 59 MATJAŽ KLEMENČIČ, MILAN MRĐENOVIĆ Louis Adamič in druga svetovna vojna v ameriški in slovenski historiografiji Louis Adamic in the Second World War in American and Slovenian Historiography 77 MILAN MRĐENOVIĆ Odmevi Adamičevih del v ameriškem in slovenskem časopisju med letoma 1931 in 1934 Reactions to Adamic’s Work in the American and Slovenian Press between 1931 and 1934 95 ČLANKI / ARTICLES JOAN LACOMBA, MOURAD ABOUSSI Migration and Development Organizations: The Diversification of Civil Society and Public Policies in Spain Migracijske in razvojne organizacije: Diverzifikacija civilne družbe in javnih politik v Španiji 115 LAURE ZARIF KEYROUZ Mobility and Identity in the Art and Literature of Etel Adnan Mobilnost in identiteta v umetnosti in literaturi Etel Adnan 133 MIRJAM MILHARČIČ HLADNIK Kolektivna izkušnja prebežništva in drugih oblik izseljevanja mladih po drugi svetovni vojni v pisnih, ustnih in drugih avto/biografskih virih Collective Experience of Defection and other Types of Youth Emigration after the Second World War in Written, Oral and other Auto/Biographical Sources 151 BLAŽ LENARČIČ Migracijski proces v omrežni družbi The Migration Process in the Network Society 167 TANJA ŽIGON, VESNA KONDRIČ HORVAT, BOŠTJAN UDOVIČ Vprašanja identitet, migracij in transkulturnosti: Primer pesnice Cvetke Lipuš 185 Questions of Identity, Migrations and Transculturality: The Case of the Poet Cvetka Lipuš KNJIŽNE OCENE / BOOK REVIEW John Paul Enyeart, Death to Fascism: Louis Adamic’s Fight for Democracy 203 (Miha Zobec) LOUIS ADAMIČ / LOUIS ADAMIC THEMATIC SECTION THE RELEVANCE OF LOUIS ADAMIC IN THE 21ST CENTURY Janja ŽITNIK SERAFIN| COBISS 1.02 ABSTRACT The Relevance of Louis Adamic in the 21st Century The article first outlines the literature on Louis Adamic (1898–1951), the most success­ful writer of the Slovenian diaspora. The author then highlights Adamic’s prescience in a number of works dedicated to his original homeland. This is followed by a discus­sion of Adamic’s views on the mid-20th century global situation and the prospects for its development, which include some of the most pressing social issues in the world today. The author employs the overview method by supplementing her current re­search results with other scholars’ findings. KEY WORDS: Louis Adamic, American literature, Slovenian emigrant’s literature, history of the 20th century IZVLEČEK Pomen Louisa Adamiča v 21. stoletju Prispevek uvodoma oriše obseg literature o Louisu Adamiču (1898–1951), najuspe­šnejšem pisatelju slovenskega izseljenstva. Avtorica nato izpostavi prodornost ne­katerih Adamičevih napovedi v delih, ki jih je posvetil svoji rojstni deželi. Temu sle­di predstavitev Adamičevih pogledov na svetovne razmere sredi 20. stoletja in na najverjetnejše perspektive njihovega prihodnjega razvoja, ki vključujejo nekatera še danes najaktualnejša vprašanja globalne družbe. Avtorica v prispevku uporablja metodo pregledne raziskave: glavna spoznanja svojih dosedanjih raziskav sooča s spoznanji drugih avtorjev. KLJUČNE BESEDE: Louis Adamič, ameriška literatura, književnost slovenskih izseljen­cev, zgodovina 20. stoletja | PhD in Literary Studies, Research Advisor; Slovenian Migration Institute, Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana; janja.serafin@gmail.com — The article is a result of the project “Social, economic and cultural history of Slovenian emigration (1945–1991)” and the research programme “National and Cultural Identity of Slovenian Emigration in the Context of Migration Studies” (P5-0070), both financed by the Slovenian Research Agency. INTRODUCTION Louis Adamic (1898–1951) was the most successful writer of the Slovenian diaspora. According to Jože Pirjevec (2009), he can be considered one of the most internation­ally renowned Slovenes. He left his mark on the 20th century with a remarkable lit­erary legacy comprising twenty large volumes, around 500 articles and other publi­cations, as well as scores of pamphlets, lectures and unpublished manuscripts. In his adopted homeland, Adamic made his voice heard not only in writing, but on lecture tours, in public speeches and radio talks. He was one of the most prolific American social critics in the 1930s and 1940s. His critiques were not limited to the social issues of his two homelands, but extended worldwide, with analyses of the social and po­litical situations of his day and projections about the future of global society. Works by Adamic resonated deep into the second half of the 20th century, and some are as relevant today as they were six, seven or eight decades ago when they first saw publication. The impact of his works brought Adamic nationwide acclaim, conferences with presidents Roosevelt and Truman, scores of awards, accolades and grants (among other things, he received a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1932, was the featured author of the Book-of-the-Month Club in 1934, and received the Anisfield-Wolf Book Award for the most significant book on “race relations in the contemporary world” in 1940). He was awarded an honorary doctorate from Temple University in Philadelphia in 1941 and the Yugoslav Order of Brotherhood and Unity in 1944. Adamic enjoyed personal and public support from famous literary figures such as Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis, Sherwood Anderson, and F. Scott Fitzgerald. His works were selected for the White House library, included in anthologies of American prose, taught at a number of American colleges, distributed to US soldiers during the Second World War, and long benefited from new editions, reprints and translations worldwide. This survey article will look at Adamic’s enduring relevance and his role in in­ternational cultural awareness in the 21st century. First, I will outline the body of scholarly and general interest literature on Adamic, as well as his standing in the history of Slovenian literature. I will then highlight the prescience of a number of Adamic’s prognoses in the works dedicated to his original homeland. Since his views on immigration are particularly pertinent today, I will focus on this area in a separate section. The clearest case for Adamic’s lasting significance, however, is based on his views on the contemporaneous global situation and the prospects for its development, which I explore in the final section. The article will take the form of an overview, where I will include the findings of other Adamic scholars along with my current research results. LOUIS ADAMIC IN THE HISTORY OF SLOVENIAN LITERATURE The scholarly and general interest literature on Louis Adamic comprises several thousand articles, papers, studies, reviews and commentaries, lectures, theses and dissertations, thematic dossiers in journals1 etc., as well as thirteen books, mainly by Slovene and American authors. Among the latter are two collections of proceedings from conferences on Adamic (Stanonik 1981; Gantar Godina 1999), a bibliography of publications by Adamic (Christian 1971), a Slovenian translation of his selected correspondence (Christian 1981), and eight thematic monographs on his life and work (McWilliams 1935; Petrič 1981; Adamič F. 1983; Žitnik Serafin 1992a; 1993; 1995a; 1995b; Shiffman 2003; Enyeart 2019). Adamic’s books have been widely translated; notably, most of his books are available in Japanese. Since 2010, an hour-long au­dio-visual presentation of Adamic’s life and work has been freely available online (on the website of the Slovenian Migration Institute and the web portal Slovenci.si), which I produced in 2009 in collaboration with Radio Slovenia. Although Adamic wrote in English, he is included in almost every overview of Slovenian literature from the late 1960s onwards. He features in general overviews of Slovenian literature by Joža Mahnič (1964: 146, 241, 294), Lino Legiša (1969: 308), Franc Zadravec (1999: 294), Jože Pogačnik and Zadravec (1973) et al. In this respect, Adamic is an exception, since the main overviews of Slovenian literature have yet to include other Slovene emigrant authors writing in non-native languages – as they have also yet to include immigrant authors living in Slovenia and writing in their na­tive languages. Why was Adamic integrated into the Slovenian literary canon? Was it due to his ideological eligibility at a time when Slovenian literary history mainly conformed to the political pressures of the then-current regime? Or was his unques­tioned canonisation the result of his singular success and international acclaim? Those who have argued that Adamic is also a Slovenian writer include Zadravec (1981: 101), Denis Poniž (1981: 113–118), and Boris Paternu, who wrote: In his portrait of Slovenia, Adamic covered, in his particular and concise manner, almost the entire length of narrative writing about Slovenia and its people, from Trdina and Jurčič, through Kersnik, to Cankar, Župančič, and Voranc. Unawares, and despite his otherness, Adamic also became a Slovenian writer the moment he set foot in his homeland. (Paternu 1981: 94) Indeed, a large part of Adamic’s literary subject matter, themes and motifs is derived from Slovenian, and partly Slovenian-American, culture. The Slovenian national and cultural question occupies an important place in the works dedicated to his former homeland; likewise, the protagonists of his narratives are often of Slovenian origin. For instance, the six-article dossier in Dve domovini / Two Homelands 9 (1998) marking the centennial of Adamic's birth. In The Native’s Return, his most successful book, Adamic draws a dramatic contrast between his past sense of alienation from his native country and its culture, and the new feeling of enthusiastic, vital, and firm belonging to all that is Slovenian – all of which he describes in vivid ethnographic detail, with literary grace and emotional investment. We can find in this contrast a persuasive answer to the question of his Slovenian cultural identity. WORKS BY ADAMIC ON HIS ORIGINAL HOMELAND In virtually all his works, Adamic touches upon social and cultural questions concern­ing his two homelands. In addition, most of his public activities were dedicated to such issues, which testifies to his pronounced bi-national socio-cultural embedded-ness. Adamic dedicated The Native’s Return, Struggle, My Native Land, and The Eagle and the Roots to his original homeland, all of which were translated into Slovene. In addition to these books, Adamic also endeavoured to introduce Slovenian cul­ture, history, and current socio-political issues into American culture with his English translations of Slovenian authors, as well as in his articles, lectures, and radio talks. In general, such mediation is one of the signature characteristics of emigrant and minority authors with a culturally pronounced “dual-homeland” status. Adamic’s English translations of Slovenian authors were extensively covered by Jerneja Petrič in the monograph Svetovi Louisa Adamiča [“The Worlds of Louis Adamic”], and in a number of journals such as Slavistična revija [“Journal of Slavonic Studies”], Slovenski koledar [“Slovenian Calendar”], and Dve domovini / Two Homelands. The country of his birth occupied Adamic from his earliest published work (his translation of Ivan Cankar’s Yerney’s Justice was published as early as 1926) until his death, which put an abrupt stop to the final editing touches on The Eagle and the Roots (1952), his posthumously published book concerning Tito and Yugoslavia af­ter its expulsion from Cominform, which was likely the cause of his violent death. I will examine the booklet Struggle (1934) below in this article. Adamic’s intention in My Native Land (1943), published during the Second World War, was to acquaint American readers with the history of his original homeland. Interestingly, it was the first of Adamic’s books on the land of his birth, The Native’s Return, that brought him the most acclaim; the work gives an account of his first visit to his old homeland us­ing his characteristic blending of travel and documentary writing. Since this became Adamic’s greatest success immediately after its publication, the circumstances of its writing and its exceptional reach are well worth a closer look. In 1929, Adamic moved back to New York from the West Coast, where he had spent several years in San Pedro translating and writing news articles and reportage. In New York, Adamic finished writing Dynamite in 1931–32, an account of a century of class struggle and violence in the USA, as well as his autobiography, Laughing in the Jungle. He was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship for both works, which allowed him to embark on a year-long journey to Europe with his wife in 1932–33. He spent most of this trip visiting his old homeland and enjoyed an exceptional reception in Slovenia and across Yugoslavia. He was even granted an audience with King Alexan­der I of Yugoslavia. In 1934, after returning to the USA, Adamic published The Native’s Return, which had an impressive first print run and numerous reprints. As many as 20 editions of the book were published by Harper in New York and London up to October 1938 (including Harper’s Modern Classics edition from 1937); further editions were pub­lished in London by Victor Gollanz, as well as in Sweden, where the book was trans­lated upon its publication in 1934 (Christian 1971: 69–70). In the first month after the book’s release, 50,000 copies were sold. In February 1934, the book was picked by the Book-of-the-Month Club, while a special committee of highly reputable Ameri­can writers and teachers included the book in a selection of 200 titles (out of about 40,000 published in the previous four years) which were presented to President Roo­sevelt for the White House library. In the months following the book’s release, Adam-ic reportedly received around 3,000 letters from readers (Grill 1979: 201). Since the book foretold the imminent demise of King Alexander, Adamic became an overnight sensation in the USA after Alexander’s actual assassination took place in Marseille in 1934, and was besieged with requests for interviews. In addition to his best-seller, Adamic also published Struggle in 1934 – a booklet with testimonies about the inhumane interrogation methods inflicted on commu­nists imprisoned in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In Yugoslavia, however, both books were blacklisted, and their dissemination, and even mere possession, was punish­able with lengthy prison sentences under Alexander’s regime (Grill 1979: 191). This was to be expected, as both books denounced Alexander’s dictatorship. Adamic was also critical of the Serbian oppression of the other nations constituting Yugoslavia at that time. Despite the ban, both books were highly sought after in Yugoslavia, and illegal trade in Adamic’s works could reportedly rake in hefty profits. The Native’s Return was reissued when US soldiers were deployed to the Balkan Front during the Second World War. Most copies were bought by the US Army and distributed among soldiers to serve as an introduction to local history and the situation in the former Yugoslav kingdom that would lead, in parallel to the national liberation struggle, to a social revolution. Struggle also succeeded in provoking strong reactions. On the basis of the book’s testimonies, the National Committee for the Defense of Politi­cal Prisoners addressed a memorandum to Leonid Pitamic, the ambassador of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the USA, in which they protested the cruel treatment and torture of political prisoners – particularly the members of the outlawed Communist Party – at the hands of the Yugoslav police. This memorandum was signed by some of America’s most famous writers. After 1945, Adamic publicly supported the Yugoslav position on the Trieste dis­pute and its opposition to James F. Byrnes’s demands regarding its western border (Mikuž 1983: 56–61). Furthermore, he committed to gathering material aid for his old homeland, an effort he had already launched during wartime. All the while, he pub­lished articles on the current situation in Yugoslavia and the USA in his magazine, Trends and Tides. In 1948, Adamic’s attention was drawn to the Cominform resolution directed against the Communist Party of Yugoslavia – at a time when the discord between Tito and Stalin had escalated with the Yugoslav boycott of the Cominform conference on 20 June 1948 in Bucharest (cf. Dedijer 1969; Robel 1983: 240–247). Adamic felt that these extraordinary developments, the conflict between Tito and Stalin and Yugoslavia’s exit from the Eastern Bloc, indicated the country’s newly gained stature in a global context. He saw in this the roots of what would become the Non-Aligned Movement: Tito’s efforts towards peaceful coexistence and refusal to meddle in the affairs of other states, tendencies that would represent a positive approach to international relations in the decades that followed. As early as 1949, Yugoslavia started negotiating for economic and military aid with the West, and in fact received it in 1950–51 from the USA, the United Kingdom, and France. Nevertheless, via the US ambassador in Belgrade, Yugoslavia strongly opposed American attempts at dictating its foreign and domestic affairs, a point explicitly made by Tito in his Užice speech in February 1950 (Bekić 1988: 148, 279, 289–290, 134–143). In 1949, Adamic spent eight months in his old homeland on his second visit. During this time, dramatic events following the Cominform resolution dissuaded him from his initial plan of using this trip to gather material for a new novel entitled The Education of Michael Novak, which would never be realised. Instead, he started collecting material for a new book on Tito, Yugoslavia, and its emancipation from the Eastern Bloc. He was aided by a number of friends and relatives, as well as the Yugoslav leadership. Vladimir Dedijer organised a team of assistants, led by Viljem Jager, who collected the required material under Adamic’s instructions.2 Edvard Kardelj, Aleš Bebler and Moša Pijade took Adamic on a several-week long journey across Yugoslavia, which he related in detail in The Eagle and the Roots, published after his death. In this book, Adamic’s scepticism and reservations regarding certain aspects of Yugoslav politics, which unsettled him on this trip, can be read between the lines. He used every occasion to draw the attention of Tito, Boris Kidrič, Dedijer, as well as the Yugoslav representatives in the USA, to the necessity of eliminating the flagrant exploitation of privilege within the Party and state leadership, to the unacceptable practice of using state buildings for private ends, to the lack of transparency in com­munication with the domestic and foreign publics (as in the event of the Yugoslav downing of two American aircraft in 1946), and to the pointless measures in the state’s agrarian policy. He was particularly incensed over the political repression of the Cominform supporters and the Dachau trials in Slovenia. Still, Adamic did not Interview with Vladimir Dedijer and Viljem Jager, in: Žitnik Serafin 1995a: 25–57. voice his objections in his last book The Eagle and the Roots, nor in the many Ameri­can articles he wrote on Yugoslavia. Still, as noted above, these objections can be read between the lines of his works. This reticence can be attributed to the fact that Adamic did not want to compromise Yugoslavia at a time when it was under economic blockade and threat of military aggression from the East, since this could damage its position in the negotiations for Western economic and military aid. However, in his letters and discussions with the Yugoslav leadership he consistently opposed those shortcomings of the regime that would eventually come to represent its negative aspects. For example, after return­ing to the USA in the autumn of 1949, he conveyed to Dedijer the protests and pe­titions from Slovenian-American relatives of Yugoslav political prisoners, and asked him to appeal to Aleksander Ranković for help.3 These facts, uncovered only when Adamic’s correspondence became accessible in the 1980s and then presented to the Slovenian public in the first half of the 1990s, in addition to the testimonies from his close companions, cast a new light on his role in Yugoslavia’s post-war affairs. ADAMIC’S WRITINGS ON AMERICAN SOCIAL ISSUES Until recently, this part of Adamic’s work had been poorly known in Slovenia. As one would expect, most of the works translated into Slovene were those dedicated to his original homeland. In the last couple of decades, however, several scholars have tried to redress the ignorance regarding Adamic’s key role in shaping American multiculturalism, with a host of lectures and published studies. In addition, public events, symposia and radio shows focusing on Adamic have also taken place.4 Aside from Dynamite, his first influential work, Adamic dedicated all of his books on American society to immigration issues. Notable among these are Grandsons (1935), My America (1938), From Many Lands (1940), What’s Your Name? (1942), and A Nation of Nations (1945). His autobiography Laughing in the Jungle (1932) and the later Two-Way Passage (1941), which led to his White House dinner invitation, can also be seen as part of this body of work. In addition, Adamic was involved with immigration issues as a board member of the Foreign Language Information Service (FLIS), which was closely linked to immigrant organisations and publishers, and as the founder and chief editor of Common Ground, the official journal of the Common Council for Amer­ican Unity, which aimed to integrate the immigrant experience into public education. 3 See: SAZU Library, Louis Adamic archival fonds, Letters file, Letter from Louis Adamic to Vladimir Dedijer, 21 March 1950. 4 Among these efforts, the Slovene translation of Dan Shiffman’s study Rooting Multicultur­ alism: The Work of Louis Adamic (Shiffman 2005) is of central importance. The author of this article also attempted to raise awareness about this facet of Adamic’s work with a series of published lectures from 2010. The Slovenian Migration Institute, the Slovenian Emigrant As­ sociation, and the Grosuplje House of Culture are some of the institutions that have organised conferences, symposia and panel talks to mark some of the anniversaries of Adamic’s birth. In later years, his efforts concerning immigration were focused on editing the nine-part book series The Peoples of America Series (Christian 1971: 75). Adamic pursued his research on immigration through numerous study trips, visits to archives and librar­ies, field research, mass surveys and in-depth interviews; the results of his research were made public not only in books, but in countless articles, lecture tours, radio talks, pamphlets, posters, and published lectures on immigration in the USA. It is understandable that individuals and groups who suddenly become the in­voluntary object of observation and study frequently distance themselves, as a re­sult of their discomfort and mistrust, from their observer and his or her findings. In this regard, Adamic enjoyed a great advantage over the majority of other research­ers into immigration and related issues. The various groups of the most recent and slightly older immigrants and their descendants saw him as an established immi­grant American, and thanks to his successful integration into American culture, this was also how he was seen by mainstream American culture. Since he observed im­migration as both an insider and outsider, Adamic was able to identify with both groups. As a result, his insights into the related issues were all the more nuanced. Moreover, owing to this dual involvement he had the attention of both groups. His work was grounded in a pronounced multicultural emphasis on diversity. He based his argument in favour of diversity on an awareness of the need for accept­ance and security felt by countless immigrants he had encountered. While he ad­vocated the shaping of a community that would be more than the sum of its parts, he also maintained a commitment to diversity in recognition of human complexity. Adamic was aware that even those who live within the comparatively well-defined boundaries of an ethnic community cannot be reduced to an ethnic type. And while he tended to dramatise, this involved no moralising. His portraits of immigrants and their narratives invited America to rethink its history; at the same time, their pro­tagonists maintained their individuality. This emphasis on individuality countered the risk of overgeneralising the aspirations and needs of the immigrants (Shiffman 2005: 131). The range of individual characteristics and mentalities of immigrants is eloquently realised in two portraits of men from Slovenia: Tone Kmet, a former steel­worker who was a strike-breaker in his youth in order to secure a pension, yet re­fused American citizenship in old age (Adamic 1940b: 27, 39–40, 45–46); and Michael Novak, a highly successful businessman who gave up his career in late middle age so that he could reconnect with his forgotten and denied cultural origins, and finally achieve a transnational understanding.5 Adamic never isolated immigration issues from the broader social context – above all, the questions of the dominant values, social norms and socio-economic stratification of American society. His research was primarily focused, as one might expect, on the more recent immigrants and their descendants, but also on those Archives of the Republic of Slovenia, Janko Rogelj archival fonds, box 3, file 19, Louis Adamic, “The Education of Michael Novak”. The archived item is the story outline for a novel which Adamic eventually abandoned. (See Žitnik Serafin 1992b: 73–78) who already perceived themselves as “old Americans”. Furthermore, he was interest­ed in the intermediate space between these poles, the intersections of their clash­ing interests and the points where they found common ground. Yet Adamic did not see American society simply as a field ruled by forces of attraction and repulsion between opposing poles, or between the centre and periphery, as multi-ethnic so­cieties are often conceptualised today. Instead he saw it as a complex web of multi-layered social relations and identities, determined by countless shifting factors. This complexity is partly the consequence of the unclear dividing lines between the im­migrant and majority currents in American society, and the interweaving of various components of both individual and group cultural identities (Shiffman 2005). Further, Adamic offers an almost revolutionary view not only of ethnic and cul­tural identities, but also of national identity whenever he discusses “American iden­tity”. He argues that the formation of the USA, as well as Anglocentric American his­tory and tradition, do not occupy a priori a central place in the national identity of Americans. In contrast, his view is that the nation cannot base its identity either on an individual cultural tradition or on the sum of different cultural traditions; rather, its identity is constantly being formed. The nation and its identity are therefore not something that needs above all to be preserved, but a community that must contin­ually discover and articulate itself anew (ibid.). This is something that also applies to European nations in the present day. Adamic realised that the treatment of immigrants in America does not align with its standards of democracy. His entire body of work hinges on this realisation; the suffering of immigrants and their descendants is not merely a stain on American history, but one of its main characteristics (Shiffman 2005: 126). In his introduction to a survey mailed out to thousands of Americans in the early 1940s, Adamic could thus note that more lives had been lost among European immigrants in work accidents during the country’s construction in the past century than among the settlers who conquered the West and fought the War of Independence. It is therefore crucial that America recognises this fact, which represents the most important part of its identity (Adamic 1940a: 302). Adamic was also aligned with modern-day multiculturalists in his efforts to raise awareness of the reality and effects of xenophobia. He described, for instance, the feelings of inferiority experienced by victims of xenophobic perse­cution, who are consequently driven to economic, social and cultural “marginality”; rather than America’s creative impulses, they are motivated by fear and confusion, which reduce and diminish their presence (Adamic 1940c: 67). It should then come as no surprise that they often adopt a defensive and occasionally aggressive attitude. Adamic fought the marginalisation of immigrants, and thus their defensive at­titude, by tearing down stereotypes and prejudices: claims about the vast numbers of illegal immigrants, the disproportionate crime rates in immigrant communities, the loss of millions of American jobs to immigrants, the excessive burden that im­migrants impose on the welfare system, and, last but not least, the belief that mass deportation would put an end to the economic crisis (Shiffman 2005: 126–127). The persistence of these stereotypes up to the present day speaks to the continuing rel­evance of Adamic’s work. It is further apparent if we look at today’s highly polarised public opinion in the USA, Europe, and elsewhere regarding aspects of immigration that are virtually identical to those at the forefront of public discourse in the 1930s and 1940s. These issues are no less pressing now than they were at the time of Adam­ic’s pioneering struggle for the equality and integration of immigrants – regardless of the substantial resources that governments have allocated since then to research work and continual legislative changes in this area.6 ADAMIC ON GLOBAL ISSUES At the encouragement of Upton Sinclair, Adamic started writing Dinner at the White House in 1945. The book relates the story of the White House dinner on the occasion of Churchill’s visit in January 1942, which Adamic attended on an invitation from Roosevelt. Adamic reports on their talk and adds extensive critical commentary in light of subsequent American and British foreign policy decisions. A footnote in the book led Churchill to sue Adamic for libel. His publisher Harper and Brothers took responsibility for the contentious footnote and paid a substantial share of the dam­ages, and thus Adamic lost his long-standing relationship with the firm. During these years, Adamic worked to further the publication of articles against the Cold War and arms race, as well as the mounting anti-Soviet propaganda in the USA. He emphasised the necessity of peaceful cooperation between American cap­italism and Soviet socialism, which he believed ought to complement each other with their contrasting values, rather than stand opposed. He maintained a convic­tion that the two systems could learn from each other in the necessary attempt to reduce their own deficiencies. As early as 1949, Adamic advised Tito to favour internationalism and form closer ties with India and other “non-aligned countries” in order to resist the bloc politics which threatened world peace. He writes to this effect in The Eagle and the Roots; however, he had already adopted this view soon after the Cominform resolution, at the time when the Yugoslav leadership was far from ready for an actual and defini­tive (economic, military, political, and ideological) break with the Eastern Bloc (Žitnik Serafin 1993: 44). A solid foundation for the Non-Aligned Movement was established upon Tito’s visit to India in 1954–55, and the Tito, Nehru and Nasser summit in the Brioni Islands in July 1956. The three leaders declared their commitment to non-bloc politics, disarmament, ending nuclear weapons testing, non-interference in domes­tic affairs, and peaceful coexistence and cooperation between countries regardless One example of a complex approach to the most pressing aspects of immigration, in rela­tion to the European response to the arrival of refugees since the autumn of 2015, is the re­cent volume The Disaster of European Refugee Policy: Perspectives from the “Balkan Route” (Žagar et al. 2018). of their political systems. As on many earlier occasions and in regard to other is­sues, Adamic’s predictions and suggestions were again remarkably prescient when it came to international politics and relations. Comparing the published and unpublished portions of Adamic’s manuscript for The Eagle and the Roots, we can see that as much as two fifths of the entire volume were cut from the American edition. Most glaring is the omission of the manuscript’s longest chapter, “Game of Chess in an Earthquake”, which was removed on the in­structions of the book’s editor Timothy Seldes and Adamic’s widow, Stella. In this chapter, amounting to 440 typed pages, Adamic discusses the contemporaneous situation in the USA and around the world. Using many quotes from American daily press, books, and speeches from opinion leaders, he mounts a scathing critique of both American domestic politics, in which political liberties are curtailed and de­mocracy eroded, and of American foreign politics in the context of the Cold War, the arms race and interference in the Korean conflict, which led to the catastrophic war with millions killed. The central themes of this chapter include the unjust global distribution of nat­ural and energy resources, political and economic imperialism, manipulative media in the thrall of capital, exploitation of patriotic sentiment for warmongering, incite­ment of hatred between nations and cultures, and the probability of either war or peace in different parts of the world based upon oil and other economic interests of American capital. Seven decades after Adamic wrote the manuscript, these issues continue to be at the root of humanity’s gravest predicaments, which cannot but affirm the enduring significance of his views. In light of the criticism and political persecution Adamic was subjected to during the McCarthy era, the editor’s decision to omit the chapter from publication should come as no surprise. CONCLUSION Adamic’s social criticism is almost always based on a historical perspective, par­ticularly in Dynamite and My Native Land, but also in his works on immigration and inter-cultural relations, as well as in his last, posthumously published book. Along with the analysis of past and present social conditions, Adamic’s critiques frequent­ly involve the visionary anticipation of future trends and events that would then in fact take place. For example, his predictions on the fate of King Alexander and the Yugoslav monarchy, which Adamic put forward in The Native’s Return, or his forecasts on the future development of inter-cultural relations in the US, his lucid views on the social development of socialist Yugoslavia and the international stature of Tito, and, last but not least, his anticipation of Yugoslavia’s ensuing troubles, rooted in the er­rors that the Yugoslav leadership made in the early post-war years. No less prescient were some of his observations on the economic, social and political trends in global social development. The considerable numbers of American scholars of multiculturalism and im­migrant integration who still refer to Adamic’s work today and offer commentary on his views also attest to his enduring relevance. A monograph on the echoes of Adamic in the current multiculturalism and immigration debate was published in 2003 by Dan Shiffman, a professor of literature and one of the foremost Adamic scholars in the USA. The Encyclopedia of American Multiethnic Literature likewise ded­icates a sizeable entry to Adamic. Adamic’s relevance and lasting presence in the cultural awareness of a certain part of the Slovenian and international public is also apparent from new studies on the writer (including this dossier and the recently concluded research by John Enyeart), as well as recent translations of his works. Among these are an extensive compendium of extracts from Adamic’s oeuvre (Müller 2015), and new Slovene translations of The Truth about Los Angeles (Adamič 2012) and From Many Lands (Adamic 1940a). Lastly, the abiding interest in Adamic’s literary and intellectual heritage on the part of the Slovenian and international pub­lic was amply displayed in the large turnout for the recent festivities celebrating the 120th anniversary of the writer’s birth (bearing the title “From Many Lands”), which took place in Ljubljana, Grosuplje, and elsewhere, and encompassed events ranging from a cross-border children’s art contest to a pair of exhibitions and an internation­al academic conference. REFERENCES Adamič, France (1983). Spomini in pričevanja o življenju in delu Louisa Adamiča. Ljublja­ na: Prešernova družba. Adamic, Louis (1940a). From Many Lands. New York: Harper. Adamic, Louis (1940b). The Old Alien by the Kitchen Window. Saturday Evening Post (6. julij 1940), 27, 39–40, 45–46. Adamic, Louis (1940c). This Crisis is an Opportunity. Common Ground 1/1, 62–73. Adamič, Louis (2012). Resnica o Los Angelesu (prev. Aleš Debeljak). Ljubljana: Zavod Projekt Atol. Bekić, Darko (1988). Jugoslavija u hladnom ratu: Odnosi s velikim silama 1949–1955. Za­greb: Globus. Christian, Henry A. (1971). Louis Adamic: A Checklist. [Kent, Ohio]: Kent State University Press. Christian, Henry A. (ur.) (1981). Izbrana pisma Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Dedijer, Vladimir (1969). Izgubljena bitka J. V. Staljina. Sarajevo: Svjetlost. Enyeart, John P. (2019). Death to Fascism: Louis Adamic's Fight for Democracy. Univer­ sity of Illinois Press. Gantar Godina, Irena (ur.) (1999). Intelektualci v diaspori: Intellectuals in Diaspora: Zbornik referatov simpozija »100. obletnica rojstva Louisa Adamiča«. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Grill, Vatroslav (1979). Med dvema svetovoma. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. Legiša, Lino (1969). Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva VI: V ekspresionizem in novi reali­zem. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. Mahnič, Joža (1964). Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva. Obdobje moderne. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. McWilliams, Carey (1935). Louis Adamic and Shadow-America. Los Angeles: Arthur Whipple. Mikuž, Metod (1983). Svet po vojni (1945–1957). Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Müller, Jakob (ur.) (2015). Louis Adamič: Novi svet – ljudje in vizije: Izbrani odlomki iz dvanajstih Adamičevih knjig. Grosuplje: Mestna knjižnica. Paternu, Boris (1981). Nastajanje Adamičevega sestava vrednot ob Ameriki in Jugo­slaviji. Louis Adamič: Simpozij: Symposium (ur. Janez Stanonik). Ljubljana: Univerza Edvarda Kardelja, 85–100. Petrič, Jerneja (1981). Svetovi Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Pirjevec, Jože (2009). Louis Adamič: Predavanje na kolokviju »Življenje in delo Louisa Adamiča: Počastitev 110. obletnice rojstva Louisa Adamiča«, Ljubljana, Slovenska izseljenska matica, 12. 3. 2009. Pogačnik, Jože, Zadravec, Franc (1973). Zgodovina slovenskega slovstva. Maribor: Obzorja. Poniž, Denis (1981). Nacionalno v literaturi Louisa Adamiča o Slovencih in Jugoslaviji. Louis Adamič: Simpozij: Symposium (ur. Janez Stanonik). Ljubljana: Univerza Ed-varda Kardelja, 183–185. Robel, Gert (1983). Die Verstoßung Jugoslawiens. Fischer Weltgeschichte 35. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Shiffman, Dan (2003). Rooting Multiculturalism: The Work of Louis Adamic. London etc.: Associated University Presses. Shiffman, Dan (2005). Korenine multikulturalizma: Delo Louisa Adamiča (prev. Cirila To-plak). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Stanonik, Janez (ur.) (1981). Louis Adamič: Simpozij: Symposium. Ljubljana: Univerza Edvarda Kardelja. Zadravec, Franc (1981). Oton Župančič in Louis Adamič. Louis Adamič: Simpozij: Sym­posium (ur. Janez Stanonik). Ljubljana: Univerza Edvarda Kardelja, 101–111. Zadravec, Franc (1999). Slovenska književnost II: Moderna – ekspresionizem – socialni realizem. Ljubljana: DZS. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (1992a). Louis Adamič in sodobniki: 1948–1951. Ljubljana: Sloven-ska akademija znanosti in umetnosti. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (1992b). Louis Adamic: The Education of Michael Novak. Litera­ture, Culture and Ethnicity: Studies on Medieval, Renaissance and Modern Literatures: A Festschrift for Janez Stanonik. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta, Znanstveni inštitut, 73–78. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (1993). Pero in politika: Zadnja leta Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (1995a). Pogovori o Louisu Adamiču. Ljubljana: Prešernova družba. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (1995b). Orel in korenine med »brušenjem« in cenzuro. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (2005). Adamic, Louis (1898–1951). The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Multiethnic American Literature (ur. Emmanuel Sampath Nelson). Westport, Conn.; London: Greenwood Press 1, 14–16. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (2011). Pomen Louisa Adamiča v 21. stoletju. Studia Historica Slovenica 11/2–3, 763–781. Žagar, Igor Ž. idr. (ur.) (2018). The Disaster of European Refugee Policy: Perspectives from the “Balkan Route”. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. POVZETEK POMEN LOUISA ADAMIČA V 21. STOLETJU Janja ŽITNIK SERAFIN Osrednji cilj prispevka je definirati mesto slovensko-ameriškega pisatelja Louisa Ada­miča (1898–1951) v mednarodni kulturni zavesti 21. stoletja ter osvetliti glavne vidike trajne aktualnosti njegovih pogledov v zvezi z družbeno-kulturnimi in s političnimi razmerami v svetu. Avtorica najprej predstavi obseg in glavne značilnosti obstoječe znanstvene, strokovne in poljudne literature o Adamiču ter opredeli pisateljevo mes-to v slovenski literarni zgodovini. Nato ugotavlja relevantnost nekaterih Adamičevih napovedi v delih, ki jih je posvetil svoji rojstni deželi. Še bolj aktualni so njegovi pog­ledi na vprašanja priseljenstva, zato posveti temu področju posebno pozornost. Naj­nazorneje pa pričajo o Adamičevi trajni aktualnosti njegovi pogledi na tedanje sve­tovne razmere in perspektive njihovega prihodnjega razvoja. Avtorica sooča glavna spoznanja svojih dosedanjih raziskav s spoznanji drugih avtorjev, s čimer sintetizira rezultat svoje pregledne raziskave. Znanstvena, strokovna in poljudna literatura o Louisu Adamiču obsega več tisoč člankov, razprav, spremnih besed, knjižnih ocen in komentarjev, predavanj, semi-narskih nalog, magistrskih del in doktorskih disertacij, tematskih sklopov v znan­stvenih revijah in podobno ter dvanajst knjig večinoma slovenskih in ameriških av-torjev. Čeprav je Adamič pisal v angleščini, je vključen v skoraj vse temeljne pregle­de slovenskega slovstva od konca šestdesetih let 20. stoletja. Dejstvo je, da velik del Adamičeve literarne snovi, tematike in motivike izhaja iz slovenske – in deloma slovenskoameriške – kulture. Slovensko narodno in kulturno vprašanje zavzemata pomembno mesto v njegovih delih, posvečenih stari domovini; tudi junaki njego­vih zgodb so zelo pogosto slovenskega rodu. V svoji najuspešnejši knjigi Vrnitev v rodni kraj s pomočjo dramatičnega kontrastiranja svojega nekdanjega občutka od­tujenosti od izvornega prostora in tamkajšnje kulture z novim občutkom navduše­ne, vitalne pripadnosti vsemu slovenskemu prepričljivo odgovarja na vprašanje o svoji dvonacionalni kulturni vpetosti. Adamič je bil med najdejavnejšimi ameriškimi družbenimi kritiki tridesetih in šti­ridesetih let 20. stoletja. Njegova kritika se ne nanaša le na družbeno dogajanje v obeh njegovih domovinah, temveč se posveča tudi vprašanjem globalne družbe, ki vključujejo obravnavo tedanjih socialnih in političnih razmer v svetu ter napovedi za prihodnji družbeni razvoj sveta. Adamičeva dela so odmevala še daleč v 2. polovico 20. stoletja. Nekateri njegovi pogledi in zamisli pa so danes še ravno tako relevantni kot pred mnogimi desetletji, ko jih je prvič objavil, saj zajemajo glavnino še vedno najaktualnejših vprašanj globalne družbe. REPRESENTATIONS OF NATIVE AMERICANS IN ADAMIC’S WRITING ON (NEW) IMMIGRANTS Ksenija ŠABEC| COBISS 1.01 ABSTRACT Representations of Native Americans in Adamic’s Writing on (New) Immigrants This article presents an overview of the attention Louis Adamic dedicated to Native Americans in various written works and public engagements and compares it with his writing on new immigrants in the light of his understanding of the importance of the preservation of immigrants’ identity and issues of integration and nation-build­ing as they relate to American identity. The article also explores the views on inter-cultural and interethnic relationships in the United States that Adamic drew on in his treatment of Native Americans. Three works in particular will be analyzed: My America (1938), From Many Lands (1940), and A Nation of Nations (1945). The main finding is that Adamic does not deal as extensively with issues related to indigenous Americans as he does with those related to European immigrants. Nevertheless, Adamic does not completely neglect “the Indian story”. In some of his works, most extensively in A Na­tion of Nations, he specifically compares this story to the (problematic) position of Af­rican Americans in an American space that was colonized either “by sword or by book”. KEY WORDS: Louis Adamic, Native Americans, immigrants, United States, intercul­turality IZVLEČEK Reprezentacije ameriških staroselcev v kontekstu Adamičevega pisanja o(novih) priseljencih Članek se ukvarja z vprašanjem, kakšno pozornost je Louis Adamič v izbranih delih in javnem angažiranju namenjal ameriškim staroselcem v primerjavi s svojim pisa­njem o novih priseljencih v kontekstu razumevanja ohranjanja priseljenske identitete, problema integracije in oblikovanja ameriške nacionalne identitete. Poleg tega raz­iskuje načine, na katere je avtor obravnaval medkulturne in medetnične odnose v ZDA s stališča ameriških staroselcev. Analizirana so predvsem tri njegova dela: Moja Amerika (1938), Iz mnogih dežel (1940) in Narod narodov (1945). Glavna ugotovitev je, da Adamič ameriškim staroselcem ne posveča enake pozornosti kot (evropskim) priseljencem, kljub temu pa »indijanske zgodbe« ni popolnoma zanemaril. V nekate­rih svojih delih, najbolj v Narodu narodov, jih je še zlasti vzporejal s (problematičnim) položajem temnopoltih v Združenih državah v času, ko je bil ta prostor koloniziran ali »z mečem ali s knjigo«. KLJUČNE BESEDE: Louis Adamič, ameriški staroselci, priseljenci, ZDA, medkulturnost | PhD in Social Sciences, Assistant Professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana; ksenija.sabec@fdv.uni-lj.si INTRODUCTION It seems unbelievable that the name Louis Adamic is, at least in the Slovenian milieu, so rarely mentioned in the contemporary era, when intercultural communication, intercultural dialogue, intercultural skills and intercultural upbringing have become almost the ultimate imperative of contemporary educational systems, if not also of the wider public discourse, a nearly unavoidable tour de force, or what Boris Vezjak termed “the a priori positivism of dialogism” (2008: 79). With the exception of rela­tively narrow academic circles and the immediate local community where Adamic spent his early years, anniversaries offer virtually the sole opportunity to revive the memory of Slovenia’s best-known emigrant writer and “political loner” (Žitnik Seraf­in 2009: 127), and for researchers and readers to discover the intercultural content in his work and interpret it in the context of contemporary questions about the possi­bility and necessity of the coexistence of difference. That being the case, various individual researchers in academic and professional fields have written a great deal about Adamic’s life, his death, his (literary) journalism, lecture tours, political and social engagement, and of course his extensive opus as a public intellectual. For the purpose of this article, the contextualization of Adamic’s work in the period of cultural pluralism during the American interwar period and his interpretation of this concept from the perspective of American cultural and ethnic diversity on one hand, and his critical understanding of the economic and social re­alities of American society on the other, will be necessarily limited and condensed in terms of both content and structure. Two principal figures are dominant in Adamic’s work and life: the figure of the immigrant to America and the figure of the American worker. My main question is what place within these two main figures, if any, did Adamic give to Native Americans. Put another way, how did the author, in the con­text of his own perspective on intercultural and interethnic relationships in the US, deal with this exceptionally (in terms of linguistic and cultural elements) heteroge­neous community. We know that Adamic through his work and way of life made a significant contribution to the contemporary concept of multiculturalism, and this is closely connected with his recognition and advocacy of the right that each American has to his or her “own” America (Olivieri 2009: 102). Adamic’s understanding and treatment of Native Americans in the context of American ethnic and cultural diversity will be methodologically addressed through a narrative analysis of the author’s three books My America (1938), From Many Lands (1940), and A Nation of Nations (1945), and also on Adamic’s social and political en­gagement and its interpretations. Adamic’s lecture tours, during which he met people of “from virtually all classes and backgrounds” (Shiffman 2003: 15) in differ­ent American states, frequently conducting deep and personal conversations with them, comprised a significant part of his creative opus. During his professional and consulting work for various institutions, radio stations, etc., he also corresponded with many people and gathered information through personal contacts during his travels. From this perspective, the use of narrative analysis seems appropriate, since its units of analysis are field texts, such as stories, autobiography, books, journals, field notes, letters, conversations, interviews, and life experience (Smith 2000). Al­though it has been criticized for not being “theoretical enough”, narrative inquiry is a form of qualitative research. Narrative is a powerful tool in the transfer, or sharing, of knowledge, one that is bound to cognitive issues of constructed and perceived memory. Therefore, it is placed in time, to “assume an experience of time” rather than just making reference to historical time (Polkinghorne 1988). Whereas narrative analysis is particularly useful for studying the influence of so­cial structures on the individual and his or her perception of the other, the study of the selected works will be set within the broader critical perspective of critical dis­course analysis (CDA). The latter is understood not as a special method of discourse analysis nor as one direction of research among many others in the study of dis­course, but as an analytical research approach that primarily studies the way social-power abuse and inequality are enacted, reproduced, legitimated, and resisted in text and talk in both the social and political context.1 For inequality is inherently linked to the values through which discursive forms are refracted. CDA could there­fore be summarized as a tool for exploring the relationship between texts and con­texts, since discourse contains both linguistic and non-linguistic elements, among which the author (Blommaert 2005: 3) particularly emphasizes the material and his­torical conditions in which texts are produced. ADAMIC’S TRANSITION FROM CULTURAL PLURALISM TO AN UNDERSTANDING OF AMERICAN IDENTITY AND MULTICULTURALISM Adamic’s writing on issues of immigration and integration can be contextualized in the period of cultural pluralism during the American interwar period. The term cul­tural pluralism can be understood as the official precursor to the concept of multicul­turalism, introduced by American philosopher Horace Meyer Kallen. It was first used in 1915 in the context of seeking equality and harmony between American culture and other ethnic groups.2 After World War II, the period of decolonization and intense anti-colonial movements led to a redefinition of the term. The concept of cultural pluralism was transformed into the term multiculturalism (Lukšič Hacin 2011: 133). It is therefore not wrong to argue that the roots of multiculturalism go back further than 1 In CDA, all methods of the cross-discipline of discourse studies, as well as other relevant methods in the humanities and social sciences, may be used (Wodak, Meyer 2008; Titscher et al. 2000; van Dijk 2015: 466). 2 On the one hand, it defends the importance of preserving the cultural characteristics of eth­ nic groups, such as language, institutions, cultural heritage and religious affiliation, while on the other, it rejects the assimilationist tendencies that would result in the disappearance of these characteristics (Fishman 2004: 157). the 1960s, as related ideas can be found at least as early as the beginning of the 20th century, imbedded in the concept of cultural pluralism, while practice shows them to have been present far earlier within certain socio-historic contexts (Lukšič Hacin 2016: 80). As a term initially embedded in a political concept, multiculturalism first emerged in 1963 in Canada. It occurs in the context of multicultural hetero­geneity or coexistence of several cultural and ethnic groups, promoting linguistic, cultural and ethnic diversity as a result of mass migration and cultural and ethnic mixing (Lukšič Hacin 1999: 84–86). From a politically marked term, it eventually transforms into one of the most recognizable yet controversial intellectual-political movements of the second half of the 20th century. With the rise of the multicultural movement in Canada, Australia, and with a slight lag in the United States, Britain, Germany and France, multiculturalism extends beyond the political context to cen­tral themes of political philosophy and other theoretical fields, becoming a tool for critical evaluation of cultural relations and ethnic groups within a particular territory (Medica 2011: 209–210).3 Although Adamic cannot be directly linked to the use of the term multicultur­alism, we can place his works and work within the broader context of writing and acting on the idea of multiculturalism. According to Janja Žitnik Sarafin, Adamic was one of the most productive and certainly the best-known Slovenian emigrant writer, who remained attuned to his “pronounced bi-national socio-cultural involvement” (Žitnik Serafin 2009: 116). He wrote twenty full-length books, around five hundred literary and journalistic articles in magazines and brochures, and left behind numer­ous unpublished manuscripts. He served as advisor to the project and radio program “Americans All, Immigrants All”, which was sponsored by the US government in 1937 and 1938 in an effort to strengthen national unity by highlighting the achievements of various ethnic communities in the US in the era when European Fascism posed an increasing threat. From the 1930s on, he worked to preserve ethnic organizations and movements in the US, and to promote them in American economic, political, social, and cultural life. He was elected to the executive board of the Foreign Language Information Service, and worked in close contact with other immigrant organizations and the immigrant press. He also collaborated in the foundation of the Common Council for American Unity in 1939, one of the the goals of which was to establish historical ar­chives for individual ethnic groups in the US and disseminate information and teach about them, reform the articulation of American history in a way that recognized the Until the 1990s, the liberal model of multiculturalism prevailed, recognizing rights at the in­stitutional level and ensuring a broader recognition of diversity and more equal inclusion of minority communities in the majority society. After the nineties, however, criticisms of an “idealized” liberal multiculturalism begin to emerge, since the latter does not really manage to eliminate social anomalies in the form of discrimination, inequality and exclusion. Criti­cal multiculturalism, consisting of anti-racist, anti-essentialist movements and postcolonial studies, has emerged as an antipode and a more serious criticism of liberal multiculturalism (Mclennan 2001: 389). contributions of all ethnic groups to the development of the US, and gather material for the publication of an encyclopedia of American ethnic groups. Adamic also was the chief editor of the gazette of this organization, called Common Ground. His book A Nation of Nations represents “the first attempt to realize the concept of an ency­clopedia of American ethnic groups” (Klemenčič 1981: 1066). In reality, this project would not be completed until 1980 with the publication of the Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, in which Adamic is mentioned in the introduction as the originator of the idea. In July 1940, when he was still a leading member of the Council, Adamic be­came an advisor to a government commission related to the US Council for Na­tional Defense. That same year, the commission included the following statement in its proposal: […] fourteen million people are divided from others by the color of their skin, and, as a result of this, cannot contribute their talents and skills in collective endeavors to their country. The commission knows full well that any national program that does not succeed in attracting the participation of all citizens regardless of their back­ground, tribe, faith, or color […] is inadequate. (in Klemenčič 1981: 1068) Although it does not explicitly mention Native Americans, the statement refers at least on the declarative level to the potential contribution of Native Americans to American society. In his written works, lectures, and conferences, Adamic had similarly advocat­ed for “a new synthesis of the Old and the New America” (Vecoli, Olivieri 2009: 101), mentioning that American identity in the twentieth century emerges “as much from the first slave ships from Jamestown and from Ellis Island where most immigrants ar­rive as it does from Plymouth Rock where the Founding Fathers landed” (Olivieri 2009: 102). Adamic believed that the concept of American identity must be based on an understanding of pluralistic identity composed of an interweaving of differences that continually evolves and is redefined, sometimes in a conflictual manner. Those familiar with Adamic’s complex body of work in the field of cultural diver­sity attribute to him an extremely important, if not the most important role, in the establishment of American ethnic studies and methods of equal treatment of immi­grant cultures and values. He was consistently critical in his rejection of the a priori central place of Anglocentric American history in the emergence of the US and the national identity of Americans, and advocated for an ongoing process that would achieve the ideal: “A nation and its identity therefore is not something that must be preserved at all costs, but a nation of communities that must constantly continue to discover and articulate itself on its own” (Žitnik Serafin 2009: 122). Dan Shiffman (2005: 57, 64) defines Adamic as a supporter of “a transitory, pro­gressive pluralism, where pluralism needed to be established before it could be sur­mounted”. In accordance with this concept, the US would cease being a fundamen­tally Anglo-Saxon society when its identity would be based on “ethnic solidarity and championing and protection of distinct groups.” However, the protection of individual and cultural differences does not by itself inspire participatory democ­racy, since culture, according to Adamic, eschews fixed features possessed by dis­crete groups and represents a process of human and national development, rather than merely a set of inherited traditions. “Culture is creativeness; culture is creation. […] It is an ideal which approaches reality by the intensity with which it glows and burns in the imagination of a consistently increasing number of people” (Adamic in Shiffman 2003: 68). The complexity of Adamic’s thoughts can be found in the simultaneous emphasis he gave to Americanization as a process and the equality of new immigrants with the Old Stock Americans, with no implication that new immi­grants, who should participate in national politics, commerce, and the arts, are es­sentially less evolved than “native” ones. Adamic understood neither ethnic identity on one hand nor Americanization on the other as exclusive concepts, as he believed that their meaning is arrived at through dialog. Throughout his life he maintained a critical stance toward both concepts and called for acceptance of “the other” and respect for differences, because being different, he was “apt to have something out of the ordinary to offer us personally and contribute to the evolving culture and civilization” (Adamic in Shiffman 2003: 145). Adamic’s efforts, therefore, anticipate a comprehensive understanding and accepting of equality and diversity in the con­tinuum of multiculturalism, of which the primary source is its dialogism. REPRESENTATIONS OF NATIVE AMERICANS IN SELECTED WORKS OF LOUIS ADAMIC Although Adamic’s understanding of intercultural and interethnic relations in the US was complex, and above all extraordinarily comprehensive and pluralistic, two figures predominate in his work and his reflections: the figure of the immigrant (es­pecially second- and third- generation immigrants) and, independent of the former, the figure of the worker. He explored both figures in the socio-historical context of the time, and was particularly influenced in his research by the great economic, so­cial, and cultural upheavals in the US, the economic inequality that was exacerbated after 1929, and his relationship with Yugoslav internal affairs and Yugoslavia in the international context (Klemenčič 1981: 1055). As far as the worker was concerned, Adamic’s reflections were ahead of his time, for example when he wrote: “Nowadays, […], we are producing marvelous machines and erecting fine buildings; on the other hand, the masses of people – at least in the industrial sections – are becoming more and more hectic, jittery, unhappy, unhuman. By unhuman I mean unimaginative, individually or personally uncreative […]” (Adamic 1938: 396). For Adamic, the class conflict was a fundamental part of America as a paradoxical continent, which fas­cinates with its cruel nature, human diversity, and merciless economic system that lives on the suffering of others. In his book Laughing in the Jungle, Adamic wrote: “an astonishing place, America. One cannot love, nor hate it. It is terrible and magnificent and funny, vacillating between the sublime and the ridiculous” (Adamic 1932: 409). And how in his works did Adamic discuss the first settlers in this “terrible, magnifi­cent, and funny” country? Adamic often juxtaposed immigrants (New Americans) with “native” Americans, but he did not mean Native American Indians in this context, that is the indigenous original dwellers of the North American continent before the arrival of the first set­tlers from Europe. Rather he meant Old Stock Americans, the descendants of the first Anglo-Saxon immigrants to the New World who came during the sixteenth and seventeenth century (Adamic 1938: 210). For example, in the chapter in My Ameri­ca (1938) entitled “Ellis Island and Plymouth Rock”, he writes about the realization that within its population of slightly less than 130 million, one-third of the American population is of “recent, largely non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant stock, the beginning of whose background in this country is Ellis Island” (Adamic 1938: 207), which was the actual and symbolic point of entry for most immigrants to the US, rather than Plymouth Rock where the first Anglo-Saxon settlers landed and established the first American colony in 1620. According to Adamic, “[t]here should be a recognition of the fact that America is not purely an Anglo-Saxon country”, and therefore a new conception of America was necessary (Adamic 1938: 218). Adamic explicitly writes that – being himself an immigrant – he doesn’t want to set himself against the Old Stock Americans, but rather to strive for an integrated contemporary America that is not a completed and satisfactory finished product, but rather is the raw material from which the future will be derived, something in the process of emerging and ceaselessly changing. The old Melting Pot or Crucible idea has not been carried out any too well. Human America is poorly integrated, and I am for integration and homogeneity, for the dis­appearance of the now sharply defined, islandlike groups, and the gradual, organic merging of all the groups into a nation that culturally and spiritually will be a fusion of all the races and nations now in the United States on the general politico-cultural pattern laid out by the earliest immigrants to this continent and their descendants. (Adamic 1938: 207–208) Adamic emphasized numerous times in his texts the significance of racial and ethnic diversity and the heterogeneity of American society. In the book Laughing in the Jun­gle (1932), he criticizes individuals and groups which encouraged and spread anti-immigrant views, especially after the introduction of a quota system for immigrants to the US in 1924, despite the fact that the number of immigrants began to fall dras­tically in subsequent years.4 In 1929, 39,000 immigrants were deported or left the country “voluntarily”. The annual aver­age in the period from 1930 to 1933 was 29,000. Adamic saw an important shift in reflection in America with the publication of literature specific to so-called “new” Americans, and above all in the revision of his­tory textbooks in a way that recognized and included the contributions to the fab­ric of the country of immigrant groups from Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and else­where.5 Among them, said Adamic, there were many who died or were injured just “as early American colonists were killed in subduing the wilderness and in the War for Independence” (Adamic 1938: 220), and in this sense he excludes Native Ameri­cans on the American continent or in the so-called “wilderness”. The failure to con­sider the Native Americans is also apparent in the chapter “The Workers” from the same book, in which Adamic writes about the so-called “American process”, which has for two hundred years been “fumblingly but consistently, working for more and more democracy […] and for more and more social, economic, and political liber­ty and equality, and for the gradual abolition of the country’s basic incongruity” (Adamic 1938: 419): What I call the American Process began quite definitely in the second quarter of the eighteenth century. Its first climax, the Revolutionary War, led to the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Constitution’s postscript – the Bill of Rights; to the birth of a new nation and the establishment of political equal­ity and the freedom of assembly, speech, press, and religion. Its second climax was the Civil War, resulting in the abolition of inequalities between Northern and South­ern commerce and the establishment of theoretical equality, in certain respects and functions, for the Negro with the white man. Early in the twentieth century, the ques­tion of women’s political equality with men came up, and was theoretically settled with the Nineteenth Amendment, letting time put it into practical effect. In My America, Adamic already outlined his idea about an encyclopedia of ethnic groups, which he then fleshed out more fully in his 1945 book A Nation of Nations. The idea came to him in 1935 when the US Congress approved the WPA program, which included a budget of USD 4.8 billion with the purpose of easing the economic crisis by funding numerous projects, from the construction of roads and bridges to literary, theatrical, and artistic projects. Adamic had the notion that the government could direct several million dollars into the preparation and publication of “a great Encyclopedia of the Population of the United States, from the Indians down to the latest immigrant group” (Adamic 1938: 257). This is one of the few times in his books that Adamic explicitly mentions the presence of Native Americans on the American continent. He spoke about the idea of the encyclopedia many times and in many places, for example in 1935, when Adamic responded critically to philanthropist An­ton Phelps Stokes’s plans for “an encyclopedia of the Negro”. “The Negro Millions Intriguingly, in My America (1938: 253) Adamic fleetingly mentioned that Jews fascinated him intellectually and culturally more than any other race or ethnic group in the US, and that he would like to write a study about them. are part of the United States, not separate from it, and I feel they belong along with the Indians, Yankees, and Dutch, and the more recent immigrant strains, in a com­plete racial encyclopedia, which tell all of us - who we are, what we have in us, etc.” (Adamic in Shiffman 2003: 93). Adamic proposed the following organizing principles for the project: (1) that Ellis Island would become as historically significant as Plymouth Rock; (2) that America is as much the result of contemporary immigrant groups as it is of the early Anglo-Saxon settlers; (3) that people of non-Anglo-Saxon heritage comprised two-fifths of the then US population and had given the country the opportunity to create a unique historical civilization and culture; (4) that America would need to begin to deeply un­derstand these facts in order to avoid internal political, social, cultural, and spiritual difficulties; (5) that with the recent conclusion of mass migration into the US, the time had come for deep reflection about the country’s human capital, its potential, and the contributions of individual groups to its civilization, and; (6) that the ency­clopedia of the US population represents a step toward the latter. Adamic also saw educational potential as a result of the inclusion of many schools, colleges, univer­sities, newspaper and magazine companies, libraries and churches, immigrant asso­ciations, clubs and “millions of individual Old Stock Americans, New Americans, and immigrants”. Adamic’s concept for the encyclopedia was not realized in his lifetime. “No luck,” as he wrote, “but eventually, I think, this job will have to be done – some­how” (Adamic 1938: 258–259). We can say that Adamic thought about the multi-ethnicity and cultural pluralism in the US (and elsewhere) in an extremely broad, inclusive, and pluralistic manner. In his work, he included in the American cultural mosaic individuals of many ethnic­ities that shared the experience of emigration from their own countries to the US. Perhaps this was the most obvious in his book A Nation of Nations, which, with the exception of the introduction, was structured according to the countries from which immigrants had come to the US.6 Adamic did not dedicate a chapter to Native Amer­icans (or “Indians” or “American Indians” as he called them), as he did, for example, to African7 Americans,8 in the book and in its illustrations. He put forward an inter­esting thesis that Native Americans were themselves the descendants of immigrants 6 Adamic included in this group Americans from Italy, Spain, Mexico, France, Holland, Sweden, Russia, Germany, Yugoslavia, Norway, Greece, Poland and Ireland, as American blacks. 7 Adamic used the terms “Negro” and “White” for lack of better expressions as he himself ad­ mitted, even though these words were by definition imprecise, represented a racial symbol, and therefore were extremely prejudicial (Adamic 1945: 197). 8 According to Adamic, “the Negroes are the only major element in the American population whose ancestors – on the black side - did not come to the New World of their own free will as emigrants getting away from unsatisfactory conditions in the Old World. This fact caused serious uneasiness to some of the founding fathers as they put forth the proposition that ‘all men are created free and equal’.” Slavery and race, and above all the attitude the white majority has toward “’color’ when it happens to be a permanent part of a man’s skin,” have made African Americans “a more sharply defined group” than any other in the US (Adamic 1945: 196–197). from Asia who came from Siberia across the Bering Strait between ten and fifteen thousand years ago. “Thus, going as far back in the story of American immigration as is possible at present, we can say that the first Americans came from a territory now part of Russia” (Adamic 1945: 144). This thesis is not surprising if we understand Adamic as an author who begins with the belief that American history is the history of immigration. In A Nation of Nations, and in other texts,9 Adamic frequently mentions Native Americans, although generally in connection either to the first colonists who set­tled on the American continent or to later European immigrants, and very often in the context of their relations to the predominant Anglo-Saxon population. In the chapter on African Americans, Adamic emphasizes the significance of the relations of African Americans to the dominant population in the following quote: “No ele­ment of the American population, except possibly the Indians, started out in the modern race for self-improvement with greater handicaps than the Negroes; and for decades the country as a whole did next to nothing to help them – one of the worst examples of communal irresponsibility in modern history” (Adamic 1945: 200). In the same chapter, he describes how “the strains became thoroughly mixed and also absorbed much White and Indian blood, so that the average American Negro is markedly unlike the black African”. According to Adamic (1945: 196), America had “a colored ‘Melting Pot’ as well as a white one; the colored one took in White and Indian blood.” Despite these statements, when Adamic explicitly writes about discrimina­tion in the US, he views it primarily in connection with those of Spanish descent, Mexicans immigrants, Germans, most extremely in connection with the African American population,10 and to a lesser degree with Jews. “The ultimate test of the American civilization probably will come with success or failure to solve the Negro question”, Adamic said, since he recognized the problems facing African Americans as “distinct in degree and quality from those facing other groups and how the need to address these problems was a central challenge to the democratic, spiritual integ­rity of the nation as a whole” (Shiffman 2003: 92). The melting pot theory, which undoubtedly influenced Adamic’s thinking and writing, argues for a common universal culture that makes cultures and ethnicities renounce their distinctive identities, indigenous languages and values. It is therefore based on the idea that the immigrant population must embrace the social and po­litical values of the host society in order for society to function in a harmonious way, resulting in the amalgamation of cultures (Naseem 2011: 11). The theory became a 9 Here we should mention Adamic’s 1937 book The House in Antigua: A Restoration. In mid- December 1936, Adamic went to Guatemala with the intention of writing a book. While there, he encountered the descendants of the indiginous Mayans. Because it does not directly deal with the US, I did not include it in the analysis. In the book, Adamic describes the violence inflicted by Spanish conquistadors on the native population. 10 Adamic also believes that the twentieth century brought important progress in the race situ­ ation. Although many blacks were still in a radically unequal situation vis-a-vis whites, certain important mental shifts had taken place. political symbol of radical and liberal America and the old assimilationist ideal of the American nation, serving to legitimize the ideology of America as a “Promised Land” where racial, religious, or ethnic affiliations were not expected to affect the possibil­ity of social mobility (Hirschman 1983: 398). In the chapter on Americans from Spain and Mexico and their relationship with the first colonists, or Old Stock Americans, Adamic describes “a large force of angry Indians” that confronted Juan Ponce de León and his army. Ponce de León landed on the southern coast of Florida in 1513, twenty-one years after Columbus, looking for the Fountain of Youth, which, according to native lore, was located in this region. He spent the next several years attempting to conquer and colonize the region and, de­spite “Indian hostility”, the Spanish eventually succeeded in establishing settlements in Florida before the English occupied the peninsula in 1763. In a subsequent chap­ter (Adamic 1945: 37, 39), Adamic describes the battles between the Spanish and the “Indians”, as well as the “hostility” of the latter, who often killed their enemies and enslaved those that survived,11 battles that took place not only in Florida but also on the territory of what would later become the states of Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi. He gives special attention to the missionaries who arrived starting in the sixteenth century with the intention of converting Native Americans and exploiting their labor to build missions, but were often killed and their missions destroyed, particularly during the period of the American Indian Wars in the 1880s in the region of New Mexico. These uprisings were later suppressed, and more and more Spaniards began to settle in the New World and even to marry Indian women, gradually learning methods of irrigation and harvesting and other agricultural tech­niques from the Native Americans, while the Native Americans learned the Spanish language. By 1720, roughly twenty-two thousand Spaniards, many of whom had some “Indian” heritage, lived in New Mexico, where nature was not particularly hos­pitable, as “[t]here were draughts and floods, sometimes unfriendly Indians; pesti­lences often ravaged the population of this or that valley” (Adamic 1945: 41–42, 46). In Adamic’s opinion, the French behaved correctly toward the Native population in comparison to the Spanish colonists in Florida and New Mexico and the British col­onists on the east coast of the American continent. The French also exploited them economically, the early French commercial enterprises being among the largest dur­ing the period of American colonization of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The French also came into contact with Native Americans during exploration and hunting activities and while trading in furs. As a result, many male French colonists had relationships with Native American women, and there were also a number of political alliances. Native American men often worked as guides and also as fighters in the French’s numerous conflicts with the British and with other Native populations (Adamic 1945: 76). Adamic mentions Anthony Benezet in Michel Guillaume Jean de Crevecoeur as two of the most important names among French settlers before the 11 The example used was Pánfil de Narváez’s 1528 expedition in Florida (Adamic 1945: 39–40). American Revolution. Benezet in particular took a great interest in Native Americans when he lived in Philadelphia before his death in 1784 (Adamic 1945: 81–82). In the chapter about Americans from Holland, Adamic does not neglect mentioning the Walloon Peter Minuit, who, under the auspices of the Dutch West India Company, became the Director of New Netherland during the period from 1626 to 1631, and was best known for supposedly negotiating the purchase of the island of Manhat­tan from the Lenape tribe in exchange for jewelry worth approximately twenty-four dollars (Adamic 1945: 96). Manhattan subsequently became part of Dutch New Am­sterdam and later New York City. Adamic also mentions Native Americans in the chapter about Swedish coloni­zation, because, in Adamic’s opinion, the relations of Swedish colonists to the in­digenous people stands out from all the other immigrant groups. Swedes and also Finns treated the Native Americans fairly and honestly and to a great agree accepted them as being “the rightful masters of the country”. In contrast to the British, Dutch, and Spanish, “the Swedes did not fight the Indians; on the contrary, they enjoyed their good will and cooperation” (Adamic 1945: 123). Although William Penn, who came from England in 1682 to establish a Quaker colony in Pennsylvania, was justifi­ably known for his humane policies toward the Native Americans, much of the credit should go the Swedes who for the preceding two generations had cultivated honest relations with the Native Americans in the wider region. In his book Swedes in America (1938), Amandus Johnson wrote: “The Indians would not have had confidence in the white man, had they been treated by the Swedes as they were treated by the English and the Dutch. William Penn’s inter­preters were Swedes, and the Indians relied on their word when they assured them that William Penn was honest and would treat them justly” (Adamic 1945: 124). The Swedish official policy toward the indigenous Americans, which the Swedish King Gustavus Adolfus (1594–1632) had defined when the American colony of New Swe­den was only an idea, included the Christianization of the Native Americans. For this reason, one of the most important figures in the Swedish colonies was the Lutheran minister Johan Campanius, who arrived in Delaware in 1643 and became one of the first Christian missionaries to live among the Native Americans. Campanius was an intellectual and a scholar who studied the traditional ways of the Native tribes, learning their languages, and thus earning their affection and respect. It is due to him that certain Native Americans called the Swedes Netappi, which translated as “our people”, the complete opposite of how they viewed the British and Dutch (Adamic 1945: 125). Adamic writes about Christian Priber as someone who also treated the Native American population with equality and fairness. Priber was a German scholar from Saxony who, having lived in Britain for some time, went to South Carolina in the 1730s. He came to America with the idea of establishing “a perfect state called Par­adise” where he would be the premier (Adamic 1945: 173). He traveled unarmed on horseback across five hundred miles of “wild Indian country” beyond the Smoky Mountains. His ideas about a perfect republic and the conviction that it was close to realization must have been very persuasive to the Native American leaders. Forty years before the American Revolution, Priber preached that all people were born equal and free, that women were equal to men, and that tyranny and all of the evil associated with it should be driven from “this virgin continent” before it was too late. Because Priber was actually very close to organizing southern Native tribes and many white settlers into a powerful movement, the French and British border patrols chose not to confront him militarily but instead arrested him and incarcer­ated him in a British fort on St. Simons Island in the state of Georgia, where he lived until his death. It is also worth noting the connection that Adamic made between Native Ameri­cans and Yugoslav immigrants. The Yugoslav chapter in the American story, as Adam-ic writes in A Nation of Nations, probably began with the first European settlement of America. It is very probable that “cosmopolitan Croatians” sailed on Columbus’s ships from the famed citystate of Ragusa (Dubrovnik). During this era, sailors and shipping lines from Ragusa were considered among the best in the world because of their long maritime tradition. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, members of Dalmatian naval guilds sailed for all the maritime nations, especially for those that were active in the Indian spice market, and some of them undoubtedly joined “the great Adventure” of 1492, when ships sailed from Ragusa toward America during the half century after it was discovered. It is almost certain that a fleet of ships sailed from Dubrovnik to America around the year 1540 and that there was room on these ships for refugees who had fled the interior of the Balkans from Turkish authorities. Some of these ships were wrecked on the shores of North Carolina, probably Roanoke Island. The sailors that survived mixed with the indigenous population there, and their descendants were known as “Croatan Indians or Croatans”. As Adamic writes, a group of inhabitants in Robe­son County, North Carolina, the descendants of Croatian immigrants to America, still carried the Croatan name even in his day. Similar groups lived in West Virginia and in Cumberland County in Maryland. There is an island by the name of Croatan in Cartaret County in North Carolina, and the Croatan Sound connects the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds. “Croatoan Indians” were “found” in the mid-1580s when Walter Raleigh sponsored the first colonies in Roanoke, and although certain authors have expressed doubts about the name and heritage, Adamic (1945: 235) finds the theo­ries about “Croatoan Indians” entirely credible. Another connection that Adamic makes between Native Americans and Yugo-slavs in America can be found in the figure of the Slovenian priest Frederic Baraga, who arrived in the wilderness of northern Michigan and Minnesota in the early 1830s, where he worked with the Chippewa and Ojibwa tribes. As the only son in the family, Baraga had left the Carniola region of Slovenia, selling his family property, and had been living in America for some time when he began to send leaflets12 to parishes around Slovenia in an effort to raise money for his projects. For years, Slovenian farm­ers contributed to “Baraga’s Indians”. Baraga learned their language, compiled gram­matical rules, translated the Bible, and wrote two religious books in the language of these tribes. In A Nation of Nations, Adamic describes his encounter with a “sad-faced middle-aged” member of the Chippewa people on an Indian reservation in Baraga County, Michigan. When Adamic asked him if he knew anything about Frederic Bar-aga, who had died in 1868 and had been the first Bishop in the Roman Catholic Dio­cese of Saulte Sainte Marie in Marquette, he responded: My father and grandfather often spoke of him. […] For thirty-five years he walked hundreds of miles every few months through the virgin forests of this region – often alone, sometimes with an Indian companion; sleeping in the woods like an Indian. My grandfather knew him well and used to say that Baraga moved among us as though he saw something before him.” (Adamic 1945: 237) According to the stories of this man’s grandfather, Baraga was always good to the “Indians” and really wanted to help them. He respected the “Indians” as human beings, respected their language and their customs, and their difficulties in “the strange new world growing up around them”. He fought for their rights, paying vis­its to the governors of Michigan and Washington in their name. He tried to convert even corrupt “Indian agents” and to raise “Indian” self-confidence so that whites would no longer be able to take advantage of them and would begin to respect them. Baraga realized that the invasion of Europeans would destroy the Native American peoples if they did not establish permanent settlements and begin to engage in more advanced methods of agriculture in addition to hunting and fish­ing. This is why he spent years teaching them to use the plough and the harrow, to sow and to harvest. He established churches and schools, and helped them build their own when he became bishop. As a first-rate carpenter, he also trained Native Americans in the craft and attracted other Slovenian missionaries to America with his work. Adamic (1945: 238) writes: Here and there Baraga succeeded for a time; in the long run, however, the odds were too heavy against him and against the Red man. He could not quell the rapacity of the new mining and timber industries which in the next three-quarters of a century turned the beautiful and rich Upper Michigan area into a ghost region. He could not keep out the “fire-water” that the Pale Face used in trading operations with the Indian. Washington was unresponsive; Indian agents were too deeply mired in cor­ruption. […] His attitude toward the Indian is now recognized as sound. In the 1930s, 12 One of Baraga’s leaflets was part of a collection of the Minnesota Historical Society’s museum in Saint Paul (Adamic 1945: 237). with John Collier as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the United States government began to put into effect the policy and the practices that Baraga started a hundred years before. CONCLUSION This article is one of the first to address the question of what attention Louis Adamic paid to Native Americans in selected works in the context of American ethnic and cultural diversity, since there are practically no resources on this topic. This is also understandable due to the fact that during my research only a few references to Native Americans were found in Adamic’s A Nation of Nations and My America. Even the book From Many Lands (1940), which won the Anisfield Award for the best work about race relations and is structured according to the ethnic affiliations of individu­als whose personal stories of their experiences multiethnic and multicultural Ameri­ca Adamic collected during the winter of 1938–39 from questionnaires published in several immigrant and foreign-language newspapers and also from letters, contains no stories about Native Americans. These stories, about German, Croatian, Czech, Finnish, Polish, Greek, Armenian, Slovenian, Dutch, Japanese, and Mexican immi­grants, not about Old Stock Americans, the first immigrants to America, confirm the thesis that Adamic’s attention was mostly directed toward immigrants that began to settle the American continent after its “discovery” by Europeans, and especially dur­ing the period of Adamic’s work and creative output in the first half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, he did not completely neglect the so-called “Indian story”. In some of his works, especially A Nation of Nations, Adamic compared the situation of Native Americans with the (problematic and difficult) situation of African Americans while also describing the early and later European immigrants who colonized the American space either “by sword or by book”. In the 1930s, when Adamic had the reputation of an important writer and public intellectual, the prevailing concept in the US was one of cultural relativism. A move­ment for intercultural education emerged at that time. This was strongly supported by Adamic, along with giving increased importance to “enlightened” intercultural communication. It is not surprising that numerous organizations around the country began to provide American schools and teachers with material about different ethnic heritages and intercultural understanding. Even the use of the term “minority” as a combination of racial and cultural differences was first used in this period, and quite quickly replaced the old concept of race and racial groups, directing attention to the situation of these groups in society (Gleason in Shiffman 2005: 66–67). Adamic perceived and conceived of America, with its plethora of different eth­nicities and cultures including Native Americans, as the embryo of a global “pan-humanistic” democracy which would ultimately be capable of abolishing racism and nationalism. Olivieri (2009: 105) described this as Adamic’s universalist stance. As a “political loner” who was tirelessly socially engaged, Adamic’s key role in the emergence of American multiculturalism was his advocacy for concepts relating to immigrant problematics, which, according to Žitnik Serafin (2009: 127–128), “are as relevant and convincing today as they were when he published them.” REFERENCES Adamic, Louis (1932). Laughing in the Jungle. New York, London: Harper & Brothers Publishers. Adamic, Louis (1938). My America 1928–1938. New York, London: Harper & Brothers Publishers. Adamic, Louis (1940). From Many Lands. New York, London: Harper & Brothers Publishers. Adamic, Louis (1945). A Nation of Nations. New York, London: Harper & Brothers Pub­lishers. Blommaert, Jan (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. New York: Cambridge Uni­versity Press. Fishman, Donald A. (2004). Mainstreaming Ethnicity: Horace Kallen, the Strategy of Transcendence, and Cultural Pluralism. Southern Communication Journal 69/2, 157–172, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10417940409373286. Hirschman, Charles (1983). America’s Melting Pot Reconsidered. Annual Review of Soci­ology 9 (August), 397–423, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.002145. Klemenčič, Matjaž (1981). Politično delo Louisa Adamiča. Teorija in praksa 18/9, 1054–1068. Lukšič Hacin, Marina (1999). Multikulturalizem in migracije. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, Založba ZRC. Lukšič Hacin, Marina (2011). Teorije, politike in strategije sobivanja v raznolikosti. Medkulturni odnosi kot aktivno državljanstvo (ur. Marina Lukšič Hacin, Mirjam Mil­harčič Hladnik, Mitja Sardoč). Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, Založba ZRC, 127–136, http:// www.medkulturni-odnosi.si/images/stories/publikacije/Medkulturni_odnosi. pdf (18. 9. 2019). Lukšič Hacin, Marina (2016). Theorizing the Concept of Multiculturalism through Tay­lor’s ‘Politics of Recognition’. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 44, 79–91. Mclennan, George (2001). Can there be a ‘Critical’ Multiculturalism? Ethnicities 1/3, 389–422, https://doi.org/10.1177/146879680100100306. Medica, Karmen (2011). Večkulturnost (multikulturnost): Večkulturalizem (multikul­turalizem). Monitor ISH 13/1, 209–214, http://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:­doc-0RN00TIP/8496ac97-c8bd-4ce9-9aef-39d37d934670/PDF (19. 9. 2019). Naseem, Muhammad Ayaz (2011). Conceptual Perspectives on Multiculturalism and Multicultural Education: A Survey of the Field. Canadian Issues (Spring), 9–14, https://search.proquest.com/openview/e0895ea7d338df5bb3838e9b0215d­8fe/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=43874 (23. 9. 2019). Olivieri, Andrea (2009). Etnija in razred v misli Louisa Adamiča. Časopis za kritiko zna­nosti 37/238, 101–109. Polkinghorne, Donald (1988). Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany: SUNY Press. Shiffman, Dan (2005). Korenine multikulturalizma: Delo Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Smith, Charles P. (2000). Content Analysis and Narrative Analysis. Handbook of Re­search Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (eds. Harry T. Reis, Charles M. Judd). New York: Cambridge University Press, 313-338. van Dijk, Teun A. (2015). Critical Discourse Analysis. Handbook of Discourse Analysis (eds. D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, D. Schiffrin. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 466-485, chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.dis­courses.org/OldArticles/Critical%20Discourse%20Analysis.pdf (20. 9. 2019). Vezjak, Boris (2008). Medkulturna občutljivost kot kriterij dialoškosti. Šolsko polje 19/3–4, 77–94. Žitnik, Janja (1992). Louis Adamič in sodobniki: 1948–1951. Ljubljana: SAZU, Razred za filološke in literarne vede. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (2009). Pisatelj med dvema domovinama: Louis Adamič in vprašanja nacionalne, etnične in kulturne identitete. Dve domovini / Two Home­lands 30, 115–132. POVZETEK REPREZENTACIJE AMERIŠKIH STAROSELCEV V KONTEKSTU ADAMIČEVEGA PISANJA O (NOVIH) PRISELJENCIH Ksenija ŠABEC Članek izhaja iz kontekstualizacije Adamičevega dela v obdobju pojava kulturnega pluralizma v ZDA med obema vojnama in pisateljevega razumevanja tega koncep­ta s stališča ameriške kulturne in etnične raznolikosti na eni in njegovega kritične­ga razumevanja ekonomske in socialne realnosti tedanje ameriške družbe na drugi strani. V Adamičevih delih in življenju sta nedvomno dominantna dva glavna lika: lik priseljencev, ki so ameriško celino začeli naseljevati po evropskem »odkritju«, še zlasti v času avtorjevega delovanja in ustvarjanja, torej v prvi polovici 20. stoletja, in lik delavcev. Glavno raziskovalno vprašanje v pričujočem članku pa je, kakšno mesto znotraj omenjenih likov – če sploh – je Louis Adamič namenjal ameriškim starosel­cem oziroma na kakšne načine je v svojih pogledih na medkulturne in medetnične odnose v ZDA obravnaval to sicer notranje jezikovno in kulturno izredno heterogeno skupnost. Znano je namreč, da je Adamič s svojim delom in z načinom življenja po­membno prispeval k sodobnemu multikulturalizmu, ki je jedrnato povzeto v njego­vem zagovarjanju in tudi uresničevanju pravice, da je vsak Američan nosilec »svoje« Amerike. Adamičevo obravnavanje in razumevanje ameriških staroselcev v konte­kstu ameriške etnične in kulturne raznolikosti pretežno temelji na analizi njegovih treh monografij: Moja Amerika (1938), Iz mnogih dežel (1940) in Narod narodov (1945), delno pa tudi na pisateljevem družbenem in političnem angažiranju in njegovih in-terpretih. Avtorica ugotavlja, da Adamič obravnava ameriške staroselce, t. i. »indijan­ske Američane«, kot prve priseljence na ameriško celino in jim v svojih izbranih delih ne posveča enake pozornosti kot poznejšim (evropskim) priseljencem. Kljub temu pa »indijanske zgodbe« ni popolnoma zanemaril. TRIESTE AND LOUIS ADAMIC’S TRANSNATIONAL IDENTITIES John Paul ENYEART| COBISS 1.01 ABSTRACT Trieste and Louis Adamic’s Transnational Identities By examining Slovene immigrant to the United States and world-renowned author Louis Adamic’s effort to mediate between his Yugoslav and American identities, this article helps us to think what having a transnational identity means. By focusing on Adamic’s writings about Trieste and Italy in general, the article shows how he transi­tioned from being a disaporic leader during World War II to an anti-colonialist from 1946–1951. Examining Adamic’s activist stances regarding Trieste helps us to think about transnationalism beyond a single cross-border movement or an individual’s identity claim at a specific moment. Adamic’s effort to convince the U.S. government that Yugoslavia should control Trieste allows us to see how transnationalism operated as an identity in flux. KEY WORDS: Adamic, diaspora, anti-Colonialism, Tito, transnational activism IZVLEČEK Trst in transnacionalne identitete Louisa Adamiča Članek s pomočjo prizadevanj slovenskega priseljenca v Združene države in svetov-no znanega pisatelja Louisa Adamiča, da bi krmaril med svojima dvema identiteta-ma, jugoslovansko in ameriško, kaže, kaj v praksi pomeni transnacionalna identiteta. Na podlagi Adamičevih splošnih zapisov o Trstu in Italiji osvetljuje njegov prehod od vodje diaspore med drugo svetovno vojno do antikolonialista v letih 1946–1951. Analiza Adamičeve aktivistične drže do Trsta omogoča lažje razumevanje transna­cionalizma onkraj posameznikovega čezmejnega premika oziroma posameznikove trenutne identitetne opredelitve. Adamičeva prizadevanja, da bi vlado ZDA prepričal o nujnosti jugoslovanskega nadzora Trsta, omogočajo vpogled v delovanje transna­cionalizma kot identitete v gibanju. KLJUČNE BESEDE: Adamič, diaspora, antikolonializem, Tito, transnacionalni aktivizem | PhD in History, Professor of History, Bucknell University, 067 Coleman Hall, Department of His­tory, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, 17837; jenyeart@bucknell.edu — The author deals with Adamic’s leadership in the South Slavic diaspora and his anti-colonialism in his book Death to Fascism (Enyeart 2019). By focusing on Trieste, this article builds on his previous work and emphasizes his relationship to transnationalism more directly. INTRODUCTION On June 4, 1946, the famous author and social justice activist Louis Adamic wrote a public letter to United States Secretary of State James Byrnes urging him to support Yugoslavia’s claim to Trieste. The secretary, who represented the United States in post-World War II peace talks with the other Allied nations, favored giving the port city to Italy over Yugoslavia. During World War II, Adamic and his fellow leftist South Slavic activists helped to convince the American people and the United States gov­ernment to champion the cause of Communist guerrilla fighter Josip Broz Tito. Tito and his Partisan army battled both the Axis forces who invaded Yugoslavia in 1941 and the Serbian Chetniks that wanted to reinstall the monarchy that had ruled that country from the end of World War I through the fascist takeover. By 1946, federal of­ficials such as Byrnes wanted to end their alliances with Communists as they started to insist that communism had replaced fascism as the greatest danger to democracy globally. Therefore, Byrnes and others in Harry S. Truman’s Administration decided to advocate on behalf of a recent enemy, Italy, over an ally, Yugoslavia. Adamic in­sisted that Byrnes was using the rhetoric of anticommunism to make the Democratic Party’s desire for expanding its political power and assisting American business’s in­terests more palatable to the American people. Byrnes cited ethnic ties as his primary reason for wanting to award Trieste to Italy, as he claimed that more of the city’s population identified as Italian as opposed to Slovenian. Adamic rejected this claim. He asserted that turning Trieste over to the Italians “would reward criminality and punish its victims” because, as the State Department’s reports clearly documented, the Italians had attempted to “eradicate the Slovenians and Croatians in the area” even before Benito Mussolini took power (Adamic 1946: 2). Adamic contended that most people living in and near Trieste, in­cluding most Italians, sympathized with Tito’s Partisans and their promotion of eth­nic diversity. Adamic then proclaimed that the United States had “been led into this complicated game by the British, by the Vatican, by the [Truman] Administration’s concern for the ‘Italian’ [American ethnic] vote in 1946 and ’48, [and] by our desire to stop the spread of Soviet influence” (ibid.: 2, 6). Adamic meant that Britain and the U.S. believed they would reap greater benefits from trade that went through an Italian Trieste than they would from a Yugoslavia that western leaders assumed would be under Stalin’s influence. Adamic added that Byrnes’s position made the U.S. look like it was taking a stand against Communism as anticommunist sentiment was on the rise in the United States. Last, Catholics, and ethnic Italians in particular, had become a key constituency for the Democratic Party. Adamic accused Byrnes and Truman of pandering to Italian Americans in preparation for the 1946 mid-term elections and the 1948 presidential election. Examining Adamic’s effort to convince United States government officials and the American public that Trieste should be part of Yugoslavia allows us to sharp­en our understanding of how transnational identities ebbed, flowed, and changed. Adamic adopted, shed, and reformulated his identity based upon the tenuous alli­ance and then growing tensions between his host land and homeland. Early in his career, he wrote as an exile, and then he argued that like other “new” Americans he was hybrid of Slovenia and the United States (Žitnik 1998: 95–110; Shiffman 2003: 142–165; Enyeart 2019: introduction). This article will focus on his sense of being later in his life, when he saw himself as a diasporic leader during World War II and then when he proclaimed himself an anti-imperialist from 1946 through his death in 1951. Each of his states of being represented expressions of living a life guided by a trans­national awareness. Defining transnationalism has become difficult for scholars, as different disci­plines use the term in various ways. Some academics see it as sets of financial, cul­tural, and political networks between sending and receiving communities. Others focus on the mobilization of migrants around their diasporic experience; and still others see it as the fashioning of hybrid identities based on intra and interethnic relationships. Broadly, historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and geographers agree that those who forged transnational identities acquired a sense of themselves across multiple borders by engaging with global events in their local communities (Basch, Schiller, Bland 1994: 27; Jacobson 1995: 13–53; Guglielmo 2010: 3–4; Portes 1997: 813; Foner 2000: 169–187; Seigel 2005: 62–90). Some of the best transnational studies concentrate on how migrant laborers in the United States confronted their employers by incorporating boycotts from Ireland, peasant women’s revolutionary practices from Italy, and anarchism forged on the Mexican-U.S. border (Guglielmo 2010: 3–4; Brundage 2016: 8–33; Weber 2016: 188–226). These works have pushed us beyond exceptionalist thinking by explaining how a specific phenomenon resulted from cross-border interactions. Examining Adamic’s activist stances regarding Trieste helps us to think beyond a single cross-border movement or an individual’s identity claim at a specific mo­ment, and thus allows us to see how transnationalism operated as an identity in flux. Adamic’s shift from diasporic leader to anti-colonial activist allows us to use one per­son to gain insights on how transnational movements changed in reaction to evolving local and global dynamics. The fight over Trieste helped to precipitate Adamic’s shift from a leader of the leftist South Slavic diaspora to a proponent of anti-colonialism.1 The different ver­sions he told of the Trieste fight reflected those changes and are examined in this article. Yugoslavia’s claim to Trieste, he argued, represented the South Slavs’ efforts to have a homeland and fulfill their long-held desire for self-determination. By the summer of 1946, it had become clear to him and to most observers that the U.S. would support Italy’s claim on Trieste. At that point, Adamic pointed to Trieste as an example of America’s expanding imperialist desires. For more on American responses to Slovenian claims on Yugoslavia see Novak 1977: 1–25. In order to understand how Adamic defined and redefined his politics during and after World War II, this essay begins by explaining how Adamic embraced the South Slavic diaspora, and became its leader. Then it turns to the controversy over Trieste and Adamic’s effort to convince the United States government to award the port city to Yugoslavia. After Yugoslavs shot down what they believed were Ameri­can spy planes, Adamic knew that corporate leaders and their political allies would use the growing anticommunist sentiment in the United States to support Italy’s claim on Trieste. Adamic then decided to abandon his advocacy for U.S. support of the New Yugoslavia under Tito’s leadership and instead insisted that the Trieste case exemplified how imperialism worked in the post-World War II world under American hegemony. ADAMIC AND THE SOUTH SLAV DIASPORA At fourteen years old, Alojzij Adamič left Slovenia in the fall of 1912 and arrived in New York City that December.2 He performed various jobs ranging from errand boy in a newsroom to dockworker, until he enlisted in the United States Army during World War I. Using a typewriter without diacritical marks, the army clerk who filled out Adamic’s induction papers changed Adamič to Adamic. Louis kept it. By the late 1920s, editors of the nation’s leading magazines were publishing Adamic’s articles that criticized the oppression American workers experienced and the xenophobia immigrants faced. By the early 1930s, he had started concerning himself with the pol­itics of his homeland, which was now part of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. In 1934, Adamic proclaimed that Alexander – the Serbian irredentist king who had turned the recently created nation of South Slavs into a police state – shared a worldview with Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and the Ku Klux Klan (Adamic 1934a: 35; Adamic 1935: 3–5; Lees 2007: 55). By 1942, Adamic argued that Tito, who sought simultaneously to liberate Yugoslavia from its fascist enemies and the Chetniks battling to restore the Serbian monarchy, epitomized the antifascist spirit guiding the Allied war effort. Supporting Tito was Adamic’s most recent iteration in the abiding process of syn­thesizing his Slovenian and American identities. When he first arrived in the Unit­ed States, Adamic stood aloof from Slovene and American politics. He, however, did remain connected to his Slavic roots by translating his favorite authors from Slove­nian into English. Then he criticized Alexander’s government in his The Native’s Re­turn (1934) and translated Slovenian Communist Edvard Kardelj’s pamphlet Struggle (1934), that detailed Alexander’s surveillance and torture methods. In the early 1930s, Adamic championed cultural pluralism, the idea that democracy depended on ethnic and racial equality. In the early 1940s, inspired by Tito, he revised his understanding Scholars have been confused about when Adamic left Slovenia because Adamic wrote down the wrong date. The manifest from the ship Adamic traveled on to reach the U.S. showed that he departed Europe in the fall of 1912 and arrived at Ellis Island in December. of cultural pluralism. Tito mobilized his Partisans by promising that the new Yugo­slavia would replace Serbian ethno-nationalist rule with equality for all South Slavs. Adamic asserted that Tito had revolutionized pluralism and repeatedly made his point by contrasting Tito’s pan-Slavic vision with the justifications for immigration restriction and Jim Crow in the United States and imperialism in Britain. In support­ing Tito, Adamic had embraced the South Slavic narrative of diaspora (Enyeart 2019: chapters 3, 4). Tito’s vision of an ethnically equal nation was one iteration of Yugoslavism, a vi­sion of South Slavic diaspora. During the 1830s, Croatian intellectuals first articulated the idea of a united land of South Slavs. They feared losing both their territory and language under Habsburg rule and began arguing that Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes belonged to one ethnic group. By 1914, exiled South Slav politicians in London pub­lished pamphlets declaring that foreign rulers had prevented this ethnic group from creating its own state. The collapse of the Habsburg Empire at the end of World War I created the opportunity for Yugoslavia to become a reality. They created the King­dom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes at the end of 1918, which in 1929 was renamed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. The change in name accompanied King Alexander’s en­actment of a dictatorial monarchy (Djokic 2003: 18–19; Ramet 2009: 141–142). Fis­sures manifested immediately. In 1918, terrorist bands, extreme nationalist groups, and radical organizations, including the Communist Party, operated illegally in in-terwar Yugoslavia. By 1939, complaints about an unfair tax structures, a Serbianized education system and political repression led to a divided nation rife with ethnic, religious, and political hatreds (Ramet 2009: 141–142). Slovene and Croatian Catho­lics and Serb, Slovene, and Croatian Communists, for example, could agree that Alex­ander did not represent their vision of Yugoslavism, but neither could those groups find unity (Rogel 1977: v–vii, 14–27, 75–89; Banac 1992: 1084–1104). In the United States, leftist South Slavic immigrants, led by Slovenian socialists, forged their vision of Yugoslavism before Yugoslavia ever existed. From the 1880s through 1914, South Slavic immigrants arrived in Cleveland, Chicago, and smaller industrial centers in the U.S. In the early twentieth century, those with left-wing po­litical leanings created the Yugoslav Socialist Federation (YSF), affiliated with the Socialist Party of America. In 1917, YSF members passed the “Chicago Declaration” that resolved to raise funds for and lobby on behalf of a federated Yugoslav republic (Klemenčič 1999: 43). Exiles such as the Ljubljana-born journalist and labor activist Etbin Kristan high­lighted the YSF’s role in coordinating transnational political activism. In 1896, Kristan, helped to form the Yugoslav Social Democratic Party. By 1912, he had established firm connections between his party and YSF activists in Chicago. When World War I began, he immigrated to the U.S. (Jurak 1985: 53–54). The YSF splintered during World War I. Some members supported the war be­cause they saw it as a catalyst to Yugoslavism. Others joined those in the larger So­cialist Party who criticized the conflict as a mass slaughter of the working class for capitalist gain. Further divisions arose within the YSF when some members inspired by the Russian Revolution embraced Communism. During the interwar period, South Slavic newspapers in the U.S. still promoted Yugoslavism, but political divisions between Socialists, Communists and Catholics prevented any meaningful challenges to Alexander’s autocracy by American South Slavs. Some Socialist and Communist newspaper editors did agree that Adamic did not represent the South Slavic community. In 1938, the editors of the leading leftist Slovenian language newspapers in the U.S. criticized Adamic for spending most of his time outside of South Slav ethnic communities. They pointed out that he did not live in South Slav neighborhoods, had married a Jewish American woman, did not often write for Slovenian American newspapers, and had not joined Slovenian or South Slav ethnic associations.3 Despite these criticisms, Adamic remained popular among large segments of his fellow ethnic Slovenes and South Slavic Americans in general. For example, after he had exposed Alexander’s oppressive rule to the English-speaking world in Struggle and The Native’s Return, conservative Slovenian and Serbian American supporters of Alexander denounced him. Cleveland resident Anne Grill responded by organizing the Daughters of Slovenia, which soon became the Progressive Slo­vene Women of America (PSWA). The PSWA promoted Adamic’s work and helped to revive a leftist vision of Yugoslavism over the next four years as activists estab­lished branches in Milwaukee, Chicago, St. Louis, and numerous industrial centers (Klemenčič 1995: 210–211). Another example of Adamic’s popularity within the Yugoslav-American commu­nity came in the summer of 1943 when he helped to create and then agreed to lead the United Committee of South Slavic Americans (UCSSA). The UCSSA lobbied the American government to assist Tito’s Partisans and criticized nativism and racism in the United States (Bulletin of the United Committee of South-Slavic Americans hereafter BUCSSA 1943: 1–2). In a letter to Franklin Roosevelt outlining these aims, Adamic also urged the President to support Yugoslavia’s claim to Trieste.4 Adamic agreed to lead the UCSSA because his worldview had shifted from see­ing himself as an exile promoting cultural pluralism in the United States to a cham­pion of global democracy fighting fascism. Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 spurred Adamic’s shift in thinking about democracy globally as he started to see fascism as the greatest danger the world faced. In a letter to the president of the Yugoslav Catholic Union that year, he proposed that they work together to create an organization that united American Slovenes, Croats, and Serbs concerned with the affairs of their former homeland. That effort stalled as leftists and Catholics could not reconcile their political differences (Klemenčič 1995: 364–365). After failing in 3 Molek, Ivan to Louis Adamic (1938). May 11. Chicago History Museum, Ivan Molek Papers, Box 1, file folder 3. 4 Adamic, Louis to Franklin Roosevelt (1943). July 26. Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Lju­ bljana, Louis Adamič Papers, pisma 3, mapa 9. an effort to unite Slovenians in the U.S. in the Slovene American National Council (Slovensko-ameriški narodni svet or SANS), Adamic finally succeeded his quest to form a pan-South Slavic group to advance Yugoslavism when he helped to create the UCSSA. SANS split along ideological lines as Catholic anticommunist Slovenes protested the organization’s pro-Tito stance. Adamic’s writing reflected his diasporic activism. He revised how he thought of his relationship to his homeland and host land by envisioning himself as part of the Slovenian and South Slav migration. A subset of South Slavs argued that the re­pression they experienced under the Austrian monarchy had forced them out their homeland and they could not return to the recently formed Yugoslavia because Serbian kings continued to oppress Croats and Slovenes politically and culturally. By 1941, the fascists threatened to extinguish any hopes for Yugoslavism. In his My Native Land (1943), which appeared the same year he and other activists established the UCSSA, Adamic explained that “Yugoslavia was never properly born. It had been conceived through an inevitable convergence of historical forces, but the midwives attending the birth had bungled their job.” Because Serbian autocrats undermined the desire for equality at the heart of Yugoslavism, many South Slavs simply knew in their bones that the Balkan peoples must extricate themselves from the simultaneously heavy and subtle apparatus of Western imperialism. There was but one way to do that – to go the way of Russia; to work out a procedure whereby “backward” nations and their undeveloped resources would be withdrawn from the reach, from the sphere, of intrigue and “prestige” of the predatory and in the long run incompetent Great Powers of the West. (Adamic 1943: 393) Significantly, Adamic cited “Western imperialism” as a key factor in preventing the realization of Yugoslavism. But he did not yet argue that liberation for South Slavs would have to come through unity with other colonized peoples. He made the South Slavs who joined the Communist underground the protagonists in My Native Land and he praised them for advancing Yugoslavism. Being a diasporic leader defined his transnational activism during World War II. In championing Yugoslavism, Adamic adjusted his framing of peasants. No longer doomed to lives of perpetual despair, Adamic now presented South Slavic peasants, a group within which he included himself, as a dispersed people patiently waiting to create their own future. He cited Slovene literary critic and Communist un­derground activist Josip Vidmar’s argument that South Slavic peasants, along with some intellectuals, whether “they were in Yugoslavia, in Italy or Austria or Hungary, or immigrants in South or North America” possessed slovenstvo, i.e. Sloveneness, or the Slovene spirit. Slovenstvo linked Slovenes culturally and spiritually wherever they lived and it would guide them to join the fight to make Slovenia an equal partner in a new Yugoslavia at the right moment (ibid.: 136, 138–139). Tito’s Liberation Front embodied the diaspora’s vision for a land of South Slavic equals through its “new heroism,” as the Partisans hurled themselves “against the errors of the past wherever they continued to function, breaking its fetters and re­leasing the energy belonging to the future” (ibid.: 396). Adamic now portrayed the diaspora that he once rejected as an alliance of the Communist underground and their antifascist allies in Yugoslavia and exiled South Slav peasants turned American workers. Tito’s revolutionaries, according to Adamic, now made the Yugoslavia long dreamed of through war, while Adamic and his fellow South Slavs living abroad lob­bied allied governments to support the Partisans militarily, monetarily, and political­ly. They succeeded. Success meant that by the summer of 1943, Adamic and his supporters had convinced much of the American public that a number of Chetniks had collaborat­ed with the fascists in fighting the Partisans, and that Chetnik General Draza Mi­hailović had agreed not to engage Axis forces. Around the same time, the U.S. and British governments changed their support from Mihailović to Tito. Many journalists credited Adamic with influencing this decision, but British intelligence reports doc­umenting Chetnik deals with Axis forces had a much greater influence on the Allied nations’ shift in thought (Enyeart 2019: Chapter 3). DEMANDING A YUGOSLAV TRIESTE After World War II, the UCSSA updated its objectives. The group supported the Allied nations’ “efforts toward world peace,” encouraged American South Slavs to “partic­ipate fully in all processes to advance political, economic, social and ethnic democ­racy in the United States of America,” and to “foster in the United States of America an ever greater understanding of the South-Slavic peoples, their history, culture and traditions” (BUCSSA April 1946: 3). Italy figured prominently in Adamic’s lobbying efforts. For example, Adamic and Kristan, along with other officials of SANS, which became part of the UCSSA, attempted to free Slovenian Prisoners of War (POWs) held by the U.S. government. Italian military officers forced Slovenians in Italian con­trolled places to fight in the Italian army during World War II. Kristan explained to Under-secretary of State Sumner Welles that “these men cannot really be considered enemies of the United States; for they have been forced to join the Italian army, and we definitely know that their sympathy was never with Italy, much less with fascism.” They were especially talking about ethnic Slovenes living near Trieste.5 When that group, which included Adamic, met with Welles, they brought let­ters from antifascist Slovenians from the Littoral. One letter they presented to Welles from a Slovenian stated: “We have the national feeling which has been stifled and Kristan, Etbin to Sumner Welles (1943). July 15. Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana, Louis Adamič Papers, Tuja korespondenca 4, mapa 21. tramped upon since our birth, but secretly instilled and cultivated by our mothers during our childhood. ‘This love was also with us during the unbearable hours under the foreign yoke, when we were forced to go to the war front.” The writer continued that Italian fascists “destroyed our homes and thrown our parents into the street. Many were shot. Many of us have sisters in concentration camps – and brothers fighting the enemy together.”6 Using letters such as this one, Adamic implored Welles to urge his superiors to support Tito and the Partisans. He drew examples from similar correspondence on his speaking tours to convince the American public to support Tito and the leftist South Slav vision of Yugoslavism (Enyeart 2019: Chapter 3). U.S.-Italian-Yugoslav relations were the UCSSA’s top concern. In June 1944, Zlat­ko Baloković, a world-renowned concert violinist who emigrated from Croatia to the United States, took over the day-to-day leadership of the UCSSA from Adamic when doctors ordered Adamic to rest because of exhaustion. Baloković’s new responsibil­ities included editing The Bulletin of the United Committee of South-Slavic Americans, the UCSSA’s newsletter, and with help from Adamic, Baloković kept the focus large­ly on events in post-war Italy. In an October 1945 article, for instance, The Bulletin reported that “war criminals” now held government positions in Italy’s provisional government. Baloković also republished articles from other periodicals dealing with Yugoslav-Italian issues, such as Blair Bolles’ piece from the August 1945 journal PM. Bolles pointed out that the U.S. government applied sanctions against Tito’s gov­ernment, which diverted 5000 tons of sugar from Yugoslavia to Greece. More im­portantly, these sanctions led to the Yugoslav government’s inability to secure bank loans that would allow them to purchase imports. Stressing the Yugoslav-American alliance during World War II, Bolles pointed out the absurdity of this policy. The U.S. placed no sanctions on Argentina’s tyrannical government. When reporters asked U.S. government officials about this apparent contradiction, they claimed that these “sanctions would constitute a violation of sovereignty and that to deny U.S. goods to the Argentine people would turn the people away from us” (BUCSSA October 1945: 3). Obviously, the same logic applied to Yugoslavs. When pressed further to address this clear double standard, state department officials responded that Yugoslavia’s commitment to the four freedoms remained “unproven”. In a 1941 address, Pres­ident Franklin D. Roosevelt outlined “four essential human freedoms” throughout the world: freedom of speech and of worship, and freedom from want and from fear (Roosevelt 1941; Borgwardt 2005: 4–6, 50, 135–136). Americans claimed that the four freedoms characterized their vision of democracy for the world. Bolles challenged this answer by pointing to Juan Perón’s Argentina, Francisco Franco’s Spain, and Chang Kai-Shek’s China as instances where “reactionary tyrants” received U.S. aid (BUCSSA October 1945: 3). Kristan, Etbin to Sumner Welles (1943). July 15. Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica, Ljubljana, Louis Adamič Papers, Tuja korespondenca 4, mapa 21. Part of Adamic’s work with the UCSSA included lobbying politicians to provide monetary aid to Yugoslavia. Despite his health issues, Adamic ignored his doctor’s orders when it came to doing this work. On December 6, 1945, Adamic’s friend Nick Bez – a Croatian immigrant, Seattle businessman, influential Democratic Party donor, and one of the UCSSA’s leading contributors – arranged a meeting between Adamic and President Truman. Adamic kept stressing to Truman that with aid from the Unit­ed States, Yugoslavia could become a democratic nation. Truman seemed skeptical, but Adamic kept stressing that he had letters from American executives willing to do business in Yugoslavia. He urged Truman to have the State Department look into extending Yugoslavia credit. In a letter to Bez after the meeting, Adamic stated that he brought up Trieste but the “President seemed to bristle at the mention of Trieste, but he said nothing”. Adamic explained that Yugoslavs had repaired over 450 miles of railways, including bridges, linking Trieste to Belgrade. He wrote Bez that Truman appeared uninformed and had little understanding of Yugoslavia.7 By the spring of 1946, Adamic focused primarily on Trieste and allied with oth­er South Slavic activists to convince the Truman Administration to support Yugo­slavia’s claim to the port city. In April, he updated arguments about ethnicity, the economy, and politics in the Bulletin. He highlighted the fact that a group called the Italo-Slovene Liberation Committee had been formed in Trieste during World War II in opposition to the Italian government and the Axis powers as they fought with the Partisans. That group argued that Trieste should be part of Yugoslavia. Despite examples such as this one, Adamic feared that Trieste’s fate would be decided by American business interests and the Democratic Party’s desire to shore up its base. The Truman Administration, Adamic asserted, would continue to frame these ob­jectives as efforts to advance democracy as tensions between the U.S. and the USSR grew (BUCSSA April 1946: 1). In May, a group calling themselves the Seattle Tacoma and State of Washington Jugoslavs sent the President a telegram declaring that Trieste “without the Slavic hinterland is a dead city”. The cable declared that Yugoslavs “living in the disputed area were brutally maltreated for twenty-five years and were forced by the Italian government to lose their national identity” and “were forced into exile”. As a result, they lost their land and thus became victims of “empire and conquest”.8 They were refuting Byrnes’s repeated assertion that most residents of Trieste were Italian and thus Trieste should be awarded to Italy. Marcus Nalley, an influential member of the Seattle-Tacoma and State of Washington Jugoslavs, sent Adamic a copy of the tele­gram. Nalley, a Croatian immigrant and Tacoma businessman who made and sold potato chips, entered into a correspondence with Adamic. Nalley and Adamic com­miserated about how misinformed the larger American public was about Yugoslavia 7 Adamic, Louis to Nick Bez (1945). December 17. Princeton University, Firestone Library, Rare Books and Special Collections Department, Louis Adamic Papers, Box 45, folder 6. 8 Nalley, Marcus to Louis Adamic (1946a). May 8. Princeton University, Firestone Library, Rare Books and Special Collections Department, Louis Adamic Papers, Box 45, folder 6. and they strategized about how best to advance the Trieste issue.9 Adamic wrote to Nalley that Trieste was now tied to “big-power politics between the Anglo-American combination on the one side and Russia on the other”, and Trieste was also connect­ed to “our internal American politics”. Adamic encouraged Nalley and his group to keep sending telegrams to Truman and Byrnes.10 When Adamic had met with Truman, he explained that businessmen supported the UCSSA’s effort to work with Tito’s Yugoslavia, and shared his belief that trade be­tween the two countries could move Yugoslavia toward democracy. Bez and Nalley’s alliance with Adamic demonstrated that a broad swath of South Slavs, not just Com­munists, shared this view. Contrary to anticommunist claims, Communism was not a monolithic project controlled by the Soviets. Awarding Trieste to Yugoslavia and engaging in trade with Tito’s government would have demonstrated this point. The irony was that after Tito broke from Stalin in 1948, the U.S. government sent money to Yugoslavia, forging a tenuous alliance with Tito. By that point, however, Yugoslavs did not trust either country and steered an independent course between the U.S. and USSR for the rest of its existence (Lees 1997: 10–11). Father James Cherne, a Catholic priest who had lived in occupied Italy and end­ed up in a German prison camp, also helped Adamic make his case for awarding Trieste to Yugoslavia. Cherne wrote Byrnes of the Slovene soldiers’ bravery during the war and stressed to the secretary that Trieste never belonged to the Kingdom of Italy. Cherne did note that it was briefly part of the Kingdom of Venice, but its resi­dents voluntarily decided to join the Austrian Empire. Thus, just in case Byrnes actu­ally believed Trieste’s past linked it to Italy, the UCSSA and its supporters repeatedly attempted to correct that detail for him (BUCSSA May 1946: 21). Other than Truman and members of his administration, Adamic also worked with members of congress as part of his role as a leader in the South Slavic diaspora. In May 1946, Senator Warren Magnuson, representing the state of Washington, read Adamic’s letter to Byrnes into the Congressional Record. Whatever slight chance Adamic and other South Slav activists had to change the outlook of the Truman Ad­ministration regarding Trieste ended in the summer of 1946. U.S. IMPERIALISM AS ANTICOMMUNISM By June 1946, newspapers throughout the country started arguing that giving Trieste to Yugoslavia would mean that the U.S, England and France had bent to Russia’s will (Democrat and Chronicle, June 4, 1946). In part, the emerging Cold War 9 Nalley, Marcus to Louis Adamic (1946). May 25. Box 48, folder 6, Princeton University, Fires­ tone Library, Rare Books and Special Collections Department, Louis Adamic Papers, Box 48, folder 6. 10 Nalley, Marcus to Louis Adamic (1946). June 1. Princeton University, Firestone Library, Rare Books and Special Collections Department, Louis Adamic Papers, Box 48, folder 6. led the American public to accept anticommunist arguments that presented leftist South Slavs as “Communist stooges” instead of champions of democracy. Increas­ingly, many South Slavs coming to the United States used this rhetoric to transform themselves from fascists, fascist sympathizers, or supporters of Serbian irredentism into exiles who had tried but failed to save their homeland from the spread of Com­munism. Their version of who they were competed with the leftist version of Yugo-slavism Adamic championed. As a result, tensions grew within South Slavic Ameri­can communities. Divisions within this ethnic community meant a loss of political influence, as leftist South Slavs could no longer speak in a clear unified voice (Enyeart 2019: chapter 4). This new reality at home and the conflict between the U.S. and Yu­goslav governments led Adamic to adopt a new political position. In August, U.S.-Yugoslav relations severely declined. The Yugoslav military forced one U.S. airplane to land when it crossed over into Yugoslav airspace and then arrest­ed the crew. When a second plane flew into Yugoslav airspace, Tito’s solders shot it down, killing the five U.S. airmen on board. The United States government claimed that both planes were on cargo runs and that they veered off course into Yugoslavia. Adamic supported the defense offered by Yugoslav officials that the United States purposefully violated Yugoslav sovereignty by carrying out repeated air reconnais­sance missions. Yugoslav officials had repeatedly asked the Truman administration to halt these intelligence-gathering missions. When the espionage campaign con­tinued, the Yugoslavs warned the Americans that they would have no other choice than to fire upon the planes. Byrnes declared his outrage over these attacks and stuck to the official story that these were honest mistakes. The American media fanned the flames of public outrage and reported the government’s version of the story (Adamic 1952: 66–72; Lees 1997: 14–15). Adamic gave speeches and wrote articles that attempted to challenge this ver­sion of events, and fight the spread of anticommunism. His most comprehensive effort at correcting the narrative in the United States came in the September 1946 issue of The Bulletin. Yugoslavs, he wrote, wonder why their Allies in the fight against fascism are now “so indulgent toward an enemy, send up Army planes almost daily to reconnoiter a loyal wartime ally and peacetime friend”. He also brought up the fact that U.S. government officials withheld Yugoslavs’ boats that the Germans had stolen during the war (BUCSSA September 1946: 1). Adamic asked his readers: “what if an unauthorized foreign plane flew over the White House?” (ibid.: 3). This article marked a clear shift in Adamic’s articulation of transnational politics. He recognized that in the atmosphere of mounting anticommunism, Tito’s forces shooting down an American plane ended any chance of a continued alliance be­tween the U.S. and Yugoslavia. That development guaranteed that Byrnes and Tru­man would award Trieste to Italy. Adamic concluded that attacking American imperialism was the best way to ad­vocate for Yugoslav sovereignty. He was now making a moral appeal based on Amer-ican-inspired rhetoric first asserted by Woodrow Wilson that advancing democracy included an end to imperialism by granting colonized nations the right to self-deter­mination. In the Bulletin, Adamic admonished the New York Times and other newspa­pers that shaped public opinion for “putting quotation marks around such words as ‘American reactionaries’ and ‘American imperialism’ as though they did not exist”. To Yugoslavs and others facing the threat of American intervention, “imperialism is not something that went out with Queen Victoria … Imperialism to them is a very recent arrangement by which western European investors in Yugoslav copper mines drew an annual return of 235 percent of their investments while the Yugoslav workers in these mines – ‘natives’ – were paid the equivalent of 25 cents a day.” He added that “American reactionaries” promoted policies that “the American press and radio and State Dept.” supported, which would transfer wealth from east­ern Europe to the US and western Europe (ibid.). Adamic then explicitly connected U.S. colonialism, the espionage flights, and the Trieste decision. He argued that American military leaders and government officials had incited a provocation with Yugoslavia to “intimidate the Yugoslavs generally on account of their insistence that Trieste rightfully belonged to Yugoslavia” (ibid.: 4). The true un-Americans were not the supporters of peaceful relations with Yugoslavia or other Communist nations, but the “powerful, war-minded forces in this country [who] have deliberately forced a crisis with Yugoslavia in order to crack down on Eu­ropean democracy and force the small nations to take orders from Wall Street” (ibid.: 5). The “banking trusts, the oil corporations and the democracy-haters of America who alone have a stake in fomenting a war situation”, he continued, promote coloni­alism under the cover of anticommunism because the portraying a constant threat of war “means billions of juicy contracts”. Adamic concluded: “Only the desire for empire, for cracking down on the independence of other nations, can explain what we are doing” (ibid.: 5–6). Challenging the spread of American empire remained the central focus of Adamic’s work until he died in 1951. His posthumously published The Eagle and the Roots (1952) built on the anti-colonialist arguments Adamic made regarding Trieste. He declared that the “New Yugoslavia’s industrialization-through-socialism is primarily anti-imperialism: a holding action – holding on to her natural resourc­es and staving off the greed- and panic-driven jogs and jolts of the big powers” (Adamic 1952: 135). By this point Yugoslavia had broken away from the Soviet Un­ion’s influence and attempted to steer an independent path between the U.S. and the USSR. The Soviets and their allies claimed that Tito had betrayed Communism and had become a puppet of the West. U.S. politicians and policymakers, although providing monetary support to Yugoslavia, remained committed to an anticom­munist foreign policy. The criticisms of Yugoslavia by both of the “big powers” from Adamic’s perspective masked the fact that the U.S. and the USSR wanted to colonize Yugoslavia in their own ways. Adamic elaborated on his point about U.S. and Soviet imperialism by explain­ing what was happening in Italy from 1949–1951. He used the Marshall Plan as an example of how the neo-colonialism of the United States operated. Implemented by the United States in April 1948, the Marshall Plan tied Western European nations’ economies to the U.S. through aid packages, mostly loans, intended for those coun­tries to rebuild and modernize their industries. Communist nations were ineligible for these funds despite the fact that many of them, including Yugoslavia, had played a central role in the Allied victory (La Feber 2008: 57–73). After noting that a number of Italians had emigrated to the New Yugoslavia to “build socialism”, Adamic con­tended that the United States “is more effective in promoting Coca-Cola and Read­er’s Digest than self-reliance and pride in workmanship”. In other words, the United States advanced the interests of its corporations and promoted consumerism in­stead of the dignity of labor. In the same sentence, Adamic took aim at the Soviets. He pointed out that “the Communist propagandists, extolling the Soviet Union’s big-industry system, also belittle individual craft skills of which a man can be proud” similarly disguising the USSR’s imperialist desires (Adamic 1952: 241). He then quoted a conversation he had with Tito on January 18, 1949, to clarify his point. The Yugoslav leader declared that “the billions of dollars which the USA is spending to ‘contain Communism’ is a waste and confusion: that if Italy and France hadn’t received American ‘aid’, they might have had Communist-led revolutions and, like Yugoslavia, they might now be at odds with the Kremlin if the Russians had tried to butt into their internal affairs and to use them as pawns in the power game against America” (ibid.: 242). Tito added that for the U.S. to maintain its “economic system at its present pitch, America must throw off her financial surpluses someplace, fast. And her improvised statesmanship combines the disposal of those surpluses with a ‘contain Communism’ policy, which is less anti-Communism than a cover-up for expansionism.” Tito proclaimed that Italy “is becoming an American colony. She’s a pawn in Washington’s power game against Moscow”. Italy was crucial to the “route to the Middle East with its vast oil deposits, which Russia would rush in to control and exploit if America didn’t” (ibid.: 243). The Cold War, Tito said in his meeting with Adamic, benefitted the expansionist desires of both the U.S. and USSR (ibid.). In The Eagle and the Roots, Adamic no longer presented Yugoslavism as a collective project undertaken by South Slavs determined to build a nation of ethnic equals. Instead, the struggle to make the New Yugoslavia a success exemplified the global struggle of developing nations for self-determination as the U.S. and USSR attempted to ex­pand their post-war visions of empire. Adamic further displayed his anti-colonialist thinking in a 439-page typescript chapter called “A Game of Chess in an Earthquake” that his editor Timothy Seldes and estranged wife Stella did not included in the final version of The Eagle and the Roots. Adamic argued that politicians, business leaders, and journalists had an em­braced authoritarianism and thus advanced this post-war imperial project. Adamic quoted Marine Corps war hero General Smedley D. Butler to highlight his point. But­ler was the most decorated U.S. serviceperson in American history by his death in June of 1940. During the 1930s, Butler assessed his life’s work and realized that he had been “a gangster for capitalism”. He said: “I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a de­cent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.” Butler added that he had aided the sugar industry in the Dominican Republic, and helped export oil from China (Adamic 1951: 244). Adamic then argued that a fascist strain had existed in American politics for a very long time and that politicians and journalists disguised it in the rhetoric of advancing democracy. Butler believed he was advancing democracy until he saw what happened in the places where he commanded troops to put down leftist insurrections. Butler realized that those he defeated were the actual democrats. Adamic argued that the U.S. government was continuing to employ this strategy, but because of American fears of Communism, warnings such as Butler’s were being ignored. Adamic called on Americans to look at the world and support “third-world” up­risings and reject the anticommunist framings of these insurrections as Soviet-in­spired efforts to spread Communism. He wanted Americans to see that similar to the Yugoslav revolution, these rebellions were fought by people trying to free them­selves from imperialism. For Adamic, Tito’s revolution had gone from being the ful­fillment of Yugoslavism to a successful example of anticolonial resistance. Trieste, and Italy in general, played in a central role in how Adamic framed his transnational activism. His initial writings on Trieste, which were part of his effort to lobby the U.S. government to award the port city to Yugoslavia, revealed his dedica­tion as a diasporic leader. As part of the new Yugoslavia, Trieste would have helped to cement the success of Yugoslavism. According to Adamic, it would have helped grow Yugoslavia’s economy and put it on a path toward greater democracy. As it became clear that the United States would award Trieste to Italy and not Yugoslavia, Adamic saw American imperialism at work. In his writing and speeches he shifted from being an advocate for Tito to being an opponent of the world the U.S. and the USSR were creating. He used Italy as one example. The U.S. government, he argued, saw Italy as a stepping stone crucial to American businesses’ need for more markets. American officials could claim they were helping to rebuild a democratic Italy, but in actuality they simply wanted more consumers. Adamic’s framings of Tito and Italy reflected his changing transnational poli­tics. Balancing his homeland and hostland identities meant that Adamic constantly thought about issues of justice beyond one set of borders. During World War II that meant imploring his homeland to support him and his fellow South Slavs in playing a significant role in making Yugoslavism a reality. But as he saw the Cold War dawn, he rethought how justice could operate globally. He viewed both the anticommu­nists and the Soviets as masking their expansionist desires with different rhetorics of justice. Justice, he had determined from witnessing the Partisans’ struggle, had to come from within a nation, and he urged the global hegemons to support those indigenous uprisings. REFERENCES Adamic, Louis (1934). The Native’s Return: An American Immigrant Visits Yugoslavia and Discovers his Old Country. New York: Harper and Brothers. Adamic, Louis (1935). Struggle. New York: Tomorrow Publishes (originally published 1934). Adamic, Louis (1943). My Native Land. New York: Harper and Brothers. Adamic, Louis (1946). America and Trieste, God and the Russians: A Letter to the Hono­rable James F. Byrnes, Secretary of State. New York: United Committee of South Slavic Americans. Adamic, Louis (1951). “A Game of Chess in an Earthquake”, unpublished chapter in the draft manuscript of The Eagle and the Roots. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Library of the Slovene Academy of Sciences and Arts. Adamic, Louis (1952). The Eagle and the Roots. New York: Doubleday and Company. Banac, Ivo (1992). “Historiography of the Countries of Eastern Europe: Yugoslavia.” American Historical Review 97/4 (October), 1084–1104. Basch, Linda, Glick Schiller, Nina, Szanton Bland, Cristina (1994). Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments and Deterritorialized Nation-Sta­tes. Basel, United Kingdom: Gordon and Breach. Borgwardt, Elizabeth (2005). A New Deal for the World: America’s Vision for Human Rights. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press. Djokic, Dejan (2003). “‘After One Hundred Years’: The Yugoslav Idea in Historical Per­spective.” Historically Speaking 5 (November), 18–21. Enyeart, John P. (2019). Death to Fascism: Louis Adamic’s Fight for Democracy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Foner, Nancy (2000). From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigrati­on. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Gabaccia, Donna, Iacovetta, Franca (eds.) (2002). Women, Gender, and Transnational Lives: Italian Workers of the World. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gaddis, John Lewis (1990). Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United Sates. New York: McGraw Hill. Guglielmo, Jennifer (2010). Living the Revolution: Italian Women’s Resistance and Radi­calism in New York City, 1880–1945. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Jacobson, Matthew Frey (1995). Special Sorrows: The Diasporic Imagination of Irish, Polish, and Jewish Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Jurak, Mirko (1985). “‘The New World’ in Etbin Kristan’s Plays.” MELUS 12 (Winter), 53–61. Klemenčič, Matjaž (1995). Slovenes of Cleveland: The Creation of a New Nation and a New World Community Slovenia and the Slovenes of Cleveland, Ohio. Novo mesto: Dolenjska Založba. Klemenčič, Matjaž (1999). “Slovenia as Part of a United Europe in the Political Phi­losophy of Slovene Emigrants From Louis Adamic to Miha Krek.” Intelektualci v Diaspori / Intellectuals in Diaspora (ed. Irena Gantar Godina). Proceedings of the Symposium 100th Birth Anniversary of Louis Adamic – Intellectuals in Diaspora, Portorož, Slovenia, 1–5 September, 1998. LaFeber, Walter (2008). America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–2006. Boston: McGraw Hill. Lees, Lorraine M. (1997). Keeping Tito Afloat: The United States, Yugoslavia, and the Cold War. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. Lees, Lorraine M. (2007). Yugoslav-Americans and National Security during World War II. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Novak, C. Bogdan (1977). “American Policy Toward The Slovenes in Trieste, 1941– 1974.” Papers in Slovene Studies, 1–25. Portes, Alejandro (1997). “Immigration Theory for a New Century: Some Problems and Opportunities.” International Migration Review 31 (Winter), 799–825. Ramet, Sabrina P. (2009). “The Meaning of Yugoslav History.” Slovene Studies 31/2, 139–148. Rogel, Carole (1977). The Slovenes and Yugoslavism, 1890–1914. New York: Columbia University Press. Roosevelt, Franklin Delano (1941) “The ‘Four Freedoms’”, annual address to Congress, January 6, FDR Library website, http://docs.fdrlibrary.marist.edu:8000/od4frees. html (16. 7. 2010). Seigel, Micol (2005). “Beyond Compare: Comparative Method after the Transnational Turn.” Radical History Review (Winter), 62–90. Weber, Devra Anne (2016). “Wobblies of the Partido Liberal Mexicano: Reenvisioning Internationalist and Transnational Movement through Mexican Lenses.” Pacific Historical Review 85/2, 188–226. Žitnik, Janja (1998). “Louis Adamic, a Slovene, an American, an Observer, a Fighter, a ‘Poet’.” Dve domovini / Two Homelands 9, 95–110. ARCHIVAL SOURCES Chicago History Museum, Ivan Molek Papers. Narodna in univerzitetna Knjižnica Ljubljana, Louis Adamič Papers, M. S. 1858. Princeton University, Firestone Library, Rare Books and Special Collections De­partment, Louis Adamic Papers. PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS BUCSSA: The Bulletin of the United Committee of South-Slavic Americans (September 7, 1943; October 1945; April 1946; May 1946; and September 1946). Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY) (1946). June 4. Flanntican Council on Other Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. POVZETEK TRST IN TRANSNACIONALNE IDENTITETE LOUISA ADAMIČA John Paul ENYEART Analiza Adamičevega aktivizma v obdobju od druge svetovne vojne do njegove smrti leta 1951 omogoča nov vpogled v delovanje transnacionalizma na individualni ravni. V različnih načinih Adamičevega podpiranja jugoslovanskih zahtev do prista­nišča Trst, ki je pozneje pripadlo Italiji, se kaže, kako je spreminjajoči se odnos med njegovo matično domovino in državo, v katero je emigriral, vplival na njegovo po­litično dejavnost. Med vojno je Adamič podpiral levičarsko vizijo jugoslavizma, po kateri naj bi južni Slovani vzpostavili narod etnično in politično enakopravnih pri­padnikov. Adamič je vztrajal v prepričanju, da bo Tito ta cilj tudi uresničil, Trst pa bo postal glavno trgovsko središče nove Jugoslavije. Če bi Amerika zagotovila pomoč Jugoslaviji in jo naredila za svojo trgovsko partnerico, bi nova država po Adamiče­vem mnenju sčasoma prešla iz komunističnega v demokratični režim. Ko je postalo jasno, da namerava vlada Združenih držav Trst dodeliti svoji nekdanji sovražnici, ne pa svoji novi prijateljici Jugoslaviji, je Adamič o Trstu začel govoriti kot o primeru ameriškega imperializma. SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT AND MULTICULTURALISM IN LOUIS ADAMIC’S LITERARY JOURNALISM AND DOCUMENTARY PROSE Leonora FLIS| COBISS 1.01 ABSTRACT Social Engagement and Multiculturalism in Louis Adamic’s Literary Journalism and Documentary Prose The article focuses on those texts by Louis Adamic that, by employing the princi­ples of literary journalism, create an authentic discourse (which is simultaneously subjective and documentary) for the description of both current and past events, and successfully place Adamic alongside more recognizable names in the field of literary journalism. The article also explains the characteristics of literary journalism and identifies the traits of this genre in those of Adamic’s works that involve a multi-culturalist criticism of the homogenizing impact of dominant cultures and reveal a powerful social agenda (Dynamite, Laughing in the Jungle, My America, The Native’s Return, and A Nation of Nations). KEY WORDS: Louis Adamic, literary journalism, multiculturalism, social engagement, migration IZVLEČEK Družbeni angažma in multikulturalizem v literarnem novinarstvu in dokumentarni prozi Louisa Adamiča Članek se osredotoča na besedila Louisa Adamiča, ki s pomočjo pristopov literarne­ga novinarstva oblikujejo avtentični, hkratno subjektivni in zgodovinsko preverljivi diskurz opisovanja tako aktualnih kot preteklih dogodkov in Adamiča uspešno pos­tavljajo ob bok širše prepoznavnim imenom literarnega novinarstva. Članek pojasni lastnosti literarnega žurnalizma ter identificira poteze tega žanra v tistih Adamiče­vih besedilih, ki še zlasti jasno izražajo multikulturalistično kritiko homogenizirajočih vplivov prevladujočih kultur in izkazujejo močno socialno agendo (Dinamit, Smeh v džungli, Moja Amerika, Vrnitev v rodni kraj in Narod narodov). KLJUČNE BESEDE: Louis Adamič, literarno novinarstvo, multikulturalizem, družbeni angažma, migracija | PhD in Literary Studies, Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Nova Gorica and Assistant Professor and English Lecturer at the University of Ljubljana; leonora.flis@fdv.uni-lj.si INTRODUCTION As a keen social observer and a relentless fighter for the improvement of the living standards of the working class and the immigrant population in the United States and beyond, Louis Adamic never lacked for worthwhile material to reflect upon. It made its way into his numerous articles and books which clearly define him as one of the most successful and respected journalists and prose writers among Slovene immigrants in the U.S. to date. Adamic, who emigrated to the U.S. in 1912 at the age of 14, had a distinct desire to merge with the American world, yet never at the ex­pense of losing his Slovenian identity and roots. In this article, I show how Adamic, in his longform journalism that found its most accomplished formal and semantic ex­pression in his books, matches the quality of writers of his time as well as those who came before him who are usually labelled “literary journalists”. He can undoubtedly be considered as one of the key representatives of this genre, even though he is not often quoted among his literary-journalistic contemporaries (e.g. Edmund Wilson, James Agee, Martha Gellhorn, and H. L. Mencken). I will explore Adamic’s longform journalism, which spilled into his books (which often function as generic hybrids). However, we can still clearly identify features of documentary prose that carries within it the essential qualities of literary reportage.1 In the 1930s, Adamic, alongside other prominent writers and reporters of his era, started creating texts focusing on the social conditions of the world they lived in, on the “thoughts and aspirations of ordinary people”, as Richard H. Pells notes in Rad­ical Visions and American Dreams: Culture and Social Thought in the Depression Years (1998). Those endeavours, in Pells’ words, were in essence a quest for the social fact, a quest done through reportage that was more appropriate for capturing the con­ditions of the times than fiction, which “appeared powerless to cope with reality” (Pells 1998: 195). Michael Denning, in his book The Cultural Front: Laboring of Amer­ican Culture in the Twentieth Century (1996), observes that the history of ‘writers on the left’ has also been a history of literary journalism, and notes the importance of Adamic’s work on race and ethnicity, yet he, similarly to Pells, doesn’t sufficiently ex­plain how “literarized” reportage as a genre (in Adamic’s case and with other writers he mentions – Agee, Wilson, and Steinbeck, to name a few), can be used, precisely due to its specific nature, as a powerful tool to illustrate the pressing issues of the times. My article will explore the ways in which Adamic used the principles of literary journalism in his reportage and thus made it more alive, more tangible, and more efficient in expressing his socially-charged agenda and in creating the foundations of the concept of multiculturalism. I use the terms literary journalism and literary reportage synonymously. LITERARY JOURNALISM (AND DOCUMENTARY PROSE) AS A GENRE AND ADAMIC’S INTRODUCTION TO IT As Norman Sims points out in his book The Literary Journalists (1984), literary journal­ists report on “the lives of people at work, in love, going about the normal rounds of life and confirm that the crucial moments of everyday life contain great drama and substance” (Sims 1984: 3). He goes on to explain that literary journalists “rather than hanging around the edges of powerful institutions, attempt to penetrate the cul­tures that make institutions work” (ibid). Indeed, literary journalists follow their own rules; they call for the author’s complete immersion in the subject matter, or in the life of the subject(s) they are writing about, moreover, the voice of the writer has to surface so it becomes recognizable and his authority must show through. In essence, texts of literary journalism2 read like proper stories, like fiction, except that it must all be true. A well-crafted composition, specific stylistic features and a careful use of language are usually noticeably detectable in a piece of literary journalism. Liter­ary journalists and documentary novelists alike (who basically just resort to book-length journalism)3 want to move beyond the conventions of traditional journalism or conventional reportage. They both consciously use techniques of fiction in order to create an element of drama or storytelling. Such literary techniques include irony, rhythm, foreshadowing, characterization, plot, dialogue, imagery, metaphor, sat­ire, interior monologues, even stream-of-consciousness. These principles of literary journalism have been in use for over a hundred years, and many writers whose works are now regarded as classics wrote nonfiction works with a distinct literary flair – for example Charles Dickens, Jack London, George Orwell, Stephen Crane, Mark Twain, John Steinbeck, and John Hersey, to name a few. Nevertheless, it was Tom Wolfe, the proverbial father of New Journalism and cul­tural icon in the 1960s and the 1970s, who anthologized a group of writers under the rubric “New Journalism”4 and identified them as “rivals to the best novelists of their time” (Flis 2010: 15, 16). In Sims’ words: “Literary journalism has developed its styles 2 We should note that there is no uniform terminology with respect to literary journalism; nar­rative journalism, discursive journalism, intimate journalism, subjective journalism, longform journalism, literary reportage, and simply creative nonfiction have been used to describe texts that could also be considered examples of literary journalism. 3 In the American literary-journalistic sphere, we observe how literary (or subjective) journal­ism often spills into longer narratives, specifically into documentary novels that constantly oscillate between historical novels, crime narratives, (auto)biographies, travelogues, and po­litical commentaries on the one hand, and a purer form of (literarized) journalism or report­age on the other (see Flis 2010: 33). In Adamic’s case, his books are usually in the nonfiction realm (with the exception of the novels Grandsons: A Story of American Lives, 1935 and Cradle of Life: The Story of One Man’s Beginnings, 1936). 4 Literary journalism is frequently discussed together with New Journalism, which is simply a narrower notion, applied to the type of journalistic writing that employed literary techniques and was produced especially in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s. and standards in a long evolution over several centuries – an evolution in which the most dramatic changes came in response to disruptive cultural forces such as rev­olution, economic depression, war, and liberation – and has its basis in the origins of nonfiction prose” (Sims 2007: 20).5 Apart from Tom Wolfe, the names that were mostly associated with literary journalism in the 1960s and 1970s were Truman Ca­pote, Norman Mailer, Gay Talese, Jimmy Breslin, Dick Schaap, Terry Southern, Hunter S. Thompson, Gail Sheehy, George Plimpton, and Joan Didion. Joan Didion is still on the literary scene, and has managed to successfully integrate her writing into the writing world of a younger generation of literary journalists such as Michael Lewis, Lawrence Weschler, Eric Schlosser, Jon Krakauer, Ted Conover, Barbara Ehrenreich, Susan Orlean, Tracy Kidder, and Sara Davidson. Literary journalists bring themselves into their narratives to a greater or les­ser degree6 and expose human emotions, our everyday failings and exploits. Even though literary journalists usually prefer to focus on subject matter that otherwise tends to be pushed to the margins of society and avoided by the mainstream media, giving the voice to the voiceless and the invisible, it is still common to find familiar, even famous names in their texts. They always strive to draw a pluralistic landscape composed of various voices that stem from a broad and varied range of protag­onists. Adamic, for example, wrote about well-known people from Yugoslavia, in­cluding Oton Župančič, Ivan Cankar, Nikola Tesla, Miroslav Krleža, Ivan Meštrovič, as well as numerous American writers and journalists (e.g. Sinclair Lewis, Edmund Wilson, H. L. Mencken, John Steinbeck), and naturally a lot of political figures, includ­ing Tito, King Alexander, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill. Moreover, his books often included documentary material in the form of photographs (for in­stance The Native’s Return, 1934; From Many Lands, 1940; My Native Land, 1943; and A Nation of Nations, 1945),7 which is a relatively common element in literary journalism and documentary prose. Adamic’s writing often reveals the author’s immersion in the subject matter, structured narrative, the presence of the individual voice of the writer/journalist, the use of novelistic techniques (e.g. dramatization, dialogues, distinctive plot, and char­acter formation), and, last but not least, an empathetic stance towards the characters of the narrative. Or, as Henry A. Christian writes in one of his essays on Adamic, refer­ring predominantly to Adamic’s longer narratives (specifically those that veer more clearly into a fictional direction, but nonetheless making a valid point that can be ap­plied to Adamic’s documentary texts): “His developing use of the fictional narrative 5 The terms nonfiction and documentary prose (or more specifically, “documentary novel”) can be used as synonyms. 6 The technique of being a part of the narrative, of diving into one’s transcribed reality is often termed “immersion” (see Sims 1984: 8–12; Flis 2011: 116). 7 A Nation of Nations is part of the tetralogy titled Nation of Nations; the first book is From Many Lands (1940), Two-Way Passage (1941) is the second, the third is titled What’s Your Name? (1942), and the last is A Nation of Nations (1945). ‘I’ in combination with an emphasis on personal, factual accounts of the American experience was leading to work which would eventually mark him as a prophet of what was called in the 1960s ‘the New Journalism’” (Christian 1977: 49). Like his jour­nalistic successors (as well as some predecessors in the sphere of literary reportage) in the 1960s and afterwards, Adamic found himself saddled with the rules and for­mulas of conventional reportage that made it impossible for him to deal adequately with his subjects. Like other literary journalists, Adamic revolted against rigid forms such as the “inverted pyramid” typical of conventional, factual journalism, where isolated facts are presented in declining order of importance. He looked for a “larger truth” than that provided by conventional reportage. It should be noted that Adamic sometimes crossed the line between fact and invention (usually for purposes of dramatization); he allowed himself freedom of imagination in reconstructing events, which is some­thing a “proper” literary journalist would not be allowed to do (as they strive to achieve high standards of accuracy). In particular his book Dynamite (1931) is known to contain inaccuracies and sensationalism, traits that high-quality literary report­age would not display. Nevertheless, he usually managed to exquisitely capture the atmosphere and the nuances of the places and events he depicted. In his work My America (1938), Adamic says: “I believe that the drama of things is the truth of things […] To write truthwardly, then, is to write dramatically” (Adamic 1938: xii). As previously noted, the beginnings of literary journalism can be traced back to at least the late nineteenth century, if not further back into history (with Daniel Defoe’s writing in the 18th century), so at the time Adamic stepped more confident­ly onto his journalistic and literary path (at the beginning of the 1930s), there were writers present who, at least in part, had been following this tradition of writing for a while, namely Theodor Dreiser, John Dos Passos, Edmund Wilson, James Agee, George Orwell, and John Steinbeck. Edmund Wilson, who was a successful journal­ist, writer and critic, influenced Dreiser as well as Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis and F. Scott Fitzgerald. All four of these writers impacted Adamic’s writing to a certain degree. Moreover, Adamic occasionally uses irony or satire (this is particularly ap­parent in his articles in Harper’s, The Nation, The Saturday Review of Literature and T&T journal); this is a device that prevents him from becoming too sentimental, and it is an inheritance from the American essayist, scholar, cultural critic and editor of The American Mercury, H. L. Mencken. In his book Laughing in the Jungle, Adamic notes that in his “contemplation of the American scene, Mencken was for a good while the most important light” (Adamic 1932: 262). He goes on to say: I read every work in the first number of Mercury and during the next two or three years delighted in the apparent success of the magazine […] I delighted, too, in the effect that the success of the Mercury had upon the other so-called quality maga­zines; in all of them there began to appear better articles and short stories […] I liked Mencken’s gusto, his prose, and his lightning humor; his laughter – “the laughter of Hercules,” as some one called it, which aimed to sweep from American intellectual life the unhealthy delusion of democracy, fake uplift, and other forms of “swinish­ness”. (Ibid) It is in turbulent times that journalism seems to thrive the most and is particularly motivated to delve into the very heart of human stories with authenticity and im­mediacy. The time of the Great Depression in the U.S. surely offered a fertile ground for bringing the reader into the essence of human suffering, and Adamic, like many other writers of the time, found it impossible not to address the issues of that devas­tating economic, social and political downturn. Sims points out that the first serious newspaper coverage of the Great Depression came sometime around the latter part of 1932. That was the time of “great erosion of confidence and trust among the mid­dle class […] the suicide rate rose, a million unemployed wandered the country, and thirty-eight states closed their banks” (Sims 2007: 134). These were the conditions in which a style of journalism appeared that “drew on such predecessors as the soci­ological style of the Muckrakers and anticipated many of the characteristics of the New Journalism of the 1960s” (ibid.). As mentioned above, Adamic reacted to the struggles of the 1920s and 1930s in his book Dynamite: Story of Class Violence in America (1931).8 Adamic makes a clear connection between mass unemployment, organized labour, and organized crime. In the chapter “Labor and the Beginnings of ‘Racketeering’”, he writes: It goes almost without saying the Capone gang will make use of the unions, per­haps in a political way, or perhaps to gain control of the contracting business in Chicago […] I have little doubt that labor racketeering will increase […] We need not be surprised when we realize how close the relationship is between organized labor and organized crime. Nor need we be shocked by the thought that organized labor was a vital factor in the early history of modern racketeering, that, indeed, organized labor, perhaps more than any other economic group, started the profes­sional criminals whose names now shriek in the headlines of their amazing careers. (Adamic 1931: 118, 250) The book certainly shows traces of literary journalism; many chapters are pieced to­gether from his longer articles that were published in Harper’s Magazine. They con­tain full-bodied descriptions of situations, dialogues and clearly-drawn protagonists, but unfortunately they lack factual accuracy, so by academic and (literary) journalistic standards the book falls short. One of the earliest reviews, written by American econ­omist Edwin E. Witte in 1931 and published in Journal of Political Economy, suggests Dynamite is in fact Adamic’s second book. His first book was a short biography of an Ameri­can poet Robinson Jeffers, whom Adamic greatly admired. His study was published in 1929 by the University of Washington Press. Prior to that, Adamic had translated Ivan Cankar’s Yer­ney’s Justice (Vanguard Press, 1926). that significant causes of violence (such as the spying and security guard systems of the private detective agencies) are treated inadequately in Adamic’s book; moreo­ver, Witte suggests that Adamic simply left out some of the major instances of vio­lence that occurred within labour clashes. Indeed, Adamic makes no mention of the massacre that occurred in Herrin, Illinois in 1922 during a nationwide strike of the United Mineworkers of America, when more than 20 people were killed, for exam­ple. Thus the book cannot be treated as a reliable historical record, as it leans too much towards the sensational and rhetorical, yet it still manages to give the reader perceptive and sympathetic (towards the working classes, not the trade union lead­ers) insights into the trajectory of industrial relations and class struggles in the U.S. In this work and the preceding articles, Adamic was mostly inspired and influ­enced by other American writers who, as early as 1929, exposed the reality of the De­pression to the American public in the form of literary reportage in small-circulation political journals such as The Nation and The New Republic, but also in more widely-read magazines such as Harper’s and The Atlantic (Flis 2011: 130).9 It is hard to ignore Adamic’s pessimism in Dynamite, his not believing in workers’ capacity to overcome “the conditions of their lives and the country’s deeply ingrained individualism”, as Jon Bekken notes in the Foreword to Dynamite (Adamic 2008: XII). Bekken goes on to explain that pessimism caused Adamic to leave the Socialist party in the 1920s (ibid.). This pessimism is in part reiterated in his memoir (again displaying traits of literar­ized reportage) Laughing in the Jungle: The Autobiography of an Immigrant in America (1932), which mainly deals with the author’s reactions to his new living environment and the people in it, and where Adamic, in an unequivocal way, already introduces the topics of immigration and problematizes the notion of assimilation. Adamic was always looking for a story to tell, and found America to be an inexhaustible source of material for his journalistic and literary as well as his social and political agenda. In the postscript to Laughing in the Jungle, he recorded thoughts that sound incredibly relevant even today, and at the same time brilliantly reveal his personal and profes­sional drives and ambitions: […] It may be that the tide of dissatisfaction with the more obvious characteristics of American life and with American values, so boldly glorified and personified by Herbert Hoover in 1928, is beginning to heave. It may be that we are in the midst of a revolution; that before many years this tide of dissatisfaction will seize the crazy overproductive and destructive forces now loose and uncontrolled in the jungle, and try to transform the jungle into a civilization […] Meantime, personally, I still have no real complaint against America, the jungle. I have come here for excitement and adventure. (Adamic 1932: 335) The list of contributors includes Edgar Lawrence Smith, Alice Hamilton and Sidney Hillman, to name a few. We should also note names such as John Dos Passos, Walker Evans and James Agee, as the leading chroniclers of the Depression era. Laughing in the Jungle is Adamic’s attempt at creating a holistic diagnosis of life in the United States. Regardless of the fact that he is in favour of the spirit and the potential of his new homeland, he is also unequivocally critical. He saw the American inter­pretation of the notions of freedom and democracy as a convenient platform for brutal individualism and exclusionism, leading to social disarray and class violence. For Adamic, laughing as long as it is still possible to laugh is a means of survival, a therapeutic tool for dealing with a society with twisted ethical and social norms, a society which, by yearning for material power, dismisses its own spiritual and hu­manistic values. The book foreshadows the idea of cultural pluralism that Adamic fully developed during his years of editing the journal Common Ground. The desire to uncover social injustices and to give voice to the voiceless and the unseen is a drive that has connected literary journalists through time and space. Me­ticulous research, the development of clearly recognizable personal style and voice, and first-person story-telling became more and more popular techniques in journal­istic circles, and Adamic was no exception. However, he often mentioned Upton Sin­clair’s novel The Jungle (1906) as one of his primary influences. This is no real surprise, as Sinclair paved the way for research journalists as well as for more sensationalistic muckraking reporting trends. The book was in a sense Adamic’s initial introduction to America. In Laughing in the Jungle, Adamic explains his reaction to Sinclair’s book: “It was simply written, obvious in the extreme, and I understood nearly every word of it. I was young, just sixteen, and the book made a deep impression on me! So this was America! For a few days I felt a sharp hatred for the whole country” (Adamic 1932: 79). Moreover, Adamic’s long-lasting correspondence with Sinclair (between 1923 and 1946) had a crucial impact on his writing. As a deeply socially engaged writer, Adamic was politically quite active, and Sinclair didn’t approve of this, stating that Adamic should decide whether he wanted to become a politician or a serious writer. The last piece of advice Sinclair gave Adamic concerned his manuscript Dinner at the White House (1946), which Sinclair carefully reviewed, suggesting some improve­ments and revisions. After that, their correspondence faded. Even though The Jungle made an impression on Adamic at first, he later noticed certain shortcomings in the book. In his article in the January 1927 issue of Halderman-Julius Quarterly, he praised Theodore Dreiser and noted that something was missing in The Jungle, whilst Dreiser was portrayed as a great writer and a true inspiration.10 In Rooting Multiculturalism (2003), Dan Shiffman explains that Adamic “read wide­ly and deeply in American literature and history, both academic and populist works, but he lacked full awareness about his intellectual debts and, as a nonacademic, did not feel a particular responsibility to acknowledge them” (Shiffman 2003: 168). In Laughing in the Jungle, Adamic lists the authors he read with great interest: 10 See Petrič 1981: 67. Sinclair Lewis, with Babbitt and Arrowsmith, helped me immensely to know America in a broad way. I continued to read Theodore Dreiser. An American Tragedy impressed me powerfully. I came upon Sherwood Anderson, Ben Hecht, James Stevens, Van Wyck Brooks, Ruth Suckow, Eugene O’Neill, Cabell, and others. Of the foreign writers, I read Anatole France, Joseph Conrad, D.H. Lawrence, Knut Hamsun, Thomas Mann, and Romain Rolland. (Adamic 1932: 264) Still, as correctly viewed by Shiffman, Adamic’s education in America “came primar­ily from his vast and varied contact with a dazzling range of Americans, including immigrants like himself who faced the difficulties of adapting to a new country” (Shiffman 2003: 168). Adamic’s writing stems from a tradition of authors who dealt with the gritty details of everyday life and used the documentary tone of narration as his primary means of revealing the absurdities and antagonisms of life in America and beyond. Shiffman notes that Adamic attempted to create a critical distance towards his cho­sen topics, but, unlike Mencken, for example, “could not sustain a life of ironic de­tachment” in his works (Shiffman 2003: 33). Subjectivity as such is not in itself a prob­lematic issue when it comes to literary journalism; however, if it turns too moralistic or sentimental, it veers off from the platform that literary journalism supports. The paragraphs that follow will explore the characteristics of some of Adamic’s works that align with literary journalism’s endeavour to develop a “broader sensibility to­ward telling stories in journalism”, as Norman Sims describes it (Sims 2007: 11). SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT AND MULTICULTURALISM IN ADAMIC’S LITERARIZED NARRATIVES It was apparent from the very beginning of Adamic’s professional career that his vocation was not only that of a writer and a journalist, but also of an advocate of an ethical movement in the U.S., a social (and in part political) activist, and a literary and cultural critic. Throughout his writing career, Adamic was concerned with var­ious aspects of social, ethnic, and racial discrimination in the U.S. and worldwide. The discrimination issues were particularly foregrounded in his articles in the journal Common Ground, which was the first American literary periodical devoted entirely to ethnic and intercultural matters. Adamic was very much involved with the complex­ities of the lives of (mostly European) immigrants in the U.S. In his earlier analyses of the U.S. (immigrant) scene, he tended not to draw a clear line of demarcation between the concepts of cultural pluralism and assimilation, but later on, in his newsletters, his idea of “a nation of nations” resonated much more with the notion of ethnic pluralism. As John P. Enyeart notes in his article “Revolu­tionary Cultural Pluralism: The Political Odyssey of Louis Adamic, 1932–1951” (2015), in Common Ground Adamic became increasingly critical of assimilation and started to consistently promote pluralism. He believed that there had been too much melting away and shattering of the cultural values of various immigrant groups; he proposed an idea of an American cultural space which would have truly universal and pan-human traits. Or, as Jose´-Antonio Orosco writes in his work Toppling the Melting Pot: Immi­gration and Multiculturalism in American Pragmatism: “Adamic is unique in that he challenges the melting pot ideal both from the perspective of an immigrant, as well as with accounts drawn from the perspectives of immigrants all across the country that describe how coercive the melting pot felt to newcomers” (Orosco 2016: 40). The idea of a revolution in one form or another, the desire for a change of the political, legal and economic order in America, is an ongoing theme in Adamic’s works. However, I will focus on those works where this particular subject is most distinctly elucidated, and at the same time presented in a form that goes beyond a conventional journalistic or historical narrative. Those books display Adamic’s clear inclusion of his own perspective, the usage of a recognizable voice of the narrator, well-drawn characters and a well-defined composition, traits that literary journalists and documentary prose writers have employed throughout history. Dynamite (1931) was, as Bekken points out, “the first popular general history of the American labor movement – a distinction it retained for more than twenty years, despite Adamic’s frank admission that he had not set out to write a comprehensive history, but had rather focused on the question of the role violence had played in shaping the movement” (Adamic 2008: 1). Adamic opens this historical trajectory in the 1820s, when the labour movement was beginning to emerge, yet his book does not have a linear temporal structure, but is built around chapters that highlight par­ticular issues or disputes that illustrate his broader argument (for example: “Criminals are Drawn into Class War”; “Violence in the West”; “Slaughter East and West”). The book is a vivid account of American class warfare, with Adamic being a first-hand ob­server, meeting with immigrant workers, the leaders of various labour movements, and academics focusing on the history of labour. He managed to provide valuable insights into the psychology of American workers as well as class violence. Still, as explained, the book was not researched well enough, and regardless of the strong impact the book made in the U.S., Adamic was also exposed to criticism from various labour unions, activists, and academics.11 With regard to the principles of literary re­portage, Adamic uses excerpts from newspaper articles, conventions speeches, and directly quotes conversations with his interlocutors, giving his narratives a fairly solid structural framework, however, not yet as elaborate and as aestheticized as those in his later works. Still, Dynamite can be considered as the first legitimately successful attempt at a literarized narrative that strives, by applying the techniques of literar­ized reportage, to go beyond the mere listing of data. 11 For criticism on Adamic’s book, see also Rudolph J. Vecoli's article “Dynamite: Adamic and Working Class America” (1981). In terms of questions regarding immigration and the multicultural dimension of the U.S., Dynamite doesn’t yet pay a lot of attention to the implications of the predominantly immigrant nature of the American working class, or, as Bekken says, “to the important role immigrants’ organizational networks played in sustaining a vibrant labor movement against overwhelming odds” (Adamic 2008: IX). This top­ic becomes more apparent in Adamic’s work My America: 1928–1938 (1938),12 which connects revolutionary ideas with ideas of ethnic and racial differences in the U.S., thus introducing his yet-to-be-clearly-defined (but already recognizable) concept of multiculturalism. Shiffman describes My America as a combination of guarded auto­biographical reflection, social commentary, portraiture, exhortation and investiga­tive journalism (Shiffman 2003: 56). His investigative journalism undoubtedly takes on a literarized form, however, it is thematically very diverse, and sometimes it is hard for the reader to follow his narrative, due in part to the large number of names and references he uses. What Adamic shows us in My America are portraits of the labour leaders and literary figures who in his opinion impacted American society the most. He also focuses on “the U.S. government deportation polity, nativism, the social and psychological challenges experienced by second-generation immigrants, and the link between ethnicity and class consciousness” (Shiffman 2003: 56). Through the lens of Adamic’s personal experiences in his adopted homeland, the book already portrays a pluralistic society, and that aspect sets forth the idea of multiculturalism. Adamic describes his intentions in this way: Each of us living in the United States has his own America, that America is the ag­gregate, the sum-total of people, places, things, traditions, ideas, ideals, trends, in­stitutions, conditions, and diverse other forces and factors in the country which, in one way or another, for this reason or that, have touched or influenced one’s life and contributed to one’s education – or confusion – as an American and as a person. (Adamic 1938: xi) This opening paragraph reveals that Adamic, in the vein of a literary journalist, con­structed “a multi-layered historical and psychological portrayal of the society in a specific period of time” (Žitnik Serafin 1993: 88). He wanted to give a diverse picture of a selected fragment in history and he did that by employing a multitude of voices and perspectives, which also aligns with his idea of cultural pluralism, expressed so well in his pieces in Harper’s Monthly in the 1930s, as well as in the 1940s, predomi­nantly in Common Ground. This pluralistic and at the same time also fragmented reality that Adamic por­trays through his literarized narration reached its most effective literary depiction when he wrote about America’s ethnic diversity, which should “foster the growth 12 Adamic started working on My America at the same time as he was writing Dynamite, so some ideas were naturally transported from one book to another. of unsentimental empathy for the experience of others, to develop personal and national identity built upon a variety of critically examined cultural influences, and to create a more progressive and integrated society”, as Shiffman puts it (Shiffman 2003: 153–154). As noted above, with his appeal for the recognition of historically oppressed racial or ethnic groups (while not demonizing the effects of the dom­inant culture), Adamic anticipates the contemporary ideas of multiculturalism. In some aspects, it also seems that Adamic’s idea of America is close to John Dewey’s notion of cultural pluralism as presented in his 1916 book Democracy and Educa­tion, as it rejects the melting pot’s emphasis on assimilation. Adamic saw America as a hybrid culture with notable “cross-fertilization” among different ethnic, reli­gious and immigrant groups.13 This notion is explained by Ksenija Šabec, who in her article “American Indigenous Peoples in Selected Works of Louis Adamic”,14 still describes Adamic as a forerunner of the most influential contemporary multicul­turalists, and states that: […] he demanded recognition for historically suppressed ethnic groups without de­monizing the dominant culture, whilst, at the same time, expressing awareness of the versatility, ambiguities and absurdities of the American culture, which prevents the establishment of the complete balance between various ethnic and cultural ‘inconsistencies’ in America, and moreover, he understood the unity and versatility within the continuum of multiculturalism whose main origin and drive is its dialogi-cal nature. (Šabec 2018: 155) It should be stated that at the time My America was published, Adamic was already an established writer; in 1932 he received a Guggenheim fellowship for two of his previous works, Dynamite (1931), and Laughing in the Jungle (1932). In these two works, Adamic successfully internalized the rhetoric of literary, social, and political reportage, dramatized his compulsion to be involved in the subject matter, and con­sistently denied his readers a complacent, non-critical reading stance, all of which, as seen from his later works, proved to be life-long commitments in his writing (Flis 2011: 115). The award enabled him to travel to his homeland and produce one of his most significant books, The Native’s Return (1934).15 This first-person narrative, 13 See Waks 2007: 27–37 and Orosco 2016. 14 Šabec 2018: 150–167. 15 The book became an almost immediate success, a bestseller in the U.S. and a Book-of-the- Month Club selection. This is how Adamic described the book’s success in My America: “A year after my talk with Oton Zupanchich in Belgrade, The Native’s Return was published in New York; and, as already suggested, the Book-of-the-Month Club distributed something like 50,000 cop­ies of it the first month, and it was a so-called best-seller for nearly two years […] I could not have written the book, had I not come to America and become an American writer. […] No book that I, or anyone else, could possibly have turned out in Slovenia could have achieved such circulation. […] Had I remained in Slovenia and become a Slovenian writer, I could not pos­sibly have published a book that would have infuriated King Alexander, thrown the Belgrade Foreign Office into panic, and generally had an effect of a blow at tyranny.” (Adamic 1938: 135) combining the features of an illustrated travelogue, a political and social commen­tary, and an ethnological study, reflects Adamic’s strong penchant for literarization and offers a realistic and authentic description of the Yugoslavian social, political and cultural landscape. Generic hybridity is in fact a fairly common trait of literary journalistic pieces and to a large degree a constant in Adamic’s writing. In The Na­tive’s Return he is very much focused on the stories of the common people he meets during his travels, aligning with the inclinations of literary journalism, but, of course, he also describes his meetings with the more publicly influential figures of the time (for example King Alexander I, whom he describes in detail in the chapter titled “I Met the King-Dictator”). This is how Adamic creates a literarized description of Ivan Meštrović, for example, mixing the present tense with the past tense, using an abun­dance of adjectives and a sentence structure one usually encounters in literature rather than in nonfiction: When Stella and I first met him, Mestrovitch was nearly fifty – a stocky, short man with large, swarthy, but very attractive Slavic face. He is bald and has a soft black beard, beginning to be streaked with grey. He looks every inch an artist. Studying him, I thought he could be anything, do anything. At one moment his eyes are ut­terly weary, deep, tender, suffering; his full lips drooping, his soft voice tired. Then, suddenly, he says something or smiles, revealing his very white, strong teeth, and his whole personality lights up. At various times I saw in him a mystic, an adven­turer, a Christ, a devil, a lover, a child, a seer, an ascetic, a Rabelaisian, a cheap pol­itician and opportunist: a multitude of people, good and evil, but – basically, es­sentially – always an artist, a genius, vast, with unlimited possibilities […] (Adamic 1934: 301, 302) The themes of immigration, integration into a new living environment and the ques­tions of assimilation and cultural pluralism are already charted in The Native’s Return, however, not as clearly as in his later books. Moreover, The Native’s Return is, under­standably, more personal and at times almost sentimental, in comparison with Adam­ic’s other books. This is especially true when the author is talking about his family, and especially his mother. This is how the writer describes seeing his mother for the first time after living in the U.S. for nineteen years (even though the passage focuses more on his mother’s reactions, it is possible to detect Adamic’s emotionality): The sight of my mother, who waited for me (as I recalled in that instant) on the same spot in the courtyard of our home where I had said good-bye to her in 1913, gave me a sharp sting. She had aged and her body had shrunk; her hair was gray and thin, her eyes and cheeks were sunken, but her hug told me she was still hale and strong. She smiled a little and, holding my hands stiffly in front of hers, her body swayed a little, right and left, in sheer, unwordable happiness. (Adamic 1934: 20) Still, Adamic never lets himself get too carried away emotionally; he is aware of his si­multaneous role as a cultural commentator, a philosopher, and a “contemporary hu­manist,” as Boris Paternu describes him in his article “The Nascence of Louis Adamic’s System of Values with Regard to America and Yugoslavia” (Paternu 1981: 85). Despite its focus being on Yugoslavia, The Native’s Return also, in a comparative vein, depicts the American culture and presents it as ethnically versatile. It furthermore promotes the notions of human complexity and individuality, through which the book also sets the foundations for migration and ethnic studies. Adamic’s views on multiethnicity and multiculturality in the U.S. are broad and pluralistic. This is distinctly notable in his work A Nation of Nations (1945), where he structures his writing according to individual countries the groups of immigrants came from (e.g., “Americans from Italy”; “Americans from Spain and Mexico”; “Ameri­cans from Yugoslavia” and so forth). His analyses of individual groups of immigrants are preceded by a letter to his friend Merritt H. Perkins, in which he states that Amer­ica should not be seen solely as an Anglo-Saxon country with a predominantly White Anglo-Saxon Protestant civilization, but rather a conglomerate of multiple immi­grant identities. Once again, by using his unique, imaginative perception, he draws a vivid image of concrete reality. He writes: The interplay, the diversity, is America; all that lacks is to transplant the fact from obscurity into American imagination. The rest will pretty much take care of itself, for the readjustment in thinking and feeling will reach into very nearly every phase of American activity. The reoriented cultural atmosphere of the United States will mean new, freer, broader ways of seeing and reacting, new and freer relationships. It will mean new integrations irrespective of background, integrations which let people remain themselves. It will bring into full view and play the healthy simultaneous tension and fusion of stubborn creative differences. (Adamic 1945: 13) One more important point needs to be brought to light when it comes to A Nation of Nations, namely, Adamic’s portrayal of both the progress and the exclusion of Afri­can Americans during World War II. He reports: “In 1943, a story current in the Negro world told of a wounded American Negro soldier in the jungle of a Pacific island who asked a comrade to paint these words on the cross marking his grave: HERE LIES A BLACK MAN WHO DIED FIGHTING THE YELLOW MAN FOR THE FREEDOM OF THE WHITE MAN” (Adamic 1945: 220). Even though Adamic believed in the importance of nurturing pluralism when it came to American society and its social and cultural aspects, he still thought that pluralism needs to be viewed critically, as it does not always include all groups equal­ly and it can, as Shiffman has it, “deny the complexity and multiple affiliations that constitute the lives of ethnic Americans” (Shiffman 2003: 95). CONCLUSION Adamic’s writing clearly exhibits a belief in a panhumanistic society that could devel­op in the United States and serve as an example for the rest of the world. He creates this vision through his intertwining of a multitude of views that range from those of migrant workers to leading politicians. Such a hybridity of sentiments speaks in fa-vour of his unique humanistic stance that occasionally slips into idealism, but none­theless provokes ideas that we can still benefit from today. Adamic was ahead of his time when it comes to notions of multiculturalism and energized civic action, and he used the genre of literary reportage (mixed with other genres) to put forward his ideas in such way that a wide-ranging audience could relate to them. He demanded an engaged reader and never worked against the authenticity of his narratives, thus properly aligning his work and mission with that of his most successful contempo­raries in the sphere of journalism and literature. When reading Adamic’s texts, Mark Kramer’s words come to mind as well: Journalism as a civic mission is about an address to citizens on bureaucratic forms. But beyond that, readers are people, and there’s a world of real life people beyond newspapers. Reporters of narrative may now include the style of a subject, the flavor, motivation, longings, angers, loyalties, irrationalities. That’s when you’re in a position to do what the gods do, to breathe life into the clay citizen. Give us the gift an artist does of making people come alive. That’s excellence. (Ludtke 2002: 8) Adamic’s legacy is as relevant and as convincing today as it was in his time, and it is no coincidence that his books are now (once again) being included in academic programmes in ethnic and migration studies, as well as studies of literary journalism and documentary narratives in a broader sense. REFERENCES Adamic, Louis (1932). Laughing in the Jungle: The Autobiography of an Immigrant in America. New York: Harper & Brothers. Adamic, Louis (1934). The Native’s Return: An American Immigrant Visits Yugoslavia and Discovers his Old Country. London: Victor Gollancz LTD. Adamic, Louis (1938). My America (1928–1938). London: Hamish Hamilton. Adamic, Louis (1945). A Nation of Nations. New York: Harper & Brothers. Adamic, Louis (2008). Dynamite: A Story of Class Violence in America. Edinburgh, Oak­ land: AK Press. Christian, Henry A. (1977). From Many Lands: Ethnic Literature Then … and Now? Modern Language Studies 8/1, 48–56. Denning, Michael (1996). The Cultural Front: The Laboring of American Culture in the Twentieth Century. London, New York: Verso. Dewy, John (1916). Democracy and Education, https://www.gutenberg.org/ files/852/852-h/852-h.htm (15. 2. 2019). Enyeart, John P. (2015). Revolutionizing Cultural Pluralism: The Political Odyssey of Louis Adamic, 1932–1951. Journal of American Ethnic History 34/3, 58–90. Flis, Leonora (2010). Factual Fictions: Narrative Truth and the Contemporary American Documentary Novel. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Flis, Leonora (2011). Louis Adamic – Slovene-American Literary Journalism Avant la Lettre. Slovene Studies 33/2, 115–132. Ludtke, Melissa (ed.) (2002). Nieman Reports: The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University 56/1. Meyer, Gerald (2008). The Cultural Pluralist Response to Americanization: Horace Kallen, Randolph Bourne, Louis Adamic, and Leonard Covello. Socialism & De­mocracy 22/3, 19–51. Orosco, Jose´-Antonio (2016). Toppling the Melting Pot: Immigration and Multiculturalism in American Pragmatism. Indiana: Indiana University Press. Paternu, Boris (1981). The Nascence of Louis Adamic’s System of Values with Regard to America and Yugoslavia. Louis Adamic: Symposium: 16.–18. September 1981 (ed. Janez Stanonik). Ljubljana: Univerzitetna tiskarna, 85–100. Pells, Richard H. (1998). Radical Visions and American Dreams: Culture and Social Thought in the Depression Years. Urbana, Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Petrič, Jerneja (1981). Svetovi Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Shiffman, Dan (2003). Rooting Multiculturalism. London: Associated University Press. Sims, Norman (1984). The Literary Journalists. New York: Ballantine. Sims, Norman (2007). True Stories: A Century of Literary Journalism. Evanston: North­western University Press. Šabec, Ksenija (2018). Ameriški staroselci v izbranih delih Louisa Adamiča: Strpnost ni dovolj (prispevki konference Iz mnogih dežel: Ob 120. obletnici rojstva Louisa Adamiča). Borec LXX/751–753, 150–167. Vecoli, Rudolph J. (1981). Dynamite: Adamic and Working Class America. Louis Adam-ic: Symposium: 16.–18. September 1981 (ed. Janez Stanonik). Ljubljana: Univerzitet­na tiskarna, 155–166. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (1993). Pero in politika: Zadnja leta Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Slo­venska matica. Waks, Leonard J. (2007). Rereading Democracy and Education Today: John Dewey on Globalization, Multiculturalism, and Democratic Education. Education and Culture 23/1, 27–37. Witte, Edwin E. (1931). Reviewed Work: Dynamite: The Story of Class Violence sin Amer­ica by Louis Adamic. Journal of Political Economy 39/6, 826–828. POVZETEK DRUŽBENI ANGAŽMA IN MULTIKULTURALIZEM V LITERARNEM ŽURNALIZMU IN DOKUMENTARNI PROZI LOUISA ADAMIČA Leonora FLIS Članek se osredotoča na tiste zapise Louisa Adamiča, ki sodijo v kategorijo literari­ziranih reportaž, v daljših knjižnih zapisih pa prehajajo tudi v hibridne pripovedne tvorbe in združujejo elemente socialne in politične reportaže, avtobiografije, biogra­fije, potopisa, etnografskih, antropoloških in etničnih študij. Prispevek ponudi ana­lizo izbranih Adamičevih del (izpostavljene so knjige Dinamit, Smeh v džungli, Moja Amerika, Vrnitev v rodni kraj in Narod narodov), pred tem pa razloži tudi zgodovinski razvoj in poglavitne lastnosti literarnega žurnalizma in dokumentarne proze ter pri­kaže, kako se v domeno tega žanra umešča Adamič. Adamič se lahko brez zadržkov postavi ob bok osrednjim predstavnikom literarne reportaže in dokumentarne pro-ze, tako svojim sodobnikom, kot so Edmund Wilson, James Agee, Martha Gellhorn in H. L. Mencken, kot tudi literarnim žurnalistom šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let 20. stoletja, ko se je ta žanr v ZDA še zlasti močno definiral in razširil (tu lahko navedemo imena, kot so Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, Gay Talese, George Plimp-ton in Joan Didion). Članek ne poudari le Adamičeve vloge pisatelja in kronista svoje dobe, temveč tudi njegovo socialno agendo in aktivizem, ki sta izvirala iz želje po opolnomočenju tako delavskega razreda kot tudi priseljencev v ZDA, ki jim je Ada­mič v svojih zapisih namenil veliko pozornosti (tudi s prispevki v reviji Common Gro­und, ki jo je urejal v štiridesetih letih). Izpostavljena dela tako Adamiča ne predsta­vijo zgolj kot literarnega žurnalista z izbranim občutkom za pripovedno strukturo in narativne postopke, ki jih uporabljajo tudi beletristična dela, temveč, skozi njegovo kompleksno razumevanje tako socialne problematike kot etnične identitete, tudi kot predhodnika sodobnih idej multikulturalizma ter etničnih in migracijskih študij. LOUIS ADAMIČ IN DRUGA SVETOVNA VOJNA V AMERIŠKI IN SLOVENSKI HISTORIOGRAFIJI Matjaž KLEMENČIČ|, Milan MRĐENOVIĆ|| COBISS 1.02 IZVLEČEK Louis Adamič in druga svetovna vojna v ameriški in slovenski historiografiji Avtorja v članku predstavljata Adamičevo vlogo v drugi svetovni vojni, v kateri je deloval v okviru ameriških organizacij, kakršni sta bili Commom Council for Ameri­can Unity in Vladna komisija za narodno obrambo. Pri tem se je zavzemal za upo­števanje etnične raznolikosti ameriškega prebivalstva pri aktiviranju v vojnih naporih ZDA. Adamič je bil tudi vodilni član organizacij ameriških južnoslovanskih izseljencev, kakršna sta bila Združeni odbor južnoslovanskih Američanov in Slovenski ameriški narodni svet. Ker novejša ameriška literatura delovanje jugoslovanskih Američanov med drugo svetovno vojno obravnava zlasti kot problem nacionalne varnosti ZDA, nam odkriva doslej še ne razkrito plat delovanja Louisa Adamiča. KLJUČNE BESEDE: Louis Adamič, ZOJSA, FBI, komunizem, Jugoslavija ABSTRACT Louis Adamic and the Second World War in American and Slovenian Historiography The authors present Adamic's role during the Second World War. Adamic was active in various American organizations such as the Common Council for American Unity and the US government’s National Defense Commission. He took the position that the ethnic diversity of the American population must be taken into account when activating it for the US military effort. He was also a leading member of organizations of American South Slavic immigrants, such as the United Committee of South-Slavic Americans and the Slovenian American National Council. More recent American lit­erature on Yugoslav Americans during World War II deals with them predominantly as a problem of national security for the US, on the basis of which we discover new horizons of Adamic’s activities during the Second World War. KEY WORDS: Louis Adamic, UCSSA, FBI, communism, Yugoslavia | Dr. zgodovinskih znanosti, red. prof., Oddelek za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Mariboru, Koroška cesta 160, SI-2000 Maribor; matjaz.klemencic@um.si || Univ. dipl. zgodovinar, doktorski študent Ameriških študij na Oddelku za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani, Aškerčeva 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana; milan.mr85@gmail.com UVOD Namen pričujočega prispevka je na podlagi novejših virov na novo ovrednotiti vlogo Louisa Adamiča v drugi svetovni vojni. Adamič je v tem obdobju deloval v ameriških organizacijah, kot sta bili Commom Council for American Unity in Vladna komisija za narodno obrambo. Zavzemal se je za upoštevanje etnične raznolikosti prebivalstva ZDA pri njegovem aktiviranju v vojnih naporih proti fašizmu. Bil je tudi vodilni član organizacij ameriških južnoslovanskih izseljencev, kakršni sta bili Združeni odbor južnoslovanskih Američanov in Slovenski ameriški narodni svet. Ker novejša ame­riška znanstvena literatura jugoslovanske Američane med drugo svetovno vojno obravnava kot problem nacionalne varnosti ZDA, nam odkriva doslej še nerazkrito plat Adamičevega delovanja. Članek sva napisala na podlagi klasične zgodovinske metodologije, ki zajema pregled in povzetek virov in literature, pri čemer sva upoštevala tako novejšo litera­turo kot tudi na novo odkrite vire. Pomembno je omeniti, da so časopisni viri, ki od­sevajo mnenja posameznih skupin o določenem dogajanju, v demokratičnih okoljih pomemben vir. POMEMBNEJŠA LITERATURA O LOUISU ADAMIČU Z Louisom Adamičem in njegovo politično dejavnostjo med drugo svetovno vojno smo se zgodovinarji ukvarjali zlasti ob obletnicah njegove smrti oziroma rojstva. Popularni članki o Adamiču so začeli izhajati izpod peresa novinarjev, kakršen je bil Bogdan Pogačnik, ki je leta 1981 v časniku Delo v več nadaljevanjih predstavil njego­vo življenje in politično pot. V rubriki Književni listi1 in Sobotni prilogi2 časnika Delo je Pogačnik skoraj vsak svoj prispevek začel z vprašanjem o Adamičevi skrivnostni smrti. Tako se je javnost začela pogosteje spraševati, ali je šlo v primeru njegove smrti za politično motivirani umor ali samomor? Vprašanje je seveda pomembno, vendar ne bi smelo zasenčiti Adamičevega ustvarjanja in delovanja v ZDA, zlasti njegovega političnega in družbenega angažiranja med drugo svetovno vojno v korist Slove­nije in takratne Jugoslavije. Leta 1981 so ob 30-letnici njegove smrti na minesotski državni univerzi v St. Paulu, ZDA, v spomin nanj organizirali znanstveni simpozij. S pomočjo slovenskih izseljenskih organizacij so tega leta organizirali še tri prireditve v Clevelandu, New Yorku in Pittsburgu. V Ljubljani so septembra 1981 ob drugem simpoziju izdali poseben zbornik (Stanonik 1981: 3-9). Pred simpozijem je Jerneja Petrič v knjigi Svetovi Louisa Adamiča skupaj s Hen-ryjem Christianom objavila prevod virov, ki je istega leta kot Adamičev zbornik iz­ 1 Pogačnik, Bogdan, »Portret pisatelja in politika Louisa Adamiča«, Delo, 9. april 1981: 13. 2 Pogačnik, Bogdan, »Vsaka njegova knjiga je bila akcija«, Sobotna priloga Dela, 19. september 1981: 26. šel pod naslovom Izbrana pisma Louisa Adamiča (Christian 1981: 9). V ZDA je Henry Christian že leta 1971 objavil bibliografijo Adamičevih del (Christian 1971: IX-XV). Opozorila bi še na enega pomembnega avtorja: Bogdana Novaka, ki je na minesot­skem simpoziju predstavil referat, v katerem je bil kritičen do Adamiča in njegovega delovanja; vsebino referata je po demokratizaciji Slovenije v dveh člankih objavil v Dveh domovinah: »Adamic and Yugoslavia during World War II: The Slovene Catholic Response« (Novak 1994: 63-84) in »Louis Adamic’s Work for the Official Recognition of Tito and the National Liberation Movement of Yugoslavia by the United States Government« (Novak 1998: 67-83). Janja Žitnik z Inštituta za slovensko izseljenstvo ZRC SAZU je napisala trilogijo o zadnjem delu življenja Louisa Adamiča (Žitnik 1992; 1993; 1995). Po letu 1991 so se raz­iskovalci začeli bolj kritično ukvarjati z Adamičevo vlogo med drugo svetovno vojno. Tako je npr. Bogdan Novak napisal še knjigo o patru Kazimirju Zakrajšku (Novak 2004). Omenjena knjiga, ki je kritična do Adamičeve vloge, je lahko izšla šele po demokra­tičnih spremembah v Sloveniji po letu 1991. Pozneje je ameriški avtor Dan Shiffman napisal posebno knjigo, ki je bila v slovenščino prevedena z naslovom Korenine mul­tikulturalizma: Delo Louisa Adamiča. Knjiga obravnava Adamičev prispevek k multi­etničnim in multikulturnim študijam za sodobno družbo 21. stoletja (Shiffman 2005). Glede interpretacije Adamičeve vloge med drugo svetovno vojno moramo objektivno razločevati med dvema razdobjema. Enega pred letom 1991 in drugega po njem. Leta 1983 je Matjaž Klemenčič obranil svojo doktorsko disertacijo s tematiko ameriških Slovencev v drugi svetovni vojni in jo pozneje tudi objavil (Klemenčič 1987). Leta 2007 je izšla knjiga avtorice Lorraine M. Lees, specialistke za diplomatske odnose med ZDA in Jugoslavijo, v kateri obravnava jugoslovansko ameriško skup­nost med drugo svetovno vojno. Knjiga problematiko obdeluje s povsem drugač­nega stališča, kot jo obravnavamo zgodovinarji etničnih skupnosti. Proučevalce et-ničnih skupnosti v ZDA zanimata tudi odzivnost teh skupnosti na dogajanje v stari domovini in njihova stopnja prizadetosti v zvezi s tem dogajanjem. Zgodovinarji in drugi raziskovalci za to najprej uporabimo vire, ki so jih ustvarile priseljenske skup­nosti, kot so npr. etnično časopisje, korespondenca pomembnih voditeljev in njiho­va poročila. Prav tako so pomembne interakcije voditeljev priseljenskih skupnosti z vladnimi službami in s takratnimi politiki. Lees pa v svoji knjigi obravnava skoraj izključno odzive posebnih vladnih služb, zlasti varnostnih, ki so sledile dejavnostim jugoslovanskih priseljenskih skupnosti. Avtorico so zanimala predvsem stališča ame­riške države do dejavnosti posameznih priseljenskih organizacij, deloma tudi tistih, ki so bile na ameriških tleh organizirane z namenom odzivanja na dogajanja v stari domovini. Lorraine M. Lees se je torej spraševala, kakšen vpliv je imela dejavnost teh skupnosti in organizacij na ameriško državno varnost. Zanimivo je, kako je že med prvo svetovno vojno ameriška vlada organizirano sledila dejavnostim raznih skup­nosti, še zlasti tistih, katerih domovine so bile v vojni z ZDA, to pa so bile zlasti nem­ške in avstrijske priseljenske skupnosti (Lees 2007: 7; Hazemali, Friš 2018: 899–922; Klemenčič, Šeruga 2019: 29–34). Ameriške varnostne službe zelo dolgo niso razločevale med slovensko govoreči-mi osebami oziroma osebami slovenskega porekla iz Avstro-Ogrske, ki je bila z ZDA v vojni, in nemško govorečimi habsburškimi podaniki. Ustrezne ameriške službe so med prvo svetovno vojno kmalu spoznale, da je treba osebe in skupine razločevati ne le po državi rojstva, ampak tudi po etnični pripadnosti. Tako so jih začela zanimati stališča različnih etničnih skupnosti do politike ZDA. Zanimivo, da je med prvo sve­tovno vojno takšnim skupnostim sledil poseben oddelek Ministrstva za pravosodje, ki ga je vodil poznejši dolgoletni direktor FBI, Edgar J. Hoover. Poleg tega je bila med prvo svetovno vojno za spremljanje ameriških etničnih skupnosti v ZDA odgovorna tudi posebna vojaška obveščevalna služba (Jeffreys Jones 2007: 65-70). ADAMIČEVO POLITIČNO DELOVANJE PRED KONGRESOM SANS Američani so se pred vstopom ZDA v drugo svetovno vojno dobro zavedali proble-ma obstoja raznih etničnih skupnosti na svojih tleh, zato so se dobro pripravili na nji­hovo sledenje. Jugoslovanski Američani so bili po mnenju Lorraine M. Lees klasičen primer razklane skupnosti, v kateri so odsevali dogodki na tleh Kraljevine Jugoslavije med drugo svetovno vojno. Tako naj bi različne etnične skupnosti predstavljale po­sebno stopnjo nevarnosti za ameriško državo, saj naj bi se med njimi skrivali komuni­stični oziroma fašistični simpatizerji (Lees 2007: 54). Organizacije, ki jim je pripadal in jih med drugo svetovno vojno pomagal organizirati tudi Louis Adamič, so s stališča ameriške državne varnosti po ameriških kriterijih predstavljale t. i. »komunistično ne­varnost«. To dokazujejo tudi številni danes dostopni dokumenti FBI. Srbsko izseljensko skupnost so med drugo svetovno vojno predstavljale naj­različnejše organizacije. Podpiral jih je Srpski narodni savez (Serb National Fede­ration), srbska bratska podporna organizacija, ki je izdajala svoje glasilo Srbobran. Srpski narodni savez in njegovo glasilo sta za ZDA takrat predstavljala srbsko nacio­nalistično nevarnost. V zaključku dela avtorica Lorraine M. Lees ugotavlja, da so srbske organizacije v bistvu ohranile duh srbskega nacionalizma, ki je vel iz delova­nja teh organizacij, da je preživel in se po razpadu Jugoslavije leta 1990 ponovno okrepil. Zanimivo, da v zvezi s tem avtorica omenja tudi dejavnosti poznejše zago­vornice srbskih interesov v Kongresu ZDA na razpotju devetdesetih let 20. stoletja, kongresnice iz Marylanda, Helen Delich Bentley. (Prav tam: 210; o njeni dejavnosti glej Klemenčič 2011: 37–53) Zanimivo, kako se je Adamičeve dejavnosti v najboljšem pregledu zgodovine FBI dotaknila tudi knjiga The FBI: A History avtorja Rhodrija Jeffreysa Jonesa, v kateri avtor omenja Adamičevo knjigo Dinamit, ki obravnava zgodovino organiziranosti ameri­škega delavstva v ZDA, in sicer v negativnem smislu, saj naj bi knjiga spodbujala radikalnost ameriških delavcev (Jeffreys Jones 2007: 88). Rooseveltova administracija je v kritičnem obdobju, ko je Adolf Hitler v prvi polo-vici leta 1941 v Evropi postajal vse bolj vpliven, poskušala storiti vse, da bi Jugoslavijo ohranila neodvisno in nevtralno. Vendar zaradi posebnega geostrateškega položaja Jugoslavije na Balkanu politika izogibanja sodelovanju z Nemčijo ni bila mogoča. Jugoslavija je zaradi pritiskov Berlina kmalu klonila. Po vojaškem udaru, ki je pripe­ljal državo v vojno z Nemčijo, se je Jugoslavija znašla na strani zaveznikov, v državi pa se je razmahnilo odporniško gibanje. V ZDA se je začela bitka za javno mnenje, katera uporniška stran bo uživala največje simpatije. Četniška ali partizanska? V pod-poro četnikom je jugoslovanska vlada v izgnanstvu ustanovila »informacijski center v New Yorku«, v katerem je delovalo kar nekaj jugoslovanskih ministrov. Čeprav so Američani poleti 1943 svoje opazovalce poslali tako četnikom kot partizanom, so še vedno podpirali četnike Draže Mihailovića (Lees 2007: 131-132), medtem ko so Tito-ve partizane razglašali za komunistične borce (Klemenčič 1987: 143-157). Na drugi strani javnega mnenja v ZDA so stali liberalno in socialistično usmerjeni izseljenci, ki so želeli videti drugačno in federativno Jugoslavijo brez kralja na čelu države. Njihov najvidnejši predstavnik je bil Louis Adamič. Ameriški vojni opazovalci so glede vojaškega stanja v Jugoslaviji poročali, da so za zaveznike tudi četniki bojevali učinkovite vojaške operacije »velikega strateške­ga pomena«. Dejstvo je, da je zadnji ameriški vojni opazovalec zapustil štab Draže Mihailovića šele 11. decembra 1944, ko je Titova vojska s pomočjo Rdeče armade že osvobodila vsaj polovico Jugoslavije (prav tam: 152). Naj ob tem omeniva, da je pri odločitvah o pošiljanju pomoči Titovim partizanom v ZDA najpomembnejšo vlogo odigral Louis Adamič, ko je s svojim pisanjem v časopisih, zlasti s svojim zna­menitim prispevkom v The Saturday Evening Post zapisal, kako se v Jugoslaviji proti okupatorjem dejansko bojujejo samo Titovi partizani.3 Ko je FBI v tem času sledil Louisu Adamiču in ga razglašal za »komunističnega sopotnika«, se je ta z Alanom Cranstonom, šefom oddelka za tujejezične skupnosti pri Office of War Information, pogovarjal o propagandi med izseljenci, da bi jih pridobili za kupovanje ameriških vojnih obveznic, s katerimi so med drugo svetovno vojno financirali vojsko. Ameri­ška vlada je še v začetku leta 1945 menila, da bi bilo pošiljanje orožja samo partiza­nom velika nepravičnost do drugih zaslužnih skupin jugoslovanskih množic, kate­rih edini prestopek je bilo nasprotovanje »partizanskemu gospostvu« (Lees 2007: 9, 108, 149, 160; Klemenčič 1987: 194). Še pred napadom sil osi na Kraljevino Jugoslavijo, 6. aprila 1941, so Slovenci v ZDA pozivali vlado, naj se čimprej vključi v vojno. Po drugi strani je Adamič že leta 1939 poseben poziv naslovil na slovenske bratske podporne organizacije, naj pomagajo z zbiranjem sredstev, s katerimi bi na varno v ZDA pripeljali znane slovenske kulturnike. Pobuda je zaradi premajhnega zanimanja bratskih podpor­nih organizacij v ZDA usahnila.4 Adamič je bil še pred vstopom ZDA v vojno med vodilnimi člani Commom Council for American Unity (CCAU), organizacije, ki se je zavzemala za socialne in etnične pravice ameriških priseljencev. Julija 1940 je postal 3 »Balkan Mystery Man«, The Saturday Evening Post, 19. december 1942: 20-21. 4 »Slovenskim podpornim organizacijam«, Nova doba, 26. april 1939: 2. svetovalec pri vladni komisiji za narodno obrambo, ki je bila ustanovljena pri Na-rodnoobrambnem svetu ZDA. Na Adamičevo pobudo je omenjena komisija že v začetku julija 1940 pozvala k vključevanju vseh Američanov, ne glede na njihovo poreklo, v obrambni program države.5 Adamič je tako 3. aprila 1941 v sodelovanju s CCAU poudaril, da so se v ZDA začeli prepozno zavedati pozitivnega pomena raznovrstnosti njenega prebivalstva. Adamič je že takrat uspešno lobiral pri visoki politiki, osebno je namreč poznal soprogo tedanjega ameriškega predsednika, Ele­anor Roosevelt (Klemenčič 1987: 161). Druga svetovna vojna je ameriške Slovence speljala v dve vrsti delovanja. Prvo je bilo osredotočeno na zbiranje politične podpore, drugo se je usmerjalo na zbiranje materialnih sredstev za pomoč stari domovini. Obe dejavnosti sta se ves čas preple-tali. Ker razmere za politično podporo še niso dozorele, so se o tem sprva okvirno pogovarjali le na sejah Jugoslovanskega pomožnega odbora – Slovenske sekcije (JPO-SS). Svoje politične pobude so naslavljali na slovenske člane kraljevske vlade, ki so delovali v Jugoslovanskem informativnem centru v New Yorku. Akcije zbiranja sredstev za pomoč razrušeni domovini je sprva vodil Jugoslovanski pomožni odbor – Slovenska sekcija, nato pa Slovensko-ameriški narodni svet (SANS). Pri tem naj po­udariva, da so na začetku sodelovali celo s Konstantinom Fotićem, jugoslovanskim poslanikom v ZDA, ki je takoj 7. aprila 1941 poslal vsem slovenskim, hrvaškim in srb-skim organizacijam svoje pozive za zbiranje pomoči Jugoslaviji. Nekaj dni po tem je Fotić še enkrat zaprosil izseljenske organizacije, naj pri zbiranju sredstev pomagajo preko ameriškega Rdečega križa. Verjetno je do takšne pobude prišlo zaradi pritiskov ameriške vlade. Fotićeva akcija v glavnem ni uspela, saj mu nobena izseljenska orga­nizacija v ZDA ni želela prepustiti nadzora nad zbiranjem svojega denarja6 (Fotitch 1948: 107). Zaradi tega so 19. aprila 1941 v Chicagu predstavniki ameriških Slovencev na predlog Ameriške bratske zveze ustanovili svoj prej omenjeni Jugoslovanski po­možni odbor. Za predsednika organizacije so izbrali Vincenta Cainkarja, glavnega predsednika Slovenske narodne podporne jednote (SNPJ).7 Zanimivo je, da je JPO-SS denar z namenom pomoči stari domovini nameraval poslati v staro domovino šele po vojni, ko bi se politične razmere v stari domovi­ni razjasnile. Maja 1941 je nastala še pomožna akcija organizacije Zveze slovenskih župnij, ki je imela namen zbrati denar za takojšnjo pomoč stari domovini. Voditelja akcije sta bila patra Kazimir Zakrajšek in Bernard Ambrožič, ki sta leta 1941 po zavitih poteh pripotovala v ZDA. Pater Ambrožič je že decembra 1941 poročal, da je v Slove­nijo prišlo 40 tisoč dolarjev njihove pomoči, pozneje so poslali še več. Adamič patru Zakrajšku nikoli ni zaupal (Klemenčič 1987: 166-171; Friš 2001: 267-280).8 Jugoslovanska vlada v izgnanstvu je septembra 1941 sklenila, da bo v ZDA napo­tila posebno vladno delegacijo, ki bo obiskala izseljence in ocenila njihov položaj ter možnosti za skupno sodelovanje. Vladno delegacijo so sestavljali srbski, hrvaški in slovenski predstavniki.9 Prišlo je tudi do kratkega sodelovanja posameznih ministrov, ki so se udeleževali sej jugoslovanskega pomožnega odbora, vendar so se ameri­ški Slovenci na koncu raje odločili, da bodo za politično delovanje med ameriškimi Slovenci ustanovili svojo posebno organizacijo. Cilja organizacije sta bila podpora neusmiljenemu boju zoper okupatorje in zagovor politične združitve slovenskega naroda v eno celoto, seveda v okviru države Jugoslavije (Hudomalj 2004: 121-130). Že takrat se je pojavilo vprašanje, komu naj združena Slovenija pripade: srednje­evropski federaciji ali Jugoslaviji? Ameriški Slovenci so se zavzeli za slednjo, torej fe­derativno Jugoslavijo, katere del naj bi bila združena Slovenija. Takrat še ni bilo jasno niti, kakšna bo povojna politična ureditev Evrope, niti, kakšna bo ureditev povojne Jugoslavije. Jasno je bilo samo to, da je bila večina ameriških Slovencev bolj naklo­njena republikanski državni ureditvi kot monarhiji, zato so se njihova razmišljanja o prihodnosti Jugoslavije že razhajala (Klemenčič 1987: 171, 210). 5 »Interview Louisa Adamiča«, Nova doba, 7. avgust 1940: 7. 6 »Pomožna akcija za Jugoslovane«, Prosveta, 11. april 1941: 1. 7 »Ameriškim Slovencem«, Enakopravnost, 23. april 1941: 1. 8 »Poročilo svete stolice o pomoči Sloveniji«, Amerikanski Slovenec, 6. december 1941: 3. Na sestanku JPO 15. novembra 1941 izvoljeni odbor je nato pripravil vse pot-rebno za organizacijo prvega slovenskega narodnega kongresa.10 Tudi pater Kazimir Zakrajšek je v tem času povečal svoje aktivnosti in do leta 1942 napisal knjigo Ko smo šli v morje bridkosti, v kateri je zagovarjal demokratično in federativno preuredi­tev Jugoslavije (Zakrajšek 1942: 171). Obenem je bil naklonjen tudi ideji podonavske katoliške federacije, ki jo je zagovarjal Otto von Habsburg, sin zadnjega avstro-ogr­skega cesarja Karla. Zato so mnogi ameriški Slovenci postali zadržani do njegovega delovanja. Čeprav je pater Zakrajšek poudaril, da je bila zanj podonavska federaci­ja zadnja rešitev, je kljub temu pri »levo usmerjenih« Slovencih vzbujal nelagodne sume in nezaupanje. Takrat je med katoliki v ZDA prevladovalo mnenje, da bo zaradi nesoglasji, ki so nastali med pravoslavnimi Srbi in katoliškimi Hrvati, Jugoslavija pre­nehala obstajati (Klemenčič 1987: 176). Pater Zakrajšek naj bi bil med drugim naklonjen tudi republikanski preureditvi povojne Jugoslavije. V svojem pismu, v katerem naznanja svoj odstop z mesta taj­nika SANS, se je predstavil kot demokrat in ne monarhist. Vedno je poudarjal, da bi morali o prihodnji ureditvi Jugoslavije ljudje sami odločati na svobodnih volitvah (Friš 1995: 180). V tem času se je začelo postavljati pomembno vprašanje, kdo bo vodil politično akcijo ameriških Slovencev? Ameriški državljani slovenskega porekla ali predstavniki begunske vlade v izgnanstvu? Pater Zakrajšek je za vodjo predla-gal slovenskega ministra begunske vlade, Franca Snoja (Hudomalj 2004: 121-130). Ameriški Slovenci so se na koncu odločili, da bodo politično akcijo v ZDA vodili slo­venski izseljenci z ameriškim državljanstvom. Tako sta poskusa begunske vlade v Londonu kot tudi pomožne akcije katoliških duhovnikov, da bi pridobili jugoslovan­ske izseljence na svojo stran, dokončno propadla. Glavno pobudo je prevzel Louis Adamič (Novak 1994: 67). 9 »Novejše vesti iz domovine«, Amerikanski Slovenec, 26. september 1941: 3. 10 »Slovenski narodni kongres v Ameriki«, Amerikanski Slovenec, 27. november 1941: 3. Po napadu na Pearl Harbor 7. decembra 1941 je državni sekretar Cordell Hull iz­javil, naj bi posamične akcije etničnih skupnosti v ZDA postale nezaželene in da bi morali vsi enotno podpreti ameriško ljudstvo. Adamič je preveril trditev in se sestal z izvršnim pomočnikom državnega sekretarja Adolfa Berleta, Heraldom B. Hoskinsom, ki je bil v State Departmentu odgovoren za stike z voditelji priseljenskih skupnosti. Na konkretno vprašanje mu je Hoskins odgovoril, da kongresa ameriških Slovencev ni treba odložiti, vendar ga morajo organizirati ameriški Slovenci, ne pa člani tuje vlade, kot je jugoslovanska vlada v izgnanstvu.11 Adamič je nato prevzel pobudo in 4. januarja 1942 sklical sestanek vseh predsednikov slovenskih organizacij v Cleve-landu. Adamič je že prej, 6. avgusta 1941, podpredsedniku jugoslovanske vlade v iz­gnanstvu, dr. Mihi Kreku, poslal osnutek svojega programa o političnem delu »nove Jugoslavije«.12 V programu je zapisal, da mora biti Jugoslavija obnovljena v svojih predvojnih mejah, poleg tega naj bi se ji priključila tudi tista ozemlja, na katerih so večinoma živeli Hrvati in Slovenci. Na federalni osnovi ustanovljena država naj bi Srbom, Hrvatom in Slovencem omogočala največjo možno avtonomijo. Država bi bila utemeljena na demokratičnih vrednotah, splošni volilni pravici, svobodi govora in vere, tiska, javnih zborovanj, kolektivnih sindikalnih pogajanj in kmečkih zadrug. Program je predvideval združitev jugovzhodnoevropskih držav v nekakšno federaci­jo. To je bilo v skladu z Adamičevo idejo o evropski federaciji, o kateri je pisal v knjigi Two Way Passage (Adamic 1941: 74). Na slabo razpoloženje ameriških Srbov je vplivala ustanovitev NDH, kar je Kon­stantin Fotić spretno zlorabljal za svoje nediplomatske napade na Hrvate in posre­dno tudi za napade na idejo o federativni Jugoslaviji. Fotić je zagovarjal idejo »Velike Srbije«. Franc Snoj, ki je bil tedaj v Clevelandu, je navezal stike s predsednikom Kranj­ske slovenske katoliške jednote – KSKJ, Antonom Grdinom, in dr. Petrom Malijem (Mally), častnim konzulom Kraljevine Jugoslavije v Clevelandu. Osmega februarja 1942 so ameriški Slovenci zborovali v narodnem domu v Clevelandu in ob tem govo­rili o trpljenju jugoslovanskih narodov pod fašisti in nacisti, hkrati hvalili odporniško gibanje četnikov Draže Mihailovića in zahtevali pravičnejšo povojno ureditev Jugo­slavije (Klemenčič 1987: 181, 185). Ameriški Slovenci so s teh zborovanj pošiljali pisma, v katerih so pozdravljali kralja Petra II. Adamič je v zvezi s tem izjavil, da akcija ni bila dobro zasnovana, saj je bila večina ameriških Slovencev republikansko usmerjena. Izrekanje podpo-re kralju je bilo videti kot vračanje k staremu.13 Adamič je v pismu Rooseveltu 3. februarja 1942 predlagal ustanovitev ameriške legije svobode, ki bi jo sestavljali v Afriki in Evropi zbrani vojaki.14 Vodje ameriških Slovencev so aprila 1942 izkoristili 11 Arhiv Jugoslavije (AJ), 83 Osebni arhiv Save Kosanovića, Adamič Moleku, 31. december 1941. 12 AJ, 103 Fond emigrantske vlade, Nova Jugoslavija, Poizkusni program o političnem delu, 6. avgust 1941. 13 AJ, 83 Osebni arhiv Save Kosanovića, Adamič Snoju, 15. februar 1942. 14 Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial Library (FDRML) OF 355-A Container 3, National Defense, Adamič Rooseveltu, 3. februar 1942. prijateljsko srečanje ob 75-letnici rojstva Etbina Kristana, na katerem so sodelovali tudi slovenski člani jugoslovanske vlade v izgnanstvu za to, da so dali pobudo za nadaljevanje skupne politične akcije v prid enotni Jugoslaviji.15 Prihod kralja Petra II. konec junija 1942 na obisk v ZDA je med ameriškimi Slo­venci sprožil precejšen vihar, še zlasti potem, ko so nekateri člani Ameriške sloven-ske zveze, ki jo je ustanovil Mally, pripravili izjavo, v kateri so izrekli dobrodošlico jugoslovanskemu monarhu. Jugoslovanska socialistična zveza je proti tej izjavi takoj protestirala. V zvezi z vsem tem so se močno poslabšali odnosi med srbskimi in hrva­škimi Američani. Da bi izboljšal odnose, je direktor Office of War Information, Elmer Davis, na Adamičevo pobudo 18. septembra 1942 sklical predstavnike ameriških ju­goslovanskih izseljencev na sestanek, ki ga je vodil Allan Cranston. Na tem sestanku je 16 predstavnikov jugoslovanskih Američanov podpisalo resolucijo, v kateri so se zavezali, da bodo nasprotovali vsem poskusom, s katerimi želijo Američane jugoslo­vanskega porekla organizirati enega proti drugemu. Nekateri srbski predstavniki pa omenjene resolucije niso želeli podpisati.16 Na drugem sestanku, 20. oktobra 1942, so sklenili, da bodo na kongresu prebrali tri glavne referate: Vojna in ameriški Slovenci; Položaj Slovencev v Jugoslaviji zamej­nih držav in Politična akcija ameriških Slovencev. Za poročevalca prvega referata so predlagali Adamiča, za drugega Etbina Kristana, za tretjega Vincenta Cainkarja. Frank Lausche, župan mesta Cleveland in po rodu Slovenec, je bil na kongres povabljen kot predstavnik ameriških oblasti. Adamič je vsem znanim slovenskim časnikom poslal javno pismo, naslovljeno na kongres, v katerem je ugotavljal položaj Slovencev v Sloveniji in zamejnih državah ter predlagal aktivno vlogo slovenskih izseljencev za izboljšanje njihovega položaja.17 Pismo je pokazalo Adamičevo dobro seznanjenost z dogodki v stari domovini. Informacije je očitno črpal iz komunističnih časopisov, kot je bil Daily Worker, pa tudi iz drugih virov odporniških gibanj v Evropi (več o tem glej Klemenčič 1987: 214-231). ADAMIČEVO DELOVANJE OD KONGRESA SANS Petega decembra 1942 se je v Slovenskem narodnem domu v Clevelandu sestal Slovensko- ameriški narodni kongres. Za predsednika so izvolili Etbina Kristana, za častnega predsednika pa Louisa Adamiča.18 Po kongresu ameriških Slovencev se je 19. decembra 1942 v vodilnem ameriškem časniku Saturday Evening Post pojavil Adamičev znameniti članek, v katerem je obsodil četnike in prikazal partizane kot edino vojskujočo silo, ki se v Jugoslaviji bori proti okupatorju. Omenjeni članek se 15 »Vsestransko priznanje Etbinu Kristanu«, Proletarec, 15. april 1942: 3. 16 Arhiv Slovenije (AS), SI AS 1590 Fond Rogelj, Allan Cranston Janku Roglju, 21. september 1942. 17 »Louis Adamič o Slovenskem kongresu«, Prosveta, 25. november 1942: 2. 18 »Slovenski narodni kongres je uspel«, Prosveta, 9. december 1942: 1-3. je že novembra pojavil v Cankarjevem glasniku.19 Sodeč po odzivu je bila vsebina članka za ameriško javnost šokantna; vedno bolj so se začeli zanimati za dogajanje v Jugoslaviji. Adamič je v članku poudaril, da so vse bitke v Jugoslaviji, kjer naj bi padlo tudi do 100 nemških vojakov, v resnici izbojevali partizani in ne četniki Draže Mihailovića, kot so do takrat verjeli ameriški bralci časopisov. Do konca leta 1942 so ameriške časopise polnile zgodbe o junaštvih četnikov in Draže Mihailovića.20 Na za-četku leta 1941 je k temu največ pripomogla ameriška udeleženka vojne v Jugosla­viji, Ruth Mitchel, ki je v medijih pomagala širiti zgodbo o Mihailovićevi predanosti v borbi proti silam osi.21 Rušenje Mihailovićeve slave je bila izjemno težka naloga, ki se ni mogla zgoditi brez sodelovanja predstavnikov oblasti. Adamiču je pri utrjevanju njegove zgodbe pomagal takratni newyorški župan La Guardia, ki je osmešil Ruth Mitchel in podprl partizane (Lees 2007: 111).22 Petnajstega januarja 1943 je Adamič organiziral sprejem predstavnikov Slo­venskega ameriškega narodnega sveta pri Sumnerju Wellsu, ameriškem državnem podsekretarju. Na tem sestanku so se Adamič in katoliški del z Zakrajškom v SANS-u dokončno razšli, ker naj bi slednji želeli skupaj z ministrom Snojem pred Američani prikriti dejstvo, da je del Slovencev v stari domovini dobil orožje od Italijanov, da bi se lahko branili pred partizani oziroma komunisti, kakor so jih imenovali (Kle­menčič 1981: 1061). Adamič je namesto tega Wellsu raje poudaril, da je Slovenija majhna deželica s približno dva milijona prebivalci, ki so ostali razdeljeni med štiri države. Delegacija na čelu z Adamičem je Wellsu na koncu izročila spomenico, v kateri je zapisala, da je velik del Slovencev zaradi krivičnih mednarodnih sporazu­mov po letu 1918 postal neprostovoljna manjšina, razdeljena med Italijo, Avstrijo in Madžarsko. Nato so poudarili, da je upor Slovencev in Slovenije proti silam osi pomembno dejanje, ki ovira nemške vojne transporte na poti iz Italije v Sovjetsko zvezo. Tako so želeli poudariti slovenski vojaški prispevek v zavezniški borbi proti fašizmu in nacizmu. Poudarili so željo Slovencev po združeni Sloveniji, ki bi imela široko avtonomijo in bi ostala del svobodne federativne in demokratične Jugosla­vije. Vendar se je organizacija zaradi političnih nesoglasij že takoj na začetku znašla pred razkolom.23 Devetnajstega junija 1943 so predstavniki ameriških Slovencev, Hrvatov in Srbov Adamiču poslali telegram s sporočilom, da so ustanovili Združeni odbor 19 Adamic, Louis, »Adamič v ›Saturday Evening Post‹«, Enakopravnost, 21. december 1942: 1; Ada­ mič, Louis, »Louis Adamič: Partizani in Mihajlović«, Cankarjev glasnik 4, november 1942: 95-106. 20 »Yugoslavs Taking Heavy Toll of Foe«, The New York Times, 23. julij 1942: 5. 21 Lengyel, Emil, »Report on the Balkans«, The New York Times, 17. oktober 1943: 83. 22 AJ, 83 Osebni arhiv Save Kosanovića, Kosanović La Guardia, 3. september 1942; Narodna uni­ verzitetna knjižnica Ljubljana (NUK), Ms 1858 Adamičeva zapuščina, Adamič Kristanu, 21. de­ cember 1942; AS, SI AS 1241 Fond SANS, Zapisnik seje SANS, 22. december 1942. 23 AS, SI AS 1241 Fond SANS, šk. 3, Memorandum Subbmitted to the Department of State, Fri­ day, January 15, 1943, by the Delegation of the Slovenian American National Council, Repre­ senting Americans of Slovene Extraction; Prav tam, Introduction by Louis Adamic. jugoslovanskih Američanov (ZOJSA) in ga izvolili za svojega prvega predsednika.24 Istega leta v juliju je bil v Detroitu bolgarsko-makedonski kongres. Ta se je pridružil Združenemu odboru jugoslovanskih Američanov, ki je tako postal Združeni odbor južnoslovanskih Američanov (ZOJSA). Sedmega avgusta 1943 je Adamič sklical sejo ZOJSA, na katero je povabil Frana Petrinovića, ki je v odboru predstavljal Jugoslo-vane iz Južne Amerike, kakor tudi enega najbogatejših jugoslovanskih Američanov, Hrvata iz Kalifornije, Martina Bogdanovića. Clevelandski župan Frank Lausche pa se vabilu ni odzval, saj naj bi izjavil, da Združeni odbor ne predstavlja mnenja vseh južnoslovanskih Američanov.25 Tako so na površje začeli prihajati resnejši politični nesporazumi med slovenskimi izseljenci v ZDA (Klemenčič 1987: 234-235). V tem času se je Adamiču porodila ideja, da bi lahko svoja opažanja in poglede na dogajanja v Jugoslaviji predstavil v svoji novi knjigi, ki jo je naslovil My Native Land oziroma Moja rojstna dežela. V knjigi, ki je izšla leta 1943, v času, ko so v Jugoslavi­ji potekali najhujši boji proti silam osi, se je Adamič samoiniciativno podal v svojo osebno vojno proti vplivu »Mihailovićeve legende«, ki je prevladovala v ameriškem javnem tisku.26 Mihailovića so na začetku vojne kot legendarnega voditelja uporni­kov prikazovali celo v ameriškem komunističnem glasilu Daily Worker.27 Adamič se je zato od decembra 1942 trudil prikazati četnike kot predstavnike prejšnjega režima, ki so se z namenom ohranjanja starih privilegijev v vojni držali bolj po strani. Namesto njih so pravo vojno vodili Titovi partizani, predstavniki novega reda in družbenih sprememb, ki jih je Jugoslavija nujno potrebovala28 (Klemenčič 1987: 238; Adamič 1981: 68). Zaradi tega je prišlo do reakcije katoliškega tabora. Zveza slovenskih župnij je poskušala izpeljati pravo križarsko vojno proti Adamiču in njegovi knjigi My Na­tive Land. Pomožna akcija slovenskih župnij je septembra 1943 na svoji seji sklenila pripraviti protestno zborovanje zoper Adamičevo knjigo. Napisali so tudi protestno pismo in ga razposlali na različne naslove v ZDA, vendar brez posebnega uspeha.29 Adamič je na svojem prvem javnem shodu SANS-a konec leta 1943, ki se ga je udeležilo okrog 1.200 slovenskih poslušalcev, spregovoril v slovenščini in med dru­gim jasno predstavil svoje stališče o jugoslovanski vladi v izgnanstvu. O njej je zapi­sal: »Jaz sem proti tisti vladi – proti tistemu kraljevskemu pobalinu, ki vleče pol mili­jona dolarjev iz jugoslovanske kase, proti Fotiću […], ki so vsi proti Jugoslaviji in proti Rusiji, in katerih Slovenija sploh ne zanima. Jaz sem za to, da cela vlada v izgnanstvu ostane stalno – za zmeraj – v izgnanstvu ...«30 24 US National Archives (Suitland Maryland), R.G. 226 Records of the Office of Strategic Services 37796, Foreign Nationality Grups in the United States, Memorandum by Foreign Nationalities Branch to the Director of Strategic Services, No. B-52, 29. 6. 1943. 25 NUK, Ms 1858 Adamičeva zapuščina, Lausche Adamiču, 3. avgust 1943. 26 Brock, Ray, »Either They Die or We Do«, The New York Times, 1. februar 1942: 138. 27 »Night and Day Slav Partisans Hit Back«, Daily Worker, 5. julij 1942: 2. 28 »Komentarji«, Proletarec, 8. december 1943: 4. 29 AS, SI AS 1660 Osebni fond Izidorja Cankarja, Zapisnik seje Zveze slovenskih župnij, 8. 9. 1943. 30 »Govor pisatelja Louisa Adamiča na shodu SANSa v Clevelandu«, Enakopravnost, 17. november 1943: 1. Ameriška vojska je že leta 1942 ponatisnila in med svoje vojake razdelila okoli 50.000 izvodov Adamičeve knjige The Natives Return. Ameriški kongresnik George A. Dondero, republikanec iz Michigana, je ostro kritiziral vojno ministrstvo in avtorja knjige obtožil za »komunističnega sopotnika«. Knjiga naj bi po njegovem mnenju vsebovala »komunistično propagando«.31 Podobnega mnenja je bil kongresnik Fred E. Busbey, republikanec iz Illinoisa. Ta je hkrati sedel v komisiji, ki je preiskovala nea­meriške aktivnosti v ZDA in se je v zgodovino zapisala kot Diesova komisija. Busbey je Adamiča označil za bolj nevarnega od samega generalnega sekretarja ameriške Komunistične partije, Earla Browderja. K temu mnenju je gotovo pripomogla tudi brošura Shall Slovenia be Sovietized, ki jo je izdala in natisnila Zveza slovenskih žup­nij.32 Prav v zvezi s ponatisom omenjene knjige, ko so se v ameriškem tisku začele pojavljati polemike o tem, zakaj zavezniki pomagajo četnikom namesto partizanom, se je Adamič na prvi pogled izkazal kot vodilna osebnost v ZDA, ki namensko propa­gira komunizem, partizane in Tita.33 FBI-jeva poročila so sicer polna določenih netočnosti, kot na primer navedba, da se pred vojno Adamič nikoli ni ukvarjal s problematiko Jugoslavije, kar je glede na njegove knjige in članke, ki jih je napisal in z njimi zaslovel, povsem netočno in ne­resnično. Anonimni informator je špekuliral tudi o tem, ali je Adamič mogoče širil ko­munistično propagando, ker naj bi upal na kakšno povojno diplomatsko zaposlitev? V primeru »sovjetizacije Balkana« bi Adamič lahko postal glavni sogovornik in sveto­valec ameriški vladi. V FBI-jevih poročilih, ki so jih naslavljali na direktorja Hooverja, so tudi podrobni opisi Adamičevih poti in poznanstev, kje in s kom se je družil. FBI je v hotelu, kjer so se dobivali člani ZOJSA, nastavil prisluškovalne naprave. Več o uspe­hih prisluškovanja dokumenti ne navajajo.34 Veliko se je špekuliralo tudi okoli vpraša­nja, ali je bil Adamič komunist ali zgolj oportunist? Dokumenti so pokazali, da je FBI okarakteriziral vse Adamičeve organizacije, v katerih je sodeloval, kot komunistične frontne organizacije, vključno z Združenim odborom južnoslovanskih Američanov.35 SANS se je na svoji redni konvenciji sešel 3. septembra 1944 v Clevelandu, kjer so poročali o dejavnosti sveta v zvezi s priznanjem partizanov kot edine legitimne sile, ki se je borila proti okupatorju. Šestindvajsetega maja 1944 je Adamič poslal pismo predsedniku Rooseveltu, v katerem ga je pozval, naj prizna Narodni komite osvobo­ditve Jugoslavije (NKOJ) pod vodstvom maršala Tita, ki je predstavljal začasno vlado Jugoslavije. Na pismo je pozitivno odgovoril takratni državni sekretar James Byrnes.36 31 »Kdo je kongresnik George A. Dondero?«, Enakopravnost, 20. december 1943: 2; »Kongresnik napadel pisatelja Adamiča«, Prosveta, 13. december 1943: 1. 32 »Komentarji«, Proletarec, 9. februar 1944: 4. 33 Immigration History Research Center Archives (IHRCA), 1330 Lorraine M. Lees collection of FBI files on Yugoslav American Ethnic Organizations, Box 6, The United Committee of South-Sla­vic Americans, 27. november 1943. 34 Prav tam, Memorandum for M.D. Ladd in FBI Teletype. Memorandum for D.M. Laddan, 7. ja­nuar 1944. 35 Prav tam, The United Committee of South-Slavic Americans, 27. november 1943. 36 FDRML, OF 364-A, Container 3, Yugoslavia Misc, Adamič Rooseveltu, 26. junij 1944. Že omenjeni dokumenti FBI, ki so bili glavni vir za knjigo Lorraine Lees, prikazu­jejo stališča ameriških obveščevalnih služb do Adamičevega delovanja med drugo svetovno vojno. Iz dostopnih dokumentov je razvidno, da gre za površne karakteri­stike tako Louisa Adamiča kot tudi preostalih vodilnih članov ZOJSA in posameznih organizacij, v katerih so imeli vodilni predstavniki izseljencev svojo pomembno vlo-go. Direktor FBI Hoover se je začel osebno zanimati za delovanje Louisa Adamiča takoj po njegovem imenovanju za predsednika ZOJSA.37 Svojim agentom na terenu je naročil, naj izpeljejo tajno preiskavo, na podlagi katere bi lahko izvedeli, kdo jih fi­nancira oziroma kako se financirajo južnoslovanske izseljenske organizacije v ZDA?38 Hoover je verjel, da je omenjena organizacija samo krinka za komunistično delova­nje v ZDA. Tako iz dokumentov lahko razberemo podrobne analize Adamičevih po­litičnih stališč, ki jih je javno izražal na shodih ali v člankih, in njihovo vzporejanje s stališči komunističnega časnika Daily Worker. Tako so želeli prikazati Adamiča kot »komunističnega sopotnika«.39 Podrobnejša analiza FBI-jevih dokumentov in poročila njihovih anonimnih in-formatorjev kažejo, da so agenti radi pritrjevali svojemu šefu, da je Adamič v ZDA vodil komunistično propagando, čeprav ga niso označevali za komunista. Omenje­na dejanja naj bi počel iz koristoljubja. Tukaj se je namigovalo na njegove tuje vire financiranja, ki pa jih nikoli niso dokazali. FBI je bil prepričan, da Adamiča bolj kot ideologija spodbuja denar. Po drugi strani FBI-jevi dokumenti razkrivajo zanimi­vo razmišljanje obveščevalnih služb, ki so želele okarakterizirati Adamičevo kom­pleksno osebnost. Označili so ga za propagandista, oportunista in ambicioznega povzpetnika, ki samega sebe promovira, da bi laže prodajal svoje knjige. Veliko pozornost so posvetili njegovemu zagovarjanju Rusije oziroma »sovjetizacije Jugo­slavije«. Najbolj zanimiva navedba FBI-ja je bila domneva, da naj bi Adamič svojo knjigo My Native Land napisal s pomočjo ruskih člankov, ki so jih v ZDA komunistični somišljeniki pretihotapili na ladjah; te naj bi bile na podlagi Zakona o posojilu in najemu namenjene v Sovjetsko zvezo. Ladje naj bi se vračale s tajnimi navodili in članki, ki jih je Adamič potreboval za pisanje knjige. Seveda so bile takšne in podob­ne zgodbe le plod domišljije posameznih agentov, njihove domneve in poročila so bila namreč brez konkretnih dokazov.40 Ko je med ameriškimi Slovenci leta 1944 do razdora prišlo zaradi podpore par-tizanom in Rusiji, lahko v FBI-jevih dokumentih zasledimo dokaj podrobne ocene takratnega stanja med izseljenci. V FBI so bili prepričani, da Adamiču ne bo uspelo vplivati na izseljenske organizacije, saj je med njimi 85 odstotkov vernih katoličanov, 37 IHRCA, 1330 Lorraine M. Lees collection of FBI files on Yugoslav American Ethnic Organizati­ ons, United Committee of South-Slavic Americans, 13. avgust 1943. 38 Prav tam. 39 Prav tam, US-Yugoslavs Form United Committee in War Body, United Committee of South-Slavic Americans Representing Croatians, Serbians, Slovenians, Bulgarians and Mace­ donians Organized in U. 24. avgust 1943. 40 Prav tam, The United Committee of South-Slavic Americans, 27. november 1943. ki se ne bodo prepustili vplivu komunistične propagande. Omenjalo se je tudi, da ima Adamič prevelik vpliv na določene visoke vladne uradnike, kar naj bi mu dajalo lažno avtoriteto med ameriškimi Slovenci. Med dokumenti so številna namigovanja o njegovih političnih nagnjenih in predvsem sledenju agentov, kje in kdaj se je dobil s kakšnim znanim ameriškim komunistom. FBI je bil takrat obseden z okarakterizira­njem in iskanjem prikritih komunistov, kar je bil uvod v povojni makartizem.41 Zgodba o domnevni Adamičevi komunistični preteklosti je seveda neresnična. Že Hooverjev agent, ki je pisal karakteristike, je v enem od poročil pravilno zapisal, da je Adamič »preveč pameten, da bi bil član komunistične partije«.42 Adamič je osebno zavračal ideološko razmišljanje in se je zato leta 1926 tudi umaknil iz ameriške socia­listične stranke (Klemenčič 1981: 1054). Vedno je zanikal članstvo v katerikoli politični stranki, razen Progresivni stranki, s katero je sodeloval v predsedniški kampanji leta 1948. Dejansko je bil kratek čas član socialistične stranke, zapustil pa jo je iz prepriča­nja, da je »razširjanje socialističnih idej med ameriškim delavstvom vredno toliko kot pljuvanje v ocean z namenom, da bi razširili njegov obseg«.43 Progresivna stranka je bila ustanovljena posebej za predsedniške volitve v ZDA leta 1948, kjer je na njeni listi kandidiral nekdanji podpredsednik ZDA, Henry Wal­lace. Nastanek tretje stranke so spodbudili sovjetski komunisti. O tem podrobneje piše Thomas Devine v svoji knjigi o Wallaceovi predsedniški kampanji leta 1948 in nasploh o prihodnosti povojnega ameriškega liberalizma, s katerim je bil povezan tudi Adamič. Wallace seveda ni bil niti komunist niti simpatizer komunističnih idej. Vendarle so ameriški komunisti na željo sovjetskih tovarišev pomagali vzpodbuja-ti Wallaceovo predsedniško kampanjo, da bi tako ogrozili položaj Harryja Trumana. Predsedniška tekma se je končala s prepričljivo Trumanovo zmago. Če sta bila Ada­mič in Wallace na začetku vesela sodelovanja ameriških komunistov, sta se pozneje od njih distancirala, pa tudi eden od drugega. Adamič je poskušal Wallacea odvrniti od tesnega sodelovanja z ameriškimi komunisti. Prepričal ga je, da je edini interes ameriške KP v predvolilni kampanji ta, da bi po predsedniških volitvah, v katerih bo Wallace poražen, pridobila čim več članov Progresivne stranke (Žitnik 1995b: 20). Adamič je veliko prej od Wallacea spoznal pasti sodelovanja ameriških komunistov v kampanji, zato je kot simpatizer jugoslovanskih komunistov v informbirojevski krizi stopil na stran Jugoslovanov in podprl Tita44 (Devine 2013: 25-34). 41 Prav tam, The United Committee of South-Slavic Americans, 3. april 1944; The United Commi­tte of South-Slavic Americans, 2. maj 1944. 42 Prav tam, The United Committee of South-Slavic Americans, 27. november 1943. 43 Adamic, Louis, »Now, What about Communism?«, Trends & Tides, julij–september 1948: 13-16; Chicago Historical Society, Molek papers, Adamič Moleku, 9. marec 1925. 44 Adamic, Louis, »Cominform and Yugoslavia«, Trends & Tides, julij–september 1948: 8. ZAKLJUČEK Adamičevo delovanje v ZDA med drugo svetovno vojno je močno vplivalo na ame­riško javno mnenje in njegov odnos do Jugoslavije in nasploh do komunistov. Na preprost način jim je znal približati zgodbo svoje stare domovine, da so Američani na koncu podprli partizane in Titovo vlado. Zaradi tega je seveda takoj po vojni pa-del v nemilost, kar ga je potisnilo v veliko osebno stisko. Zgodbo o Louisu Adamiču bi na tem mestu rada končala z njegovo smrtjo leta 1951. Čeprav krožijo o njegovi smrti najrazličnejše zgodbe in špekulacije, ki namigujejo na njegov uprizorjeni umor in samomor, imamo na razpolago dokument FBI, datiran z dnem njegove smrti, 3. septembrom 1951, kjer je ročno navedeno, kdo naj bi ubil Adamiča, vendar pa je v tem dokumentu njegova identiteta prikrita. Na omenjenem dokumentu je prikri­ta tudi identiteta poročevalca. Po drugi strani podpisani Matjaž Klemenčič hranim pričevanje pokojnega kongresnika Johna Blatnika, ki je bil takrat, ko so preiskovalci opravljali balistično preiskavo, ki je odkrila dve krogli v njegovi glavi, skupaj z Jankom Rogljem, predsednikom Ameriške bratske zveze, na Adamičevi farmi. To pričevanje naj bi dokazovalo, da sprožilca sam ni mogel sprožiti dvakrat. Treba je tudi povedati, da je bil Adamič proti koncu življenja v osebni stiski in živčno razrvan, sploh v času, ko so ga ubili. Tudi če zgodba o njegovem umoru ne drži, velja poudariti dejstvo, da je FBI s pomočjo raznih pritiskov že prej ustvaril razmere, da bi Adamič lahko storil samomor. Tako ostaja Adamičeva smrt še naprej nerazrešena uganka, njegov pečat na slovensko in ameriško historiografijo pa velik. LITERATURA Adamic, Louis (1941). Two-way Passage. New York, London: Harper & Brothers. Adamič, Louis (1981). Moja rojstna dežela. Ljubljana: Založba Borec. Christian, Henry (1971). Louis Adamic: A Checklist. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Christian, Henry (1981). Izbrana pisma Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Devine, Thomas W. (2013). Henry Wallace's 1948 Presidential Campaign and the Future of Postwar Liberalism. Chapell Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Friš, Darko (1995). Korespondenca Kazimirja Zakrajška O.F.M. (1928-1958). Viri 8. Friš, Darko (2001). Ameriški Slovenci in leto 1941. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino XLI/2, 267-280. Fotitch, Constantin (1948). The War we Lost: Yugoslavia's Tragedy and the Failure of the West. New York: Wiking Press. Hazemali, David, Matjašič Friš, Mateja (2018). »Naši simpatizerji Avstrije so bili utišani kot z nabojem«: Položaj slovenske skupnosti v Združenih državah Amerike v času prve svetovne vojne. Acta Histriae 26, 899–922. Hudomalj, Andrej (2004). Ministrovanje ministra Franca Snoja. Arhivi 27/1, 121-130. Jeffreys Jones, Rhodri (2007). The FBI: A history. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. Klemenčič, Matjaž (1981). Politično delo Louisa Adamiča. Teorija in praksa 18/9, 1054–1068. Klemenčič, Matjaž (1987). Ameriški Slovenci in NOB v Jugoslaviji. Maribor: Založba Obzorja. Klemenčič, Matjaž, Šeruga, Tadej (2019). Pregled zgodovine slovenske skupnosti v Elyju, Minnesota. Maribor: Univerza v Mariboru. Klemenčič, Matjaž (2011). The Reactions of Immigrants from the South Slavic Lands and their Descendants in the USA to the Dissolution of Yugoslavia (1989–1993). Dve domovini / Two Homelands 33, 37–53. Lees, Lorraine M. (2007). Yugoslav-Americans and National Security during World War II. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Novak, Bogdan C. (1994). Adamic and Yugoslavia During World War II. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 5, 63-84. Novak, Bogdan C. (1998). Louis Adamic's Work for the Official Recognition of Tito and the National Liberation Movement of Yugoslavia by the United States Govern­ment. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 9, 67-83. Novak, Bogdan C. (2004). Pater Kazimir Zakrajšek. Ljubljana: Družina. Shiffman, Dan (2005). Korenine multikulturalizma: Delo Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Za­ložba ZRC. Stanonik, Janez (ur.) (1981). Louis Adamič simpozij. Univerza Edvarda Kardelja v Ljub­ljani. Zakrajšek, Kazimir (1942). Ko smo šli v morje bridkosti. Washington D.C.: Univerza v Kaliforniji. Žitnik, Janja (1992). Louis Adamič in sodobniki: 1948-1951. Ljubljana: SAZU. Žitnik, Janja (1993). Pero in politika: Zadnja leta Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. Žitnik, Janja (1995a). Orel in korenine med »brušenjem« in cenzuro. Ljubljana: Znanstve­noraziskovalni center SAZU. Žitnik, Janja (1995b). Pogovori o Louisu Adamiču. Ljubljana: Prešernova družba. ARHIVSKI VIRI Arhiv Jugoslavije (AJ), 83 Osebni arhiv Save Kosanovića, fasc. 15. Arhiv Jugoslavije (AJ), 103 Fond emigrantske vlade, fasc. 6. Arhiv Slovenije (AS), SI AS 1241 Fond SANS, šk. 3, 11. Arhiv Slovenije (AS), SI AS 1590 Fond Rogelj, šk. 3. Arhiv Slovenije (AS), SI AS 1660 Osebni fond Izidorja Cankarja. Chicago Historical Society, Molek papers, šk. 1. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Memorial Library, Hyde Park, New York (FDRML), OF 355-A Container 3. OF 364-A. Immigration History Research Center Archives (IHRCA), 1330 Lorraine M. Lees col­ lection of FBI files on Yugoslav American Ethnic Organizations. Narodna univerzitetna knjižnica Ljubljana (NUK), Ms 1858 Adamičeva zapuščina. US National Archives (Suitland Maryland), R.G. 226 Records of the Office of Strategic Services 37796, Foreign Nationality Grups in the United States. ČASOPISNI VIRI The Saturday Evening Post, 1942. Trends & Tides, 1948. Delo, 1981. Nova doba, 1939-1940. Prosveta, 1941-1943. Enakopravnost, 1941-1943. Amerikanski Slovenec, 1941. Proletarec, 1942-1944. Cankarjev glasnik, 1942. The New York Times, 1942, 1943. Daily Worker, 1942. SUMMARY LOUIS ADAMIC AND THE SECOND WORLD WAR IN AMERICAN AND SLOVENIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY Matjaž KLEMENČIČ, Milan MRĐENOVIĆ In the article, the authors present a new perspective on Louis Adamic’s role during the Second World War, especially in the light of contemporary historiography. Adam­ic’s political and publicist activity in the United States undoubtedly increased the likelihood of the official recognition of Tito’s Yugoslavia by the US. It also helped raise sympathy for the Partisans instead of the Chetniks, who were presented in his writ­ings as occupying collaborators. To date, historiographies in the US and Slovenia have not been particularly concerned with the views of the US security services on Adam­ic’s political activity Recent US literature has devoted much more attention to this issue. Newly accessible documents also provide researchers with a better overview and a wealth of new research material. The interpretation of Adamic’s role during the Second World War in Slovenia must be understood through the distinction between two periods: before and after 1991. After 1991, researchers began to deal with Adam­ic’s legacy more critically. Adamic was an extremely complex personality. Although he was sympathetic to liberal and leftist views, he believed in the American ideals of freedom and democracy. He also epitomizes the story of a successful and outgo­ing critically-minded immigrant who paved his way to success through hard work and effort, with the help of a free press. However, for Adamic, part of the “American dream” meant that he could be critical of capitalist society, consumerism and Amer­ican foreign policy in general, as well as the US’s “melting pot” policy. Through his criticism, he wanted to encourage important processes that could have improved the situation of immigrants, workers, and other marginalized groups in American society. Because of this, he was closely monitored by the US security services (FBI) during the Second World War. In the article, the authors also discuss how the FBI fol­lowed Adamic during the war and assessed his actions, thoughts and tactics. Most of them were mistaken in their assessments, especially of Adamic’s complex person­ality. Adamic was regarded as a “communist fellow traveler”, although he was never a member of the Communist Party, nor did he share their beliefs. He supported the efforts of the Yugoslav partisans and Yugoslav communists for pragmatic reasons – because he believed that they were the only political force capable of realizing the idea of the creation of federal Yugoslavia, which Adamic also advocated. The authors conclude their article with the issue of Adamic’s untimely death. ODMEVI ADAMIČEVIH DEL V AMERIŠKEM IN SLOVENSKEM ČASOPISJU MED LETOMA 1931 IN 1934 Milan MRĐENOVIĆ| COBISS 1.02 IZVLEČEK Odmevi Adamičevih del v ameriškem in slovenskem časopisju med letoma 1931 in 1934 Članek prikazuje odzive ameriških in slovenskih časnikov, tednikov, mesečnikov in dru­gih poročil na Adamičeve prve tri knjige, ki so v ZDA izšle med letoma 1931 in 1934. Avtor v članku obravnava tako pozitivne kot negativne kritike njegovih del, pri čemer si pomaga z Adamičevimi knjigami, s spomini, korespondenco in strokovnimi članki, ki so se ukvarjali z njegovima pisanjem in delovanjem. Primerja odzive bralcev in jih sooča z relevantnimi spoznanji in zgodovinskimi dejstvi ter dostopnim arhivskim gra­divom. Članek prikaže, kako se je Adamič na začetku literarnega razvoja počasi spre­minjal v poznavalca priseljenskih tematik. KLJUČNE BESEDE: Louis Adamič, priseljenske teme, recenzije, časopisi, izseljenstvo ABSTRACT Reactions to Adamic's Work in the American and Slovenian Press between 1931 and 1934 The article presents the reactions of American and Slovenian daily, weekly and month­ly periodicals to Adamic’s first three books, published in the USA between 1931 and 1934. Both positive and negative responses are discussed. All relevant sources are employed: Adamic's books, memoires, and correspondence, and academic articles on Adamic's writing. The author compares readers' responses to relevant findings and historical facts as well as archival material. The article presents Adamic's gradual progress from his initial writings to his later years when he became a well-known authority on immigrant issues. KEY WORDS: Louis Adamic, immigration topics, reviews, press, emigration | Univ. dipl. zgodovinar, doktorski študent Ameriških študij na Oddelku za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani, Aškerčeva 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana; milan.mr85@gmail.com UVOD O Louisu Adamiču in njegovem delu je bilo že veliko napisanega, tudi o obdobju, ki ga obravnavam v pričujočem članku. Med glavne »adamičeslovce«, ki so raziskovali njegovo delovanje pred drugo svetovno vojno, prištevamo profesorja Herrya Chris­tiana, Jernejo Petrič in Dana Shiffmana. Obrobno se je s tem obdobjem ukvarjal tudi Ivan Čizmić. Vsak, ki se ukvarja z Adamičem, se najprej seznani z delom Henrya Chris­tiana in njegovo bibliografijo o Adamičevih delih A Checklist (Christian 1971a: 1). Dan Shiffman, sicer novejši avtor, je posebno pozornost posvetil njegovemu multikultu­ralizmu, morda pa v svojem delu pozablja na historizem, to je, da moramo vsako dejanje in delo vsakega avtorja presojati z vidika časa, v katerem je živel. Prav tako Shiffmanovo delo ni kronološko urejeno. Povsem drugače je Adamičevo obdobje, ko je Adamiča obravnaval z vidika njegovega obiska v Jugoslaviji med obema vojnama in pisanja v tem obdobju, prikazal hrvaški zgodovinar Ivan Čizmić. Tudi Henry Christi­an je Adamičevo interpretacijo Kardeljevega dela Boj obravnaval z vsemi pikantnimi podrobnostmi mučenja političnih jetnikov v Kraljevini Jugoslaviji. Jerneja Petrič pa se je ukvarjala z Adamičevo literarno zapuščino. Pričujoči prispevek k obravnavi Adamičevega dela in še zlasti odmevov nanj je omogočila najnovejša tehnologija spletnega brskanja. V digitalni knjižnici Slovenije so skenirani skoraj vsi časniki in revije iz tega obdobja. Tako sem lahko identificiral številne komentarje na Adamičeva dela, ki jih vseh skupaj do sedaj iz povsem objek­tivnih razlogov ni bilo mogoče najti. Moj prispevek Adamiču posveča pozornost v najbolj ključnem obdobju, ko je njegova prepoznavnost najbolj rasla, prav takrat se je uveljavil kot literarni novinar, pisatelj in komentator vseh takratnih pomembnih dogodkov in vprašanj. ODMEVI NA KNJIGO »DINAMIT« Louis Adamič je bil, tako kot pravi Vladimir Dedijer v intervjuju z Janjo Žitnik, človek v iskanju resnice. Dodal bi še, da se je Adamičeva osebnost izražala v njegovi neodvi­snosti, ki jo je s kritično distanco ohranjal do vseh akterjev in dogodkov svojega časa (Žitnik 1995a: 25). Že na začetku svoje ustvarjalne poti je bil prepoznan kot izseljenski pisatelj, ki piše o resničnih dogodkih in jih po svoje interpretira, kar je pokazal v prvih dveh delih, ki so požele velik uspeh tako v ZDA kot v Kraljevini Jugoslaviji (Dinamit in Smeh v džungli). Pisal je o delavskem gibanju v ZDA in izseljencih, pri čemer si je podrobnosti pogosto izmišljal. V svojem prvem delu Dinamit, v katerem je opisoval dogodke iz življenja delavskega razreda in se postavljal na njihovo stran, je odpiral zahtevna socialna vprašanja. Knjiga opisuje zgodovino razrednega nasilja v ZDA ter možnost nadaljnjega razvoja s pomočjo organiziranih sindikatov (Žitnik 1995b: 11; Adamič 1983: 344, 363). Zanimivo je, da je prvo recenzentsko mnenje o Dinamitu izšlo v katoliškem lite-rarnem mesečniku Dom in svet, ki je ob tej priložnosti zapisal, da je »Louis Adamič, po rodu Slovenec, eden izmed tistih redkih slovenskih izseljencev, ki so si samostoj-no utrli pot v tujo književnost in tam svojo izredno nadarjenost pokazali in dokazali (sic)«.1 V recenziji omenjajo, da je krvavo nasilje in brezobzirno zatiranje delavcev obstajalo še preden je ruska revolucija leta 1917 pretresla temelje zahodnega sveta. Recenzent Ludvik Klakočer, takrat v Sloveniji priznani prevajalec, je ugotovil, da so si radikalne ideje svojo pot v ZDA utrle zaradi nerešenih notranjih socialnih razmer, ki so vladale med delavci še pred izbruhom oktobrske revolucije. Socialna kriza se je najbolj odražala med priseljenci, ki so predstavljali največji delež med nekvalificira­nimi delavci v ZDA. Recenzija se konča s čestitko avtorju, ki je uspel kljub dejstvu, da je bil priseljenec.2 V uvodnem poglavju Dinamita je Adamič zapisal, kako je naivnost mnoge pri­seljence pripeljala v situacijo, da so jih, čeprav so se borili za svoje pravice, zmerjali kot »govno« in »zavrženo sodrgo«. Tako so povprečni Američani dojemali delavske stavke in proteste. Adamič v knjigi navaja, da so takrat manjkali učinkoviti sindikati, ki bi znali izraženi gnev predstaviti na dostojen način (Adamič 1983: 276–277). Adamič v Dinamitu prevzame vlogo zaščitnika delavcev, predvsem priseljenih »ekonomskih migrantov«, ki so veljali za »nekvalificirane delavce«. V liberalnem časniku Jutro je Mile Klopčič, znani slovenski pesnik in prevajalec, navajal, da je Dinamit objektivno delo, v katerem se avtor že v uvodnem delu distancira od radikalizma in se predstavi kot opazovalec dogajanja, ki le simpatizira z delavci. »Nisem aktiven radikalec niti član kake delavske unije, simpatiziram pa z delavci: nimam tudi navade, da bi izgo­varjal besedo ›kapitalizem‹ s sikanjem«3 (Adamic 1931: 1). Po izidu Dinamita so mu čestitali priznani ameriški literati, kot so Upton Sinclair, Sinclair Lewis in Mary Austin. Vrstila so se številna javna priznanja. Napovedovali so prevode v nemški, ruski, češki, japonski in francoski jezik. Napovedan je bil tudi pre­vod v hrvaški jezik.4 V liberalnem Mariborskem Večerniku Jutra so avgusta 1932 na­pisali recenzijo slovenskega prevoda Adamičevih kratkih zgodb, objavljenih v Krizi v Ameriki, ki jih je prevedel Anton Debeljak. Knjižica je še istega leta izšla v založbi Tiskovne zadruge. V kratkem sestavku so omenili recenzijo Dinamita, kjer so sloven-ske razmere predstavili kot idilične v primerjavi z Ameriko, ki so jo mnogi še videli kot »obljubljeno deželo«. Čeprav slovenski prevod Dinamita še dolgo ni izšel, so ga v objavljenih ocenah poveličevali do najvišje možne mere.5 V Hitlerjevi Nemčiji je bila knjiga celo prepovedana.6 Nasprotno pa je bila na ameriških univerzah učbe­nik študentov družboslovja. Dan Shiffman je v svoji knjigi Korenine multikulturalizma poudaril, da je bila knjiga leta 1936 obvezno učno gradivo na približno osemdesetih ameriških kolidžih, postala je tudi pomembno referenčno delo vseh glavnih časopi­snih hiš v ZDA (Shiffman 2005: 90). 1 Klakočer, Ludvik, »Dynamite«, Dom in svet 44/7, 8, 9, 1931: 410. 2 Prav tam: 413. 3 Klopčič, Mile, »Veliko književno delo ameriškega Slovenca«, Jutro, 11. april 1931: 6. 4 »Slovenci v tujini«, Ilustracija 3/9, 1931: 323. 5 »Razkrinkana pravljica o obljubljeni Ameriki«, Mariborski Večernik Jutra, 13. avgust 1932: 5. 6 Arhiv Slovenije (SI AS) 1557, Louis Adamič – kratek opis njegove literarne kariere: 4. Zaradi nemarksističnega pisanja so Adamiča napadali tako v knjigi obsojani ko­munisti kot anarhisti. Ker je pisal o odklonih radikalnih skupin in gibanj v ameriški družbi, je bil označen za »socialnega fašista« (Petrič 1981: 155). Mnoge založbe so na začetku odklanjale, da bi knjigo založile, ker so se bale morebitnih tožb, Adamič je namreč odkrito pisal o politikih, sindikalistih in drugih s kriminalnim podzemljem povezanih osebah. Založnik Viking Press je od njega zahteval, da mora pred izidom v knjižni obliki upoštevati nekatere njihove opombe (Christian 1981b: 119). Številne politične kritike ga pri njegovem delu niso ustavile, kvečjemu so ga spodbudile, da je še okrepil svoj literarni aktivizem in s pisanjem ozaveščal, izobraževal in prikazoval resnico, kot jo je videl, razumel in spoznaval v času, ko je bil tudi sam fizični delavec: »Mislim, da je prihodnost v izobraževanju, ne pa v fašistični ali komunistični revoluci­ji. To drži vsaj za Ameriko,« je pisal v enem od svojih pisem prijatelju v ZDA (prav tam: 265). Nasilna dejanja so dejanja »skrajnega obupa«, v katerem so se delavci znašli zaradi krivičnih delovnih razmer in neučinkovitih sindikatov (Adamič 1983: 157). ODMEVI NA KNJIGO »SMEH V DŽUNGLI« Leta 1932 je izšla njegova druga knjiga Smeh v džungli, ki je hkrati tudi avtobiogra­fija, v katero je dodal precej svojih izmišljenih zgodb. V časniku Slovenec so ob tem zapisali, da je zaradi omenjene knjige dobil prestižno nagrado, Guggenheimovo šti­pendijo, ki so jo prejemali le najboljši ameriški pisatelji in literarni ustvarjalci.7 Tako so ga postavili ob bok sodobnim literarnim ustvarjalcem in pisateljem v ZDA. S štipen­dijo, ki je znašala 2.500 dolarjev,8 se je lahko maja 1932 odpravil na desetmesečno potovanje po Evropi. Večino časa je prebil v Jugoslaviji in tako na novo odkril svojo domovino in jo pozneje tudi opisal (Čizmić 1981: 314). V recenziji Smeha v džungli so v izseljenski Prosveti zapisali, da je Adamič prišel v ZDA, da bi jo dobro spoznal in opisal.9 Morda je najbolj zanimivo mnenje o knjigi na­pisal delavski aktivist in novinar Benjamin Stolberg, znani kolumnist New York Timesa in New York Herald Tribuna, ko je zapisal, da je Adamič »ponovno odkril Ameriko«, kjer se je opogumil in dvignil nad zgodovinopisje ter končno začel pisati leposlovna dela. S knjigo je avtor pokazal talent za pisanje zgodb, ki pritegnejo pozornost slehernega bralca. Adamič tako ni bil več zgolj avtobiograf in tolmač preteklosti, temveč tudi dober pripovednik.10 Tako so v New York Timesu Adamičevo knjigo predstavili kot zanimivo branje, ki opisuje kaos in džunglo v Ameriki in kliče k aktivnemu smislu za humor. Prispodoba Amerike kot džungle, ki jo je povzel po Uptonu Sinclairu, in njegov smeh, s katerim je ovekovečil svoje upanje ter dobro voljo, so ameriški kritiki zelo dobro sprejeli11 (Adamic 1938: 125). 7 »Alojzij Adamič v Sloveniji«, Slovenec,14. maj 1932: 3. 8 SI AS 1557, Louis Adamič – kratek opis njegove literarne kariere: 5. 9 »Nova knjiga Louisa Adamiča«, Prosveta, 23. maj 1932: 3. 10 Prav tam. Tudi v slovenskem literarnem prostoru se je takrat o drugi Adamičevi knjigi na veliko pisalo in razglabljalo. V recenziji, objavljeni v katoliškem mesečniku Dom in svet, je Klakočer poudaril, da je Adamičeva knjiga biografija, v kateri avtor iz lastnih težkih preteklih izkušenj opisuje splošne materialne in širše družbene razmere v ZDA. ZDA prikaže kot džunglo, torej deželo, ki lahko hitro pogoltne vsakega razočaranega človeka in ga, ko postane neuporaben, izvrže. V kolikšni meri so bile ZDA še tista »obljubljena dežela«, kjer revni uspevajo in bogatijo s poštenim delom? Klakočer povzema nemškega grofa in filozofa Hermanna Keyserlinga, sicer znanega nemške­ga kritika militarizma in nacističnega režima, ki je napisal, da celotni nemški »razred intelektualcev« ne zna povedati kaj dosti o Ameriki, saj do nje ne gojijo posebnih simpatij. Tukaj Klakočer pristavi, da je treba Ameriko osebno spoznati. Najboljša referenca za to je bil prav Adamič, priseljenec slovenskega rodu, ki je tam živeli in uspel, knjiga je imela prav zato posebno veljavo med slovenskimi bral­ ci. Njegovo sporočilo je bilo naslednje: V Ameriki lahko uspejo samo tisti, ki znajo ohraniti smisel za humor. V knjigi opisuje številne primere oseb, ki jih je srečeval in se z njimi spoznal. Vsi so bili priseljenci ali potomci priseljencev s svojimi osebnimi pričakovanji in prepričanji. Mnoge usode so se slabo končale. Tudi materinstvo naj bi se v Ameriki razvodenelo in izgubilo svoj pomen. Poudaril je primer ženske, ki je imela štiri može, trije so umrli, četrti je bil na koncu življenjske poti. To je bila žena, ki je rodila še sedem otrok! Vsi so umrli, razen enega, ki se je izgubil nekje v ameriški džungli. Kaj je potem smisel življenja v Ameriki? Kakšno vlogo igrajo matere v ameri­ški družbi? Kaj je tej ženski Amerika dala v zameno, da bi bila srečna, ker je izpolnila svoje materinsko poslanstvo? »Mi smo prišli iz stare domovine pomagat Ameriki, da postane velika in grozna,« je odgovarjala ženska Adamiču. V tem delu avtor prikaže, da so bili priseljenci za Ameriko navadno gnojilo, ki jim je namenjeno, da delajo do onemoglosti. Kadar jih potrebujejo za gradnjo nebotičnikov, mostov in železnic, so koristni in dobrodošli. Zdaj, ko je država v krizi, pa so postali nepotrebni in vsem nadležni.12 (Adamič 1981: 248) V svojem dnevniku je Adamič zapisal, da je Amerika čuden kraj, ki ga ne moreš ne preveč ljubiti ne preveč sovražiti. To je kraj nasprotij in protislovij. Nemogoče je Ameriko razumeti, zato se je, čeprav je včasih težko, najbolje smejati. Amerike ne smeš jemati preveč resno, sicer boš razočaran in potrt. Na koncu je celo pristavil, da je vsak poskus, da bi Ameriko spremenili ali vplivali nanjo, jalovo početje. (Klemen-čič 1981: 1054) 11 »Findes United States Much Like a Jungle«, New York Times, 28. marec 1932: 19. 12 Klakočer, Ludvik, »Laughing in The Jungle: The Autobiography of An Immigrant in Amerika«, Dom in svet 45, 1932: 329–330. Drugo recenzijo je za Dom in svet leta 1933 napisal Jakob Šilc, prav tako dober poznavalec slovenske literarne in umetnostne zgodovine. Napisal je, da knjiga omo­goča nov vpogled v neznani svet, kot ga je doživel priseljenec slovenskega rodu. »Smeh je osvobajajoč pogled v življenje in humor je znamenje duševne prostosti, obvladovanje sveta.« Vendar je smeha in smisla za humor v sodobni Ameriki zaradi gospodarske recesije čedalje manj. Smeh postaja znamenje individualizma, ki teži k ohranjanju samega sebe. »Ameriški bog uspeha ukazuje ritem varljivega upanja, v katerem ljudje pozabijo človeške vrednote in skrivnosti sreče.« Zaradi tega so se izgubljali človeške kvalitete, razum in poštenost ljudi. Celo fraza »dežela svobodnih« je izgubljala svojo vrednost. Avtor v priseljencih odkriva novo moč, ki bo do temeljev prenovila Ameriko.13 Daleč najbolj zanimivo recenzijo Smeha v džungli je objavil literarni mesečnik Ljubljanski zvon. Napisala jo je Olga Grahor, priznana slovenska anglistka in preva­jalka. Grahorjeva pravi, da je Adamič začel pisati kot zgodovinar in poročevalec o ameriških socialnih razmerah, s svojo avtobiografijo pa je, čeprav je knjiga še vedno ohranjala značilnosti reportaže in objektivnega poročanja o pomembnih dogodkih, zakorakal v svet leposlovja. Po njenem mnenju je avtor razmere dokaj objektivno razlagal. Prav tako ocenjuje, da Adamiča »ne moremo šteti za Slovenca, vsaj po na-činu razmišljanja ne, saj je po čustvovanju Američan«. Na staro domovino ga vežejo spomini iz otroštva in ljubezen do sorodnikov. Grahorjeva pravi, da je primerjava Adamiča s slovenskimi pisatelji neumestna. Čeprav je Adamič pozneje zapisal, da se počuti kot »slovenski Američan«, bi po mnenju Grahorjeve moral »slovenski pisatelj« živeti in se razvijati v rojstni domovini, ne pa v Ameriki. Adamič je sicer odraščal in se razvijal v drugi deželi, ki ni bila primerljiva s Slovenijo, zato ni mogel biti vzor sloven-skim pisateljem ali obratno. Tudi očitek glede pomanjkanja nacionalne zavesti je bil pri Adamiču nepomemben. Adamič je šel svojo pot in se na njej kulturno odtujil slo­venskim domačim problemom. Njegovo delo bi morali sprejeti »kakršno pač je«; za nas je zanimivo in pomembno, je zapisala Groharjeva, ker avtor po rodu ni Američan, temveč Slovenec, ki je velik del svojega pisanja posvečal problemom izseljenstva in ga hkrati objektivno opisoval. Adamič je za slovenskega bralca pomemben tudi zato, ker takšnega dela ne bi mogel napisati noben v Ameriki rojeni pisatelj. Politično naj bi slovenski priseljenci v ZDA živeli dokaj složno, torej brez posebnega zanimanja za ameriško politiko in politično udejstvovanje. Trditev seveda ni točna, saj so se nekateri slovenski prise-ljenci in njihovi potomci aktivno ukvarjali s politiko ter v njej tudi uspeli, kot npr. Frank Lausche (Klemenčič 2011: 735–763). Najbolj se je politična aktivnost izseljen­cev v zvezi s Slovenijo povečala ob političnih krizah v Evropi (prva in druga svetovna vojna ter osamosvajanje), ki so sprožala vprašanje nacionalne identitete (prav tam: 53). Grahorjeva je na koncu še dodala, da so se ameriški Slovenci, ki so se ukvarjali s 13 Šilc, Jakob, »Smeh v džungli«, Dom in svet 5, 1933: 268–269. politiko, vedno delili na »verne in neverne (klerikalce in socialiste)«, tako da so bile njihove delitve podobne kot v Sloveniji.14 Po mnenju Grahorjeve je v pravi džungli tudi precej rodovitne prsti. Iz nje sicer rastejo strupene rastline in drug plevel, so pa v tej goščavi tudi užitni plodovi. Svojo recenzijo konča z besedami, da v džungli uspejo samo mlajši, ki edini premorejo do-volj moči, energije in volje do uspeha. V tem se je Adamič razlikoval od predhodnih avtorjev, saj se je prebil z dna družbe in zaslovel kot pisatelj. Uspel je, ker se ni pustil uporabiti za »gnojilo«, niti ni poskušal v džungli pognati svojih korenin. Raje je »ostal nad njo, da jo opazuje, da se ji smeje in premišljuje o njej. V vsem tem kaosu je vendar videl možnost lepe prihodnosti.« Knjiga je po mnenju Ljubljanskega zvona napisana pošteno in zabavno.15 Jeseni 1932 je v Ljubljanskem zvonu izšel članek o Adamičevem delu in njegovem »slovenstvu«. Napisal ga je Oton Župančič, slovenski pesnik, ki je želel spodbuditi Adamičevo ustvarjanje v Ameriki. Zapisal je, da je Adamič optimistično zazrt v pri­hodnost, pri tem pa ga spremlja njegov »vedri in zdravi smeh«, ki ga je podedoval po slovenski materi. Nato se je obregnil ob »budne stražarje«, ki naj bi v rodni deželi bdeli nad razvojem slovenstva v literaturi. Dodal je še, da je bil Adamič uspešen zato, ker je zapustil Slovenijo oziroma domače kraje ter začel delovati v tujini, kjer ni bilo »budnih stražarjev«, ki bi nadzirali njegovo ustvarjanje in pisanje. Prav zato je lahko postal uspešen in prepoznaven pisatelj. Tovrstno omejevanje naj bi slovensko litera­turo precej omrtvičilo. Župančič v medvojnem obdobju v Sloveniji omenja poman­kanje optimizma, smeha in drugačne miselnosti. Slovenstvu, ki se je omejevalo na Slovenijo, naj bi manjkal kozmopolitizem.16 (Žitnik 2002: 121–130) Kritiki seveda niso molčali. Obregnili so se ob Župančičev članek, ki je preveč polemiziral o slovenskem narodnem vprašanju ter postavljal Adamiča za nekakšne­ga zglednega pisatelja, ki je svoje poslanstvo bolje opravljal v tujini, kot če bi ostal doma. Adamič se v tej fazi še ni imel za »slovenskega Američana«, poleg tega je pi-sal samo v angleščini. Po mnenju Župančičevih kritikov je bila uporaba slovenščine ključna značilnost »slovenstva«. To je sicer v prej omenjeni recenziji ugotovila že Olga Grahor. V Ljubljanskem zvonu je zaradi cenzure, ki je preprečila nadaljnje ob-javljanje komentarjev oziroma kritike na račun Župančičevega članka, nastala kriza, ki se je končala z razkolom in odhodom pomembnih članov oziroma sodelavcev časopisa; ti so pozneje ustanovili novega z nazivom Sodobnost. (Smolej 2006: 639) Takrat je bila debata o nacionalni identiteti občutljiva tema, slovenski kulturniki in inteligenca so se namreč zavzemali za posebno mesto v evropski kulturi, nacional-no identiteto pa so iskali v jeziku. Slovenska nacionalna identiteta se je takrat v kul­turi uveljavljala zato, ker je bila zaradi unitaristično usmerjene politike in diktatorske Kraljevine Jugoslavije politično onemogočena. Louis Adamič, ki je bil za nastali spor 14 Grahor, Olga, »Smeh v džungli; Avtobiografija ameriškega priseljenca«, Ljubljanski zvon 53/11, 1933: 692–695, 750–752. 15 Prav tam: 693. 16 Župančič, Oton, »Adamič in slovenstvo«, Ljubljanski zvon 52/8, 1932: 513–520. v Ljubljanskem zvonu še najmanj kriv, je bil pomemben sprožilec razprave o kultur­nem razvoju slovenske nacionalne identitete, ki je razgrela slovensko literarno in politično javnost (prav tam). Adamičev obisk v Sloveniji leta 1932 je bil kljub temu dobro sprejet. Takrat se še ni zavedal, da bo s sprejemom delegacije liberalnih piscev iz Ljubljanskega zvona, ki so ga 22. maja 1932 obiskali na njegovem domu v Prapročah, zaprl svoja vrata katoli­škim oziroma konservativnim piscem in bralcem, zbranim okoli časopisa Dom in svet. Čeprav je bil omenjeni literarni mesečnik prvi, ki je Adamiča v Sloveniji promoviral in predstavil širši slovenski javnosti, so se zaradi njegovega javnega druženja z liberalci razšli (Adamic 1938: 123). ODMEVI NA KNJIGO »VRNITEV V RODNI KRAJ« Njegova tretja knjiga Vrnitev v rodni kraj je izšla le nekaj mesecev pred atentatom na kralja Aleksandra leta 1934 v francoskem Marseillu. Knjiga je bila napisana kot poto­pisno, zgodovinsko, sociološko in družbenokritično delo. Revija Literary Digest jo je označila kot najodločilnejšo knjigo v letu 1934, kot »trajen in krasen dodatek k ame­riški literaturi«.17 V Jugoslaviji je bila zaradi kritik vladajočega režima in nestrinjanja z njim prepovedana (Čizmić 1981: 313). Kljub temu so jo v ZDA pohvalili in najmanj 29-krat ponatisnili.18 Izšla je tudi v Angliji, Avstraliji, na Novi Zelandiji in v Južni Ame-riki. Prevedli so jo v ruščino, francoščino, španščino, danščino in češčino.19 Adamič je septembra 1933 v ameriškem marksističnem časopisu New Masses objavil prispevek »What it Means to be a Communist in Yugoslavia«, avgusta istega leta pa v časopisu New Republic članek »White Terror: A Case History«. V njem je opisal brutalna zasli­šanja in mučenja, ki jih je jugoslovanski režim izvajal proti komunistom. Na podlagi tega pisanja so pozneje izšli ostri članki, ki so opozarjali na slabe razmere v Jugo­slaviji in sprožili javne proteste uglednih ameriških pisateljev proti jugoslovanskim oblastem (Čuljak 1981: 274). Celo New York Times je omenil, da je bila knjiga znanega ameriškega pisatelja Louisa Adamiča v Jugoslaviji prepovedana, ker naj bi vsebovala subverzivno tematiko.20 Od takrat so se o Adamiču v slovenskem tisku začeli bolj negativno izražati. Ameriški tisk pa je pisal, kako je Adamičevo pisanje »vabljivo pri­povedovanje«, ki ga spremljajo šaljivost, tragedija in ostra kritika režima.21 V ljubljanskem orjunaškem tedniku Pohod so zapisali, da je Adamiča »domovina sprejela z navdušenjem«, ko pa je začel o Jugoslaviji pisati »čudne reči« in prikazovati jugoslovanske razmere v negativni luči ter primerjati režim s srednjeveško Španijo iz obdobja inkvizicije, so se mnogi na njegovo pisanje začeli burno odzivati. Režimski 17 SI AS 1557, Louis Adamičeva knjiga – The Native's Returne, 1935: 1. 18 Prav tam. 19 Prav tam, Louis Adamič – kratek opis njegove literarne kariere: 6. 20 »Book Barred by Belgrade«, New York Times, 17. marec 1934: 13. 21 SI AS 1557, Louis Adamičeva knjiga – The Native's Returne, 1935: 12. časopisi, kot je bil Pohod, so slabe razmere v Jugoslaviji branili s primerjavo dogajanj v drugih delih sveta. Navajali so na primer, da nobena država na svetu ni idealna, saj tudi v ZDA prihaja do podobnih primerov policijskega nasilja kot v Jugoslaviji. Na-silne postopke z Jugoslovani so opravičevali s primerjavo z diktatorskimi državami, kakršne so bile Italija, Nemčija in Rusija. Za vse omenjene dežele so poudarili, da ima­jo daljšo kulturno zgodovino od Jugoslavije, jih pa to ne zaustavi, da v svojih državah ne bi varovali političnega sistema.22 Adamičeve opise nasilja in mučenja zapornikov v Jugoslaviji so po eni strani zani­kali in označevali kot lažno poročanje, po drugi strani pa so poskrbeli za celo kopico razlogov o pravilnosti takšnega početja.23 Razloge, zakaj so oblasti prepovedale knji-go, so navedli v naslednji številki in napisali, da so Adamičeve trditve senzacionalne, pretirane in napol resnične. Navajali so, da so kritični članki, ki so izšli v ameriških časopisih, Adamičevi knjigi odvzemali literarno vrednost. Po mnenju drugih so prav omenjeni kritični članki knjigi dodajali materialno vrednost in se je zato še bolje pro-dajala. V istem članku citirajo konservativno Ameriško domovino, ki je nekaj dni pred izidom knjige obsodila Adamičevo pisanje, njega pa označila za »komunističnega pisatelja«.24 Po mnenju urednika Jamesa Debevca je Adamič Slovence prikazal kot »nekulturne in neumne ljudi« ter kot zaostal narod, ki ga še vedno prežemajo »pra­znoverja in poganski običaji«. V zaključku članka je omenjeni urednik zapisal, da je Adamiču še večjo pozornost prinesla napoved padca Aleksandrovega režima. Zani­mivo, da je urednik Ameriške domovine, torej izseljenskega časnika, ki je izhajal v ZDA, Adamiča preusmeril na ogled newyorških kaznilnic, kjer naj bi se dogajale podobne reči kot v Jugoslaviji.25 V napredno usmerjeni Enakopravnosti so se nad tem »ciničnim argumentom« opravičevanja nasilja javno zgražali.26 Konec leta 1934 je ameriški dopisnik Theodore Andrica obiskal Adamičevo rod-no domovino. Svoje vtise je opisal v člankih za dnevnik The Cleveland Press. V njem je poročal, da se v Ljubljani sicer malo govori o izseljenskem pisatelju Adamiču, po njegovem mnenju pa bi se njegova zadnja knjiga v Jugoslaviji dobro prodajala, saj bi javnost gotovo zanimalo, kaj o Sloveniji in Jugoslaviji lahko pove ameriški izseljenec. Andrica je omenil, da v Jugoslaviji obstajajo ilegalne kopije knjige. Vsi, ki so bili vešči angleškega jezika, so se navduševali nad knjigo, seveda z izjemo določenih državnih uradnikov, ki so ostali pokorni režimu. Ameriški dopisnik zaključi, da je le malo ljudi knjigo uspelo prebrati. Na koncu je omenil, da je na poti v Grosuplje, kjer je želel obiskati Adamičevo družino, doživel neprijetnosti; tri postaje pred izstopom so ga legitimirali in kot edinega potnika poslali iz vlaka; do cilja je moral pešačiti še najmanj tri milje oz. eno uro. Tako je poskušal pritrditi pisatelju, da razmere v Jugoslaviji niso 22 »Za resnico«, Pohod, 6. januar 1934: 1. 23 Prav tam. 24 »The Native's Return«, Ameriška domovina, 27. januar 1934: 2. 25 »Ameriška domovina o L. Adamiču«, Pohod, 31. marec 1934: 2. 26 »K dnevnim dogodkom«, Enakopravnost, 23. oktober 1934: 2. ravno najboljše.27 V Prosveti je v tem času izšel komentar na kritike, ki jih je Adamič prejemal v ZDA. Komentar se je glasil: […] Ko so zavohali naši clevelandski in pittsburški patrioti, oportunisti in reakcionarji vseh baž, da bo Adamič v tej knjigi poleg drugega pisal tudi resnico o obstoječem jugoslovanskem režimu, so izgubili glavo. Cela zadeva močno diši po zavisti, ker jim je Adamič zrastel preko glave. Človeku nehote sili vprašanje, kaj bi ti ljudje začeli, ko bi bil on na primer aktiven socialist ali celo komunist? Vendar komentator zaključuje, da Adamiču ni treba skrbeti za ugled, saj ima v ZDA več prijateljev kot sovražnikov.28 V isti številki Prosvete so knjigi Vrnitev v rodni kraj na­menili pozitivno recenzentsko mnenje. Pisali so, da gre za prvo knjigo, ki je v angleš-čini opisala vse plati življenja v Jugoslaviji. Posebnost knjige je bila v tem, da se avtor ne omejuje zgolj na Slovenijo, ampak opisuje razmere tudi v drugih delih Jugoslavije, kot so Hercegovina, Dalmacija, Srbija, Hrvaška in Črna gora. Opisuje tudi stanje duha v večjih mestih, kot so Beograd, Zagreb, Sarajevo itn. »The Native's Return se čita ka­kor roman, ki je poln dogodkov in duhovitih primer.«29 V knjigi avtor jasno nakaže, da so njegove simpatije na strani »trpečega in preprostega ljudstva«, torej delavcev in kmetov, ne pa na strani vladajoče elite.30 Nasploh je urednik Prosvete Ivan Molek budno spremljal vsako polemiko in reakcijo, ki je zaradi Adamičeve knjige nastala v konservativnih krogih in časopisih, ki so izhajali v ZDA. V aprilski številki Prosvete so omenjali, da je Adamičeva knjiga že podrla vse pro-dajne rekorde, v razmeroma kratkem času so prodali več tisoč izvodov.31 V Adamičevi knjigi, so zapisali, ni slabe besede o narodu ali njegovem sramotenju, saj naroda ne moremo in ne smemo enačiti z obstoječim režimom, ki spada v drugo kategorijo. V Prosveti Pohodu celo očitajo kritiko Adamičeve knjige, ki jo zagotovo niti videli niso, saj je v Jugoslaviji prepovedana. Torej so navajali mnenja emigrantske kritike, obja­vljene v Ameriški domovini. V dokaz, da Adamič v knjigi ne sramoti svojega naroda, so navedli Adamičev članek »Who Built America? Profiteers, Professional Patriots or ›Vile Immigrants‹«, ki je izšel v reviji Common Sense in v katerem avtor brani vse slovan­ske priseljence v ZDA, ki so to deželo pomagali zgraditi. Slovani niso prispevali zgolj »delovne sile«, temveč tudi »umsko silo«, ki sta jo predstavljala Nikola Tesla in Mihajlo Pupin, dva prominentna izumitelja in znanstvenika svojega časa. Adamičevo razmi­šljanje se ni spremenilo, temveč je ostalo na strani ameriških priseljencev slovanskih korenin, ki so pomagali zgraditi Ameriko in jo ustvariti veliko. Zato je bila Amerika prav toliko njihova domovina kot od vseh drugih. Adamič je o priseljencih govoril kot o »Novoameričanih«. Ni jih prikazoval kot »tujcev«, ki bi se morali asimilirati, am­ 27 »Slika iz Slovenije«, Nova doba, 14. november 1934: 2; SI AS 1557, Adamič in Adrica: 77. 28 Česen, Franc, »Glasovi iz naselbine«, Prosveta, 31. januar 1934: 2. 29 »Adamičeva knjiga ›The Native's Return‹«, Prosveta, 31. januar 1934: 4. 30 Prav tam. 31 Zornik, Anton, »Glasovi iz naselbin«, Prosveta, 11. april 1934: 4. pak, prav nasprotno, morali bi ohranjati svoje običaje in kulturo ter s tem bogatiti in razširjati ameriško identiteto (Adamič 1951: 82). Adamič je s svojim delovanjem po mnenju Prosvete veliko bolje zastopal interese izseljencev kot kdorkoli drug.32 Poleg izdaje člankov in knjig je Adamič v ZDA pripravil še številna predavanja o svojih izkušnjah v Jugoslaviji. Obiskal je vsa pomembna ameriška industrijska mes-ta, kjer so živeli slovenski izseljenci. Predavanj se je udeleževalo po več sto poslu­šalcev. Nekaj vtisov so objavili izseljenski časopisi (Adamic 1938: 137), enega med njimi v Prosveti: Adamič je simpatična osebnost, prikupljive zunanjosti in inteligentnega obraza – skratka: naše gore list. Številno avdienco si je na mah osvojil. Kakor Cankar, tudi Ada­mič ljubi deželo, kjer se je rodil, deželo siromašnega, toda poštenega, ponosnega in vztrajnega ljudstva, deželo naravnih bogastev, romantike, tradicije, zgodovine in ostrih kontrastov. Ne ljubi pa krivične ekonomske in socialne uredbe dežele ter nje­nih parazitov, ki na račun ljudstva grade palače in se vozijo v limuzinah. Dalje ne ljubi režima, ki s svojim krvavim škornjem tišči narod ob tla in mu odreka vsako pravico svobodnega izražanja. On vidi v Jugoslaviji in Evropi sploh v bližnji bodočnosti mo-gočni socialni preobrat na levo.33 Avtor komentarja Franc Česen je Adamiča politično ocenil kot »levičarsko orientira­nega« in »simpatično naklonjenega do Rusije«, ki jo vidi kot zaščitnico majhnih slo­vanskih narodov. Ameriko pa je dojemal kot »čudovito deželo«, ki jo je najprej treba odkriti in jo, preden bi jo lahko sodili, še preučiti. Zanimivi so bili poskusi Adamičevih nasprotnikov, ki so ga želeli prikazati kot sim­patizerja ekstremnih hrvaških izseljencev. Najprej so ga poskušali povezati z ustaško teroristično organizacijo. Ker jim to ni uspelo, so ga ožigosali kot radikalnega socia­lista in komunista. V teh poskusih je sodeloval tudi Ivan Hribar, dolgoletni ljubljan-ski župan, politik, diplomat in takratni jugoslovanski senator. Drugi so ga poskušali tesneje povezati s fašisti, njegovo knjigo naj bi namreč prevedli v italijanski jezik. Po navedbah Prosvete je avtor izdajo italijanskega prevoda zavrnil, italijanski založnik je namreč postavil pogoje, da se v knjigi izpustijo stavki, ki omenjajo fašistično nasilje nad primorskimi Slovenci in Hrvati. Tako je Adamič z zavrnitvijo prevoda pokazal, da mu ne gre toliko za prodajo knjige in osebno slavo kot za resnico in pravico.34 Ada­mič je kljub močnim pritiskom in napadom javnih političnih osebnosti, kakršen je bil Hribar, ki je svaril ameriške Slovence pred Adamičevim pisanjem, v svojem pisanju in delovanju ohranil odločnost in neodvisnost. To mu je uspelo zaradi podpore liberal-no in socialistično usmerjenih ameriških Slovencev.35 32 Podgoričan, Jontez, »Pismo iz Clevelanda«, Prosveta, 23. april 1934: 3. 33 Česen, Franc »O Adamičevem predavanju«, Prosveta, 20. april 1934: 2. 34 »Mimogrede – Neka založba v Milanu«, Prosveta, 8. junij 1934: 2. 35 Hribar, Ivan, »Adamič – senator Hribar, ustaši in kolhozi«, Prosveta, 22. maj 1934: 3. Postavlja se vprašanje, kako je lahko Adamičeva knjiga Vrnitev v rodni kraj požela tako velik uspeh in bila že v prvem mesecu po izidu prodana v več kot 55.000 izvo­dih? Pozneje je doživela še več ponatisov. Med drugo svetovno vojno so jo razdelili med ameriške vojake v Evropi. Prva razlaga je vsekakor povečana ameriška zainte­resiranost za balkansko problematiko in Jugoslavijo. Drugo so povzeli v liberalnem časniku Slovenski narod, ki je izhajal v Sloveniji. V njem so navajali, da se je knjiga dobro prodajala predvsem zato, ker jo je največji ameriški knjižni klub Book of the Month Club razglasil za knjigo meseca ter vnaprej zakupil vse izvode, ki so februarja 1934 hitro pošli.36 Glavni predstavnik omenjenega kluba, ameriški profesor na yalski univerzi, Henry Seidel Canby, je med tisoč knjigami prav Adamičevo izbral za eno najboljših v ZDA. Pohvalil je tudi dosežek amerikaniziranega avtorja, ki je s svojima talentiranim izrazoslovjem in pripovedovanjem presegel celo najboljše ameriške pi­satelje.37 Tretja razlaga se skriva v senzacionalnosti Adamičevih člankov in polemik, ki sta jo sprožili smrt kralja Aleksandra in jugoslovanska kriza. Tako lahko v februarski številki New York Timesa beremo, da je knjiga najboljša na tistih mestih, kjer avtor v prvoosebni izpovedi predstavi razmere v svoji rojstni deželi, bralci pa niso soočeni s kopico dolgočasnih dejstev in suhoparno analizo, temveč z zanimivo pripovedjo, ko avtor iz lastnih izkušenj predstavi doživljanje v ameriškem kontekstu razumevanja dogodkov. Knjigo so zato priporočali širokemu krogu bralstva.38 Tudi znani Los Angeles Times je Adamiču naklonil pozitivno oceno. Bralcem je knjigo predstavil kot sociološko in antropološko delo, ki ima bistveno širši pomen in ni zgolj navadno potopisno branje. V recenziji je omenjeno, da Jugoslavijo zaradi zaostalosti čaka veliko dela na področju industrializacije. Jugoslavija se bo v prihod­nje združila z Rusijo in se razvila ali pa bo propadla v revščini in zaostalosti.39 Časnik Daily News je bil v oceni knjige še bolj prijazen in radodaren, saj je knjigo predstavil kot utripajoče srce. Adamičeva knjiga Vrnitev v rodni kraj je zgodba s srcem. Ima svoj pulz, utrip in je živa. Že res, da je bilo napisanih veliko učenih, zanimivih in slogovno lepih knjig, vendar je malo takih, ki bi bile polne veselja, ki ga je moč začutiti v prvem delu Vrnitve v rodni kraj. Adamič je skozi celo knjigo iskren in ponosen, da se lahko z njim poistovetimo (sic). Adamič je Jugoslavijo prikazal kot zadnjo absolutistično monarhijo v Evropi. Takšne ocene so bile vsekakor velika spodbuda za ameriške bralce, ki so se odločali za bra-nje političnih in družbenokritičnih tematik. Knjiga je opisovala resnično življenje in tegobe pozabljenega ljudstva v neznanem kraju Jugovzhodne Evrope. Zato je za ameriške bralce postala še bolj zanimiva in atraktivna.40 36 »Iz življenja ameriških Slovencev«, Slovenski narod, 15. januar 1934: 3. 37 SI AS 1557, Fond Adamič Louis, The Native's Return, januar 1935: 1. 38 »The Glowing Story of a Man's Return to His Home Land«, New York Times, 11. februar 1934: 50. 39 »Adventures in Slovenia« The Los Angeles Times, 18. februar 1934: 36. 40 »Tale of a Slovene Boy who Made Good«, Daily News, 4. februar 1934: 219. Adamiču so sprva vsi slovenski izseljenci in časnikarji v »stari domovini« peli hva-lo, nekateri so ga celo kovali v nebo kot »vzhajajočo zvezdo« in neodvisnega ter ta­lentiranega pisatelja, ki s svojima smehom in humorjem osvaja ameriško in jugoslo­vansko publiko.41 Ko pa je Adamič po povratku iz Jugoslavije začel pisati neprijetne zgodbe o »stari domovini«, so se pričakovanja nekaterih izseljencev močno ohladila. Adamič je svoje poglede opisoval, kot jih je doživljal in občutil na lastni koži. Simpa­tizerji beograjskega režima, ki jih je bilo nekaj tudi v Ameriki, so se začeli od njega oddaljevati, predvsem je bilo to očitno pri srbski izseljenski skupnosti, zbrani okoli glasila Srbobran.42 Treba je omeniti, da sta Adamiča jugoslovanski javnosti predstavili prav srbska in hrvaška literarna srenja (Hedžiselimović 1981: 283). Sledili so katoliško usmerje­ni slovenski izseljenci, ki so svoja razmišljanja objavljali v Ameriški domovini, Ameri­kanskem Slovencu in drugih podobnih glasilih, v Sloveniji pa v Domu in svetu. Ko pa so se v drugi polovici leta 1933 obrnili proti Adamiču, so o njem zapisali: »V svoji rojstni vasi Blato je nagrabil blata, s katerim je svoj lastni narod pred tujci oblatil.« Zamerili so mu njegovo iskreno pisanje o Kraljevini Jugoslaviji in nasploh njegove opazke o slovenskih običajih. Nekateri nasprotniki so menili, da bi bilo bolje, če bi se Adamič preimenoval v »Adamsa«, saj naj bi se s svojim priimkom še naprej predstavljal za Slovenca. Drugi so se obregnili ob njegovo ime »Louis«, ki ni bila prava izpeljanka za slovenskega Lojzeta. Louis je bil namreč Ludvik, vendar se je bralec Prosvete vpra­šal, če je to sploh pomembna podrobnost.43 Seveda so bile za katoliško usmerjene Slovence primerjave s poganstvom izredno žaljive. Adamiča so začeli poučevati, naj raje v roke vzame kakšno knjigo, v kateri si bo razjasnil osnove katekizma in odkril razliko med verovanjem in ljudskimi običaji.44 Neko drugo pismo bralcev zelo jasno prikaže jezo ameriškega Slovenca, ki o Adamiču zapiše naslednje: »Jaz nikakor ne morem razumeti, zakaj je rojak tako zapisal? Slovenci pogani! Naš narod, ki je najbolj veren narod v Evropi! ... Pisati tako se pravi norčevati iz naroda.« Potem nadaljuje, da Adamič verjetno dobro ve, da je njegovo pisanje o Slovencih kot narodu poga­nov neresnično. Namiguje namreč, da je tako pisal zaradi denarja, kar po njegovem zmanjšuje literarno vrednost knjige. Pravi umetniki in kulturniki ne delajo za denar, je še dodal.45 Adamičev odgovor na pisma in kritike, ki so se pojavljale pred izidom knjige Vrnitev v rodni kraj, so objavili Prosveta in drugi napredni časniki. Na najbolj kritičen članek, ki ga je v Amerikanskem Slovencu podpisal pater Hugo, je Adamič odgovoril: 41 »Louis Adamiča ›Smrt na Kranjskem‹«, Amerikanski Slovenec, 28. november 1933: 2. 42 »Adamičevo pismo«, Prosveta, 4. oktober 1933: 3. 43 Podgoričan, Tone, »Pismo iz Clevelanda«, Prosveta, 2. maj 1933: 2. 44 »Louis Adamiča ›Smrt na Kranjskem‹«, Amerikanski Slovenec, 28. november 1933: 2. 45 »Rojak podaja svoje mnenje o Adamiču svojemu prijatelju«, Amerikanski Slovenec, 7. novem­ ber 1933: 2. Kaj naj odgovorim? Članek je odmev iz srednjega veka. Ali naj argumentiram s sre­dnjim vekom? Naj polemiziram s srednjeveško institucijo, katera v aktualni dnevni praksi podpira socialno-ekonomski sistem, ki je odgovoren za oceane človeške mi-zerije, ta mizerija pa je obratno vir moči te institucije? Ali naj argumentiram s po­licajem kapitalističnega sistema? Ta argument je bil že davno zaključen po boljših pisateljih kot sem jaz – po Voltairu, Paineju, Ingersolu in drugih.46 Naprej je Adamič razlagal, da svojih člankov ne piše po diktatu založnikov, ampak po svoji vesti. Pojasnil je tudi, da so imeli njegovi članki pri Američanih pozitiven odziv. Omenja, da se mu je s pismi oglasilo najmanj 700 Američanov, ki so se začeli zanimati za Slovenijo in jo prepoznali kot lep kraj.47 Odnos kritičnega dela izseljenske populacije do Adamiča se je še poslabšal po umoru jugoslovanskega kralja Aleksandra 9. oktobra 1934. Takrat so se do Adami-ča močno razvneli strasti, sovraštvo in nevoščljivost. Poskušali so omajati njegov ugled, ki si ga je ustvaril s svojim trdim delom in pisanjem. Napadi so postali oseb­ni in nizkotni.48 Treba je poudariti, da so Adamiču ob strani stali predvsem njegovi socialistično in liberalno usmerjeni ameriški Slovenci, ki so se v Prosveti, Proletarcu in Enakopravnosti pogosto oglašali njemu v bran. Prav oni so Adamiča označili za nekakšnega preroka, ki je napovedal atentat na kralja. Če bi kralj upošteval Adamiče­ve nasvete, naj se Jugoslavija čim prej demokratizira in odpravi nepotrebno nasilno diktaturo, bi kralj atentat lahko celo preprečil.49 Newyorški časnik World-Telegram ga je proglasil za preroškega poročevalca, ki ga je treba jemati resno.50 Pomembno je še dodati, da je Adamič videl rešitev jugoslovanske krize v njeni federalizaciji. Tako je, še preden se je ideja uresničila, Adamič uvidel pomen koncepta, ki je pozneje omogočil konstituiranje republik, samoodločbo narodov in jugoslovansko federacijo. S tem je Adamič utrdil svoj ugled političnega in zgodovinskega poznavalca Jugoslavije in šir­šega Balkana. Tukaj je treba poudariti, da so se ameriški Slovenci že med prvo svetov-no vojno zavzemali za federativno Jugoslavijo, vendar takrat še niso imeli Adamiča, da bi prenesel njihove ideje širši ameriški javnosti in bi jim ta prisluhnila. Adamičevi članki, ki so izhajali v raznih časopisih po ZDA, so dosegali najmanj 40 milijonov Ame­ričanov51 (Klemenčič 2001: 54). 46 Adamič, Louis, »Adamičev odgovor p. Hugonu«, Prosveta, 6. december 1933: 4. 47 »Adamič in ameriška javnost«, Enakopravnost, 20. december 1934: 4. 48 »Lojzetu Adamiču«, Glas naroda, 16. oktober 1934: 2. 49 »Adamič je še lani napovedal umor Aleksandra«, Prosveta, 11. oktober 1934: 1. 50 »Yugoslav Writer Predicted Alexander's Assassination«, New York World Telegram, 9. oktober 1934: 1. 51 »Adamičev članek o Jugoslaviji«, Prosveta, 22. oktober 1934: 2; »What is Next in Jugoslavia?«, Nation, 24. oktober 1934: 470–471; SI AS 1557, Louis Adamičeva knjiga – The Native's Returne, 1935: 6. Zaradi odmeva, ki ga je sprožila polemika o mučenju političnih zapornikov, zlasti komunistov v Jugoslaviji, je Adamič pripravil novo majhno knjižico z naslovom Boj;52 knjižica je nadaljevanje knjige Vrnitev v rodni kraj. Knjižica, ki je izšla poleti 1934, je bila v Jugoslaviji takoj po izidu prepovedana.53 Tovrstni članki, knjige in pozneje od­krita obsodba jugoslovanskega režima so Adamiča spravljali v neprijeten položaj, in čeprav so ga mnogi izseljenski in domači časnikarji dnevno kritizirali, blatili in napadali, njegovega imena niso mogli okrniti. Ostal je edini Američan slovenskega rodu, ki mu je v tem času uspelo objavljati članke in mnenja v uglednih ameriških časnikih.54 Adamič je imel po besedah Prosvetinih bralcev bistveno več prijateljev kot sovražnikov, čeprav so ga slednji razglašali za izdajalca in odpadnika svojega rodu. Končno sodbo naj bi dala zgodovina in ne sodobniki, ki pišejo na podlagi čustev in političnih prepričanj.55 Nasprotniki so Adamiča poskušali na vse načine zvabiti, da bi se odzval na nizkotne napade, ampak Adamič se je modro zadrževal in redko javljal. V bistvu se je odzval samo na pisanje Srbobrana in patra Hugona. (Orahovac 1981: 268–269) Adamiča so prve tri knjige, ki jih je izdal med letoma 1931 in 1934, preusmerile na druga področja. Postal je ameriški izvedenec za priseljenske teme. Ameriška vla­dna agencija FLIS (Foreign Language Information Service), ki ga je prva prepozna-la kot poznavalca na tem področju, ga je izvolila v svoj izvršni odbor. Že prej se je na potovanju po Jugoslaviji zavedel, da je vprašanje nacionalne identitete enako pomembno kot delavske pravice. Ugotovil je, da je za razumevanje problematike ameriške družbe, kjer živi veliko priseljencev iz raznih dežel, potrebna poglobljena analiza. Tako je nastala njegova naslednja knjiga Iz mnogih dežel, prva iz zbirke Narod narodov, za katero je prejel prestižno Anisfieldovo nagrado in častni doktorat iz lite-rarnih ved. Pri iskanju odgovorov na pereča vprašanja ameriške družbe in politične usode svoje rodne Slovenije oziroma Jugoslavije je ves čas ostal neodvisen. (Adamic 1938: 187–194; Žitnik 1995a: 13–16) ZAKLJUČEK Kot je razvidno iz zgoraj zapisanega, je Adamičevo delo poželo veliko odmevov na obeh straneh oceana. Že od začetka njegovega delovanja so ga vsi kritiki odobra­vali, pozneje, po izidu njegove knjige Vrnitev v rodni kraj, v kateri je Adamič kritiziral kralja in beograjski režim, so ga tudi slovenski kritiki sprva samo zavračali, pozneje pa o njem, razen redkih izjem, sploh niso več poročali. V ZDA je večina glavnega 52 Temeljni tekst je za omenjeno knjižico pripravil Edvard Kardelj. Vendar izvirnika nikoli niso našli. Zato je še vedno vprašanje, koliko teksta je dejansko Kardeljevega in koliko je Adamič dodajal svojega? 53 »Adamičeva knjiga prepovedana«, Slovenec, 17. julij 1934: 2. 54 »Alexander the Not-So-Great«, The Tribune, 19. december 1933: 4. 55 Jontez, Ivan, »Pismo iz Clevelanda«, Prosveta 24. oktober 1934: 3. tiska pozitivno sprejemala vsa Adamičeva dela. Med slovenskim etničnim časopis­jem v ZDA so ga pozitivno sprejemali politična levica in liberalci, medtem ko ga je konservativno časopisje zaradi njegovih kritik religije, kralja in Jugoslavije še naprej kritiziralo in zavračalo. LITERATURA Adamic, Louis (1931) Dynemite: The Story of Class Violence in America. New York: Viking Press. Adamic, Louis (1938). My America 1928–1938. New York, London: Harper & Brothers. Adamič, Louis (1951). Iz dveh domovin. Maribor: Založba Obzorja. Adamič, Louis (1983). Dinamit. Ljubljana: Založba Borec. Christian, Henry (1981b). Izbrana pisma Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Christian, Henry (1971a). A Checklist. Kent: State University Press. Čizmić, Ivan (1981). The Native's Return: Its Impact. Louis Adamič simpozij. Univerza Ed- varda Kardelja v Ljubljani, 313–321. Čuljak, Milan (1981). Povratak domoroca – Počeci Adamičevog opredeljenja za novu Jugoslaviju. Louis Adamič simpozij. Univerza Edvarda Kardelja v Ljubljani, 271–281. Hadžiselimović, Omar (1981). Odjek Adamičevih djela u kritici na srpskohrvatskom jeziku izmedju dva rata. Louis Adamič simpozij. Univerza Edvarda Kardelja v Lju­bljani, 281–189. Klemenčič, Matjaž (1981). Politično delo Louisa Adamiča. Teorija in praksa 18/9, 1054– 1068. Klemenčič, Matjaž (2001). Odnos slovenskih izseljencev do stare domovine. Slovensko izseljenstvo. Zbornik. Ljubljana: Združenje slovenske izseljenske matice, 53–63. Klemenčič, Matjaž (2011). Življenje in delo ameriškega politika Franka Lauscheta s posebnim ozirom na slovenske zadeve. SHS – časopis za humanistične in družbo­slovne študije 2–3, 735–763. Orahovac, Sait (1981). Kako je nastala Adamičeva knjiga Povratak domoroca. Louis Adamič simpozij. Univerza Edvarda Kardelja v Ljubljani, 265–271. Petrič, Jerneja (1981). Svetovi Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Shiffman, Dan (2005). Korenine multikulturalizma – Delo Louisa Adamiča. Ljubljana: ZRC. Smolej, Tone (2006). Poglavje iz zgodovine Ljubljanskega zvona. Slavistična revija 54/4, 639. Žitnik, Janja (1995a). Pogovori o Louisu Adamiču. Ljubljana: Prešernova družba. Žitnik, Janja (1995b). Orel in korenine med 'brušenjem in cenzuro'. Ljubljana: ZRC. Žitnik, Janja (2002). Louis Adamic and Slovene Identity. Slovene Studies 19/1–2, 121–130. ČASOPISNI VIRI Amerikanski Slovenec, 1933. Ameriška domovina, 1934. Daily News, 1934. Dom in svet, 1931, 1932, 1933. Enakopravnost, 1934. Glas naroda, 1934. Ilustracija, 1931. Jutro, 1931. Ljubljanski zvon, 1932, 1933. Mariborski Večernik Jutra, 1931. New York Times, 1931, 1934. New York World Telegram, 1934. Nova doba, 1934. Pohod, 1934. Prosveta, 1931, 1933, 1934. Slovenec, 1932. Slovenski narod, 1934. The Los Angeles Times, 1934. ARHIVSKI VIRI Arhiv Slovenije, SI AS 1557, Fond Louis Adamič. SUMMARY REACTIONS TO ADAMIC’S WORK IN THE AMERICAN AND SLOVENIAN PRESS BETWEEN 1931 AND 1934 Milan MRĐENOVIĆ The author describes the analyses of Louis Adamic’s writings in the Slovenian press and in the Slovenian immigrant press in the USA in the period from 1931 to 1934. Adamic initially intended to write fiction, but upon publishing his first book on the workers’ movement, trade unions and the general developments of society, enti­tled Dynamite, he gained enough recognition to gradually dedicate himself to other areas of writing. He was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship for his autobiography Laughing in the Jungle, which allowed him to travel to Yugoslavia in 1932. This jour­ney provided him with precious material for his new book The Native’s Return, which brought him significant recognition in the USA. The article deals with positive and negative reactions to Adamic’s three major books at the time of their publication between 1931 and 1934. The author explores the developments of the topics found in the respective publications, dealing with immigrant, political and social issues. He also touches upon Adamic’s response to King Alexander’s assassination in 1934. Adamic’s The Native’s Return cemented his reputation as an expert on the politics and immigrant issues in the Balkans, which he was able to put to good use during his later years of activism in this field. ESSAYS AND ARTICLES MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS: THE DIVERSIFICATION OF CIVIL SOCIETY AND PUBLIC POLICIES IN SPAIN Joan LACOMBA|, Mourad ABOUSSI|| COBISS 1.01 ABSTRACT Migration and Development Organizations: The Diversification of Civil Society in Spain The conjunction between the last few decades’ public policy changes and the impact of the growth of immigration in Spain has had a transformative effect on the third sector. The government trend toward outsourcing the management of internation­al development cooperation programs and social services has shifted much of the state’s responsibility onto the shoulders of civil society organizations. The context has subjected them to tensions and changes in the way they take action and the way they are organized. This article, based on two research projects, explores the adapta­tions and new forms of relationships among the main actors involved in the field of migration and development. KEY WORDS: Spain, civil society, immigration, NGDO, associations, public policies IZVLEČEK Migracijske in razvojne organizacije: Diverzifikacija civilne družbe in javnih politik v Španiji Povezava med spremembami javne politike v zadnjih desetletjih in vplivom narašča­jočega števila priseljencev v Španiji je imela transformativen učinek na tretji sektor. Vladni trend zunanjega najemanja vodstvenih kadrov mednarodnih razvojnih ko­operativnih programov in socialnih služb je dobršen del odgovornosti države prevalil na ramena civilnodružbenih organizacij. Novi kontekst je prinesel napetosti in spre­membe v načinu delovanja in organiziranja. Članek, ki temelji na dveh raziskovalnih projektih, obravnava prilagoditve in spremembe v odnosih med glavnimi protago­nisti na področju migracij in razvoja. KLJUČNE BESEDE: Španija, civilna družba, priseljenci, nevladne razvojne organizacije, združenja, javne politike | PhD in Sociology, Professor of Social Work, Department of Social Work, Faculty of Social Scienc­es, University of Valencia, Campus Tarongers, Avda. Tarongers 4-B, 46022-Valencia, Spain; joan.lacomba@uv.es || PhD in Social Sciences, Professor of Social Work, Department of Social Work and Social Services, Faculty of Social Work, University of Granada, Spain, C/Rector López Argüeta, Edificio San Jeróni-mo s/n, 18071-Granada, Spain; maboussi@ugr.es — Funding: This work is the result of an R&D pro­ject supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (CSO2015-66181-R). INTRODUCTION The relationship between the state and the third sector (a more-limited term for referring to the nebula of organizations that make up civil society) is already a classic topic of study in the social sciences. Much international scientific production studies the third sector, looking especially into the sector’s role as a provider of work that complements or substitutes the work of the state (Salamon 1994; Salamon 2003). Such research is concerned fundamentally with analyzing the framework in which the state/third sector relationship takes place and the degree to which it is devel­oped. Spain has quite the history of specialized literature about the third sector and the state, too, following the path blazed by scholars abroad and endeavoring to track the rise of nonprofit entities in multiple realms of Spanish society, such as social ac­tion (Rodríguez Cabrero 2015; Renes Ayala 2018) and more specifically development cooperation (Serrano Onate 2019). As far back as the early 1990s, Salamon (1994) spoke of the worldwide rise of the third sector in terms of a “global associational revolution,” one that had even caused a change in relations between the state and citizens. Salamon and his companions understood the third sector, or nonprofit sector, as the set of “all entities that are for­mal organizations having an institutionalized character; constitutionally independ­ent of the state and self-governing; non-profit-distribution; and involving some de­gree of volunteerism” (Kendall, Almond 1999: 234). Over the years the third sector’s presence has become a steadfast major component of the institutional landscape of the more-developed countries, and in that of a good many of the developing coun­tries, too. The Spanish third sector, with its own country-specific features, has also acquired considerable clout; the magnitude of its importance has been reflected in a number of reports (Fundación Lealtad 2015; Plataforma de ONG de Acción Social and Plataforma del Tercer Sector 2015; Price Waterhouse Coopers 2018). By contrast, both internationally and domestically, we still have large gaps in terms of analysis: analysis of the organizations that take part in the third sector and above all analysis of the changes that have happened within organizations as they have grown more prominent and new organizations have joined the field (the clas­sic notion of the third sector ignores or limits the visibility of organizations from the field of migration or development).1 As increasing numbers of ever-more-vibrant organizations related with the field of migration have come into being, creating an organizational effervescence, some authors like Fox (2005) and others like Theo­dore and Martin (2007) have coined the term “migrant civil society” to refer to this part of civil society, the part where immigrants themselves are the protagonists. Fox holds that the migrant civil society settled in the United States has two main components: organizations based on migrants themselves and local civil society For example, Salamon’s classic classification (1994) includes no references to development entities or entities made up of migrants. organizations that have been transformed by the participation and leadership of migrants (Fox 2005). One of the most interesting changes to happen over the last two decades in Spain has been the appearance of new actors on the civil society scene (immigrants’ associations) and the reaccommodation of other actors that are not much older than the newcomers (NGDOs). In this new context, a considerable number of NGDOs and immigrants’ associations have been working together in projects and activities, both in Spain and in migrants’ countries of origin. Their joint work and its contribution to the construction of a more solid, diverse civil society are often unknown. Some Span­ish NGDOs well experienced in development cooperation have mentored, support­ed or strengthened immigrants’ associations in their activities. Immigrants’ associa­tions, too, some of which have themselves become NGDOs, have earned a major role in the realm of development cooperation, where they demand their own space as emerging actors and even provide support for smaller or newer associations. At the same time, many people of immigrant origin form an active part of Spanish NGDOs, where they have become integrated into the NGDO leadership, found jobs as techni­cians or volunteer. These new realities associated with the influx of immigration have brought significant elements of change to the realm of Spanish civil society involved in national and international development. The entry of immigrants’ associations in the third sector has added an element of great heterogeneity to the mix. We may say that, just as society has become more culturally diverse with the arrival of immigration, civil society has become more organizationally diverse, in­corporating new entities and forms of organization. Feldman et al. (2005) affirm that civil society’s new organizations act like a microcosm of the broader changes due to immigration and ethnic diversification. However, a good part of these transforma­tions have not been thoroughly studied. Our objective in this article is explore some of the changes in the realm of mi­gration and development organizations. We begin with the hypothesis that the transformations affecting relationships between the state and civil society and the impact of certain public policies (the political opportunity structure) have been dis­tinctly mirrored in the rearrangement of the third sector, and that at the same time the incorporation of immigration in Spain has acted as an added factor in this pro­cess of change, making the organizational field more complex and diverse. With these as our premises, in the first section we describe the methodologi­cal framework surrounding the two research projects on which the article is based. In the second section we briefly explore the problem of the relationship between the third sector (civil society) and the state and then zoom in on how development and immigration organizations fit into the Spanish third sector, taking account of the sector’s complexity and the diversity of its component entities. The third section analyzes the role of and difficulties in the link between NGDOs and immigrants’ as­sociations and pinpoints the most common forms of relationships between organi­zations. The fourth section focuses on how public policy on co-development affects the remodeling of the relationships between organizations, in the context of greater organization recognition and transnationalization. Lastly, we state a series of conclu­sions that point to political changes that question the role organizations in the field of migration and development have played of late. METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES The main sources of information for this article are a study of immigrants’ associa­tions and a study of NGDOs in Spain, both financed under the Spanish ministerial call for RDI project proposals. The first study was carried out from 2012 to 2014, with the objective of gaining an overview of immigrants’ associations and their role in development in immigrants’ countries of origin. The study’s main instrument was a survey of 206 associations of migrants from eight countries (Algeria, Bulgaria, Co­lombia, Ecuador, Mali, Morocco, Romania and Senegal) from among the 852 associ­ations identified after a sweep of official registries and unofficial registries (24% of the associations identified). The survey was implemented in early 2013, both on line and by telephone. The questionnaire gathered general information on the associa­tions, their activities in Spain, their activities in their country of origin, those of their activities in their country of origin that are directly connected with development and those of their activities in their country of origin that are defined specifically as co-development. The survey was subsequently complemented with 50 in-depth interviews of leaders of the associations that reported having conducted develop­ment activities in their countries of origin. After this study, we embarked on a second research project to learn more about the role of NGDOs as strategic actors in the field of development and their relation­ships with immigrants’ associations in that space. In this second study, run from 2016 to 2018, we conducted a fresh survey, this time targeting NGDOs. The survey universe was made up of the 2,072 NGDOs registered with the Agencia Espanola de Cooperación Internacional al Desarrollo (Spanish International Development Co­operation Agency, or AECID) on October 12, 2016. We administered the survey to 332 NGDOs (16% of the universe), based on a sample stratified territorially by auton­omous communities (the main administrative and political subdivisions of Spain); this is equivalent to a significant sample with an estimated error of 4.9% and a con­fidence level of 95%. The survey’s field work was done in two phases, each with its own strategy. Phase one was an online survey in which a questionnaire was sent to the entire universe of NGDOs registered with the AECID that had an e-mail address. The survey, using the Lime Survey application, was implemented from February to March 2017, and 108 replies were obtained. Phase two was a telephone survey, in which calls were made randomly to NGDOs registered with the AECID that had a telephone number and had not answered on line, until the territorial sample was complete. The survey was implemented from April to May 2017, obtaining a total of 224 replies. The NGDOs that reported having had collaborative relationships with immigrants’ associations were asked for supplementary information about their pro­ject experience, until 46 relationship reports had been filled out. The information gleaned from the surveys and interviews done in the two stud­ies gave us a general map of the entities linked to the realms of migration and de­velopment in Spain, plus a more precise knowledge of the role of immigrants’ asso­ciations and NGDOs, especially as regards the degree and the type of relationships between the two types of organizations. DEVELOPMENT AND IMMIGRATION ORGANIZATIONS AND THE THIRD SECTOR IN SPAIN The third sector has taken on an increasingly relevant role in the management of issues affecting the immigrant population: in Canada as reported by Richmond and Shields (2005), Landolt, Goldring and Bernhard (2009), Pare´ and Maloumby-Baka (2015); in the United States (Bloemraad 2005; Theodore, Martin 2007); and in Europe (Revilla Blanco 2002; Feldman et al. 2005; Cullen 2009; Saglie, Sivesind 2018). There the third sector has been burdened with providing services in exchange for access to public moneys and one-off participation in political deliberations, within a climate where organizations are professionalized, bureaucratized and deradicalized. The third sector, now the hard core of Spanish civil society, has become a respect­able force in Spain and shares many similarities with the third sector in similar coun­tries (Ruiz Olabue´naga et al. 1999), but it also presents a number of special features. One of them is the diversity of the third sector itself. Traditionally a line has been drawn dividing social action NGOs working with the population in Spain from devel­opment NGOs (NGDOs) working with similar principles, i.e., fighting against exclusion and poverty, but in the realm of international cooperation (Revilla Blanco 2015). The evolution of and changes in the third sector and immigration in Spain coin­cide largely with what has happened in developed societies like ours on the whole over the last three decades (Garkisch, Heidingsfelder, Beckmann 2017). The organi­zations of civil society have shouldered a good share of the weight of managing ser­vices stemming from certain public policies. In effect, the various immigrant popula­tion care programs in Spain are primarily run by non-profit social entities. It is NGOs that take on responsibility for managing programs paid for by public funds, which are secured through a range of subsidies (Moreno, Bruquetas 2011). The reasons are in reality much deeper, however, and they have to do with the Spanish social model and the crisis of the unconsolidated welfare state (Cachón, La-parra 2009). Shortcomings such as this in the heart of the welfare state have become even more glaring as more immigrants have moved to Spain to stay. As Gutie´rrez Resa (2013) puts it, immigrants are putting Spanish social services and the Spanish welfare model itself to the test. So, the growing institutionalization of public policy on the integration of the immigrant population in Spain (Fernández Suárez 2018) has paralleled the manage­ment of the integration of the immigrant population in Spain by third-sector enti­ties, in a story closely resembling that of development cooperation policies (Revilla Blanco 2002). In this sense, it is especially important to throw light on the relationship be­tween an NGDO’s commitment to the realm of migration and development (or co-development) and the entity’s survival and evolution, as we shall see later in section four. Also, the economic crisis marked a turning point in the work of many entities, as they dialed back the intensity of their criticism and demands and rebranded them­selves as “agencies” managing official return programs or providing vocational train­ing (Cebolla Boado, López Sala 2015). In the case of Spain, the immigrant population has arrived in a space already oc­cupied by an organized local civil society, thronging with busy political parties, labor unions, nonprofits of all kinds, NGDOs for international cooperation and even pro-immigrant NGOs. Immigrants claim their right to play a role as agents in a field they have been the last to enter, and they face numerous obstacles to acknowledgement. In fact, though immigrants’ associations to a fair extent run the same risks as the rest of the organizations in the third sector, their risks are accentuated due to their greater structural vulnerability and their weak incorporation into the receiving society. Some immigrants have found in the pre-existing fabric a way to participate in society, while others have tended to build their own structures in the form of immigrants’ associa­tions, although the vast majority of the immigrant population (like the vast majority of the autochthonous population) seems disinclined to engage in association life. One interesting finding of our research is that a good many of the surveyed en­tities (252) were chartered in the 1990s and the first decade of the 2000s, coinciding with the rise of migration in Spain, migratory and refugee crises and the various gov­ernment agencies’ need to outsource services. It is also revealing that 6% of the sur­veyed organizations evolved from immigrants’ associations into NGDOs and can now compete for certain kinds of subsidies and gain greater public recognition. This fact confirms the dynamism of immigrant association formation and the conversion of im­migrant associations into NGDOs as a means of expanding the organization’s possibil­ities of working in social action at the destination location and in development coop­eration in countries of origin. So, immigration has injected greater diversity into Span­ish civil society, in terms of individuals and in terms of collectives. Many immigrants participate in all kinds of different “domestic” associations (including social, cultural, festive and athletic associations), as volunteers, paid professionals or technicians, or as collectives, launching their own organizational structures (Lacomba, Aboussi 2017). These new actors make the panorama so much richer in complexity that it is sometimes hard to distinguish clearly between domestic associations/NGDOs and immigrants’ associations/NGDOs. NGDOs and other kinds of domestic social organ­izations have immigrants among their members, even in their leadership, and many immigrants’ associations are not just for immigrants any more, but number autoch­thonous people in their ranks. Composite entities whose national flavor is hard to label have become more and more common. NGDOs are a fundamental part of the third sector in Spain. At the time this article was written, 2,051 NGDOs were entered in the AECID’s register. Since all the surveyed organizations are registered with AECID, obviously their main area of action is de­velopment cooperation. A large share (55%), however, are involved in activities of a more local or national slant, such as awareness raising, development education and social action. There are also NGDOs that act as migration NGOs or pro-immigration NGOs by pressuring the state and its policies to defend human rights (political influ­ence), NGDOs that focus on work to aid and support migrants and NGDOs that act directly to give migrants a voice. The map of organizations in the field of migration and development has, then, become more complex, as shown in Figure 1. This growing organizational complexity ought to be reflected in a reclassification of the categories hitherto used. The consid­erable extant diversity should be reflected by taking account of each organization’s makeup (NGDOs with a domestic base, composite NGDOs and NGDOs with a migrant base) and purpose (NGDOs oriented toward international development cooperation, NGDOs oriented toward domestic social action, domestic and international develop­ment NGDOs and pro-immigrant NGDOs focusing on defending immigrants’ rights) and differentiating between what we call “immigration NGDOs” (which impact the field of migration but do not come from the migration field), “migrant NGDOs” (which have evolved from immigrants’ associations, also termed “NGDOs with a migrant-led base”) and immigrants’ associations that remain unchanged. Figure 1: Map of Organizations in the Field of Migration and Development (source: prepared by the authors). THE ROLE OF AND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN NGDOS AND IMMIGRANTS’ ASSOCIATIONS Although some research has explored the role and functions of NGDOs and immi­grants’ associations, studies addressing the relationships between organizations in the field of development or in the field of immigration are far fewer. Studies analyz­ing the relationships between organizations from both fields are almost the excep­tion. An added difficulty for work of that type is that, at least in Spain, there are many non-governmental organizations that work in both fields, so the line between inter­national development cooperation on one side and social action with immigrants and the defense of immigrant rights on the other is blurred. Immigrants’ associations have performed an important function in the integra­tion and participation of the migrant population over recent years. Immigrants’ as­sociations in Spain have roused the interest of researchers including Aparicio and Tornos (2010), Morell Blanch (2005) and Martín Pe´rez (2004). Though perhaps they have won less public recognition of their work than NGDOs. For example, the study done by Feldman et al. (2005) in Ireland underscores the role immigrants’ organiza­tions play in facilitating access to participation in civil society by sectors that find it harder to participate. Likewise, immigrant associational initiatives can be understood as a strategy for reaching out to the receiving society and entering into contact with its various actors. The creation of associations in the receiving context may also arise as a re­sponse to needs shared by a specific collective, generally of a single nationality, who share common problems (Aboussi et al. 2013). This is what makes immigrants’ asso­ciations fundamental actors for the construction of social learning in difficult areas: They can identify problems, voice the collective’s demands and propose solutions (Brown, Timer 2006). Although migrant civil society organizations bear similarities to local civil society organizations, they differ in the way they address the wellbeing of migrant persons (Theodore, Martin 2007). As for relationships between NGDOs and immigrants’ associations, studies of the field of development cooperation tend to focus only on NGDOs, while studies tackling the field of immigrant organizations tend to skip over NGDOs and fo­cus on the role of either pro-immigrant NGOs or immigrants’ associations. There is very little research connecting the two types of organizations. Our research found that 36% of the NGDOs surveyed report having had relationships with mi­grants’ associations. Most of these relationships, though, are described as infor­mal occasional, informal continued or formal occasional relationships (confirmed by 53% of the answers, while 47% indicate formal continued relationships). This can be interpreted to mean that contacts and encounters are sought sporadically, on an as-needed basis. The realms where the surveyed NGDOs work most fre­quently with migrants’ associations are awareness-raising activities, training for immigrants, interculturality and education for development. We take a particular interest in the realm of networking, as only 43 entities confirmed having engaged in relationships for that purpose. Analyzing the possible factors behind relationships between NGDOs and im­migrants’ associations, Roca (2006) looked at NGDOs in Andalusia and reached the conclusion that what relations are established are usually competitive, not cooper­ative. Actually, the competition for resources and fields of action among NGDOs is not very different from the competition between NGDOs and immigrants’ associa­tions. On organizations in the migration field, Cullen’s Irish study (2009) describes how pro-immigrant NGOs are criticized for having few immigrants among their ex­ecutive leadership and for being reluctant to work with organizations led directly by migrants (Cullen 2009). For Cullen the obstacles to coalition-based mobilization include a political context in favor of restricting immigration, a reluctance among already-existing NGOs to work with the sector of emerging migrant-led NGOs and a cutthroat financing environment that hampers collaboration (Cullen 2009). The study conducted by Feldman et al. (2005), also in Ireland, stresses the dif­ficulties in the relationship terrain between what researchers call “majority society organizations” and “minority ethnic-led organizations,” whose clashes Feldman be­lieves are more closely linked to differences in organizational/administrative logic (each organization’s organizational and management style) and relationships be­tween organizations and the immigrant population (greater closeness/familiarity in the case of immigrants’ organizations) than to any real competition for resources (Feldman et al. 2005). In Spain many immigrants’ associations have moved on from performing their original community function based on ethnic identification to taking action in the social realm, where they provide the whole immigrant population with services. This course of action can be a factor of greater competition (Many NGDOs too have moved on, as we have mentioned, from acting in the realm of development cooperation to acting in the realm of social action). The transformation process could be considered part of immigrants’ associations’ “natural” evolution as they incorporate themselves into the receiving society, and it could be considered as an indicator of integration, but it also forms part of the adoption of local approaches due to certain public policies (the accommodation referred to by Feldman et al. 2005), or as part of the strategies organizations use irrespective of institutional pressure (Arvidson 2018). Looking at the effect of public policies, Landolt, Goldring and Bernhard (2009) explore how organizations of Latin-American migrants in Toronto have taken dif­ferent forms, even though Canadian multicultural policy is the same for them all. Budgetary limits and the service provision model have acted differentially, though, giving privileges to the pan-ethnic organizations that render multiple services; this has worked to the detriment of ethno-specific organizations whose ability to en­gage in dialogue with the state is much weaker (Landolt, Goldring, Bernhard 2009). Richmond and Shields (2005) see the same trend. They show how the Canadian government’s funding rationale has favored larger multi-service organizations that have more resources to begin with to devote to restructuring, administration and negotiation with fund providers, while grassroots or ethnic organizations have been forced to partner with the larger organizations (the multi-service organizations, which could be compared to Spain’s NGDOs), cut back their services or go under (Rich­mond, Shields 2005). In the case of Spain, in the first decade of the 21st century, co-development policies promoted some of these changes; we might call this phase one of co-development. Various public funding opportunities in the pre-crisis years largely focused on co-development as a line of cooperation. Later, despite the elimination of a substantial number of co-development policies, development and immigra­tion entities have continued maintaining certain forms of collaboration, although in recent years the number of experiences has fallen considerably. Phase one, which happened before the Spanish crisis, worked to generate alliances among entities. Immigrants’ associations gained in capability (they became stronger and started acting more as NGDOs’ equals) and won seats in representative forums where they could promote changes in institutional agendas. Later, many associ­ations – and NGDOs too – came out of the crisis weaker both structurally and in terms of their demands, and they have redirected their efforts toward covering more-basic needs and working to maintain a climate of peaceful coexistence while under the threat of collective instability. Based on the evidence we have collected in our own research, we propose that there are six ways in which NGDOs interact with immigrants’ associations: 1) Mimicking: Immigrants’ associations adopt typical NGDO modes of action and thought, becoming NGDOs themselves. 2) Co-opting: NGDOs lure immigrant associations’ leaders or most-professionalized members away and fold them into their own structures. 3) Subordination: Immigrants’ associations act according to the demands of NGDOs. 4) Cooperation: NGDOs and immigrants’ associations participate in a horizontal relationship in pursuit of common objectives. 5) Competition: NGDOs and immigrants’ associations vie with one another at public funding opportunities. 6) Encapsulation: Immigrants’ associations shut themselves away from NGDOs (and all other organizations in the receiving civil society) in order to maintain their own objectives or their own idiosyncrasy as ethnic/community associations. RECOGNITION AND TRANSNATIONALIZATION While establishing contacts and creating institutional ties inside and outside Spain is fundamental for NGDOs if they want to receive public recognition and expand the scale of their work in international cooperation, this issue takes on a special di­mension for immigrants’ associations. Immigrants’ associations are influenced by the characteristics of the civil society of receiving countries and by their own interactions with the state and other sectors of society. At the same time, they maintain relations with the society, organizations and state of their countries of origin. As a result, immi­grants’ associations are a fundamental actor in what has come to be called transna­tional civil society (Escobar 2010). In this interconnected space where the civil society of origin and the receiving civil society interact, immigrants’ associations have a cen­tral quality that in some cases may be worked up into a source of political recognition. Adding to their repertoire of ties with their counterparts in the cooperation sec­tor and immigrants’ associations, NGDOs too have been weaving a wide web of in­stitutional relationships with other official and unofficial actors, in Spain and in the countries where they operate. Our research brings to light some highly significant data: 76% of the surveyed organizations report that they have relationships with other NGDOs; 48% connect with entities in developing countries; 43.7%, with other social entities in Spain; 26.2%, with European Union organizations, and 18.8%, with other international organizations. These institutional relationships are based as much on the needs inherent in the work itself as on a strategic approach, which involves finding allies and participating in realms where political influence is wielded and political decisions are made. NGDOs have joined national platforms like the Coordinator (and other umbrella organiza­tions at the autonomous community level), supranational platforms like the Euro­pean Confederation of Relief and Development NGOs (CONCORD) and networks whose participants also include immigrants’ associations, in the attempt to gain a larger footprint in domestic institutional spaces like the Consejo de Cooperación Estatal (Development Cooperation Council) and to get a certain amount of recog­nition from the state agencies where they work (local bodies, official agencies and ministries) and from some international organizations that operate in the realm of cooperation (the European Union itself, regional development banks and the UN). Immigrants’ associations have also striven in their turn to become part of domes­tic networks and platforms with entities dealing with immigration and with develop­ment. Above all they have tried to extend their footprint to other forums with greater international clout through civil society initiatives (EUNOMAD, the European Network on Migrations and Development) or other, more-institutional initiatives (the United Nations’ Global Forum on Migration and Development, which includes a long list of institutions but also has an increasingly large space for participation by organizations from civil society). For example, CODENAF (an association of Moroccan immigrants that is also registered as an NGDO) participates at the autonomous-community level in the Foros Provinciales de la Inmigración (Provincial Immigration Forums) of Sevilla, Almería, Málaga, Granada and Huelva, the Asociación Sevillana de ONGD (Seville As­sociation of NGDOs), the Foro Andaluz de la Inmigración (Andalusian Forum on Im­migration), the Coordinadora Andaluza de ONGD (Andalusian NGDO Coordinator), the Red Anti-Rumores (Anti-Rumor Network) and the Red Andaluza de Lucha contra la Pobreza y la Exclusión Social (Andalusian Network to Combat Poverty and Social Exclusion); at the nationwide level, it participates in the Foro para la Integración So­cial de los Inmigrantes (Forum for the Social Integration of Immigrants); and at the European level it participates in the Plateforme Euro-Marocaine Migration, De´velop­pement, Citoyennete´ et De´mocratie (Euro-Moroccan Platform on Migration, Devel­opment, Citizenship and Democracy). Part of this growing participation can be chalked up to the effect of the frame­work of political opportunity generated by the institutionalization of development cooperation policies and immigration policies, especially the structure offered due to the design and implementation of specific policies on co-development2 (or mi­gration and development) in some European countries, particularly countries like Spain, France and Italy. But it also has to do with the growing potential and agen­cy capability of immigrants’ associations themselves. They have mobilized to force their own presence into these policies, force others to recognize them in the frame­work of these policies and even drive policy design. Actually, as Moraes and Cutillas (2018) point out, the structural limitations on opportunities sometimes turn out to be better mobilizers than the framework of political opportunities. What is more, the framework of political opportunity is not the only factor in immigrants’ associations’ involvement in the field of international development and their subsequent trans­formation into NGDOs. Such outcomes can also be a response to the association’s determination to show solidarity with its members’ country or area of origin or a desire to combat those factors that caused the migration of the association’s leaders, who look on themselves as a “sacrificed” generation and associate the association’s migration projects with the duty to foster development in their home areas (Daum 2000; Gonin 2005). The point is that a large number of immigrants’ associations have expanded their effort to influence policy beyond the borders of their country of residence and gone transnational. The same has happened with immigrants from other nations in countries with a longer history of migration, like Mexicans in the United States (Bada 2014). Such is the case of associations like Ruminahui, which was present in many of the forums where the Law on Human Mobility in Ecuador was discussed; In Spain co-development has been defined as a mode of development cooperation based on promoting a positive link between migration and development, with the participation of institutional agents as well as NGDOs and immigrants’ associations. Co-development has been integrated into official Spanish cooperation plans since 2005. However, we should draw attention to the fact that the concept has vanished from the latest plans for 2013–2016 and 2018–2021. likewise CODENAF, an association that makes itself heard in favor of greater demo­cratization in Morocco through the Euro-Moroccan Platform on Migration, Develop­ment, Citizenship and Democracy; and AESCO, which is involved in the pacification of Colombian armed conflict through the Plataforma Colombia en Pau (Columbia at Peace Platform). Immigrants’ associations have many possibilities for transnationalization in their political impact. Some possibilities necessitate NGDO partners to provide greater ca­pability, since NGDOs are usually better positioned politically. For example, small as­sociations of immigrants from Senegal or Mali in Spain have implemented numerous local development projects in their countries of origin in collaboration with Spanish NGDOs. In many of these projects, the immigrants’ associations have managed to overcome the obstacles posed by local authorities because of the mediation of the NGDOs, which have more muscle in terms of resources and political recognition in the framework of international cooperation. Furthermore, because of the transna­tional dimension of the action and organization of certain migrant-led NGDOs and immigrants’ associations, such organizations are in some cases able to strengthen migrants’ ability to bring pressure to bear on the political agendas of their country of origin and their receiving country. As a team they can break down the roadblocks on one side or the other, or both (Vogt 2006). All these changes can be integrated into a synthetic model that reflects the role of and the relationships between organizations in the framework of the evolution of public policies, as shown below. This model illustrates how organizations reori­ent themselves to mirror the transformation of policies (from cooperation policy to co-development policy and more recently migration and development policy). Figure 2: Synthetic Model (source: prepared by the authors). CONCLUSIONS In this article we have tried to show some of the changes affecting the major organ­izations that work in the field of migration and development in Spain, NGDOs and immigrants’ associations. Upon investigating the terrain, we have seen, first, how the range of organizations and their own transformations force us to use new categories for entities and broaden conventional classifications. NGDOs themselves, which originated as organizations oriented specifically to­ward international development cooperation, have gradually taken on an increas­ingly pivotal role in the management of resources and programs targeting immi­gration. They have established new ties with other civil society organizations, like pro-immigrant NGOs and especially immigrants’ associations. Immigrants’ associ­ations have in their turn succeeded at establishing new types of more-horizontal relationships with NGDOs. Some have even become NGDOs themselves. Vertical relationships, or an out-and-out lack of ties, are still the norm between NGDOs and immigrants’ associations, however. The influence of certain public policies, like the co-development policy espoused by Spanish government agencies and the diaspora policies of some states of migrant origin, have ended up affecting both the interrelationship between NGDOs and im­migrants’ associations and the transformation of organizations. In this framework of political opportunity, some immigrants’ associations that are better positioned in their institutional relations have managed to consolidate themselves and set their own priorities. In the same framework, positive synergies have also been successful­ly generated between NGDOs and immigrants’ associations, through drives by the former to strengthen the latter. Nevertheless, dependent and subordinate relation­ships still exist, in which smaller associations of immigrants depend on NGDOs for access to certain resources or the government ear (Richmond, Shields 2005). Furthermore, when immigrants are in an NGDO, it gives them the opportunity to increase their social capital, because there they can expand their network of re­lations and contacts beyond the space of local society. Additionally, an entity that brings in immigrants can increase its intercultural competences according to Feld­man et al. (2005), who maintain that immigrant membership has catalyzed an inter-cultural learning process in the sector of Irish migration organizations, generating fresh innovations and possibly new forms of social capital or intercultural capital. Co-development as a line of cooperation was largely featured in various public funding opportunities in the pre-crisis years. At that time, it posed a window of po­litical opportunity not only for NGDOs (as a fresh source of funds), but also for im­migrants’ associations (because it speeded up their transformation into NGDOs and enhanced their transnational dimension). It also forced them to establish alliances with other Spanish social entities, even though not all of them were ready for it. Nev­ertheless, co-development work has slowed down to a trickle, and some public insti­tutions have even stopped financing it. In the new post-crisis stage, the policies that tried until not too long ago to promote development through migration have now been called into question. And let no one be deceived; today’s policies have indeed gone back to framing development aid as a way of controlling migration, because they talk about “migration and development,” not “co-development”. The new stage also coincides with a larger degree of settlement and heterogeneity in immigration, plus organizations that are increasingly complex and hybridized, making it harder and more pointless to try and distinguish between immigrants’ associations and NGDOs, between entities that work with immigrants and those that work with the local pop­ulation, and between social action entities and development organizations. All these things are forcing us to question certain hitherto accepted categories and to rethink the role of organizations themselves in the framework of policy changes. REFERENCES Aboussi, Mourad, Espadas, María Ángeles, Raya Lozano, Enrique (2013). Associations of Immigrants in the third Sector in Andalucía: Governance and Networking Issues. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 24/2, 441–460. Aparicio, Rosa, Tornos, Andre´s (2010). Las asociaciones de inmigrantes en Espana: Una visión de conjunto. Madrid: Ministerio de Trabajo e Inmigración. Arvidson, Malin (2018). Change and Tensions in Non-profit Organizations: Beyond the Isomorphism Trajectory. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non­profit Organizations 29/5, 898–910. Bada, Xóchitl (2014). Mexican Hometown Associations in Chicagoacán: From Local to Transnational Civic Engagement. Chicago: Rutgers University Press. Bloemraad, Irene (2005). The Limits of de Tocqueville: How Government Facilitates Organisational Capacity in Newcomer Communities. Journal of Ethnic and Migra­tion Studies 31/5, 865–887. Brown, L. David, Timmer, Vanessa (2006). Civil Society Actions as Catalysts for Trans­national Social Learning. Voluntas 17/1, 1–16. Cachón, Lorenzo, Laparra, Miguel (2009). Sistema migratorio, mercado de trabajo y regimen de bienestar: El Nuevo modelo del sur de Europa. Inmigración y políticas sociales (eds. Lorenzo Cachón, Miguel Laparra). Barcelona: Bellaterra, 19–50. Cebolla Boado, He´ctor, López Sala, Ana (2015). Transnational Latin American Immi­grant Associations in Spain Suring the Economic Recession: A Top-down Model of Integration and Transnationalism at Stake? Immigrant Vulnerability and Resil­ience (eds. María Aysa Lastra, Lorenzo Cachón). Switzerland: Springer Interna­tional Publishing, 163–180. Cullen, Pauline (2009). Irish Pro-Migrant Nongovernmental Organizations and the Politics of Immigration. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 20/2, 99–128. Daum, Cristophe (2000). Typologie des Organisations de solidarité issues de l’immigra­tion: Rapport pour la Commission Coopération-Codéveloppement. Paris: Ministere des Affaires e´trangeres. Escobar, Cristina (2010). Exploring Transnational Civil Society: A Comparative Study of Colombian, Dominican and Mexican Immigrant Organizations in the USA. Journal of Civil Society 6/3, 205–235. Feldman, Alice et. al. (2005). Diversity, Civil Society and Social Change in Ireland. Dub­lin: Migration & Citizenship Research Initiative Geary Institute, University Col­lege Dublin. Fernández Suárez, Bele´n (2018). La alteridad domesticada: La política de integración de inmigrantes en Espana: Actores y territorios. Barcelona: Editorial Bellaterra. Fox, Jonathan (2005). Repensar lo rural ante la globalización: La sociedad civil mi-grante. Migración y Desarrollo 5, 35–58. Fundación Lealtad (2015). Situación actual de las ONG en Espana. Madrid: Fun-dación Lealtad. Garkisch, Michael, Heidingsfelder, Jens, Beckmann, Markus (2017). Third Sector Or­ganizations and Migration: A Systematic Literature Review on the Contribution of Third Sector Organizations in View of Flight, Migration and Refugee Crises. Volun­tas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 28/5, 1839–1880. Gonin, Patrick (2005). Jeux d’acteurs et enjeux territoriaux : Quelles migrations pour quel de´veloppement? L’exemple du bassin du fleuve Se´ne´gal (re´publique du Mali). Émigrés-Immigrés dans le développement local (eds. Mohammed Charef, Patrick Gonin). Agadir: ORMES/Sud Contact, 259–278. Gutie´rrez Resa, Antonio (2013). Los Servicios Sociales en Espana, puestos a prueba por las personas inmigrantes. Comunitania 5, 201–227. Kendall, Jeremy, Almond, Stephen (1999). Reino Unido. La sociedad civil global. Las dimensiones del sector no lucrativo. Proyecto de estudio comparativo de la Universi-dad John Hopkins (ed. Lester Salamon). Bilbao: Fundación BBVA, 231–256. Lacomba, Joan, Aboussi, Mourad (2017). La inmigración y su contribución a la socie-dad civil espanola y el desarrollo. Tiempo de Paz 217, 106–118. Landolt, Patricia, Goldring, Luin, Bernhard, Judith (2009). Las orgnanizaciones de mi-grantes latinoamericanos en Toronto: Entre la política de base y el imperativo de la etnización del Estado multicultural. Migración y participación política (eds. Ángeles Escrivá, Anastasia Bermúdez, Natalia Moraes). Madrid : CSIC, 203–234. Martín Pe´rez, Alberto (2004). Las asociaciones de inmigrantes en el debate sobre las nuevas formas de participación política y de ciudadanía: Reflexiones sobre algu­nas experiencias en Espana. Migraciones 15, 113–143. Moraes, Natalia, Cutillas, Isabel (2018). La estructura de oportunidad política transna­cional y el giro relacional en el análisis de la participación política y el asociacion­ismo migrante. Papers 103/4, 605–624. Morell Blanch, Antonio (2005). El papel de las asociaciones de inmigrantes en la sociedad de acogida: Cuestiones teóricas y evidencia empírica. Revista Migraciones 17, 111–142. Moreno, Francisco Javier, Bruquetas, María (2011). Inmigración y Estado de Bienestar en Espana. Barcelona: La Caixa. Pare´, Sylvie, Maloumby Baka, Ralph Christian (2015). The Role of Public – Third Sector Relationships in Solving Social Issues: the Case of One-Stop-Shop Service for the Promotion of Female Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Montreal. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 3/3, 123–141. Plataforma de ONG de Acción Social & Plataforma del Tercer Sector (2015). El Tercer Sector de Acción Social en 2015: Impacto de la crisis. Madrid: Plataforma de ONG de Acción Social & Plataforma del Tercer Sector. Price Waterhouse Coopers (2018). Radiografía del Tercer Sector Social en Espana: Retos y oportunidades en un entorno cambiante. Madrid: Fundación PwC. Renes Ayala, Víctor (2018). La sostenibilidad del tercer sector de acción social ante los cambios en el modelo de bienestar. Bienestar social y políticas públicas: Retos para pactar el futuro (ed. Germán Jaráiz Arroyo). Madrid: La Catarata, 280–297. Rodríguez Cabrero, Gregorio (2015). Avances, limitaciones y retos del Tercer Sector de Acción Social en Espana. Revista Espanola del Tercer Sector 30, 75–97. Revilla Blanco, Marisa (2002). Las ONG como mecanismos de participación política. Las ONG y la política (ed. Marisa Revilla Blanco). Madrid: Ediciones Istmo, 9–48. Revilla Blanco, Marisa (2015). Las ONG en Espana. Espana 2015: Situación social (ed. Cris-tóbal Torres Albero). Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 1160–1173. Richmond, Ted, Shields, John (2005). NGO-government Relations and Immigrant Services: Contradictions and challenges. Journal of International Migration and Integration 6, 513–526. Roca Martínez, Beltrán (2006). Entre la competencia y la cooperación: La construc­ción de redes entre las Organizaciones No Gubernamentales de Desarrollo en Andalucía. REDES Revista Hispana para el Análisis de Redes Sociales 11, 1–25. Ruiz Olabue´naga, Jose´ Ignacio et. al. (1999). Espana. La sociedad civil global. Las di­mensiones del sector no lucrativo: Proyecto de estudio comparativo de la Universi-dad John Hopkins (ed. Lester Salamon). Bilbao: Fundación BBVA, 213–228. Saglie, Jo, Sivesind, Karl Henrik (2018). Civil Society Institutions or Semi-public Agen­cies? State Regulation of Parties and Voluntary Organizations in Norway. Journal of Civil Society 14/4, 292–310. Salamon, Lester (1994). The Rise of the Nonprofit Sector. Foreign Affairs 73/4, 109–122. Salamon, Lester (2003). The Resilient Sector: The Future of Nonprofit America. Washing­ton: Brookings Institution Press. Serrano Onate, Maite (2019). Treinta anos de la cooperación espanola: El papel de la sociedad civil. Revista espanola de desarrollo y cooperación 44, 57–64. Theodore, Nik, Martin, Nina (2007). Migrant Civil Society: New Voices in the Struggle Over Community Development. Journal of Urban Affairs 29/3, 269–287. Vogt, Gabriele (2006). Facing the Challenge of Immigration? The State, Civil Socie­ty and Structures of Interdependence. Working Papers of the German Institute for Japanese Studies 06/5, 1–41. POVZETEK MIGRACIJSKE IN RAZVOJNE ORGANIZACIJE: DIVERZIFIKACIJA CIVILNE DRUŽBE IN JAVNIH POLITIK V ŠPANIJI Joan LACOMBA, Mourad ABOUSSI Članek, ki temelji na ugotovitvah dveh v enaki meri kvantitativnih in kvalitativnih raz­iskovalnih projektov, izvedenih v Španiji, obravnava spremembe in nove oblike odno­sov med glavnimi protagonisti na področju migracij in razvoja. Ena najzanimivejših sprememb v zadnjih dveh desetletjih na področju tretjega sektorja v Španiji je bil, skupaj z reakomodacijo drugih akterjev, ki niso veliko starejši od prišlekov (NVRO-ji), vstop novih akterjev na prizorišče civilne družbe (priseljenska združenja). Njihova skupna prizadevanja in prispevki za ustvarjanje trdnejše, bolj raznolike civilne druž-be so pogosto neznani. Članek začenja hipoteza, da se tako spremembe, ki vplivajo na odnose med državo in civilno družbo, kot tudi vplivi določenih javnih politik razločno zrcalijo v preurejanju tretjega sektorja. Zato sta avtorja v članku na različnih mestih prikazala, kako se razvojne in priseljenske organizacije vključujejo v španski tretji sektor, pri čemer sta upoštevala tako kompleksnost tega sektorja kot tudi raznolikost vseh ude­ležencev. Analizirata tudi pomen in težavno povezovanje med NVRO-ji in priseljen­skimi združenji, pri čemer se osredotočata na učinek javnih sorazvojnih politik na spreminjanje odnosov med organizacijami v smislu večje organizacijske prepoznav­nosti in transnacionalizacije. Njune ugotovitve potrjujejo pomembnost političnih priložnosti, ki jih skupaj z oblikovanjem in implementacijo specifičnih sorazvojnih politik poraja institucionalizacija razvojnih kooperativnih politik in priseljenskih poli­tik. V tem smislu so nevladne razvojne organizacije, ki so še zlasti usmerjene k med-narodnemu razvojnemu sodelovanju, sčasoma dobile vodilno vlogo v upravljanju sredstev in programov, namenjenih priseljencem, hkrati pa so stkale nove vezi z dru­gimi civilnodružbenimi organizacijami, kot so proimigrantske nevladne organizacije in še zlasti priseljenska združenja. MOBILITY AND IDENTITY IN THE ART AND LITERATURE OF ETEL ADNAN Laure ZARIF KEYROUZ| COBISS 1.01 ABSTRACT Mobility and Identity in the Art and Literature of Etel Adnan This article is based on a literary reading of two books by Etel Adnan: In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country and Of Cities & Women (Letters to Fawwaz), and on an interview that the author personally conducted with her in 2018. It examines Adnan’s sense of nomadism in her art and literature. She is born into a nomadic culture and moves as an intellectual nomad from Lebanon to Paris, and then to California, and finally returns to Lebanon before having to escape due to the civil war. Her nomad-ism gives her an inspiring openness, creating a state of béance – the freedom from borders postulated by Bouraoui. KEY WORDS: nomadism, mobility, identity, art, literature IZVLEČEK Mobilnost in identiteta v umetnosti in literaturi Etel Adnan Članek temelji na literarni analizi dveh knjig Etel Adnan, in sicer V srcu srca druge dr­žave (In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country) in Mesta in ženske (Pisma Fawwazu) (Cities&Women, Letters to Fawwaz) ter osebnem intervjuju z umetnico iz leta 2018. Osrednja tema članka je preučevanje vpliva nomadstva v umetnosti in literaturi Etel Adnan. Umetnica izhaja iz nomadske kulture in se je kot intelektualna nomadka iz Li-banona najprej preselila v Pariz, nato v Kalifornijo, ko pa se je končno vrnila v Libanon, je morala državo zaradi državljanske vojne znova zapustiti. Njena navdihujoča odpr­tost izhaja iz nomadskega načina življenja, ki ustvarja stanje béance, kar, kot predvide­va Bourauoi, pomeni »svobodo od meja«. KLJUČNE BESEDE: nomadstvo, mobilnost, identiteta, umetnost, literatura | PhD candidate in Literary Studies, University of Nova Gorica, Adjunct Professor of Ara­bic language and translation, University of Trieste, Via del Solstizio 62, 1040-Trieste, Italy; laurekeyrouzarts@gmail.com — The author would like to thank her advisor Aleš Vaupotič and co-editors Samantha Liverani, Janetta Ledell and Maruša Mugerli Lavrenčič, and Anja Polajnar for the translation from English to Slovene. INTRODUCTION Born in Beirut in 1925, Etel Adnan is a prominent writer and artist in both the Arabic and Western worlds. A writer in a variety of literary genres, she is a novelist, essay­ist, short story writer, poet, playwright, and documentary writer, as well as a visual artist: painter, ceramic maker, tapestry designer, and artist’s book maker. Born and raised in Lebanon, her parents came from different origins: her mother was a Greek Christian from Smyrna and her father was a Muslim born in Damascus. After studying in a French school, Adnan enrolled at the École de lettres from 1945 to 1949, later obtaining a scholarship to travel to Paris to study philosophy at the Sorbonne. She then moved to the United States to study philosophy as a doctoral student at the University of California in Berkeley and at Harvard University (1955–1957). From 1958 to 1972, Adnan taught philosophy at Dominican College in San Rafael, California. From 1972 until 1976, she returned to Beirut and worked as cultural editor for two daily newspapers – Al Safa and l’Orient-Le Jour – but was forced to leave because of the civil war (Adnan 2015: 122). Since 1977, Adnan has continued to move between Paris, France and Sausalito, California. What becomes immediately clear in the interview1 with Adnan, as well as in her two books, is that growing up as a child with a Muslim father and an Orthodox Chris­tian mother from different cultures and countries accustomed her to fight against historically imposed social barriers, specifically roles regarding language, religion, gender, and politics. This article will focus on the aspect of mobility in nomadism and its relationship to identity. Although Adnan is a well-known feminist, and has been studied extensively by Evelyne Accad,2 there are many other facets of her writ­ing and art which deserve to be analysed. I will briefly summarize the connection between Braidotti’s nomadic feminist philosophy and Etel Adnan’s work, to then move on to other aspects, including Bouraoui’s theory of béance and its relationship to Adnan’s writing and art. Using the comparative method to analyse the similarity of recurring themes found in Adnan’s work, this article will take a close literary and philosophical look at two of Adnan’s books which are closely related to the topic of mobility and identity. In addition, some analysis of her visual art - presented in the catalogue to her exhibition Etel Adnan la joie de vivre (2015) – will provide a more well-rounded picture of the viewpoint of this important artist and writer. 1 Etel Adnan consented to do an interview with me in her apartment in Paris, on 6 Septem­ ber 2018, generously donating some of her books and a catalogue. This interview was made possible through the Erasmus exchange program and internship between the University of Nova Gorica and the Galerie du Buisson. The encounter was arranged by Italian architect and videographer Morena Campani. 2 Evelyne Accad is a Lebanese-born American Professor, writer and expert in Women’s Studies and Comparative Literature. She wrote about Adnan in her book Sexuality and War: Literary Masks of the Middle East, published in 1990. ETEL ADNAN AS A NOMADIC FEMINIST Feminist philosopher Rosi Braidotti is noted for her book Nuovi soggetti nomadi (2002) (English title Nomadic Subjects). In defining who is considered a “nomadic sub­ject”, she bases her theory on creative diversity, influenced by the works of Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault and Luce Irigaray, among others (Braidotti 2002: 10). Etel Adnan is clearly a mobile individual. Throughout her many travels, creative writing helps Adnan cross cultural boundaries; through the use of different languag­es (French and English) in her writing, Arabic script in her art, as well as her personal cultural experiences, Adnan creates bridges between the various places she encoun­ters. Her nomadism also extends to her means of self-expression, as Adnan is a noted author, poet and artist. In the article The Romance of Nomadism: A Series of Reflections, published in 1999, Carol Becker writes: “Unfortunately, the world now seems divided between what Jacques Attali calls the poor and rich nomads: the nomadic elite who travel at will, expanding their world, [...]” (Becker 1999: 27). Adnan, however, stands apart from the intellectual nomad, as her nomadic education has made her (ibid.: 27). Adnan seems to fit Braidotti’s paradigm, as she goes beyond the traditional patriarchal system to defend the rights of women. Through her reflections on the women she encounters and their societal roles, she comments on the freedom they enjoy or exploitation they suffer; in her book In the Heart of the Heart of Another Coun­try Adnan comments on education, “Children are taught that little boys are superior to little girls […] (Adnan 2005: 58). Braidotti has defined feminism “as a movement which fights for changes in the values which are traditionally attributed to women […] throughout patriarchal history” (Braidotti 2002: 112, (translated by Laure Zarif Keyrouz)). For Braidotti, “a feminist is defined as a critical thinker who questions the dynamics of power and domination” (ibid.: 74, (translated by LZK)) which is exactly the sort of criticism found throughout Adnan’s writings. Braidotti goes on to describe the nomad’s identity as the incarnation “of a map of the various travels” of the individual; each location is embodied in the nomad, which she defines as “diversity in movement and an inventory of travels’ traces” (ibid.: 31). Whether through the letters in Of Cities & Women or in her landscape painting, Ad­nan’s work in an ever-evolving collection of traces, experiences and perspectives given in relation to place and time, making her a clear representation of the concept of feminist nomad. An example can be seen in the book Of Cities & Women (Letters to Fawwaz), as she moves from Barcelona to Aix-En-Provence, to Skopelos, to Murcia, to Amsterdam, to Berlin, to Beirut, to Rome and again to Beirut. Braidotti’s concept of the feminist nomad underlines the importance of mobility for women, as freedom to move and interact. Through her courageous travels and writings, Adnan takes the responsibility to show her readers her critical perspective as a nomadic woman; she compares her experience to the realities of the women she encounters throughout her journey. From the free women of Barcelona and Rome to the prostitutes on the streets of Amsterdam, the veiled women of Marrakesh and the Arabic women that had been kept far from the public eye, and the women of Beirut as memory keepers, Adnan creates an image of what a “free” woman should ultimately possess. NOMADISM – THE CONCEPT OF NOMADISM IN LITERATURE AND ART Nomadism as Defined by Bouraoui Tunisian-Canadian poet, novelist, philosopher and expert on transculturalism and nomadism He´di Bouraoui defines the concept of béance3 – a critical term describing the positive experience of nomadic people who are forced to reckon with and be open to the differences they encounter through their mobility. In the introduction to the book Transpoétique, Éloge du nomadisme, published in 2005, Bouraoui describes the term nomadism; he states that in today’s global village people have the illusion of being free when they are instead constantly under observation and can move only within the well-defined areas dictated by the contemporary global society. Therefore he asserts that: “The traditional economic frontiers were demolished [...] the strongest multinationals of countries attempt to dominate the global market. The market values invade the planet in almost total freedom, regulated only by com­petition and profit” (Bouraoui 2005: 7 (translated by LZK)). The original significance of the word nomade4 is tied to its etymology; the con­cept of nomadism traditionally refers to wandering in the desert in search of food, water and shelter, while carrying along one’s belongings, memories and a deep sense of one’s original culture. This may lead to a tendency to romanticize the ideal of freedom. Etel Adnan, however, considers the desert as a place of emptiness, pain, self-destruction, and apocalypse: “There’s nothing in the desert save the desert itself 3 In this article, the words in italics are used because they are coined by the author and appear many times in his work. 4 Marwan M. Kraidy, in his book Hybridity or the Cultural Logic of Globalization, published in 2005, wrote on page 139: “Etymologically, the term ‘nomad’ stems from the Greek nomos, meaning ‘an occupied space without limits’, and the Greek nemo, which means ‘to pasture’” (Laroche 1947, cited in Deleuze, 1994: 306). Thus, a nomad is someone who lives in an open space, without restrictions. Furthermore, “pasture” connotes a temporary sojourn in a par­ticular location, which the nomad leaves after having used what that place had to offer. The term “nomad” does not necessarily imply physical movement from one place to another. In Nomadology: The War Machine (1986), French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Fe´lix Guattari define the differences between nomads and migrants: “The nomad is not at all the same as the migrant; for the migrant goes principally from one point to another, even if the second point is uncertain, unforeseen and not very well localized. But the nomad only goes from point to point as a consequence and as a factual necessity: in principle, points for him are relays along the trajectory” (p. 50). and this is true of the passing of Time. […] Betrayal carries love into pain’s darkest regions and is never redeemed […] The story comes into a void” (Adnan 2005: 64). Bouraoui defines “literary nomadism” as having the freedom to move from one place to another, creating new cultures with poetry and art. The idea of “literary nomadism” is based on two fundamental concepts. First, Bouraoui postulates that there is a constant movement from one place to another and a sense of freedom that comes from this wandering. Secondly, Bouraoui underlines the nomad’s motivation for his or her movement. There is always an element of surprise in the discovery of new places and adapting to them, and each move provides for a new adventure and a new departure. This notion in the creative process leads to béance (ibid.: 8–9). Béance and its Use in Bouraoui’s Writing Béance is a French term used in philosophy (by Lacan, Freud, Foucault, Sartre),5 that describes an infinite openness which fills an empty space. Béance “refers to the state of that which is widely and deeply open; it denotes a gaping hole that is synonymous with a void in need of replenishment” (Beggar 2009). Be´ance is a kind of richness, “a hole to be filled up for the purpose of establishing sites of belong­ing, identity and cultural communication, elements that prove to be central for mi­grants, itinerants, and “trans-citizens” i.e. citizens of the world” (Beggar 2009). 6 The liberty of wandering comes from béance. For Bouraoui, béance constitutes the basic philosophy of writing. He links the concept of béance to “nomadism”, and through this creative process, he frees the work from the collective imagery. Similarly, anoth­er way to achieve and apply béance is via neologism. Neologism, or inventing new words, is a unique way for the poet to overcome semantic and semiotic frontiers, as he is free to write in different genres and touch many subjects in different ways given by a language (Le´on 2009). According to Bouraoui, the writer’s homeland is the blank page which repre­sents the emptiness of the desert. Her literary work is what takes her back to her origins while linking her with the present. By defining this creative space as “trans­cultural”, the writer creates a space of comprehension, tolerance and peace between the reader and their relation to the world (Bouraoui 2005: 9–10). 5 In Christian Fierens’ review of the book Existence et Psychanalyse by Guy-Fe´lix Duportail we find the concept of béance, which originates in the studies of psychology mentioned by Freud and Lacan. Lacan makes reference to the inner void within each human being, whereas for Freud it is the desire or the desire for death inherent in human nature. Foucault is mentioned in a lecture by Gilles Deleuze (19 Novembre 1985). For him béance is at the midpoint between seeing and speaking, it stands in place of language. In the article “Du texte philosophique au texte litte´raire. D’un double sujet de l’e´nonciation chez Sartre” written by Sara Vassallo in 2005, we find béance; For Sartre “[...] writing originates from béance which separates existence from the being”. 6 Abderraham Beggar published an essay in French titled L’Epreuve de la Béance: L’Ecriture no-made chez Hédi Bouraoui. This blank page of béance described by Bouraoui is reflected in Etel Adnan’s wanderings through different spaces, places and subject matters. Throughout her work, she opposes “the sad part” (wars, political conflicts, death, wires) to the “happy part” (love, art). While finding the “happy part” through drawing and openly wander­ing through the world, the sad side of Adnan’s work is perhaps the most frequently found in her writings, such as in the book In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country, which narrates the story of the war in Baghdad in the last chapter, To Be in a Time of War. We once again find her sadness in the novel Sitt Marie Rose7 (1977) which mostly discusses the wars in Lebanon and the impact they have had on her reflection of life. Adnan’s great richness comes from her wanderings. As the literary nomad (men­tioned in the same book by Bouraoui) moves from one place to another, he does not lose his identity – which will remain forever his – but rather enriches it through the new cultural forms he encounters. As the nomad migrates, he learns to comprehend what at first seems incomprehensible (Bouraoui 2005: 9). Bouraoui proposes the notion of nomadic transculturalism, transpoetics and trans-creation, founded on the deep knowledge of the original culture and the openness to other cultures encountered. Transpoetic culture sees humans in constant move­ment in a cosmic dimension. Literary nomadism is a modern-day exodus from the traps of contemporary society as it crosses the boundaries of culture and language without limits and accepts difference with tolerance (Bouraoui 2005: 10). “Nomadism [...] sees the deconstruction of the majority in opposition to the minority, the omnip­otence in opposition to the marginal, the exterior world in opposition to the interior one” (ibid.: 12–13 (translated by L. Z. K.)). With specific reference to Adnan, Sonja Mejcher-Atassi, in the chapter The Forbid­den Paradise, How Etel Adnan Learnt to Paint in Arabic, in Arabic Literature, Postmodern Perspectives, edited by Neuwirth, Pflitsch and Winckler and published in 2010 – also suggests that Adnan’s exile continually forces her to cross national and cultural bor­ders, freeing her from “various conventions”: [...] living between three countries, the notion of “home” has acquired transnational and transcultural meaning for Adnan, one that lies beyond an geographical borders. Without diminishing the severity of the loss that every exile entails – be it voluntary or involuntary – Adnan’s exile can at the same time be considered an asset. Con­tinually crossing national as well as cultural borders, she has liberated herself from various conventions. Her literary and artistic practice are marked by a highly avant-garde character. They have anticipated developments that have generally come to be described as postmodern and postcolonial. (Neuwirth et al. 2010: 313) Adnan’s novel Sitt Marie Rose, first published in Paris in 1977 and later translated into ten languages, was one of the first books to talk about the Lebanese civil war and went on to become a classic of modern war literature. Therefore, Adnan is a prime example of the notion of nomadism, both in her physical being and in her writing and visual arts. NOMADISM AND MOBILITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT PLACES AND NON-PLACES Places and Non-Places In his book Non-Places, Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity, Marc Auge´ defines the difference between the notion of place and non-place from an anthro­pological point of view. A non-place is a place that sees the movement of masses with no other intent than to transfer from one place to another for some specific rea­son (travel, shopping etc.), in contrast to anthropological places that create personal identities and memories and are places of emotions (Auge´ 1995: 94). The non-place is governed by well-defined functions (shopping malls, airports, etc.) that are uni­versally accepted and clarified by signs and headings. Moving through a non-place creates solitude and similitude (ibid.: 103). There are only rare opportunities to regain one’s individual identity when entering or leaving a non-place, for example using a cashpoint card or showing an ID card (ibid.: 111). In the non-space, “space” seems trapped by time; there is no history, just an eter­nal present (ibid.: 104). However, there can be no place without a non-place, and so the two co-exist: where there is transit, there is dwelling, where there is interchange there is a crossroad, where there is a passenger there will also be a traveller (ibid.: 107). For Auge´, the world is slowly becoming a non-place, and he suggests that the time will soon come when we will search for solitude in order to rediscover our true selves. This brings us back to the idea of nomadism, which is always present in the works of Etel Adnan as she wanders through time and space, constantly losing and then rediscovering herself. “The thing that is so worrying and fascinating about the character of the immigrant is the emigrant” (ibid.: 119). Adnan is constantly travelling through non-spaces to find new spaces. This is the main difference between what Auge´ calls supermodernity and its non-places. In the situation of supermodernity, part of this exterior is made of non-places, and parts of the non-places are made of images. Frequentation of non-places today pro­vides an experience – without real historical precedent – of solitary individuality combined with non-human mediation [...] between the individual and the public authority. (Auge´ 1995: 117–118) In contrast to the concept of non-space, home is a space. For Etel Adnan, it is initially equated with her return to Lebanon. However, her concept of home takes on a new meaning as her nomadic lifestyle forces her to stretch her boundaries. “The charac­ter is at home when he is at ease in the rhetoric of the people with whom he shares life. The sign of being at home is the ability to make oneself understood without too much difficulty, and to follow the reasoning of others without any need for long explanations” (Auge´ 1995: 108). This concept of home will be further discussed below. Contrastingly, Adnan’s personal definition of home cannot be contained within one single place, as it is nearly impossible for others to grasp the reality of her world, which has expanded beyond the borders and experiences of her homeland. LITERARY AND ARTISTIC NOMADISM AS FOUND IN THE WORKS OF ETEL ADNAN In her books In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country and Of Cities & Women (Letters to Fawwaz), the author uniquely documents her constant moving back and forth from California to Beirut for study and work. She walks along the borders, constant­ly discovering different identities and themes along her travels. The different land­scapes that she encounters are reproduced in her visual art. In the interview, Adnan revealed that she wrote the book Of Cities & Women (Letters to Fawwaz) while she was travelling on planes flying to different places. This book is, therefore, a collection of letters with specific dates, months and years, writ­ten to Fawwaz,8 with the intention of putting together a publication on feminism to be published in his magazine Zawaya. Piecing together what attracted her most, Adnan’s writings use words, colours and sounds to create a vivid description of the events going on around her. Adnan’s inspiration for the book In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country came from a book by William H. Gass called In the Heart of the Heart of the Country, a collec­tion of short stories depicting the state of the American Midwest. In Adnan’s In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country, the author visits many different places, where she is always leaving behind something and somewhere only to discover something and somewhere new (Adnan 2005: xii, xiii). She moves, “[...] from ocean shore to ocean shore. From Beirut to the Red Sea. From Aden to Algiers, from Oregon to La Paz” (ibid.: 11). She is in constant exile – de­molishing, constructing and reconstructing the places she visits, feeling the need to keep moving as the earth beneath her feet becomes an ocean, driving her onward (ibid.: 10). Her every move takes her back and forth from places that are always the Fawwaz Traboulsi is a Lebanese writer living in Paris and the editor of Zawaya, a political mag­azine. Instead of remaining within the walls of her studio to write the pages of the book, the author decided to write this collection of letters while travelling on planes from destination to destination, using first-hand observations, explorations, voyages, and visits to cities and panoramic landscapes. same but never “the same”. This idea of destruction and reconstruction is taken up again in the second chapter. Twenty five years later, we find the use of metaphors that indicate the author’s sense of loss and disorientation, as she remarks, “I’m in a disorienting wilderness” (Adnan 2005: 30). The Notion of “Béance” for Etel Adnan Adnan’s works demonstrate the concept of béance most vividly when she de­scribes her motivations for traveling for artistic pleasure. The vast and rich artistic world she discovers is borderless and inspires her to explore her artistic identity. Adnan frequently travelled around to visit exhibitions by her favourite artists: “[...] I adored Paul Klee, Kandinsky, Malevich, they were more my friends than the peo­ple I knew. And when I saw their work I was convulsed with pleasure, I really was. I traveled from San Francisco to New York to see shows by Paul Klee and the like” (Adnan 2015: 40). In the interview, she explained how Picasso was an example for her of migration between the realms of art, philosophy, politics and literature. For Adnan, Picasso – like all great painters –was a great thinker, and, similar to her, his paintings showed the happy side of his philosophy: When we think about art and literature, we think of two completely different worlds, we impose a border between the two, but the mind doesn’t have borders. Borders are tools for teaching. We say art, we say literature, for reasons of clarification, but in themselves, if they come from the same person they reflect the same person, the same sensitivity. We are constantly dealing with everything we are, we know, so even a thought can be emotional, too, and even an emotion can carry an intellectual idea. Emotion and intellect come from the same energy, from the same life experi­ence. When we communicate, we use different tools; words, colors [...] but very often literature and art express the same concept, especially when they come from the same person […] The intersection between text and images is like visual art and poetry. They are dif­ferent languages and you can mix them, but even if you mix them, an image is an image and a text is a text. So you see they may reflect each other, like when you illustrate a poem. I call the illustration the reading of that poem. I read this poem but instead of telling you what I read in words, I say it in visions. Nomadism and Béance in Adnan’s Paintings Even the very act of becoming a painter was generated by Adnan’s nomadic life­style, which only took shape after she moved to California to teach philosophy and aesthetics at Dominican College in San Rafael. A fellow professor and head of the art department, Ann O’Hanlon, encouraged her to discover her artistic side, first with small crayons and later with her own workspace (Adnan 2015: 22–24). In the preface to the catalogue to her exhibition La joie de vivre, we read that just as Adnan moves throughout her books from one place to another, she also embod­ies these same concepts of moving from space to space in her paintings. By paint­ing geometric abstractions of various landscapes familiar to her in a flow of activity, “without interruption and without subsequent corrections,” she emulates the act of writing “between figurativism and abstraction, her paintings develop a high degree of emotional strength, combining the expressed with the unsaid, and leaving room for individual feelings” (Adnan 2015: 6). Adnan’s poetry has influenced both the dimensions and techniques involved in her work. Her works are often small, which allows her to finish them in one sitting, as if writing a poem (ibid.: 24). She uses a palette knife to apply colour to the canvas, rather than a brush (ibid.: 22), so that she can create geometric forms that are remi­niscent of the artists which she would so often travel to visit (ibid.: 6). Although Adnan does not know how to write in Arabic, she uses its script in her paintings as yet another form of cultural mobility (Neuwirth et al. 2010: 311). Upon discovering Japanese artist’s books, she incorporates their form with the Arabic po­etry of important poets, embellishing them with drawings and paintings and with­out conformity to traditional calligraphic traditions. Simone Fattal9 describes this re­lationship between text and images as taking on a new and more emotional quality as it transcends both word and image10 (Majaj, Amireh 2002: 89). 9 Simone Fattal is a sculptor and the founder and publisher of The Post-Apollo Press. She first met Adnan in Beirut in the 1970s. Fattal is the publisher of Adnan’s books Of Cities & Women (Letters to Fawwaz) and the novel Paris, When It’s Naked. 10 In the book Etel Adnan, Critical Essays on the Arab-American Writer and Artist, published in 2002, Simone Fattal states: “The poems were brought to life more rapidly than if one fol­lowed the words alone. Also, the tenderness of her line brought an immense emotion and empathy to the text and to its reading, so that the moment of this reading became intense­ly printed in the imagination. The drawings and watercolors added a dimension of poign­ancy and urgency to the text, which was seen by Adnan twice, once as a text and once as an image. The reader was thus given three interpretations: that of the poet, the transcriber, and the painter.” Figure 1: Adnan’s Leporello 1, Untitled, 2009; Adnan’s Leporello 2, In The Forest, 2009; Adnan’s Leporello 3, Unsi el Hajj, 2012; Adnan’s Leporello 4, East River Pollution “From Laura’s Window”, New York, April 1979; Adnan’s Leporello 5, Freedom of People, Freedom of Animals, Freedom of Plants, 2011 (source: Etel Adnan, La joie de vivre 2015: 75). NOMADISM AS AN ACCUMULATION OF IDENTITIES RATHER THAN THE FRACTURING OF THEM Adnan’s view of the cultural identity of intellectual immigrants writing contempo­rary literature goes against the common image of nomadic identity as merely frag­mented and fractured. She claims in the interview that “It is not a rupture, they are actually accumulation, not a rupture, because your life goes on and there is a conti­nuity of your physical being and these things come on you and become your mem­ory [which] gets richer and it absorbs good and bad things.” Nevertheless, in her book Of Cities and Women, Adnan is aware of having plural identities. Fragments of herself have been scattered in all of the different places she has visited and resided in. Just as pieces of a mosaic are pieced together to form a picture, so the identity of a person is a never-ending mosaic of broken fragments. As one of the first authors to embrace the topic of the civil war and the conflicts in the Arabic world, Adnan confronted this truth through her humanistic writings. She was unafraid to use strong symbolic language to describe these fragmented identities (Adnan 1993: 54–55). Adnan describes herself as a gathering point – as an active participant in the con­struction of her own identity through the collection of experiences and the courage to continue through difficult times. The metaphor of mirrors, particularly regarding her experience in Spain, is used by Adnan to show the culmination of various aspects of her life – collected into one reflected image in one nomadic object: a mirror. Spain has been a mirror for me. An enormous mirror in which my reflection is but a small fragment. There are a lot of people in this mirror: people of yesterday and people of today, women, men, children, animals, plants. In the memory of a woman there is always the memory of several others, as if to be a woman and to be memory were one and the same thing. (Adnan 1993: 56) As a reflection of Arabic culture herself, she feels particularly troubled by the erad­ication of aspects of ancient Arabic philosophy, especially in Spain, where Arabic culture made a lasting impact upon its arrival in Europe. Her fragmented self is there­fore also a simple reflection of what came before, the many years of significant Ar­abic presence in Spain and the subsequent fall. All that remains today is a mirrored reflection of this fragmented culture. Likewise, Adnan is also a reflection of her shat­tered parts, pieced together in a single mirrored image; an accumulation of all of her consequent shattered parts in a single mirrored image. NOMADISM BETWEEN DIFFERENT HOUSES In the interview, Adnan defined her home as being in a state of nomadism. She says she has two homes, one in Lebanon and one in California, and she loves both of them and feels a strong attachment to them both. In the book The Poetics of Space by Gaston Bachelard, space takes on a new mean­ing. The author describes the house in all its features and details from the attic to the cellar, and uses the house as a metaphor for humanity. The house accompanies man throughout his lifetime. Childhood memories of our home will always be nostalgic; homes are the place of our dreams and the place where we find ultimate shelter. The house allows us to dream in peace (Bachelard 1958: 3–4). Adnan is very impressed by this book. He was, in fact, her professor in Paris. Bachelard writes that “an entire universe already exists inside a nutshell” (Adnan 2015: 26). Adnan’s house, however, is not a singular, fixed location, but rather encompasses several different places. Her mobility throughout her long life as an intellectual exile, writer and artist leads her to constantly lose herself, only to find herself again as she lives “in-between spaces”.11 This term is also mentioned in the title of the chapter written by Mejcher-Atassi, The Forbidden Paradise, How Etel Adnan Learnt to Paint in Arabic, published in 2010. In this book, the author recognises Adnan’s nomadic style and her constant search for home “continually crossing national as well as cultural borders” (Neuwirth et al. 2010: 312–313). Adnan builds her home though the interweaving of her locations and experienc­es. “I was used to a world now remote, and, at the same time, getting used to a new one that was also my old world, and somewhere, deep inside, I was alien to both” (Adnan 2005: xii). Here Adnan describes how her mobility both creates and destructs her sense of home. She is constantly questioning the reality of what is home, ask­ing, “living in different houses doesn’t mean living in one in each season. And does home still mean bed, kitchen and mailbox?” (Adnan 2005: 87). However, travels and mobility have added to the richness of Adnan’s intellectual life, which creates a sense of security for her, as she finds home within the freedom of mobility. She wants to move to different countries; she comments, “when a window has been opened I feel the urge to travel” (ibid.: 70). Contrastingly, the traditional sense of house now seems to be menacing and oppressive: “A house is a cage, a monument, the mausoleum of all travels, an observatory, the belly of one’s mother. Mine is now full of windows, above a harbor (Adnan 2005: 13). Her intellect and experience must construct for her a new sort of home: She writes, “My mind has many houses; it’s drafty in here, and noisy, angels discuss reality and virtuality while I sit” (Adnan 2005: 22). Adnan speaks of houses repeatedly throughout her writings. In her book In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country, the first house Adnan describes is her father’s house in Beirut. She recounts nostalgically the good memories she had there. The 11 “In-between” spaces is a term used by Homi K. Bhabba in The Location of Culture (1994). same house is then the place where her ghost wanders after she sells it and returns to California. “Now, my ghost wanders in it, and I try to call it back and it refuses to join me: from now on we will lead separate lives” (Adnan 2005: 21). As the famous writer Ralph Waldo Emerson says, our minds remember fondly old homes that have been an important part of our lives – “the mind loves its old home: as water to our thirst, so is the rock, the ground, to our eyes and hands and feet. It is firm water; it is cold flame; what health, what affinity” (Emerson 1940: 407). On the other hand, he does not feel that large cities give enough space to our senses, and so the city dweller must go out daily and nightly in search of horizons to inspire him, but which are so hard to find. Where we are too far from nature, he says, we try to reproduce it artificially (e.g. city houses with rural influences) (ibid.: 407). Adnan begins her wandering from house to house, to ‘non-places’, as her fond­est one has been destroyed. “I reside in cafe´s: they are my real homes […] My mind has many houses […]” (Adnan 2005: 22). Adnan is also fascinated with hotels. She sees them as a fascinating symbol for a life lived day to day (ibid.: 31). The author describes California as one of her homes, as she spent “half a century in it” (ibid.: 67). In all of her houses, the author sees windows as symbolic, as well as an im­portant element through which to observe nature: “Houses are made of windows held standing by walls. All kinds of things enter not through doors but through windows wide open on a clear sky” (ibid.: 50). Windows provide a sense of freedom, abandoning the idea of a house as a cage and turning it into an observation point of invisible things. Further on, the theme of the “house” is seen as representative of a sense of im­patience, and the “doors and windows” are symbols of void and emptiness. For the author, walls tend to disappear from the vague memories of the past, only to linger as “wavery surfaces, moving patches of pale colors” (ibid.: 68). When the author returns to visit Beirut, an immediate sense of home invades her. In Lebanon, the memory of war had melded into the eyes of the people. The result of 15 years of war was everywhere in the eyes of homeless children, and the voice of a desperate woman who asks for help (Adnan 1993: 72–73). In all of the physical locations in which Adnan shifts, no house is able to fully be considered her home, because each space is only a fragment of herself, and her true home then cannot be any place other than in her creative outlets – her writing and her art. “... I feel that I haven’t settled anywhere, really, that I’m rather living the world, all over, in newspapers, in railway stations, cafes, airports ... The books that I’m writing are houses that I build for myself” (Ma-jaj, Amireh 2002: 67). Even in her visual artistry, Mejcher-Atassi mentions that Adnan finds her home through her artist’s books. Her Japanese Leporellos: [...] embody a sense of a homecoming for Adnan who has lived all her life in “in-be­tween spaces”. “These works,” she concludes, “represent to me a coming to terms which I would never had expected until it happened with the many threads that make up the tapestry of my life. I integrated myself in the cultural destiny of the Arabs by very indirect ways, and I hope that the search is not over.” (Neuwirth et al. 2010: 319) Adnan finds reconciliation with her shattered and marginalized past through her visual arts. Her use of Arabic calligraphy in her artistic books links her to the “‘forbid­den paradise’ of her childhood” (ibid.: 319). CONCLUSION Adan’s works bring together many different themes, memories and emotions. As this nomadic writer and artist continues her wanderings, she scatters fragments of herself in all of the places she has visited and lived in. The sense of stability is per­ceived only in her writings. The author is in constant search for a place to call home but, at the same time, she needs to feel free and unconstrained. Through her work, she takes us on a journey of “many peregrinations, multiple sunsets and endless sun­rises [...]” (Adnan 2005: 83). Through each of the notions presented as subheadings in In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country (like places, house, people), Adnan describes the state of her no-madism, as she loses touch with the traditional security of houses and identity. She floats from location to location, acquiring aspects of each, while never losing the fear of war which looms over her, no matter where she goes. Her fragmented identity is a collective sum of the experiences and places she has encountered, while remaining almost isolated in that no matter where she goes, no one seems to be able to con­sole her or provide a sense of peace and security. No one seems to understand her fully. Perhaps her message is that war shatters not only the streets with bombs but also its people, whose identity becomes shattered as they are forced to assume new roles and identities in their search for a safe haven from the destruction. Likewise, through the nine letters in the book Of Cities & Women (Letters to Faw­waz), Adnan takes the reader on a journey to discover the role of women in different contexts, as they move as nomads from one reality to another. The author reflects on how the environment, culture, and people shape and define women’s bodies, minds and liberty. As a nomadic writer, Adnan is free to observe and reflect upon the state of women in each location, and also to criticize the lack of equality and civil rights, sometimes hidden beneath layers of so-called civility. Her writing reflects the life and qualities of each location with clarity and detail. Rather than lose her firm identity, the nomad is enriched by the freedom and liberty that this conveys. She is able to see events and places from a new perspective. Unlike other Lebanese writers, she does not portray herself as an exile, but merely a citizen of the world. A sense of nostalgia prevails as the author carries with her the memories from her childhood, which are present in each city, and the search for her “mother’s voice”, the conduit for her journey. This journey eventually brings her home to Beirut, a city of despair, but with the hope of rebirth. While her writings often reflect the fragmented and negative side of coping with her nomadic existence, her paintings express her joie de vivre – the positive and universal aspects of her nomadic “home”, which is her very life and her works. Just as sea-creatures are constantly finding refuge within their own shells, Etel Adnan has constantly found and redefined herself. She is no longer merely a citizen of Beirut, but has become instead a true citizen of the world. The concept of nomadism has accompanied Adnan throughout her life in her travels between the Orient and the Occident, wandering through empty spaces and places of the world into this béance – this openness to receive, to observe and to act through her creative writing and art. REFERENCES Adnan, Etel (1993). Of Cities & Women (Letters to Fawwaz). Sausalito, California: The Post-Apollo Press. Adnan, Etel (2005). In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country. San Francisco: City lights Books. Adnan, Etel (2012). Sea and Fog, Callicoon, New York: Nightboat Books. Adnan, Etel (2015). La joie de vivre [Exhibition catalogue]. Zürich, Germany: Museum Haus Konstruktiv Selnaustrasse. Auge´, Marc (1995). Non-Places, Introduction to an Anthropology of Supermodernity. London, New York: Verso. Bachelard, Gaston (1958). The Poetics of Space. Boston: Beacon Press. Becker, Carol (1999). The Romance of Nomadism: A series of Reflection. Art Journal 58/2, (Summer 1995), 27. Beggar, Abderrahmam (2009). L’Epreuve de la Be´ance: L’Ecriture nomade chez He´di Bouraoui. Postcolonial Text 6/1, 1. Bouraoui, He´di (2005). Transpoétique Éloge du nomadisme. Canada: Me´moire d’encrier. Braidotti, Rosi (2002). Nuovi soggetti nomadi. Roma: Luca Sossella editore. Emerson, Ralph Waldo (1940). The Complete Essays and other Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson. United States of America: Modern House, The Modern Library New York. Fattal, Simone, Ouyang, Wen-Chin (2002). Etel Adnan, Critical Essays on the Arab-Ame­rican Writer and Artist: On Perception: Etel Adnan’s Visual Art, From Beirut to Beirut: Exile, Wandering and Homecoming in the Narratives of Etel Adnan (eds. Lisa Suhair Majaj, Amal Amireh). North Carolina, London: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publi­shers Jefferson. Kraidy, M. Marwan (2005). Hybridity, or the Cultural Logic of Globalization. Philadelp­hia: Temple University Press. Mejcher-Atassi, Sonja (2010). Arabic Literature, Postmodern Perspectives: The Forbidden Paradise how Etel Adnan Learnt to Paint in Arabic (eds. Angelica Neuwirth, Andreas Pflitsh, Barbara Winckler). Beirut: Saqi. INTERNET SOURCES Adnan, Etel (1996). Electronic Poetry Review, https://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/cmal/fa­culty/alcalay/ adnan2.pdf (2. 6. 2019). Guy-Fe´lix Duportail (2016). Existence et psychanalyse, Hermann, https://www.implica­tions-philosophiques.org/recensions/recension-existence-et-psychanalyse-de--g-f-duportail/ (1. 7. 2019). Le´on, Pierre (2009). La béance, élément organique de la pensée bouraouienne, un état de disponibilité et de dynamisme potentiel, https://l-express.ca/la-beance-elemen-t-organique-de-la-pensee-bouraouienne/ (1. 7. 2019). Deleuze / Foucault – Les formations historiques cours 5 du 19 Novembre 1985, partie 5/5. Transcription Annabelle Dufourcq, http://www2.univ-paris8.fr/deleuze/arti­cle.php3?id_article=422 (5. 4. 2019). Vassallo, Sara (2005). Du texte philosophique au texte littéraire. D’un double sujet de l’énonciation chez Sartre, Rue Descartes 1, n. 47, https://www.cairn.info/revue-ru­e-descartes-2005-1-page-19.htm (2. 6. 2019). VIDEO SOURCE Interview by Laure Zarif Keyrouz: Chalproject.org archive, https://youtu.be/15NYF2f­ntrE (6. 9. 2018). POVZETEK MOBILNOST IN IDENTITETA V UMETNOSTI IN LITERATURI ETEL ADNAN Laure ZARIF KEYROUZ Leta 1925 v Bejrutu rojena Etel Adnan zase trdi, da izhaja iz nomadske kulture. Iz Li-banona se je najprej preselila v Pariz, kjer je diplomirala iz filozofije in estetike, študij pa pozneje nadaljevala najprej na univerzi Berkeley v Kaliforniji, nato pa na univerzi Harvard v Cambridgu. Med letoma 1952 in 1978 je na kolidžu San Rafael Dominican v Kaliforniji poučevala filozofijo umetnosti. Po vrnitvi v Libanon je delala kot novinar­ka, nato pa je morala zaradi vojne še enkrat zapustiti domovino. Članek se ukvarja z vprašanjem, kako se »nomadstvo« Etel Adnan odraža v njeni umetnosti in literaturi, zlasti v delih In the Heart of the Heart of Another Country in Of Cities & Women (Letters to Fawwaz). Avtorica v svojih delih prepleta umetnost in literaturo obiskanih krajev, ustvarja presečišče med kulturami in poudarja pomen »trka« različnih vizualnih umetnosti in verbalnega jezika. Nomadstvo, ki je zanjo navdihujoča prednost – pomeni namreč osvoboditev od meja in omejitev stalne­ga doma – se posledično odraža v njenem delu. Kot otrok muslimanskega očeta in ortodoksne krščanske matere, ki sta izhajala iz različnih kultur in držav, se od nekdaj sooča z družbenozgodovinsko impliciranimi mejami: tako spolnih vlog in jezika kot vere in politike. KOLEKTIVNA IZKUŠNJA PREBEŽNIŠTVA IN DRUGIH OBLIK IZSELJEVANJA MLADIH PO DRUGI SVETOVNI VOJNI V PISNIH, USTNIH IN DRUGIH AVTO/BIOGRAFSKIH VIRIH Mirjam MILHARČIČ HLADNIK| COBISS 1.02 IZVLEČEK Kolektivna izkušnja prebežništva in drugih oblik izseljevanja mladih po drugi svetovni vojni v pisnih, ustnih in drugih avto/biografskih virih Članek obravnava obdobje izseljevanja na Slovenskem od konca druge svetovne vojne do začetka šestdesetih let 20. stoletja, v katerem je poleg omejenih možnosti legalnega prehoda prevladovala oblika prebežništva oziroma ilegalnega prehajanja zahodne in severne meje. Izseljevanje in prebežništvo so povzročali številni dejavniki, ki so vsebinsko integralno najbolj natančno opisani v pisnih, ustnih in drugih avto/ biografskih pričevanjih akterjev dogajanja. Da bi osvetlil kompleksnost vzrokov za odhajanja med mladimi v obravnavanem obdobju, članek temelji na pregledu in pri­merjalni analizi osebnih izkušenj prebežništva in izseljevanja izbranih posameznikov. KLJUČNE BESEDE: izseljevanje, prebežništvo, avto/biografski viri, nadzor migracij, Jugoslavija/Slovenija ABSTRACT Collective Experience of Defection and other Types of Youth Emigration after the Second World War in Written, Oral and other Auto/Biographical Sources The article deals with the period of emigration in the Slovenian territory from the end of WWII to the beginning of the 1960s. Beside the limited possibilities for legal crossing, the prevalent forms of emigration in this period were the illegal crossing of the western and northern borders or defection. The many reasons for emigration or escape are most thoroughly described in the auto/biographical testimonies of the agents of these practices. The article is based on an overview and comparative anal­ysis of the personal experiences of emigration and escaping of the selected individ­uals. It aims to highlight the complexity of the reasons for the departure of young people during this period. KEY WORDS: emigration, illegal migration, auto/biographical sources, migration con­trol, Yugoslavia/Slovenia | Dr. sociologije, izr. prof., znanstvena svetnica, Inštitut za slovensko izseljenstvo in migracije ZRC SAZU, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana; hladnik@zrc-sazu-si — Prispevek je nastal v okviru raziskovalnih projektov »Nadzor nad migracijami na Slovenskem od Avstro-Ogrske do samo­stojne Slovenije« (J6-8250) in »Socialna, gospodarska in kulturna zgodovina slovenskega iz­seljenstva 1945–1991« (J5-8246) ter raziskovalnega programa »Narodna in kulturna identiteta slovenskega izseljenstva v kontekstu raziskovanja migracij« (P5-0070). UVOD V dveh desetletjih po drugi svetovni vojni so na slovenskem ozemlju potekale raz­lične oblike intenzivnega izseljevanja. Ljudje so v dramatičnih okoliščinah zaprtih in strogo nadzorovanih meja odhajali kot begunci, izgnanci, ilegalni migranti ali pre­bežniki, v manjši meri tudi kot legalni migranti z urejenimi potnimi listi. Območja na slovenskem ozemlju so imela svoje specifike glede razmejitev, ki so določale življenj­ske okoliščine lokalnega prebivalstva in vplivale na njihove odločitve za odhod. Na severu se v dveh desetletjih meje niso bistveno spremenile, na zahodu pa je raz­mejitvam sledila postavitev (začasne) meje, kar je imelo različne učinke na življenje ljudi in njihove odločitve. Spreminjali so se tudi ideološko, politično in zakonodajno urejanje prestopov meja ter stopnja strogosti mejnega nadzora in režim kaznovanja prebežnikov; ta je bil po letu 1951 omiljen (Lukšič Hacin 2019: 192). V prvih par le­tih po maju 1945 govorimo predvsem o množičnem begunstvu in izgnanstvu, ki je dobilo predznak politične emigracije (Švent 2007), od leta 1947 pa o prebežništvu, v katerem so se prepletali kompleksni razlogi za pobeg in skupna okoliščina, to je zaprtost meje (Mlekuž 2019: 164–166). Nadzor nad gibanjem ljudi se je še okrepil po informbiroju leta 1948 in zaostro­vanju hladne vojne. V tem obdobju lahko pomembnejše mejnike urejanja in nadzo­rovanja prehajanja meje postavimo v leto 1951, ko je bil sprejet nov kazenski zakonik, in v leto 1962, ko je bil sprejet Zakon o amnestiji dotedanjih ilegalnih prebežnikov, če niso bili vojni zločinci. Na zahodni meji je pomemben mejnik leto 1954, ko so strogi mejni režim zrahljali Videmski sporazumi, čeprav je ostala meja, razen za domačine, skoraj nepropustna do začetka šestdesetih let (Čelik 2013). Prvi zvezni predpis o or-ganiziranem izseljevanju iz Jugoslavije je izšel leta 1963. V tem obdobju so bila dovo­ljenja za prehod meje izdana na podlagi posebnih prošenj, nekatere druge možnos-ti, na primer združevanje družin, pa opisujem v nadaljevanju. V članku največjo pozornost posvečam prebežništvu, v manjši meri tudi legalne-mu izseljevanju mladih do 25. leta starosti. Mladi so bili prevladujoča starostna kate­gorija prebežništva v obdobju med letoma 1947 in 1962 (Božič 2013; Vidmar 2015). Osrednji namen članka je preseganje obravnavanja mladih kot žrtev nadzornih me-hanizmov in težkih povojnih razmer. Izbrani primeri strategij upiranja, izogibanja in izkoriščanja institucionalnih in neinstitucionalnih nadzorov nad mobilnostjo želijo prikazati, kako so se mladi aktivno spopadali z omejitvami in s težavami, ki so jih vzpostavljali nadzori, prepovedi in omejitve. Bistvo omenjenih strategij je koncept avtonomnega delovanja. Avtonomno delovanje je treba razumeti kot sprejemanje racionalnih odločitev o mobilnosti v razmerah nadzorovalnih in omejevalnih meha­nizmov lokalnih, državnih in meddržavnih struktur. Zato o avtonomnem delovanju lahko govorijo izključno migranti sami, zapleten proces tehtanja možnosti, prilož­nosti, omejitev in nevarnosti v kontekstu nadzorovanja in kaznovanja je namreč ne­mogoče raziskovati »od zunaj« oziroma zgolj s stališča struktur in mehanizmov. Me-todološko lahko raznovrstne oblike avtonomnega delovanja mladih prebežnikov in izseljencev raziskujemo z narativnimi biografskimi metodami. S kvalitativno meto­dologijo in z upoštevanjem vseh etičnih omejitev, ki jih tak metodološki pristop zah­teva, lahko avtonomno odločanje in delovanje proučujemo s pomočjo življenjskih zgodb, pričevanj, pripovedi, poglobljenih intervjujev in avto/biografskega gradiva. V članku je za primerjalno analizo kompleksnosti razlogov, motivov in načinov prebega oziroma odhoda izbranih sedem pričevalcev, ki so svoje izkušnje mladih prebežnikov oziroma izseljencev zabeležili v pisnih in ustnih spominih ter pričeva­njih. Njihove subjektivne interpretacije okoliščin, v katerih so se odločili za odhod v tujino, so umeščene v pregledni prikaz migracij povojnega obdobja ter v oris avto/ biografskih virov, ki se v zadnjem desetletju množijo in so za podrobnejše razume­vanje prebežništva in drugih oblik izseljevanja po drugi svetovni vojni dosegljivi na­daljnjim analizam. POVOJNE MIGRACIJE IN MLADI Po podatkih v arhivih Sekretariata za notranje zadeve, ki jih je analiziral Marjan Dr-novšek, je s slovenskega ozemlja med letoma 1947 in 1965 pobegnilo okrog 45.000 oseb, okrog 33.000 osebam pa so beg preprečili (Drnovšek 2010: 284). Koliko od teh so pri poskusu prebega ubili, ni znano. K temu številu moramo prišteti okoli 20.000 do 25.000 beguncev, ki so čez mejo zbežali takoj po osvoboditvi leta 1945 in pridobi­li status razseljenih oseb. Med njimi je bila skoraj celotna skupnost Kočevarjev, okrog 12.500 oseb, ki so morali ozemlje zapustiti po večstoletnem bivanju na Slovenskem. Izselitvi oziroma preselitvi je na Kočevskem sledilo vojno pustošenje vojskujočih strani in po koncu vojne množični izgon Kočevskih Nemcev (Tschinkel 2010). Ocena števila vseh izseljenih oziroma izgnanih Nemcev s slovenskega ozemlja je sicer veli­ko višja, okrog 25.000 (Nećak 2010). Obseg begunstva, izgnanstva in prebežništva dopolnjuje izselitev skoraj celotnega italijansko govorečega prebivalstva iz obalnih mest in zaledja, imenovanega optiranje ali eksodus, odvisno od interpretacije (Gom­bač 2005). Nevenka Troha ocenjuje, da se je med letoma 1945 in 1958 iz koprskega okraja izselilo 25.062 oseb: »Skupaj je območje, ki je bilo oktobra 1954 priključeno Sloveniji, tako zapustilo 27.810 oseb. Koliko je bilo med njimi Slovencev, ni znano, saj je nacionalna pripadnost navedena le na vlogah po oktobru 1953.« (Troha 2000: 261) Vsekakor so odhajali tudi prebivalci slovenskega porekla, zaradi odhoda prebival­stva pa se je popolnoma spremenila družbena in jezikovna struktura obalnih mest, ki so bila v naslednjih desetletjih ponovno naseljena (Kalc 2019). Vasi so se pred vzpostavitvijo meje leta 1947 in po njej izpraznile tudi na sever-nem delu zahodne meje, na Tolminskem, Kambreškem in Goriškem. Ta meja je zare­zala v skupni prostor in ni več dovoljevala tradicionalno uveljavljenih ekonomskih, socialnih in kulturnih stikov. Jernej Vidmar navaja podatke za goriški okraj, od koder je samo med letoma 1947 in 1951 zbežalo 2.694 ljudi, od tega 277 družin (Vidmar 2015: 126), za tolminski okraj pa ugotavlja: »Gotovo lahko trdimo, da so ljudje bežali skoraj iz vseh vasi takratnega okraja Tolmin. Pobegnili so z bovškega konca, iz bre­ginjskega kota, s kobariškega območja, tolminskega konca, iz krajev okrog Mosta na Soči, z območja Planote, Šentviške gore in drugod. Največ jih je zbežalo iz vasi v Breginjskem kotu«. (Prav tam: 109) Maja Božič, ki je raziskala poročila Referata za meje RSNZ od 1945 do 1961, je na podlagi nepopolnih podatkov za prebege meje z Avstrijo ugotovila, da je bilo največ prebežnikov iz okrajev Murska Sobota, Maribor, Kranj, Ljubljana. Ugotovila je pomembno značilnost prebežništva, »da so Jugosla­vijo zapuščali zelo mladi ljudje, stari med 18 in 25 let. Med njimi je bilo več moških kot žensk, kar nakazuje na beg pred vojaško obveznostjo v jugoslovanski vojski«. (Božič 2013: 32) Razlogi množičnega odhajanja in bežanja so bili tako politični kot ekonomski, ideološki, verski in osebni, največkrat pa kompleksni in povezani s političnoekonom­skimi razmerami povojnega obdobja. Bežali so delavci, kmetje, duhovniki, izobra­ženci, premožnejši in revnejši, predvsem pa mladi fantje pred vojaško obveznostjo in mlada dekleta pred pomanjkanjem življenjskih možnosti. Ljudje so se komunizma in nove oblasti bali iz ideoloških, političnih in verskih razlogov; mnogi so se bali ali so bili žrtve represije, ki je vladala že med vojno, po osvoboditvi pa se je nadaljevala; premožnejši so želeli zavarovati svojo lastnino, izobraženci svobodo, navaja Jernej Vidmar, ki razloge prebežništva takole strne: Ljudi so poleg represije jugoslovanskega režima čez mejo pognale predvsem težke ekonomsko-socialne razmere v povojni Jugoslaviji, ki je le počasi okrevala od posle­dic vojne. […] Ekonomsko-socialne stiske so bile tudi posledica politično-ideoloških ukrepov jugoslovanske oblasti v letih 1948–1953, zlasti na področju kmetijske poli­tike, ki so prizadeli veliko število kmetov (agrarna reforma, obvezni odkupi, obvezna oddaja, kolektivizacija). (Vidmar 2015: 125) Če strnemo približne ocene o izseljevanju, prebežništvu in begunstvu v dveh deset­letjih po drugi svetovni vojni, lahko ugotovimo, da je bilo med njimi okrog 25.000 beguncev, 45.000 prebežnikov, ki jim je pobeg uspel, okoli 30.000 optantov in ne­ugotovljeno število izseljencev s potnimi listi. Slovenijo je v dveh desetletjih za­pustilo več kot 100.000 ljudi, poskus ilegalnega odhoda pa je bil preprečen 33.000 ljudem. To so zgolj približne ocene, s katerimi je podan oris obsežnosti fenomena, nikakor pa ne natančni podatki. Kot ugotavlja Marina Lukšič Hacin, je prav populacija prebežnikov »znotraj selitvenih študij v Sloveniji slabše raziskana, med drugim tudi zaradi pomanjkanja podatkov. Ocene o razsežnosti povojnega prebežništva se iz več razlogov, predvsem pa zaradi sistematične nedokumentiranosti, zelo razhajajo.« (Lukšič Hacin 2019: 193) Leta 1956 so slovenski partijski voditelji ugotavljali, »da se število pobegov čez mejo nenehno povečuje, da gre predvsem za ekonomske emi­grante, da je med prebežniki kar 80 % delavcev, med njimi tudi kvalificirani in visoko kvalificirani, in da je 73 % emigrantov mlajših od 25 let« (Režek 2005: 949). Vsekakor so bili ilegalni prehodi meje pogosti, med prebežniki pa so prevladovali mladi. AVTOBIOGRAFSKI VIRI ZA RAZUMEVANJE IZSELJEVANJA IN PREBEŽNIŠTVA V zadnjem desetletju je bilo zbranega veliko gradiva, v katerem raznovrstne izku­šnje različnih oblik selitev in preselitev predstavljajo sami akterji tega povojnega do-gajanja, nastale pa so tudi obsežne raziskave in analize avto/biografskega gradiva. Na portalu nacionalne televizije MMC so v arhivu oddaje Pričevalci na voljo številni posnetki izčrpnih pripovedi in pričevanj uspešnih prebežnikov, ki so se po različno dolgem bivanju v italijanskih in avstrijskih taboriščih kot ekonomski migranti izselili v Avstralijo ali pa preko avstrijskega ozemlja v druge države. Do danes je dostopnih deset posnetkov osemnajstih zgodb o vzrokih za pobeg in kompleksni izkušnji mi-gracijskega procesa.1 Poleg pomembnih zbirk gradiva so nastale tudi poglobljene študije in analize migracij po drugi svetovni vojni. Doktorska disertacija Jerneja Vid­marja (2016) obsega natančen pregled nadzora in represije na meji med Jugoslavijo in Italijo med letoma 1947 in 1954 ter številna pričevanja iz arhivskih virov. Poleg teh je obdelanih še dvajset pričevanj, ki jih je avtor sam posnel in predstavil. Urška Strle (2009a) je v svojem prispevku o ilegalnemu izseljevanju iz Posočja v Italijo analizirala kompleksne politične, ekonomske, ideološke in intimne razloge za prebege, posnela in predstavila pa je tudi deset osebnih pričevanj. Avtorica je istega leta v knjigi Krila migracij objavila daljšo življenjsko zgodbo prebežnice iz Soške doline, ki se je iz itali­janskega taborišča izselila v Kanado (Strle 2009). Marko Klavora je v disertaciji raziskal spomine prebivalcev Zgornjega Posočja na obdobje pred določitvijo meje leta 1947 in po njem, v katerih so omenjeni tudi prebegi, predvsem mladine (Klavora 2011). Magistrsko delo Maje Božič (2013) prikazuje pojave prebežništva na severni meji med Jugoslavijo in Avstrijo med letoma 1945 in 1961. Poleg arhivskih virov je v na­logi predstavila tudi tri pričevanja, ki jih je sama posnela. Breda Čebulj Sajko (1999; 2000) je objavila poglobljene študije o avstralskih Slovencih, med katerimi so številni prebežniki. Analizirala je osemnajst življenjskih zgodb prebežnikov iz različnih delov Slovenije, ki so prebegnili v Avstrijo ali Italijo in se pozneje iz italijanskih taborišč izse­lili v Avstralijo. Številne življenjske zgodbe prebežnikov v Francijo pa so objavljene v posebni številki revije Korenine.2 Predstavljenih je trinajst pripovedi o osebnih izkuš­njah izselitve mladih ljudi, med njimi je večina prebegnila. Irena Uršič je zbrala deset pričevanj o neuspelih prebegih po letu 1945 in zapornih kaznih, ki so sledile, ter jih objavila v knjigi Slovenija, duhovna domovina (Dežman, Kokalj Kočevar 2010: 247–298). Poleg posnetkov življenjskih zgodb, ki so jih zbrali in objavili raziskovalci in razi­skovalke, so na voljo tudi številna avtobiografska dela. Med objavljenimi avtobiograf­skimi deli prebežnikov velja omeniti dve avtorici, Josephine Janežič (1989) in Mirello 1 Vsa pričevanja so na voljo na spletni strani MMC: https://4d.rtvslo.si/arhiv/. 2 Mi, ki smo odšli: Pričevanja pariških Slovencev povojne generacije, Korenine, februar 2016: http://www.dlib.si/details/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-14RI3SF4/?euapi=1&query=%27keywo rds%3d­ korenine+2016%27&sortDir=ASC&sort=date&pageSize=25. Besednjak (2001), ter avtorja Valentina-Valija Oitzla (2010), ki so predstavljeni v nada­ljevanju članka. V članku predstavljam tudi izkušnjo prebega Andreja Obleščaka, kot jo je opisal v daljšem avtobiografskem zapisu, ki ga hrani Tolminski muzej (Obleščak 2015), ter ustni pričevanji Marije in Jakoba Konc iz Babnega Polja, ki opisujeta drugač­no izkušnjo, to je legalno izselitev na podlagi garantnih pisem oziroma združevanja družin.3 Velika večina prebežnikov je bila v času odločitve za pobeg stara med 18 in 25 let, zato je osrednja pozornost v prispevku namenjena prav tej populaciji. KOMPLEKSNOST VZROKOV IN RAZNOLIKOST NAČINOV ODHAJANJA SKOZI IZBRANA PRIČEVANJA Iz navedenih zbirk pričevanj mladih izseljencev in prebežnikov lahko razberemo naj­različnejše vzroke odhajanja. Med njimi je največkrat izražena mladostna želja videti in izkusiti svet onkraj zaprtih meja; ustvariti boljše življenje, kot so ga nudile takratne ekonomske razmere doma; zaslužiti višjo plačo in si privoščiti osnovne življenjske dobrine, ki so bile v prvih dveh desetletjih po vojni težko dosegljive; se izogniti slu­ženju vojaškega roka, prisilnemu vstopanju v Komunistično partijo oziroma ideolo­škemu šikaniranju; in seveda ljubezen. Vzroki pa so bili tudi v represivnosti in kri-vičnosti režima, strahu in negotovosti ter navsezadnje v povsem intimnih presojah in predstavah o prihodnosti. Načini odhajanja so bili poleg prebega na zahodni ali severni meji še legalni obisk sorodnikov, npr. v Trstu, ali turistični izlet v Benetke in nato ilegalni prehod meje med Italijo in Francijo oziroma prekooceanska izselitev po določenem obdobju bivanja v italijanskih in avstrijskih taboriščih. Nekateri so se izselili s pomočjo garantnih pisem sorodnikov ali delodajalcev ter s potnimi listi, pri­dobljenimi na podlagi prošenj. Tako so se, na primer, med pričevalci v omenjeni re-viji Korenine (2016) v dvoletnem obdobju med letoma 1963 in 1965 nekateri izselili s potnimi listi, večina, predvsem mladi fantje, pa je prebegnila v Italijo in nato ilegalno prečkala mejo med Italijo in Francijo. Med njimi je tudi pričevalec Franc Žagar. Franc Žagar iz Bovca se je leta 1956 odločil za izselitev šele potem, ko se je pred služenjem vojaškega roka prišel poslovit od domačih in ugotovil, da je petnajst nje­govih prijateljev in okrog trideset njegovih vrstnikov že pobegnilo v Italijo. »To me je začelo mikati: že od mladega sem poslušal od starega očeta, kako je bilo v Ameriki, in očeta, ki mi je na poti k maši pripovedoval o Franciji in Belgiji. (Prav tam: 20) Do takrat ni nikoli pomislil na odhod od doma, čeprav je bilo izseljevanje v njegovi družini, tako kot v številnih družinah na Slovenskem, pogosto. Franc Žagar na začetku pri­povedi sam opozori na pomembnost družinske zgodovine migracij za razumevanje odločitev o izselitvi: Marija in Jakob Konc, Babno Polje, 13. 2. 2019. Posnetek hrani avtorica. Najprej moram povzeti zgodbo svojih prednikov, sicer se moje ne razume. Moj stari oče je bil dvakrat v Ameriki. Moj oče, rojen 1899 na Žagi pri Bovcu, je pri štirih letih ostal brez mame, pri dvanajstih je izgubil še očeta in ostalo je sedem sirot. Še kot mladoleten je pobiral cunje in steklenice pri nekem starčku v Borovljah na Koroškem. […] Še mlad je, kot veliko drugih Primorcev, odšel v Francijo rudarit. Na severu, v Len-su, je kopal premog. Nekaj let zatem je doma na dopustu spoznal mojo mamo, oženil se je, dobil dva otroka in leta 1930 se je z družino odselil v Belgijo. (Prav tam: 17) Franc Žagar se je leta 1937 rodil v Belgiji, leta 1941 pa se je družina vrnila na Bovško. Po vojni se je izučil za frizerja in delal v Kopru. Kot navaja v pričevanju, je rad gledal morje in mornarje in se je triletnega vojaškega roka v mornarici zelo veselil, a se je kljub temu odločil za izselitev. Izkoristil je možnost legalnega obiska sorodnikov v Trstu in se od tam odpravil proti francoski meji. Mejo je ilegalno prestopil na mejnem prehodu Ventimiglia–Menton, ki je tudi sicer najpogosteje omenjena točka prebe­ga iz Italije v Francijo. Njegov osnovni motiv je izhajal iz odločitev prijateljev, vrstni­kov in znancev iz domačega kraja, ki so v tem obdobju množično zapuščali Bovec in okoliške vasi. Da se je ideja o odhodu – zaradi zaprte meje in zavračanja prošenj za potni list je bil to predvsem ilegalni prehod meje – med mladimi ljudmi širila kot nezaustavljiva potreba in možnost, je v svoji raziskavi ugotovila tudi Ksenija Batič. Pričevalci so ji opisali, da sta bila odhajanje in prebežništvo med mladimi prava »moda« tistega časa: »Moda je bila. Zdaj, človek je odrasel v tisti vojni in bodočnosti dosti nismo videli doma in smo šli. […] Mož je že prej tako, ko je kakšen krat kakšen tako pobegnil, je rekel: ›Ma kaj če bi tudi mi šli? Kaj če bi tudi mi?‹« (Batič 2003: 185) Že v prejšnjih obdobjih izseljevanja s slovenskega ozemlja zasledimo pomembnost skupinskega odločanja za izselitev, ko postane izseljevanje »moda« mladih in inte­gralni del družinskih strategij celih območij, na primer goriških vasi, od koder so se množično izseljevale aleksandrinke (Škrlj 2009: 143). Franc Žagar poudari temeljno značilnost odločitev ljudi za selitev, ki ni zgolj osamljeno, individualno, enkratno de­janje, temveč je vpeto v način življenja določene družine, skupnosti, kraja, regije. O migracijah kot o »migrantstvu« (Mlekuž 2001: 27), torej socialno strukturiranem na-činu življenja, ki vključuje raznolike oblike selitev ljudi v najrazličnejših političnih in ekonomskih okoliščinah, bi lahko govorili na območju celotnega slovenskega etnič­nega prostora vse od druge polovice 19. stoletja (Kalc, Milharčič Hladnik, Žitnik Se­rafin 2020). V tem smislu moramo prebežništvo po drugi svetovni vojni razumeti kot kontinuiran ustaljen odziv na okoliščine odsotnega oziroma zakasnelega razvoja in modernizacije (de Haas 2010) ter uporabe migrantskega kapitala v smislu podpornih mrež družine in skupnosti. Povsem nasprotni razlog je botroval odločitvi Andreja Obleščaka iz Tolmina, vr­stnika Franca Žagarja. Odraščala sta v enakih okoliščinah italijanskega fašističnega režima, druge svetovne vojne, povojnih razmejitvenih napetosti, poklicnega šolanja zunaj domačega kraja, revščine in pomanjkanja. Kot opisuje Andrej Obleščak v avto­biografiji, je bil svet blagostanja in boljših življenjskih možnosti na drugi strani meje, v Italiji, ves čas pred očmi: »Že 1948 so prvi italijanski turisti prihajali na Tolminsko z novimi Vespa in Lambretta motorji, ko si mi, reveži, še Rog bicikla nismo mogli nabaviti« (Obleščak 2015: 4). Med razlogi za množične prebege mladih je treba upo­števati bližino in vidnost italijanske družbe, ki je zaradi ameriške radodarne pomoči po drugi svetovni vojni premogla obilje materialnih dobrin, o katerih so ljudje na jugoslovanski strani zahodne meje lahko samo sanjali. Vidmar navaja: Samo leta 1956 je z Bovškega pobegnilo 32 ljudi, predvsem mladih. Po vojni naj bi ljudje bežali predvsem zaradi slabo razvite industrije in posledično temu slabe možnosti zaposlitve. Od leta 1954 naj bi po poročanju ljudske milice na povečanje pobegov vplival celo podpis Videmskega sporazuma, ki naj bi omogočil večjo pro-pagando z zahoda. (Vidmar 2016: 104) Sanje mladih oziroma propagando, kot jih je označila policija, so spodbujale tudi represivne in avtokratske odločitve oblasti, ki so med mladimi povečevale občutek prikrajšanosti. Tako je bilo tudi v primeru, ki ga navaja Andrej Obleščak, ko so ga kljub drugačni obljubi vpoklicali v mornarico. Na vpoklic se je leta 1956 odzval, a se po rednem dopustu ni vrnil v puljsko kasarno. Razmislek in odločitve številnih svojih sovrstnikov je takole pojasnil: Že od konca vojne so naši ljudje, posebno mladi, bežali iz Jugoslavije čez mejo v Avstrijo ali pa Italijo. S časom, do leta 1955, so Jugo oblasti podvojile stražo na meji, z ukazom, da streljajo na vsakogar, kdor skuša bežati čez mejo. […] Sčasoma smo vsi mi, obmejni državljani, vedeli pogoje, katere mora prebežnik premostiti. Predvsem si moral oblastem v Italiji dokazati, da si političen, ne pa ekonomski begunec, ker če so te našli, da bežiš čez mejo samo iz ekonomskih razlogov, so te vrnili nazaj. Vsi begunci so izrabljali vidno nasprotje med komunistično Jugoslavijo in zahodno demokracijo in igrali to politiko na svoj mlin. Sklenil sem, da bom tudi jaz izbral to nasprotje v svoj prid. (Obleščak 2015: 12) Njegova odločitev za izselitev je bila večstopenjska. Prvič je pomislil na beg pred »so­cialističnim nepotizmom in korupcijo režima«, ko so družino razlastili in jim odvzeli njive in polja. Pozneje je na odhod pomislil zaradi revščine, ki jo je bilo še težje pre­našati zaradi izzivalnega blagostanja na italijanski strani meje, in skromne plače, s katero si ni mogel kaj dosti privoščiti. Na koncu je morda razmišljanje o odhodu pos­talo trdna odločitev prav zaradi zamere in prizadetosti, ki ju je čutil ob prelomljeni obljubi naborne komisije. Kot je razvidno iz nadaljevanja, so lahko prelomljene ob-ljube in ponižujoče obnašanje oblasti ključne za kompleksno odločitev o izselitvi ali prebegu. Andrej Obleščak je po natančni preučitvi najugodnejše možnosti prebega s svojim dekletom mejo v Novi Gorici ilegalno prestopil februarja 1957. Kot politični prebežnik je živel v različnih italijanskih taboriščih in se leto pozneje kot ekonomski migrant izselil v Avstralijo. V avtobiografskih knjigah Pepčin boj Josephine Janezic in Roža med trni Mirelle Besednjak so opisani podobni motivi in izkušnje odhoda od doma. Obe avtorici sta na Primorskem prav tako odraščali pod italijansko fašistično oblastjo, med dru-go svetovno vojno doživljali lakoto in strah, po njenem koncu pa huda, negotova leta. Obe mladi in željni boljšega življenja, ena iz Postojne, druga iz Mirna, sta se odločili za izselitev, Mirella Besednjak s prebegom, Josephine (Jožica) Janezic pa, tako kot Franc Žagar, z obiskom pri sorodnici v Trstu. Obe sta nekaj let preživeli v italijanskem begunskem taborišču in se izselili v Avstralijo oziroma Združene drža­ve Amerike. Njuni razlogi, razmisleki in načini odhoda pa so se močno razlikovali. Razlog od­hoda Mirelle Besednjak bi bilo lahko težko življenje po vojni v zasilnem prebivališču, saj je bila družinska hiša med vojno požgana. Težaško delo na udarniških »prostovolj­nih« deloviščih in kmetiji, kjer je morala kot najstarejša hči ovdoveli materi pomagati pri skrbi za mlajše otroke, pa jo je izčrpavalo. A kot je zapisala, jo je tistega dne leta 1951, ko jo je prijateljica Ivanka nagovorila, da bi zbežali čez mejo in odpotovali v Ameriko, prešinila misel: »Kako bo materi sami z otroki, ona me potrebuje tukaj in tudi sama nimam razloga za odhod. Odločala sem se, ali bi šla ali ne, nato pa sem se opogumila. Pogledala sem Ivanko in ji rekla: ›No, pa pojdiva.‹« (Besednjak 2001: 8) In sta brez prtljage odšli čez vrt in mejo, ki je bila v neposredni bližini. Kot navaja avto­rica, je svojo odločitev kmalu obžalovala, »ampak takrat je bilo že prepozno« (prav tam: 10). Na njeno nenadno odločitev so vplivali vrstniški pritisk oziroma zgled in mladostni pogum, ne pa razmislek in dolgotrajno načrtovanje kot pri Andreju Oble-ščaku ali Josephine Janezic. Vrstnica do zdaj omenjenih treh pričevalcev, Jožica Janezic iz Postojne, je imela številne razloge za odhod v tujino in je svoj prebeg dolgo in natančno načrtovala. Po vojni je bila razočarana tako nad delom in šolanjem kot nad represivnim odnosom oblasti do vere in verujočih. Težko je prenašala novačenje za vstop v Zvezo komuni­stične mladine, življenje pa je postalo še težje, ko so zaprli očeta, ker je kot gozdar pomagal znancu pri prebegu meje, ta pa ga je prijavil policiji (Janezic 1989: 5). Od­ločitev o tem, da zapusti Jugoslavijo, je dozorela ob prvem obisku tete v Trstu, ko je spoznala mlada fanta, prebežnika, ki sta čakala na dokumente za odhod v Avstralijo, in se v enega od njih zaljubila. Čeprav je bil prebeg Josephine Janezic načrtovan in je imela za svojo odločitev raznovrstne razloge, sta vendarle tudi pri njej odločilno vlogo odigrala zgled in pritisk vrstnikov. Tako kot odločitev Andreja Obleščaka je bila tudi njena premišljena, prebeg pa skrbno načrtovan. Najprej je hotela zavarovati svo­je starše, predvsem očeta, ki so ga pravkar izpustili iz zapora, pred sankcijami zaradi hčerinega prebega. Morala je počakati, da dopolni osemnajst let in oblasti od staršev ne bi mogle zahtevati njene vrnitve. Odposlala je lažno tetino pismo, v katerem jo ta prosi, da pride k njej, ker je zbolela; oblasti so ji odobrile ponovni obisk. Predvsem pa je želela o svoji odločitvi obvestiti starše. Po vrnitvi v Postojno je ponovno zaprosila za dovoljenje za obisk, in ko ga je dobila, se je poslovila od očeta in matere: S solzami v očeh me je rotil, naj ne skrbim, ker spoštuje mojo željo, da zapustim deže-lo v iskanju boljše prihodnosti nekje drugje. […] Mama je tudi jokala od materinske skrbi in mi dala svoj blagoslov, me poškropila s sveto vodo, naredila križ na moje čelo in molila: »Bog, svojo hčer polagam v tvoje roke. Prosim, čuvaj in vodi jo, ker jo mi morda nikoli več ne bomo videli.« (Janezic 1989: 166–167) Z vlakom se je odpeljala v Trst in se po par dneh pri sorodnikih, ki o njenem načrtu niso nič vedeli, marca 1954 prijavila v begunskem taborišču. V naslednjih dneh je uspešno prestala zaslišanja, pridobila status Displaced Person, torej 'razseljene osebe', se prijavila za izselitev v Avstralijo in dopolnila osemnajst let. Čez severno mejo se je sam odpravil tudi Valentin-Vali Oitzl, ki svoje odločitve opisuje v avtobiografskem delu Polet v svobodo. Prebegnil je leta 1950, ko je imel šestnajst let. Razlogi so bili kompleksen preplet etničnega porekla in medvojnih ter povojnih političnih razmer. Družina Oitzl je živela v majhni vasi Rute pri Gozd Mar-tuljku, mama je imela gostilno, oče pa je bil lovski čuvaj. Med vojno so očeta in brata vpoklicali k partizanom, a so nemški vojaki brata ujeli, oče pa se je, da bi rešil sina, sam predal. Oba so izgnali v Lienz, od koder sta se vrnila po osvoboditvi, ko so očeta, tako kot veliko drugih t. i. »Volksdeutscherjev«, aretirali. Očeta so pozneje izpustili, mnoge, tudi nekatere sorodnike, pa so preko severne meje izgnali iz države ali pa so za vedno izginili. Valentin Oitzl je odraščal s smučanjem in skoki, saj je dobro »biti zaposlen s športom; tudi zato, ker nisi imel časa razmišljati, kaj se dogaja v deželi«. (Oitzl 2010: 28) Leta 1949 so očeta ponovno aretirali, premoženje zaplenili, družino pa izgnali na Kočevsko v izpraznjeno vas Morava. Kot navaja, so ga zaposlili v mizarski delavnici v Kočevju, sestro poslali kot »prostovoljko« v delovno brigado v Beograd, brat Gusti je hodil na gostinsko šolo v Ljubljani, oče pa je bil, tako kot številni drugi, obtožen »sodelovanja s kapitalisti ali pomoči ljudem na begu v Avstrijo. Pripisali so jim, kar jim je prišlo prav. A zelo so bili previdni, da so ožigosali samo ljudi, ki so jim lahko kaj vzeli«. (Prav tam: 39) Oče je bil obsojen na pet let prisilnega dela. Tega leta je dozorela Valijeva odločitev, da, ker je »imel vsega zadosti«, odide iz svoje dežele, kot pred njim nekateri njegovi sorodniki. Skrbno je načrtoval pobeg skozi kraje nad domačo vasjo Rute, ki jih je dobro poznal, a mu prvi prebeg v Avstrijo zaradi močne­ga sneženja ni uspel. Vrnil se je v Kočevje in med prvomajskimi prazniki leta 1950 ponovno poskusil, tokrat uspešno: »Ne znam razložiti občutkov, ki so me v tistem hipu prevevali: Bal sem se, hkrati sem bil vzneseno vznemirjen in žalosten. Vse hkrati […] Žalosten sem bil, a nekaj mi je govorilo, da imam pred seboj prihodnost. Življenje, ki sem ga živel, mi gotovo ni bilo namenjeno.« (Prav tam: 48) Pri Valentinu Oitzlu se povežejo neka­teri do zdaj omenjeni elementi odločitev mladih za odhod: podporne mreže, ki so jih stkali izseljeni sorodniki in družinski člani; občutki krivice in omejenosti; upor proti izključenosti ter želja po drugačnem, boljšem življenju. Konec marca 1951 je kot naj­mlajši prebežnik iz Bremna izplul proti Kanadi svoji prihodnosti naproti. Legalno izseljevanje v obravnavanem obdobju prikazujeta življenjski zgodbi Marije in Jakoba Konc iz Babnega Polja. Oba sta se v Francijo izselila na podlagi ga­rantnega pisma, ki je takrat omogočal pridobitev dovoljenja za izselitev in potnega lista, ključne pa so bile podporne socialne mreže oziroma sorodstvene zveze in vezi. Tako kot je v svojem pričevanju poudaril Franc Žagar, je za razumevanje odločitev o odhodu treba razumeti družinske, sorodstvene in lokalne oblike migrantskih poti, ki so vse od srede 19. stoletja zaznamovale večino družinskih preživetvenih strategij na slovenskem ozemlju. Babno Polje, vas v odročnem delu jugozahodnega dela sloven-skega ozemlja, je nazoren primer. Od druge polovice 19. stoletja so iz vasi poteka­le intenzivne migracije različnih oblik, trajne, krožne, povratne, sezonske in njihove kombinacije. Moški so odhajali v Združene države Amerike, in domov, kjer so ženske in drugi družinski člani vodili kmetije, pošiljali denar. Nekatere, ki so se vrnili, so na­domestili starejši sinovi ali pa so skupaj z njimi ponovno odšli. Moški so intenzivno odhajali tudi na sezonsko delo na Ogrsko oziroma Hrvaško, kjer so pozimi, ko jih doma niso potrebovali, delali v slavonskih gozdovih. Ko so ZDA priseljencem zaprle vrata, so iz Babnega Polja in iz številnih drugih slovenskih krajev začeli množično odhajati v Francijo. V obdobju med obema voj­nama so se tako vzpostavile goste podporne socialne mreže, ki so, kot je razvidno iz nekaterih opisanih primerov, po letu 1945 močno vplivale na odločitve o izselitvi ali prebegu. Marija Konc iz Babnega Polja je v Francijo odšla leta 1957, pred njo pa so v Franciji delali njen oče, številni drugi sorodniki in vaščani. Med njimi je bil za njeno odločitev pomemben bratranec, ki je po vojni ponudil pomoč njeni ovdoveli materi in ji predlagal, da bi kateremu od otrok priskrbel dokumente za odhod in delo v Fran-ciji. Čeprav so ji med vojno ubili moža in se je po njej težko preživljala, je ponudbo za­vrnila. Marija je imela kot najstarejša hči težko življenje še zlasti zaradi materine hude poškodbe. Razlog za njeno odločitev za odhod pa ni bilo to, kar je v tem obdobju mlade spodbujalo k odhodu: ekonomske in politične razmere, ki so bile v Babnem Polju še zlasti dramatične zaradi hudega medvojnega nasilja, ki ga je utrpela vas; splošno pomanjkanje in še zlasti pomanjkanje v družini brez očeta; lažje in boljše življenje, za katerega je vedela, da obstaja v tujem svetu in konkretno v Franciji. Za odhod se je odločila iz povsem intimnega razloga, to je iz užaljenosti in prizadetosti, ki ju je povzročil materin predlog, naj se poroči in gre od hiše. To jo je tako globoko prizadelo, da je skrivaj pisala bratrancu in ga obvestila, da želi priti v Francijo: To sem napisala od užaljenosti, zaradi ženitve. Mami nisem nič povedala in štirinajst dni je minilo, preden je pošta prišla tja in nazaj. […] Pismonoša lepo pride, na pismu piše Janez Konc, v pismu pa vsa garantna pisma. Sem rekla: »Kdo je zdaj kriv mama? Zdaj ste vi krivi, nikar zdaj mene tožit. Če me ne bi hoteli poslati od hiše, ne bi imela te misli. Tako pa za ženit nisem.« Preveč sem bila zagrenjena, da bi samo ostala, delala in dala mir. Mama je potem jokala in prosila, pa vse zastonj. Jaz sem ji rekla, naj se oni sami komandirajo, in sem šla v Francijo. Janez je poslal garancijo, da on skrbi zame, medtem ko bom jaz dol kot tujka. Tisti papir je poslal, potem sem pa jaz morala v Ljubljano, najprej na slovenski, potem pa na francoski konzulat. Dobila sem hitro potrjeno in sem tisto jesen odšla v Francijo. Brat me je še do Ljubljane pospremil, pa sestrična, ki je tam živela se je prišla poslovit. Potem sem šla na vlak in prišla leta 1957 lepo v Pariz. Neposredni povod Marijine odločitve je bil intimni občutek zamere, ki ga je povzro-čil materin predlog o ženitvi. Marija ga je razumela kot neupoštevanje njene nese­bične skrbi za družino, ki je bila brez očeta, in nekaj časa, ko je bila v bolnici, tudi brez matere. Pa vendar lahko tudi njeno odločitev umestimo v migrantstvo Babnega Polja, torej v uveljavljene transnacionalne prostore, v katerih so se vaščani že stoletje premikali in živeli (Makarovič 1999). Francija je bila v času med obema vojnama najpogostejši cilj slovenskih izseljen­cev v tujino (Kalc, Milharčič Hladnik, Žitnik Serafin 2020). Vzpostavili so trdne podpor­ne mreže, te pa so po letu 1945 izkoristili prebežniki in izseljenci. Soprog Marije Konc, sicer doma iz Štajerske, je v Francijo legalno odpotoval na podlagi združitve družin, saj je tam živela njegova mama, ki se je v Francijo izselila leta 1936. Oče je leta 1946 umrl. Jaz sem imel 14 let. Takoj po tistem, je mati začela papirje delati, da bi naju s sestro spravila v Francijo. Preden je oče umrl, nismo imeli stikov, po njegovi smrti pa se je pa nemudoma lotila delanja papirjev, da bi naju spravi-la v Francijo. Za sestro ji je uspelo dobiti papirje takoj, zame pa so rekli, da moram najprej vojsko odslužiti, ker je bilo takrat to obvezno, tako da sem tri leta preživel v mornarici. Po tistih treh letih sem prišel. Moja mama je takrat delala na jugoslovanski ambasadi in je relativno hitro dobila papirje in mi jih poslala. Sestra je šla že 1947 leta in je bila na ambasadi kot služkinja, mama pa kot čistilka. […] Ko sem prišel v Francijo 1954, sta me čakala sekira in kolo, tako da sem prišel v nedeljo, v ponedeljek pa sem šel že delat v gozd. Leta 2010 sta se Marija in Jakob Konc po 55 letih življenja in dela v Franciji preselila v Babno Polje. Zanimivo je, da so bili lahko v istem obdobju načini prehoda meje pov­sem različni. Nekateri so prebegnili, lahko tudi čez več kot eno mejo, v bolj ali manj dramatičnih in nevarnih okoliščinah. Nekatere so ujeli in so morali prestajati zaporne kazni, prisilno delo in težke razmere v zaporih; pogosto so zaprli, šikanirali in kazno­vali tudi njihove sorodnike. Nekateri pa so, tako kot Marija in Jakob Konc, legalno s potnimi listi in povabilnimi pismi odšli na že vnaprej dogovorjena delovna mesta. ZAKLJUČEK Vzroke za odhajanje mladih v dveh desetletjih po drugi svetovni vojni lahko iščemo v ekonomsko-političnih in socialno-kulturnih okoliščinah takratnega vsakdanjega življenja. Za prebežniške motive in motive legalnega izseljevanja je značilen preplet lokalnih dejavnikov, za obmejna območja pa tudi različne razmere na obeh straneh meje. Lokalni kontekst namreč odločilno vpliva na konkretne aspiracije, možnosti in sposobnosti migriranja. Čeprav je treba migracije vedno razumeti v širšem social-nem, ekonomskem, kulturnem in političnem kontekstu, pa lahko o kompleksnosti vzrokov in motivov ter o načinih odhajanja mladih največ izvemo iz osebnih priče­vanj akterjev povojnih migracij na Slovenskem. Mladih ne smemo videti (zgolj) kot žrtve povojnih okoliščin, pač pa kot aktivne akterje in avtonomne odločevalce. Raz­logi, kot so jih opisali izbrani pričevalci, so bili zunanji, a hkrati osebni in intimni; od­ločitve hipne ali premišljene; odhodi pa dolgo načrtovani ali zgolj korak v neznano. Opisane so strategije avtonomnega delovanja in vsakodnevnega izumljanja načinov, kako doseči cilj – premikati se za dosego boljšega življenja. Gre za transnacionalne in translokalne podporne mreže ter dinamične, inventivne strategije akterjev mobil­nosti, ki so jih narekovali državni sistemi nadzora mobilnosti ter politične, vojaške in ekonomske vzpostavitve meja in klasifikacij ljudi. Kot dokazujejo avto/biografska dela in pričevanja mladih udeležencev izselje­vanja in prebežništva, številni razlogi izhajajo tudi s kulturnih in psiholoških stališč kolektivne imaginacije mladih ljudi po drugi svetovni vojni. Najdemo jih v željah po osebnem razvoju, življenjskih izbirah, svobodi in blagostanju, sproščenosti in lagod­nejšem vsakdanjem življenju na drugi strani zaprte meje, ki so jih doma zavirali opus-tošena dežela, prepočasno izboljševanje življenjskega standarda in represivni režim. Za razumevanje njihovih odločitev so ključni raven aspiracij in občutki relativne de­privacije. Težnje, želje in ambicije po boljšem življenju izvirajo iz predstave o tem, kakšno življenje si »zaslužijo« oziroma kakšnega življenja ne želijo živeti. Predstave o zaželenem življenju izvirajo iz dejanskih ekonomskih in političnih razlik med družba-mi v konkretnem zgodovinskem trenutku, prav tako pa tudi iz dolgoletnih izkušenj migracij v lokalnih skupnostih in družinah. Na slovenskem ozemlju so bile predstave o boljšem življenju v tujini globoko zakoreninjene že od konca 19. stoletja, tako da obravnavano obdobje v tem smislu ni nobena izjema. Nasprotno, gre za kontinuite-to izseljevanja iz slovenskega prostora, pri katerem so bili vedno najštevilčnejši prav mladi. Seveda pa so se okoliščine po letu 1945 radikalno razlikovale od tistih pred letom 1914, ko govorimo o svobodnih selitvah, ali poznejših, sicer veliko bolj restrik­tivnih, pa vendarle ne tako dramatičnih. Načini in izpeljave odhodov in prebegov so bili povezani s podpornimi social-nimi mrežami, z drznostjo, s pogumom in srečo. Navedena pričevanja potrjujejo pomembnost socialnih podpornih mrež, saj številni pričevalci pripovedujejo o so-rodnikih, prijateljih, znancih, ki so že bili v tujini in so jim lahko pomagali. Poleg tega pričevanja potrjujejo pomembnost »migrantstva«, to je obstoječih dolgoročnih mi-gracijskih strategij družin in lokalnih okolij. Nekateri prebežniki in izseljenci so samo sledili vzorcem selitev, ki so jih pred njimi že ubrali drugi člani družine v drugih časih in okoliščinah. Ključni element vseh pripovedi pa je želja po prostorski in socialni mobilnosti, vključenosti v svet potrošnje, blagostanja, obilja in napredka, kot so si ga mladi predstavljali in za katerega so bili prepričani, da jim pripada. Poleg upora proti izključenosti, omejevanju, diskriminaciji, krivicam, prisilam in prepovedim lah­ko v množičnem prebežništvu mladih po drugi svetovni vojni iz Slovenije opazimo predvsem stremljenje po identitetni preobrazbi ljudi, ki svoje pravo mesto iščejo v širnem svetu. LITERATURA Batič, Ksenija (2003). »Domovina je tu in domovina je tam«: Raziskava med primorski-mi izseljenci o njihovi vrnitvi v Slovenijo. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 18, 181– 201. Besednjak, Mirella (2001). Roža med trni: Moje življenje po koncu druge svetovne vojne. Miren: Oko. Božič, Maja (2013). Prebežniki v Avstrijo 1945–1961. Magistrsko delo. Univerza v Ljublja­ni, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za zgodovino. Čebulj Sajko, Breda (1999). Med srečo in svobodo: Avstralski Slovenci o sebi. Ljubljana: Samozaložba. Čebulj Sajko, Breda (2000). Razpotja izseljencev: Razdvojena identiteta avstralskih Slo­vencev. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC SAZU. Čelik, Pavle (2013). Stražarji državne meje v Sloveniji (1918–2013). Ljubljana: Modrijan. Haas, de Hein (2010). Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective. The International Migration Review 44/1, 227–264. Dežman, Jože, Kokalj Kočevar, Monika (2010). Slovenija, duhovna domovina: Zgodbe političnih emigrantov. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. Drnovšek, Marjan (2010). Izseljevanje, »rakrana« slovenskega naroda: Od misijonarja Friderika Barage do migracijske politike države Slovenije. Ljubljana: Nova revija. Gombač, Jure (2005). Esuli ali optanti?: Zgodovinski primer v luči sodobne teorije. Ljub­ljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Janezic, Josephine (1989). Pepca's Struggle. New York: Vantage Press. Kalc, Aleksej, Milharčič Hladnik, Mirjam, Žitnik Serafin, Janja (2020). Doba velikih mi-gracij na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Kalc, Aleksej (2019). The Other Side of the »Istrian Exodus«: Immigration and Social Restoration in Slovenian Coastal Towns in the 1950s. Dve domovini / Two Home­lands 49, 145–162. Klavora, Marko (2011). Zavezniška vojaška uprava (1945–1947) in spomini prebivalcev v Zgornjem Posočju. Doktorska disertacija. Koper: Univerza na Primorskem. Lukšič Hacin, Marina (2019). Političnost migracij po drugi svetovni vojni: Od politike revanšizma do amnestije. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 5, 183–198. Makarovič, Marija (ur.) (1999). Moje Babno Polje. Cerknica: Zveza kulturnih organizacij. Mlekuž, Jernej (2001). Prispevek za drugačno geografijo moči: Migracija, moč in iden­titeta v odnosu ena do druge. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 13, 25–50. Mlekuž, Jernej (2019). Nadzor nad nenadzorovanimi migracijami: Kako je slovensko časopisje pisalo o prebegih iz Jugoslavije v letih 1945–1965. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 50, 163–182. Nećak, Dušan (2010). »Nemci« na Slovenskem ob koncu druge svetovne vojne – maš-čevanje ali pregon? (ur. Peter Štih, Bojan Balkovec). Migracije in slovenski prostor od antike do danes. Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije, 576–599. Obleščak, Andrej (2015). Spomini Andreja Andrejcovega. Rokopisno gradivo. Arhiv Tolminskega muzeja. Oitzl, Valentin-Vali (2010). Polet v svobodo: Beg, sanje in ljubi kruhek. Štanjel: Nassa Desella. Tschinkel, John (2010). Zvonovi so umolknili. Ljubljana: Modrijan. Troha, Nevenka (2000). Preselitve v Julijski krajini po drugi svetovni vojni. Prispevki za novejšo zgodovino 40/1, 255–268. Režek, Mateja (2005). Nov koncept pravosodja in kazenske zakonodaje. Slovenska novejša zgodovina 1848–1992, 2. (ur. Jasna Fischer). Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga, Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 947–950. Strle, Urška (2009). »Bila je preprosto sreča, da sem prišla v Kanado«: O razlogih za selitve skozi Stankino življenjsko zgodbo. Krila migracij: Po meri življenjskih zgodb (ur. Mirjam Milharčič Hladnik, Jernej Mlekuž). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 89–120. Strle, Urška (2009a). »Pustili so vse in čez noč odšli.« Prispevek k ilegalnemu izseljeva­nju iz Posočja v Italijo po drugi svetovni vojni v luči ustnih pričevanj. Zgodovina za vse 1, 113–128. Škrlj, Katja (2009). Komaj sem čakala, da zrastem in postanem aleksandrinka: Demi­tizacija aleksandrink. Krila migracij: Po meri življenjskih zgodb (ur. Mirjam Milharčič Hladnik, Jernej Mlekuž). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 143–189. Švent, Rozina (2007). Slovenski begunci v Avstriji 1945–1950. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Vidmar, Jernej (2015). Nadzor in represija na meji med Jugoslavijo (FLRJ) in Italijo v letih 1947–1954. Kronika 63, 119–136. Vidmar, Jernej (2016). Nadzor in represija v prvem desetletju jugoslovanske oblasti na severnem Primorskem (1945–1955): Primer okrajev Gorica in Tolmin. Koper: Univerza na Primorskem. ČASOPISNI VIRI Korenine, 1916. SUMMARY COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCE OF DEFECTION AND OTHER TYPES OF YOUTH EMIGRATION AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR IN WRITTEN, ORAL AND OTHER AUTO/BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES Mirjam MILHARČIČ HLADNIK In Yugoslavia and Slovenia, the period between 1947 and 1963 was characterized by closed borders, minimal opportunities for legal emigration and strict control of peo­ple’s mobility. The estimated numbers show that of all those who left the country illegally in this period, around 75% were below the age of 25. Young people wanted to leave the country for political, economic, social and cultural reasons, as well as a general resistance to political control, economic hardship, cultural deprivation and social exclusion. The article presents seven testimonies about defection and other types of youth emigration from Slovenia/Yugoslavia after the Second World War. It focuses on their agency and aims to avoid the discourse of their victimization or stigmatization. In their testimonies, they reveal diverse combinations of intimate, personal reasons for their decisions and the different ways of escaping or emigrat­ing. Their common circumstances included not only political repression and lack of economic development but also the existing transnational support networks and the migrants’ social capital. It is clear that the illegal emigration of young people should be understood as deeply embedded in already established “migrancy”, and the survival strategies of families and local communities, and, since emigration is a crucial part of the history of the Slovenian ethnic territory, of the whole country. MIGRACIJSKI PROCES V OMREŽNI DRUŽBI Blaž LENARČIČ| COBISS 1.02 IZVLEČEK Migracijski proces v omrežni družbi Članek obravnava vpliv rabe informacijsko-komunikacijskih tehnologij na migracij-ski proces. V tem smislu poudarja časovno-prostorsko neodvisno delovanje, ki ga te tehnologije omogočajo. Poleg tega, da tovrstno delovanje povzroča prehod od območne k omrežni organizaciji družbe, migrantom omogoča, da fizično oddaljene izvorne domovine emocionalno in družbeno nikoli ne zapustijo, kar se ne sklada z dosedanjim sociološkim portretom migranta. Na teh izhodiščih prispevek med drugim odpira vprašanje o ponovnem premisleku koncepta migranta, in sicer v po­gojih omrežne družbe. KLJUČNE BESEDE: migracijski proces, informacijsko-komunikacijske tehnologije, mi-granti, omrežna družba ABSTRACT The Migration Process in the Network Society The article deals with the impact of the use of information and communication tech­nologies on the migration process. In this context, it gives special emphasis to the individual action independent of time and space which is enabled by these technol­ogies. In addition to the fact that this kind of action causes the transition from the territorial to the network organization of society, it allows migrants never to leave their physically distant homelands emotionally and socially, which is not in line with the current sociological portrait of a migrant. Starting from this premise, the article proposes a reconsidering of the concept of migrant, based on the conditions of the network society. KEY WORDS: migration process, information-communication technologies, migrants, network society | Dr. sociologije, znanstveni sodelavec, docent, Znanstveno-raziskovalno središče Koper, Gari­baldijeva 1, SI-6000 Koper; blaz.lenarcic@zrs-kp.si UVOD “Yesterday the motto was: immigrate and cut your roots; today it would be: circulate and keep in touch.” (Dana Diminescu, 2008) Obdobje, v katerem živimo, zaznamuje vrsta sprememb, med katerimi sta gotovo najopaznejša hiter tehnološki napredek in porast medcelinskih migracij. Slednje je pomemben dejavnik preoblikovanja družb po celem svetu, zaradi česar je 21. sto­letje označeno kot stoletje migracij. (Goldin, Cameron 2011; Castles, de Haas, Miller 2014) Podobno na družbo vplivajo informacijsko-komunikacijske tehnologije1 (IKT), kar se kaže že v pogostosti uporabe pridevnika informacijski pri njenem poimenova­nju. V prispevku se ukvarjam z obema procesoma, pri čemer me zanimajo predvsem učinki ključne značilnosti IKT, tj. časovno-prostorsko neodvisno delovanje akterjev v kontekstu migracijskega procesa. V zadnjem času smo namreč priča intenzivne-mu napredku pri razvoju in dostopnosti IKT ter storitev, ki uporabnikom, neodvi­sno od njihove fizične lokacije, omogočajo komuniciranje v realnem času. Na splošni ravni te dinamike povzročajo prehod od območne k omrežni organizaciji družbe, v kontekstu migracij pa od domovine oddaljenim posameznikom omogočajo z njo dokaj intenzivno povezanost. Takšno stanje ni več skladno z uveljavljenim sociološ­kim portretom migranta, za katerega so značilne zelo omejena komunikacija ali celo trajne prekinitve stikov z osebnimi koreninami ali drugimi posamezniki, ki ga pove­zujejo z domačim okoljem. Na teh temeljih sta cilja prispevka (1) predstavitev razsež­nosti raziskovalnega področja in (2), predvsem v slovenskem prostoru, spodbuditev preučevanja IKT v kontekstu migracijskega procesa. OD TERITORIALNE K OMREŽNI ORGANIZACIJI DRUŽBENEGA DELOVANJA Sociologi (Mlinar 1994; Castells 1996; Wellman 2001; 2004; Barney 2004; Terranova 2004; Lee, Wellman 2012 ipd.) ugotavljajo, da je intenzivna uporaba IKT na vseh pod-ročjih vsakdanjega življenja v zadnjih desetletjih ustvarila nov tip družbe, ki ga ime­nujejo omrežna družba.2 Odnosi in procesi v tej družbi temeljijo na načelih omrežij, 1 Za podrobnejšo opredelitev IKT in oris njihove funkcionalnosti v širši družbi glej na primer: Lenarčič (2014; 2010), Bakardijeva (2005), Oblak, Petrič (2005), Trček (2003), Bell, Kennedy (ur.) (2002) in Jordan (1999). 2 Za poimenovanje (današnje) družbe, ki jo zaznamuje uporaba IKT, se je v splošni in (veči­ noma) tudi v strokovni rabi uveljavila sintagma informacijska družba. Uporaba omenjenega izraza je po mojem mnenju neprimerna, kar utemeljujem na drugem mestu (Lenarčič 2010), zato v pričujočem prispevku uporabljam termin omrežna družba. V prid slednjemu je tudi dejstvo, da so v sociologiji omrežja med najpomembnejšimi pojasnjevalnimi dejavniki mi- gracij (Arango 2004; King 2012; Collin 2015). kar jo loči od drugih družbenih oblik. »Omrežja sestavljajo novo družbeno morfo­logijo naših družb, obenem pa razširjenost logike mreženja močno spreminja delo­vanje ter rezultate procesov proizvodnje, izkušenj, moči in kulture« (Castells 1996: 469). Čeprav je omrežna organizacija nedvomno obstajala že v prejšnjih družbenih oblikah, pa pred razširjeno rabo IKT mreženje ni potekalo preko celotne družbene strukture, sedaj pa pomembno vpliva na vsa področja družbenega življenja posa­meznikov. Obširne družbene spremembe, ki izhajajo iz omrežij kot dominantne ob-like organizacije, so zelo dobro dokumentirane v velikem številu raziskav, med ka­terimi nedvomno izstopa Castellsova trilogija The Information age: Economy, society and culture (1996; 1997; 1998), v kateri je utemeljil paradigmo omrežne družbe. Na tem mestu moram pojasniti, da poudarjanje prevladovanja omrežne organizacije nad območno oziroma teritorialno ne pomeni, da so druge oblike družbene orga­nizacije izginile, niti tega, da bodo. Pri tem je bistveno, da vzpon nove organizacij­ske paradigme močno vpliva na vse družbene segmente, saj preoblikuje referenčni okvir, v katerem delujejo akterji, kar sem podrobneje predstavil v predhodnih delih (npr. Lenarčič 2010a; 2014). V prispevku me zanima predvsem časovno-prostorsko neodvisno delovanje ak­terjev, kar je ključna značilnost omrežne družbe. Na izkustveni ravni takšno delovanje omogoča doživljanje sveta kot manjšega oziroma obvladljivega, kar pomeni, da ima­jo akterji možnost medsebojnega povezovanja in integriranja v nove prostorsko-ča­sovne kombinacije, ki presegajo teritorialne in nacionalne meje ter omogočajo ubi­kviteto; določene entitete lahko, neodvisno od časa in prostora, obstajajo kjerkoli in kadarkoli. Posledica tega sta povezovanje dejavnosti in ljudi, ki niso več občutljivi za medsebojno (fizično) oddaljenost, ter posameznikovo preklapljanje med različnimi omrežji. V tem je tudi eden ključnih vzrokov, da so koncepti, povezani z migracijskim procesom, na primer meje, fiksnost, prisotnost ter razdalja, dobili drugačen pomen, kot so ga imeli še pred dvema desetletjema. Potek te spremembe je na primeru vpliva komunikacijskega procesa na ra­zvoj različnih tipov skupnosti zelo dobro pojasnil Wellman (2001), in sicer je prvo stopnjo komunikacijskega procesa metaforično poimenoval »povezanost od vrat do vrat«. Doseg komunikacije je namreč odvisen od razdalje, ki so jo akterji spo­sobni premagati s fizičnim premikanjem. Tehnološki razvoj ter večja dostopnost predvsem stacionarnih telefonov in osebnih računalnikov s fiksnim dostopom do interneta sta privedla do druge stopnje razvoja, ki jo avtor poimenuje »poveza­nost od kraja do kraja«. Komunikacijski pripomočki tega obdobja medsebojno povezujejo akterje na krajih, kjer so nameščeni, zaradi česar Wellman (prav tam) to obliko omrežij imenuje tudi »glokalna povezanost«. Danes prevladujejo brezžični komunikacijski pripomočki, kar pomeni, da jih uporabniki nosijo s seboj. S tem jim je omogočeno komuniciranje kjerkoli in kadarkoli, kar na potencialno globalni ravni po Wellmanu (prav tam) ustvarja »povezanost od osebe do osebe«, katere ključna značilnost je, da so posamezniki kljub fizični oddaljenosti nenehno pove­zani s svojim socialnim omrežjem. Takšna potencialno neomejena svoboda stikov je med drugim povzročila osvo­boditev od interakcij, ki temeljijo (zgolj) na fizičnih krajih, in v ospredje postavila samo komunikacijo. O zmanjševanju pomena fizične lokacije v kontekstu komu­nikacije med posamezniki je sredi osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja pomembna opažanja podal že Meyrowitz: »Kot vsi elektronski mediji tudi telegraf ne zgolj, da definira meje, ki jih je postavila razdalja, ampak zaobide tudi družbene obrede pre­hoda, to je dejanje fizičnega in družbenega premikanja iz ene pozicije do druge« (Meyrowitz 1985: 116). Povedano z drugimi besedami, v današnjem času smo priča procesu vzpostavljanja dokaj ostre ločnice med fizičnim in družbenim prostorom. In sicer gre za razlikovanje med so-lokacijo, katere temelj je prostorsko razmerje med akterji in so-prisotnostjo (Zhao 2003), ki temelji na družbenem odnosu med akterji. So-prisotnost med drugim pred izziv postavlja predpostavko, da tesni medosebni odnosi med posamezniki zahtevajo fizično bližino, kar je še zlasti aktualno v kontek­stu migracijskega procesa. Komunikacija preko IKT v vsakdanje življenje migrantov prinaša pomembne spremembe tako v kvalitativnem kot tudi kvantitativnem smislu. V zvezi s tem Ne-delcu (2012) v analizi romunskih migrantov v Kanadi ugotavlja, da te tehnologije omogočajo pojav »transnacionalne vsakdanje realnosti«, ki temelji na vseprisotno­sti, simultanosti in neposrednosti interakcij na daljavo. Na takšen način posamezni­ki, ki so fizično oddaljeni od domovine, kljub temu ostajajo povezani z njo, saj jim tehnologija omogoča vzdrževanje »transnacionalnih omrežij« socialne in čustvene opore, spremljanje kulturnih tradicij, konzumiranje različnih materialnih in nemate­rialnih elementov izvorne kulture ipd. V določenem smislu te tehnologije delujejo kot »družbeno lepilo«, ki migrante povezuje z izvorno kulturo, družinami in s prija­telji. Vendar kljub temu da predstavljene dinamike pomembno vplivajo na migracij-ski proces, preučevanje IKT v kontekstu migracij med raziskovalci do nedavnega ni vzbujalo večje pozornosti. PREUČEVANJE INFORMACIJSKO-KOMUNIKACIJSKIH TEHNOLOGIJ V KONTEKSTU MIGRACIJ V nasprotju z drugimi klasičnimi sociološkimi koncepti (npr. s skupnostjo, z nacional-no državo, s prostorom, z identiteto, neenakostjo ipd.), katerih preučevanje je pote­kalo bolj ali manj vzporedno z razvojem IKT, za migracijski proces tega ne moremo trditi. Preučevanje tega procesa v kontekstu IKT se je namreč začelo hitreje razvijati šele v zadnjem desetletju.3 Takšno razvojno zamudo lahko pripišemo vsaj dvema dejavnikoma, ki ju v svoji študiji poudarijo Brokert idr. (2009). Avtorji najprej ugotav­ljajo, da je bila pozornost raziskovalcev izrazito usmerjena na vpliv, ki ga imajo IKT zgolj na določene skupine migrantov, kot so intelektualne elite in visoko kvalifici­rani posamezniki (npr. Florida 2007; 2002; Hamel 2009), medtem ko je bila večinska populacija migrantov ob preučevanju vplivov IKT zapostavljena zaradi razširjenosti predsodka, da je za rabo tovrstnih tehnologij manj izobražena. Kot drugi vzrok razvojnega zaostanka preučevanja IKT v kontekstu migracij Bro-kert idr. (2009) navajajo splošne značilnosti akademske skupnosti, in sicer ima po njihovih ugotovitvah veliko predvsem družboslovnih raziskovalcev zgolj površinsko znanje in razumevanje delovanja in učinkov IKT na odnose in procese v družbi. Posle-dično prihaja do pomankanja sposobnosti analiziranja z njimi povezanih fenomenov. Če torej želimo razumeti sodobne družbeno-kulturne kompleksnosti migracijskega procesa, je, kot ugotavlja Halilovich (2013), treba konvencionalne raziskovalne pristo­pe razširiti (tudi) v kibernetski prostor. Preseganje (še vedno) relativno ostre ločnice med družbenimi procesi in odnosi, ki potekajo v fizičnem in kibernetskem prosto­ru, je v današnjem obdobju nujno, saj se prepletajo in so medsebojno odvisni. Med ključnimi posledicami prepletanja obeh prostorov je, metaforično rečeno, tudi to, da je posameznik postal portal (Wellman 2000) oziroma stikalo, ki preprosto preklaplja med posameznimi omrežji, kar pomembno vpliva na izkustvo družbene realnosti, v kateri se v realnem času odvijajo interakcije med akterji, ki si ne delijo skupnega (fizičnega) prostora. Takšno stanje zahteva določene spremembe v pojasnjevanju družbenih dinamik, ki so bile do sedaj večinoma razumljene in interpretirane (zgolj) v razmerah fizične oddaljenosti, med katere nedvomno sodi tudi migracijski proces. Kot sem že omenil, se stanje pri preučevanju migracij v kontekstu IKT v zadnjem desetletju izboljšuje, kar potrjujejo tudi pregledi znanstvene literature, ki so jih opra­vili Brokert idr. (2009), Kozachenko (2013) in Collin idr. (2015). Vsi avtorji ugotavljajo, da je pomen teh tehnologij v kontekstu migracij že dokaj prepoznan, kljub temu pa to področje še vedno trpi zaradi teoretskih in metodoloških (Vancea, Boso 2014) pomanjkljivosti. V zvezi s tem navajam Mlinarja (1994), ki je že pred časom v svoji raz­pravi o vplivu IKT na odnose in procese v fizičnem prostoru opozarjal, da je naša mi-selnost še močno zakoreninjena v starih, preživelih predstavah o območni prostorski organizaciji družbe. V kontekstu migracijskega procesa so podobno razmišljali tudi Pregled literature na temo migracijskega procesa in IKT je pokazal, da med slovenskimi raz­iskovalci ta tema ni aktualna. Do sedaj sta se s to tematiko ukvarjali Erjavec (2013) in Zelenik (2018), ki sta preučevali učinke uporabe IKT na mlade posameznike, ki živijo v Sloveniji, iz­virajo pa iz republik nekdanje Jugoslavije. Medtem ko se avtorji drugih dostopnih raziskav (Čikić 2002; Meden 2007; Mikola, Gombač 2008; Milharčič Hladnik 2017) ukvarjajo z analizo uporabe IKT med slovenskimi izseljenci po svetu, pri čemer jih zanima predvsem uporaba tehnologij pri ohranjanju, razvijanju in spreminjanju povezanosti med ljudmi, ki jih družita isto poreklo in želja ohranjati svojo etnično identiteto. Na tem mestu je treba omeniti tudi prispevek Zavratnikove in Cukut Krilićeve (2018), ki obravnavata intersekcije med digitalnos­tjo in begunskimi potmi, pri čemer se osredotočata na koncepta »povezanih migrantov« in digitalnih odtisov begunskih poti v transnacionalnih prostorih. Massey idr. (1998), in sicer izhajajo iz tega, da migracije koreninijo v posebnih zgodo­vinskih razmerah, ki opredeljujejo točno določen družbeni in ekonomski kontekst. To pomeni, da današnjega migracijskega procesa ne moremo pojasnjevati in razla­gati s starimi koncepti. Teoretični koncepti, ki jih sedaj družboslovci uporabljajo za analizo in razlago med-narodnih migracij, so bili oblikovani predvsem v industrijskem obdobju in odražajo njegove posebne gospodarske ureditve, družbene institucije, tehnologijo, demo-grafijo in politiko. Te teorije iz industrijskega obdobja so povzročile nastanek kon­ceptualnega ogrodja, ki se je obdržalo desetletja. Čeprav je bilo ob nastanku tekoče in kreativno, je sčasoma postalo togo in se zdi neprimerno za popolnoma drugačne razmere poznega 20. stoletja. [...] Klasični pristop je zdaj vstopil v stanje krize, saj ga spodbijajo nove ideje, koncepti in hipoteze. (Massey idr. 1998: 3) Skratka, IKT so neločljivi del današnje (razvite) družbe, in prav tako kot brez upošte­vanja tehnološke dimenzije ni mogoče razumeti trenutnih ekonomskih, političnih in kulturnih sfer, ni mogoče razumeti tudi sodobnega migracijskega procesa. Tukaj je treba poudariti, da je empirično preučevanje IKT v kontekstu migracij­skega procesa izjemno kompleksno, migranti namreč simultano pripadajo različnim sociodemografskim in pravnim kategorijam. Poleg tega je treba upoštevati tudi druge dejavnike, kot na primer generacijsko pripadnost in stopnjo njihove digitalne pismenosti, navsezadnje pa tudi socialne, emocionalne in moralne vidike migran­tov, kar vse vpliva na odločitev za uporabo določenega komunikacijskega medija. (Madianou, Miller 2012) Pri tem je ključnega pomena, da namen in uporaba IKT med migranti variirata glede na stopnjo migracijskega procesa oziroma, kot to poimenu­jeta Hiller in Franz (2004), faze migracijskega cikla. In sicer avtorja ločujeta 'predmi­grantsko' (pre-migrant), 'postmigrantsko' (post-migrant) in 'ustaljeno' (settled migrant) fazo migracijskega procesa. V nadaljevanju predstavljam uporabo IKT v vsaki od treh faz, dodal pa sem jim še fazo potovanja, ki glede na kronološki potek migracijskega cikla sodi na drugo mesto. V predmigracijski fazi posameznik s pomočjo IKT išče informacije, ki so relevan­tne pri sprejemanju odločitve za migriranje in za samo potovanje. Te tehnologije so mu v pomoč tudi pri vzpostavljanju stikov s posamezniki in skupnostmi v de­stinacijski državi, z namenom zagotavljanja pomoči pri namestitvi, zaposlitvi ipd. V tej fazi so IKT pomemben pripomoček tudi za ilegalne migrante, saj jim omogočajo samostojno načrtovanje potovanja, s čimer se izognejo posrednikom in tihotapcem. V predmigracijski fazi so IKT tudi pomemben »dejavnik potiska« migracij, saj se z njihovo pomočjo v državah v razvoju ustvarjajo idealnotipske podobe razvitih držav (Appadurai 1996), in to predvsem s pozitivnimi vsebinami, ki jih na različnih spletnih aplikacijah objavljajo migranti in delujejo kot pritisk na vrstnike, ki so ostali v domovi­ni, da tudi oni odidejo (Nimo Ilhan 2016). Po drugi strani pa Hunter (2006) v empirični raziskavi, izvedeni med Jamajčani, ugotavlja, da družinski člani in prijatelji migrantov v njihovi domovini preko pogostih stikov, ki jih omogočajo IKT, dobivajo realnejše podobe destinacijskih držav in migracijske izkušnje, kar je vzrok za opustitev lastnih selitvenih načrtov. Z namenom odvračanja migrantov nekatere države uporabljajo tudi možnosti antipropagande, ki jih nudijo IKT. Tako je na primer avstralska vlada ustvarila serijo kratkih videov,4 ki se kot oglasna sporočila pojavljajo na aplikaciji You-Tube, v njih pa uniformirani pripadniki mejne policije svarijo potencialne ilegalne migrante, naj ne poskušajo prebežati v njihovo državo, ker jih bodo zajeli. Tovrstna sporočila se prikažejo na osnovi algoritma, ki z upoštevanjem kombinacije določene­ga tujega jezika (npr. Dari) in lokacije, ki je opredeljena kot tranzitna (npr. Indonezija), v spletnem uporabniku prepozna potencialnega migranta. V fazi potovanja so IKT navigacijsko in komunikacijsko orodje, ki ga uporabljajo predvsem ilegalni migranti. Kot v svojih študijah poudarjajo Frouws idr. (2016) ter Zijlstra in Van Liempt (2017), ilegalni migranti med potovanjem spletne aplikacije, kot so Facebook, Twitter, Skype, Viber, WhatsApp, Google Maps ipd. uporabljajo pred­vsem za iskanje varnih poti ter točk za prečkanje meja, ki jih ne nadzoruje policija, medsebojno komuniciranje, pregledovanje vremenskih napovedi ipd. Poudariti pa je treba, da IKT uporabljajo tudi institucije, ki se ukvarjajo tako z nadzorovanjem kot nudenjem pomoči migrantom. Pri tem imam v mislih predvsem policijo (npr. pri­sluškovanje pogovorom, biometrične vize ipd.) ter nevladne organizacije za pomoč beguncem, ki so se na poti znašli v težavah.5 Uporabi IKT in njenim učinkom v postmigrantski in ustaljeni fazi migrantskega cikla se podrobneje posvečam v naslednjem poglavju, zato na tem mestu navajam zgolj ključne informacije, potrebne za njihovo razumevanje. In sicer je v postmi­grantski fazi potovanje končano, posameznik pa je v destinacijski državi vsaj pet let. To je obdobje, ki je za Hillerja in Franza (2004) arbitrarni časovni okvir, v katerem se migrant prilagodi življenju v novem družbeno-kulturnem okolju. Medtem ko je v ustaljeni fazi (preseganje petletnega obdobja) po njunem mnenju migrant navadno že prilagojen novemu okolju in poskuša ponovno odkriti izgubljeno povezavo ali obdržati vez z domovino. Ključno pri tem je, da migranti v obeh fazah uporabljajo IKT, in sicer kot pripomoček za integracijo v novo družbeno okolje in kot sredstvo za ohranjanje stikov z ljudmi in s kulturo iz domovine. Iz predstavljene uporabe IKT v posameznih fazah migracijskega cikla je razvidno, da gre pri tem za precej široko in razvejano raziskovalno področje. Obenem pa je 4 Na primer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT12WH4a92w (15. 8. 2018). 5 Nevladna organizacija Migrant Offshore Aid Station z Malte je na primer leta 2016 uporabila drone, s pomočjo katerih so iskali in reševali begunce brodolomce v Sredozemskem morju. Kot rezultat begunske krize v Siriji leta 2015 so se Googlovi prostovoljci povezali z organi­ zacijama International Rescue Comittee in Mercy Corps ter za prebežnike zasnovali krizno informacijsko središče Refugee.Info, ki zagotavlja ključne informacije o varnem gibanju, za­ konitih pravicah in zanesljivih storitvah beguncem v Grčiji ter balkanskih državah. Podobno aplikacijo z imenom MigApp ponuja tudi International Organization for Migration, s katero beguncem zagotavlja zanesljive in preverjene informacije o storitvah, ki so jim na voljo v posameznih državah (npr. postopek za pridobitev vize, pravila o prečkanju meje ipd.). tudi jasno, da te tehnologije pomembno spreminjajo dosedanjo migracijsko izkuš­njo in posledično vplivajo tudi na samo razumevanje koncepta migranta. Slednje nekateri avtorji že prepoznavajo, sodobne migrante označujejo s sintagmami, kot so povezani migrant (Diminescu 2008), on-line migrant (Nedelcu 2009), mediatizirani migrant (Hepp idr. 2012), transnacionalni migrant (Lingel, Naaman, boyd 2014) ipd. OD UKORENINJENEGA K POVEZANEMU MIGRANTU Za migrante je bilo ohranjanje stikov s sorodniki in prijatelji iz domovine do nedavnega velik izziv. Predvsem draga sinhrona (telefon) in počasna asinhrona (pismo) komuni­kacijska sredstva so tako v kvalitativnem kot kvantitativnem smislu močno vplivala na stike z domovino in ljudmi, ki so ostali v njej. Kot opozarjata Hiller in Franz (2004), so se prav iz te situacije razvili termini, kot so »izkoreninjeni« in »presajeni« migrant ter »kul­turni šok«. Sčasoma sta razvoj in dostopnost IKT privedla do časovno-stroškovne ugo­dne sinhrone in asinhrone komunikacije. V praksi to pomeni, da so migranti preko IKT lahko v nenehnem stiku z domovino in diasporo, obenem pa so zanje te tehnologije uporabno orodje za pridobivanje raznovrstnih formalnih6 in neformalnih informacij o vsakdanjem življenju (kulturi, religiji, političnih zadevah ipd.), izobraževanju (jeziku, kul­turi ipd.) ter specifičnih težavah, s katerimi se srečujejo (za bivanje potrebni dokumenti, zdravstvena zavarovanja, zakonodaja ipd.). Z namenom lažje izmenjave informacij ter izražanja domovinskih čustev migranti na spletu ustanavljajo tudi (virtualne) skupine, kot so na primer Facebook strani Slovencev, ki živijo v različnih državah po svetu.7 Ome­njene spletne strani sedaj opravljajo funkcijo etničnih vasi, delujejo namreč kot kratko­ročni mehanizmi prilagajanja (npr. izmenjava informacij) migrantov novi kulturi in de­stinaciji, obenem pa preko njih tudi vzdržujejo stik z domovino oziroma njeno kulturo. Predstavljene dinamike v kontekstu migracijskega procesa kažejo, da uveljavlje­ne dihotomije prisoten/odsoten, domovina/tujina, blizu/daleč ipd. niso več relevan­tne, saj IKT s svojo logiko delovanja, ki ni odvisna od časa in prostora, uvajajo vmesne možnosti. To vodi k odmiku od dosedanjega razumevanja migrantov kot posame­znikov, ki so pretrgali vezi z matično domovino in so ukoreninjeni v novo družbeno okolje, ter vpeljuje koncept migranta, ki ima z izvorno deželo nenehne stike in je v njej so-prisoten (Zhao 2003). Povedano drugače, IKT migrantu omogočajo, da se nahaja v vmesnem prostoru, kar pomeni, da ni ne tu ne tam, ampak hkrati tu in tam. 6 Nemčija je npr. vzpostavila aplikacijo Ankommen (http://ankommenapp.de/), ki migrantom in prosilcem za azil ponuja osnovni tečaj nemškega jezika, informacije v zvezi z azilnim po­ stopkom, pomoč pri iskanju zaposlitve in izobraževanju, navsezadnje pa tudi informacije o nemških vrednotah in običajih. 7 Na dan 24. 8. 2018 je iskalnik na Facebooku na podlagi ključne besede »Slovenci« izpisal ime­ na 92 skupin, v katere se združujejo Slovenci, živeči v različnih državah po svetu. Današnji migrant je predstavnik nove kulture mobilnosti, ki združuje mednarod-no geografsko mobilnost in digitalno mobilnost. Kljub razdalji načini povezovanja omogočajo neprekinjeno so-prisotnost, kar vznemirja klasično sociološko inter-pretacijo migranta v razmerah »dvakratne odsotnosti«: odsotnosti od doma in od­sotnosti primerne integracije v destinacijski državi. (Brokert idr. 2009: 9) Opisano stanje je, če uporabim Diminescujin (2008) pojasnjevalni aparat, zelo spre­menilo migrantsko izkušnjo. Gre za prehod od ukoreninjenega k povezanemu mi-grantu, IKT današnjim migrantom omogočajo skoraj neomejeno simultano priso­tnost v dveh kulturnih kontekstih, in sicer v fizično oddaljeni domovini in državi, v kateri dejansko živijo. Podobno razmišlja tudi Portes (2001), in sicer, da današnji mi-granti z uporabo IKT lahko simultano živijo v dveh svetovih, tj. domovini in državi, v katero so migrirali. V nasprotju s trenutnim stanjem je bilo v razmerah omejene mo-bilnosti utemeljeno pričakovanje, da ločitev od izvornega kraja pomeni tudi vzpo­stavitev novega načina življenja in novih socialnih vezi oziroma integracijo v novo okolje. (Mlinar 1997; Hiller, Franz 2004) Sedaj pa logika delovanja omrežne družbe vse bolj zmanjšuje realnost takšne predpostavke, ker, metaforično povedano, IKT migrantu med drugim omogočajo, da na nek način lahko kadarkoli odide domov, obenem pa tudi dom pripeljejo k njemu. Takšno »sinhroniziranje« z domačim krajem in izvorno kulturo pomeni, da sodobni migranti domovine emocionalno in družbe-no nikoli ne zapustijo. Povezani migrant torej ni ukoreninjen v novo okolje, ampak je v domovini so-prisoten preko konstantnih stikov z ljudmi in s kulturo, nahaja se v nekakšnem vmesnem prostoru. »Ljudje so tukaj in tam [...] v neizprosni kombinaciji krajev. [...] kraji še vedno obstajajo, vključno z domovi in delovnimi prostori, ampak kot točke konvergence v komunikacijskih omrežjih [...]« (Castells idr. 2007: 127). Za so-dobne migrante domovina in ljudje, ki so jih v njej pustili, niso več zgolj spomin, ki ga ohranjajo z redkimi priložnostnimi stiki. Ravno obratno, zaradi možnosti, ki jih nudi uporaba IKT, domovina vedno bolj (p)ostaja pomemben del njihovega vsakdanjega življenja tako pri izmenjavi emocionalnih, ekonomskih in socialnih virov kot tudi pri oblikovanju kulturne identitete. TRANSNACIONALNI ŽIVLJENJSKI STIL MIGRANTOV Hkratno prepletanje družbenih dinamik dveh ali več medsebojno fizično in kulturno oddaljenih krajev, ki ga sodobnim migrantom omogočajo IKT, za potrebe te razprave označujem s sintagmo »transnacionalni življenjski stil«. Po Smithu (2001) transnacio­nalnost vztraja na pomenu meja, državnih politik in nacionalnih identitet, čeprav jih pogosto prestopajo komunikacijski tokovi in družbene prakse. Intenzivnost slednjih se je povečala s pojavom komunikacije od osebe do osebe (Wellman 2001), ko so v širšo uporabo prišle prenosne komunikacijske naprave, ki omogočajo stroškovno ugodne interakcije od kjerkoli in kadarkoli. S tem se je namreč uveljavil življenjski stil stalne prisotnosti na internetu (boyd 2012), kar je med drugim prineslo povečano frekvenco interakcij med družinskimi člani, sorodniki in prijatelji. Poleg tega so se v zadnjem času uveljavile tudi aplikacije za povezovanje posameznikov (npr. Face-book, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp ipd.), ki uporabnikom omogočajo deljenje raz­ličnih medijskih formatov (fotografij, glasu, video posnetkov ipd.), s čimer je komu­nikacija na daljavo presegla omejitve, povezane s prejšnjimi mediji (npr. pismom in telefonom), saj je v smislu posredovanja informacij postala veliko bogatejša.8 Takšne komunikacijske razmere so podlaga za razvoj transnacionalnega življenjskega stila migrantov, ki obsega konstantne vezi in interakcije med posamezniki ter njihovo izvorno kulturo, kar pomeni, da temelji na kulturni in ne na geografski/teritorialni dimenziji. Pri tem je tudi bistveno, da se posamezniki zavedajo dejanj, občutenj in dnevnih dinamik fizično oddaljenih pomembnih drugih. V praksi se ta pojav kaže kot »[...] rastoče število ljudi, ki živijo dvojna življenja, govorijo dva jezika, imajo dom v dveh državah [...]« (Portes idr. 1999: 217) Podrobnejši vpogled v transnacionalni življenjski stil migrantov dajejo empirič­ne študije, izvedene na primerih migrantskih družin (Baldassar idr. 2016; Baldassar, Merla (ur.) 2014; Robertson, Wilding, Gifford 2016). Ugotovitve avtorjev kažejo, da so medsebojno fizično oddaljeni člani družin so-prisotni s pomočjo IKT in tako živijo družinsko življenje. »Klici so tako pogosti, da delujejo kot opomniki na prisotnost drugega, ko ljudje dejansko niso skupaj« (Licoppe, Smoreda 2006: 944). S tem med fizično oddaljenimi družinskimi člani krožijo kulturni, emocionalni, ekonomski in so-cialni viri. Takšne dinamike vsakdanjega življenja migrantov se odvijajo tudi zunaj družinske sfere, v širših socialnih krogih, kjer so-prisotnost prispeva k vzdrževanju občutka pripadnosti in nudi medsebojno pomoč in oporo. V tem kontekstu je kot hevristično sredstvo v literaturi pogosto uporabljen koncept socialnega kapitala, pri čemer gre za razlikovanje med vezivnim in premostitvenim socialnim kapitalom.9 V kontekstu uporabe IKT med migranti se vezivni socialni kapital nanaša na uporabo teh­nologij z namenom ohranjanja in poglabljanja obstoječih stikov iz izvorne domovine 8 Na tem mestu je treba omeniti teorijo 'polimedijev' (polymedia), s katero Madianou in Miller (2012) pojasnjujeta uporabo določenega medija v danem družbenem, kulturnem, psiholo­škem in ekonomskem kontekstu. Gre torej za način, kako uporabniki IKT izkoriščajo prednosti teh tehnologij z namenom upravljanja medsebojnih odnosov. Pri tem je bistveno, da komu­nikacijo med uporabniki oblikujejo lastnosti, ki jih ima določen medij. Na primer tekstovno sporočilo, poslano po telefonu (SMS ali MMS), ne more prenesti neverbalnih znakov oziroma telesne govorice, ta pa se lahko prenese po video komunikaciji (npr. Skypu). 9 Po Gittelu in Vidalu (1998) se vezivni socialni kapital nanaša na koristi (varnost, podporo), ki jih ima posameznik od vključenosti v neko skupino, ali na širše medsebojne odnose (družina, sorodstvo, verske skupine ipd.). V tem primeru gre za socialni kapital na individualni ravni, ki ima tri funkcije, in sicer je vir: družbenega nadzora (solidarnost, zaupanje in norme), družin­ske podpore in koristi zunaj družinskih omrežij (dostopnost zaposlitve, mobilnost, podjetni­ški uspeh). Za ta tip socialnega kapitala so značilne močne vezi (Granovetter 1973). Premo­stitveni socialni kapital pa Gittel in Vidal (prav tam) opredelita kot koristi (dostop do različnih virov informacij), ki jih posamezniku prinašajo šibke vezi (Granovetter 1973). V tem primeru gre za vezi med heterogenimi posamezniki, za katere je po Putnamu (2000) verjetneje, da so bolj krhke, vendar po drugi strani krepijo družbeno vključenost. ali države bivanja, medtem ko se premostitveni socialni kapital nanaša na ustvarja­nje novih stikov s posamezniki iz države bivanja in diasporo. Premostitveni socialni kapital je pomemben predvsem z vidika integracije v novo družbeno okolje, čeprav Alencar (2018) opozarja, da migranti zaradi uporabe IKT postajajo vse manj odvisni od vzpostavljanja stikov s prebivalci novega družbenega okolja, zaradi česar naj bi te tehnologije zavirale proces njihovega vključevanja. Predstavljene dinamike pomembno vplivajo tudi na oblikovanje identitete mi-granta, saj je po IKT v intenzivnem stiku s svojo kulturo, ne da bi bil v njej fizično prisoten. To odseva tudi v pregledu literature, kjer različni avtorji (Borkert idr. 2009; Bradatan idr. 2010; Tsuda 2012; Kozachenko 2013) poudarjajo pomen simultane iden­tifikacije in občutka pripadnosti migrantov dvema ali več državam. Če je do nedav­nega proces oblikovanja kulturne identitete migrantov temeljil na interakcijah, ki so potekale v fizičnem prostoru ali pa so vključevale tiskane in elektronske medije, je logika delovanja IKT ustvarila nove socialne situacije, v kontekstu katerih je treba ta proces ponovno interpretirati. Kot pravi Giddens (1991), so za moderno družbeno življenje značilni reorganizacija časa in prostora kot tudi mehanizmi izkrivljanja, ki radikalizirajo in globalizirajo predhodno vzpostavljene institucionalne značilnosti modernosti ter delujejo v smeri preoblikovanja vsebin in narave vsakdanjega druž­benega življenja. V tem smislu transnacionalni življenjski stil pomeni, da migranti nenehno prejemajo impulze, ki jih opominjajo na njihov izvor in v vsakdan vnaša­jo različne kulturne elemente iz domovine, ki se prepletajo s kulturo, v kateri živijo. Takšno stanje ima določene posledice, in sicer, kot pravita Diminescu in Loveluck (2014), migranti pretakajo dva ali več družbeno-kulturnih prostorov, kar vodi v trajni kompleksni proces medsebojnega vplivanja, premikajočega se težišča moči znotraj sebstva in nihajočih odnosov z različnimi skupnostmi. Posledično se migranti nava­dno čutijo povezane tako z domovino kot z državo, v kateri živijo, kar izključuje iden­titetno opredeljevanje v smislu »ali-ali« in uvaja prostor za vmesne alternative, kot so transkulturne (Welsh 1995) in mešane (Sedmak, Zadel 2015) identitete. SKLEPNE MISLI V prispevku sem pokazal, da so IKT v veliki meri spremenile migracijsko izkušnjo, zaradi česar jo je nujno treba ponovno premisliti, in to v pogojih (omrežne) družbe. Sodobni migranti namreč poosebljajo kompleksni družbeni hibrid, ki ga je ustvarila kombinacija mobilnosti in uporabe IKT. Ključna značilnost današnjih migrantov je, da so z uporabo IKT nenehno v stiku z izvorno kulturo in ljudmi v domovini. Izhajajoč iz tega lahko rečem, da o migracijah ne moremo več govoriti kot o enosmernem premiku med krajem A in krajem B, ampak ga zaradi konstantne izmenjave inter-akcijskih tokov med obema krajema obravnavamo kot proces, ki sočasno poteka v fizičnem in kibernetskem prostoru. V tem smislu Nedelcu (2012) ugotavlja, da je da­našnji migrant idealnotipski akter 21. stoletja, ki je sposoben razviti in obvladovati nove geografije vsakdanjega življenja in, kot pokažem v prispevku, pred izziv posta­viti vzorce, ki temeljijo na območni organizaciji družbe. V sklopu obravnavane tematike je pomembna tudi vloga, ki jo imajo IKT pri vklju-čevanju migrantov v širšo družbo. Zaradi omejenosti prostora tej temi v prispevku ne posvečam posebne pozornosti, kljub temu pa moram poudariti, da je tehnološka vključenost migrantov pomembna prav tako kot socialna, politična in ekonomska (Diminescu 2008; Kluzer, Rissola 2009; Khorshed, Imran 2015). Pri tem je treba upo­števati, da so ključne migrantske destinacije predvsem razvite zahodne družbe, v katerih pa je prvi pogoj za posameznikovo polnopravno vključenost prav njegova digitalna pismenost. V kontekstu obravnavane teme bi bilo treba primerjati migracijske izkušnje v ob-dobju pred razširjenostjo uporabe IKT in v današnjem času. Takšna študija bi bila precej obsežna in kompleksna, obenem pa tudi dobrodošla. Empiričnih raziskav, ki bi se ukvarjale s tovrstno primerjavo, namreč nisem zasledil, zato bi se bilo tej tema­tiki tako na mednarodni kot tudi na nacionalni ravni treba posvetiti v prihodnosti. LITERATURA Alencar, Amanda (2018). Refugee Integration and Social Media: A Local and Experi­ential Perspective. Information, Communication & Society 21/11, 1588–1603. Appadurai, Arjun (1996). Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Min­ neapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Arango, Joaquin (2004). Theories of International Migration. International Migration and the New Millennium (ur. Danielle Joly). Aldershot: Ashgate, 15–36. Bakardijeva, Maria (2003): Internet Society: The Internet in Everyday Life. London: SAGE. Baldassar, Loretta, Merla, Laura (ur.) (2014). Transnational Families, Migration, and the Circulation of Care: Understanding Mobility and Absence in Family Life. New York: Routledge. Barney, Darin (2004). The Network Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bell, David, Kennedy, Barbara (ur.) (2002). The Cybercultures Reader. Second edition. London: Routledge. Boyd, Danah (2012). ‘Participation in the Always on Lifestyle’. The Social Media Reader (ur. Michael Mandiberg). New York: NYU Press. Bradatan, Christina, Popan, Adrian, Melton, Rachel (2010). “Transnationality as fluid social identity”. Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture 16/2, 167–178. Brokert, Maren idr. (2009). Study on the State of the ar Tof Research in the EU on the Up­take and Use of ICT by Immigrants and Ethnic Minorities. IMISCOE Working paper No. 27. Forum Internazionale ed Europeo di ricerco sull` immigrazione interna­tional and European forum on Migration research, http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ publications/pub.cfm?id=2560 (9. 10. 2018). Castells, Manuel (1996): The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Castells, Manuel (1997): The Power of Identity. Vol. II. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Castells, Manuel (1998). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. III. Ox­ford: Blackwell Publishing. Castells, Manuel idr. (2007). Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press. Castles, Stephen, de Haas, Hein, Miller, Mark (2014). The Age of Migration: Internation­al Population Movements in the Modern World. Fifth Edition. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Collin, Simon, Karsenti, Thierry, Calone, Olivier (2015). Migrant`s Use of Technologies: An Overview of Research Objects in the Field. Journal of Technologies and Human Usability 10/3–4, 15–29. Čikič, Sanja (2002). Povezovanje Slovencev po svetu s pomočjo interneta: Vzpostav­ljanje virtualnih etničnih skupnosti. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 16, 81–98. Diminescu, Dana (2008). The Connected Migrant: An Epistemological Manifesto. Mi­ grants and Clandestinity 47/4, 565–579. Diminescu, Dana, Loveluck, Benjamin (2014). Traces of Dispersion: Online Media and Diasporic Identities. Crossings: Journal of Migration and Culture 5/1, 23–39. Erjavec, Karmen (2013). Vloga interneta pri integraciji mladih priseljencev iz držav nekdanje Jugoslavije v slovensko družbo. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 37, 7–20. Florida, Richard (2002). The Rise of the Cerative Class. And how it`s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. Florida, Richard (2007). The Flight of the Creative Class. The New Global Competition for Talent. New York: Harper Collins. Frouws, Bram idr. (2016). Getting to Europe the 'WhatsApp' Way. The Use of ICT in Contemporary Mixed Migration Flows to Europe. Regional Mixed Migration Sec­retariat Briefing Paper 2. Giddens, Anthony (1991). Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Mod­ern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press. Gittel, Ross, Vidal, Avis (1998). Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a De­velopment Strategy. London: Tousand Oaks, SAGE. Goldin, Ian, Cameron, Geoffrey (2011). Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped our World and Will Define our Future. Princeton, Oxford: Princeton University Press. Granovetter, Mark (1973). The Strenght of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78/6, 1360–1380. Halilovich, Hariz (2013). Bosnian Austrians: Accidental Migrants in Trans-local and Cy-ber Spaces. Journal of Refugee Studies 26/4, 524–540. Hamel, Jean Yves (2009). Information and Communication Technologies and Migra­tion: Human Development Research Paper, http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/ files/hdrp_2009_39.pdf (15. 1. 2019). Hepp, Andreas, Bozdag, Cigdem, Suna, Laura (2011). Mediatized Migrants: Media Cul­tures and Communicative Networking in the Diaspora. Migrations, Diaspora, and Information Technology in Global Societies (ur. Leopoldina Fortunati, Raul Pertier­ra, Jane Vincent). London: Palgrave, 172–188. Hiller, Harry, Franz, Tara (2004). New Ties, Old Ties and Lost Ties: The Use of the Inter­net in Diaspora. New Media & Society 6/6, 731–752. Hunter, Alistair (2015). Empowering or Impeding Return Migration? ICT, Mobile Phones and Older Migrants` Communications with Home. Global Networks 15/4, 485–502. Jordan, Tim (1999). Cyberpower: The Culture and Politics of Cyberspace and the Internet. London: Routledge. King, Russell (2012). Theories and Typologies of Migration: An Overview and a Primer Willy Brandt Series of Working Papers in International Migration and Ethnic Relations 3/12, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260096281/download (21. 12. 2018). Khorshed, Alam, Imran, Sophia (2015). The Digital Divide and Social Inclusion among Refugee Migrants: A Case in Regional Australia. Information Technology and People 28/2, 344–365. Kluzer, Stefano, Gabriel, Rissola (2009). E-Inclusion Policies and Initiatives in Support of Employability of Migrants and Ethnic Minorities in Europe. Information Tech­nologies and International Development 5/2, 67–76. Kozachenko, Ivan (2013). Horizon Scanning report: ICT and Migration. Working Pa­pers of the Communities & Culture Network,https://www.abdn.ac.uk/socsci/ documents/ICT_and_Migration_main.pdf (15. 12. 2018). Lee, Rainie, Wellman, Barry (2012). Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cam­bridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Lenarčič, Blaž (2010). Socialni kapital v virtualnih skupnostih. Koper: Univerzitetna založba Annales. Lenarčič, Blaž (2010a). Sociabilnost posameznikov med teritorialno in omrežno or-ganizacijo družbe. Teorija in praksa: Revija za družbena vprašanja 47/2–3, 454–468. Lenarčič, Blaž (2014). Vpliv informacijsko-komunikacijskih tehnologij na velikost so-cialnih omrežij v kontekstu lokalno-globalnih dinamik. Teorija in praksa: Revija za družbena vprašanja 5, 285–308. Licoppe, Christian, Smoreda, Zbigniew (2006). Rhytms and Ties: Towards a Pragmat­ics of Technologically Mediated Sociability. Computers, Phones and the Internet: Domesticating Information Technologies (ur. Robert Kraut, Malcolm Brynin, Sara Kiesler). Oxford: University Press, 296–314. Lingel, Jessa, Naaman, Mor, boyd, dannah (2014). City, Self, Network: Transtnational Migrants and Online Identity Work. Geographic Distance 15–19, 1502–1510. Madianou, Mirca, Miller, Daniel (2012): Polymedia: Towards a New Theory of Digital Media in Interpersonal Communication. International Journal of Cultural Studies 16/2, 169–187. Massey, Douglas idr. (1998). Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millenium. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Meden, Ahac (2007). Spletne strani Slovencev po svetu. Dve domovini / Two Home­lands 26, 47–73. Meyrowitz, Joshua (1985). No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior. Oxford: University Press. Milharčič Hladnik, Mirjam (2017). Internet in preobrazbe ohranjanja kulturne dedi-ščine v slovenskoameriških etničnih skupnostih. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 28, 57–72. Mikola, Maša, Gombač, Jure (2008). Internet kot medij ohranjanja narodne in kul­turne dediščine med Slovenci po svetu: Stare dileme novih rešitev. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 28, 39–56. Mlinar, Zdravko (1997). Globalizacija kot izziv za sociološko raziskovanje. Teorija in praksa 33/4, 575–595. Mlinar, Zdravko (1994). Individuacija in globalizacija v prostoru. Ljubljana: SAZU. Nedelcu, Mihaela (2012). Migrants´ New Transnational Habitus: Rethinking Migration through a Cosmopolitan Lens in the Digital Age. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38/9, 1339–1356. Nimo Ilhan, Ali (2016). Going on Tahriib the Causes and Consequences of Somali Youth Migration to Europe. Published by the Rift Valley Institute, https://www.refworld. org/docid/57e92d114.html (26. 6. 2018). Oblak, Tanja, Petrič, Gregor (2005). Splet kot mediji in mediji na spletu. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. Portes, Alejandro (2001). Introduction: The Debates and Significance of Immigrant Transnationalism. Global Networks 1/3, 181–193. Portes, Alejandro, Guarnizo, Luis, Landolt, Patricia (1999). The Study of Transnational-ism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22/2, 217–237. Putnam, Robert (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Commu­nity. New York: Simon & Schuster. Robertson, Zoe, Wilding, Raelene, Gifford, Sandra (2016). Mediating the Family Im­aginary: Young People Negotiang Absence in Transnational Refugee Families. Global Networks: A Journal of Transnational Affairs 16/2, 219–236. Sedmak, Mateja, Zadel, Maja (2015). (Mešane) kulturne identitete. Annales: Series historia et sociologia 25/1, 155–170. Smith, Michael (2001). Transnational Urbanism: Locating Globalization. Massachusetts: Blackwell. Terranova, Tiziana (2004). Network Culture: Politics for the Information Age. London: Pluto Press. Trček, Franc (2003): Problem informacijske (ne)dostopnosti. Ljubljana: Center za pros-torsko sociologijo, FDV. Tsuda, Takeyuki (2012). “Whatever Happened to Simultaneity? Transnational Migra­tion Theory and Dual Engagement in Sending and Receiving Countries.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38/4, 631–649. Vancea, Mihaela, Boso, Alex (2014). Connected Immigrants? Four Methodological Challenges for the Analysis of ICT Use through Survey Data. Migraciones Inter-nacionales 7/3, 44–71. Welsch, Wolfgang (2001). Transculturality: The Changing Form of Cultures Today. Filozofski vestnik 22/2, 59–86. Wellman, Barry (2001). Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized Net­working. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25, 227–252. Wellman, Barry (2000). Changing Connectivity: A Future History of Y2.03K. Socio­logical Research Online 4/4, http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/wellman.html (24. 10. 2018). Zavratnik, Simona, Cukut Krilić Sanja (2018): Digital Routes, “Digital Migrants”: From Empowerment to Control over Refugees’ Digital Footprints. Družboslovne raz­prave XXXIV/89, 143–163. Zelenik, Marijana (2018). Raba družbenih medijev med mladimi migranti z območja nekdanje Jugoslavije. Mladi in mediji. Zbornik SUBKULTURE: Prispevki za kritiko in analizo družbenih gibanj (ur. Andrej Neterer). Maribor: Kulturni center, zavod za umetniško produkcijo in založništvo, 123–152. Zhao, Shanyang (2003). Toward a Taxonomy of Copresence. Presence 12/5, 445–455, http://astro.temple.edu/~bzhao001/Taxonomy_ Copresence.pdf (12. 9. 2019). Zijlstra, Judith, van Liempt, Ilse (2017). Smart(phone) Travelling: Understanding the Use and Impact of Mobile Technology on Irregular Migration Journeys. Interna­tional Journal Migration and Border Studies 3/2, 174–191. SUMMARY THE MIGRATION PROCESS IN THE NETWORK SOCIETY Blaž LENARČIČ In the first part of the article, the author presents the concept of a network soci­ety, in which relationships and processes are based on network principles. In this context, particular attention is paid to the action of individuals that is independent of time and place, which is a key feature of the network society. At an experiential level, such action allows the world to be perceived as smaller or more manageable, meaning that individuals have the possibility of interconnecting beyond territorial and national borders, which has important effects on the migration process. In the second part of the article, the author focuses on the study of the use of information and communication technologies in the migration context. In addition to the fact that such research has only begun to develop rapidly in the last decade, the author notes that certain changes are needed in explaining the contemporary migration process, which must go beyond interpretations related to the context of physical distance. In this sense, the author argues that information and communication technologies are an inseparable part of contemporary (developed) society, and just as the current economic, political and cultural spheres cannot be understood with­out considering the technological dimension, the same goes for understanding the migration process. On this basis, the author presents the individual phases of the migration process (pre-migrant, travel, post-migrant and established phase) and the role and use of information and communication technologies in each of them, which among other things demonstrates that this is a rather broad and diverse field of research. At the same time, it shows that these technologies significantly change the migration experience and, consequently, influence the understanding of the very concept of migrant. VPRAŠANJA IDENTITET, MIGRACIJ IN TRANSKULTURNOSTI: PRIMER PESNICE CVETKE LIPUŠ Tanja ŽIGON|, Vesna KONDRIČ HORVAT||,Boštjan UDOVIČ||| COBISS 1.01 IZVLEČEK Vprašanja identitet, migracij in transkulturnosti: Primer pesnice Cvetke Lipuš Pesnica Cvetka Lipuš je mednarodno uveljavljena in večkrat nagrajena pesnica, roje­na na avstrijskem Koroškem. Po študiju v Avstriji je odšla v Združene države Amerike, nato pa se je po več kot desetletju bivanja čez lužo vrnila in se ustalila v Salzburgu. Doslej je izdala sedem pesniških zbirk in je ena izmed najpomembnejših ambasadork slovenske kulture v tujini. Svoje pesniške misli preliva na papir izključno v slovenščini, svojem prvem jeziku, medtem ko sta nemščina in angleščina jezika njene izobrazbe in poklicnega življenja. V prispevku se avtorji sprašujejo, kako se migracije in trije kul­turni krogi, ki jo spremljajo, odražajo v njenem življenju in delu. KLJUČNE BESEDE: Cvetka Lipuš, slovenska književnost, narodna manjšina, izseljen­stvo, migracije, transkulturnost ABSTRACT Questions of Identity, Migrations and Transculturality: The Case of the Poet Cvetka Lipuš Cvetka Lipuš is an internationally acclaimed multi-award-winning poet born in the Carinthia region in Austria. After graduating from university in Austria, she moved to the United States. After more than a decade of living across the Atlantic, she returned and settled in Salzburg. She has published seven poetry collections to date, and is one of the most important ambassadors of Slovenian culture abroad. She writes her poetry only in her mother tongue, i.e. Slovene, while she has also studied and worked in German and English. In this paper, we examine how her migrations and the three cultures are reflected in her life and work. KEY WORDS: Cvetka Lipuš, Slovenian literature, national minority, emigration, migra­tions, transculturality | Dr. znanosti, izredna profesorica za prevodoslovje, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani, Aškerčeva 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana; tanja.zigon@ff.uni-lj.si || Dr. znanosti, redna profesorica za novejšo nemško književnost, Filozofska fakulteta Univerze v Mariboru, Koroška cesta 160, SI-2000 Maribor; vesna.kondric@uni-mb.si ||| Dr. znanosti, izredni profesor s področja diplomacije (korespondenčni avtor), Fakulteta za družbene vede Univerze v Ljubljani, Kardeljeva ploščad 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana; bostjan.udovic@ fdv.uni-lj.si — Prispevek je nastal v sklopu raziskovalnih programov »Slovenija in njeni akterji v mednarodnih odnosih in evropskih integracijah«, št. P5-0177, in »Medkulturne literarnovedne študije«, št. P6-0265, ki ju sofinancira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slove­nije iz državnega proračuna. Za sodelovanje se avtorji zahvaljujejo Cvetki Lipuš in anonimnima recenzentoma, ki sta pripomogla k izboljšanju članka. UVOD IN OPREDELITEV RAZISKOVALNEGA PROBLEMA Mednarodno uveljavljena pesnica, dobitnica nagrade Prešernovega sklada leta 2016,1 koroška Slovenka Cvetka Lipuš, je trenutno nedvomno ena najpomembnejših in najaktualnejših ambasadork slovenske kulture v tujini. Rojena je na avstrijskem Koroškem, na Dunaju in v Celovcu je študirala primerjalno književnost in sinologijo, sredi devetdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja pa je zapustila staro celino ter se z name-nom študija bibliotekarstva in informacijskih znanosti kot tudi zaradi poklicne poti za več kot desetletje ustalila v Združenih državah Amerike. Pred desetletjem se je vrnila v Avstrijo, v Salzburg, kjer danes živi in dela. Cvetka Lipuš je »mobilna« umetni-ca, pri kateri (kot pri mnogih drugih) so migracijski procesi, tako Repič (2006: 37–52), odvisni od njenih »povsem osebnih izkušenj, odločitev in strategij ter po drugi strani od zunanjih (družbenih, političnih in ekonomskih) dejavnikov«. Takšni posamezniki še bolj aktivno sodelujejo v procesih »oblikovanja, spreminja­nja in ohranjanja družbenih kategorij ter osebnih in skupinskih identifikacij«, ki sicer potekajo v vseh okoljih in kadarkoli, vendar pa so »zlasti opazni v migracijskih procesih, ki pri posameznikih dodatno sproščajo točke identifikacij in omogočajo, pogosto pa celo zahtevajo, identitetne spremembe in njihove redefinicije«. Tako tudi transnacio­nalne migracije niso izjemen ali izreden pojav, ki bi bistveno in popolnoma zaznamo-val posameznika, temveč pojav, ki posamezniku »omogoča bodisi obstojnost bodisi (pre)oblikovanje lastnih identitet ter povezovanje v nove skupnosti in družbene mre­že«, pri čemer gre predvsem za redefinicijo nacionalnih identitet, pomen pripadnosti in identifikacij z (izvirno) domovino ter identitetne spremembe. (Repič 2006: 37) Tako lahko hitro ugotovimo, da Cvetka Lipuš, čeprav v strogo geografskem smislu nikoli ni živela v Sloveniji, piše izključno v slovenščini in velja za slovensko pesnico. Sama bi, če bi bila postavljena pred odločitev, katero zastavo izobesiti na svojem domu, brez okle­vanja izbrala slovensko (Pišek 2016). Rečemo lahko, da Cvetka Lipuš živi dve domovini. Vprašanje, ki se postavlja, pa je, kako je z njenim (samo)identificiranjem. Kot ugotavlja Repič (ibid.), sta v življenju migrantov prisotni večplastnost in spre­menljivost identifikacij. Tako se pri Cvetki Lipuš na primer lahko vprašamo, ali se (samo) identificira kot pripadnica slovenske narodne skupnosti na avstrijskem Koroškem ali pa je, glede na to, da je živela v ZDA, njena (samo)identifikacija izseljenska? V slednjem pri­meru je vprašanje lahko tudi, ali gre za avstrijsko ali slovensko izseljenko? In, navsezad­nje, ali moramo na problematiko pogledati širše in se vprašati, ali je njena identifikacija povsem drugačna in presega ustaljene binarne kategorije, je fluidnejša, predvsem pa, ali jo lahko razumemo le »v procesu razlikovanja, nenehne vzpostavitve lastne identitete v razmerju do drugih, vzpostavitve sebstva v razmerju do drugih sebstev in do drugosti v lastnem jazu« (Jurić Pahor 2015: 184). Ta vprašanja so osrednje vodilo pričujoče razprave. Leta 2008 je bila z zbirko Obleganje sreče ter leta 2015 z zbirko Kaj smo, ko smo tudi med pe­timi finalisti za Veronikino nagrado, ki jo podeljujejo za najboljšo pesniško zbirko leta. Svoj prostor je pesnica našla tudi v pregledih novejše slovenske lirike (Strutz 1998: 224; Poniž 2001: 315–317; Novak Popov 2007: 376–377). Klasična teorija gradnje identitete, ki temelji predvsem na binarnih konceptih (mi vs. drugi), bi Cvetko Lipuš identitetno gotovo označila kot pripadnico manjšinske (to-rej zamejske) skupnosti in ji zato pripisala določene (vnaprej znane, stereotipizirane, morda celo s predsodki pogojene) značilnosti (prim. Hall 1996; Zupančič, Arbeiter 2016; Arbeiter, Udovič 2017; Kočan, Arbeiter 2019). Na drugi strani pa bi migracijske študije njeno identiteto gradile predvsem na podlagi njenih geografskih (in družbe­nih) premikov. V obeh primerih bi Cvetka Lipuš takšno definiranje identitet zavrnila. V prvem zato, ker z manjšinsko skupnostjo že dvajset let nima nobenega stika, v dru-gem pa zato, ker njene geografske selitve niso bile pogojene z identifikacijo oziroma iskanjem identitete, temveč je migrirala predvsem na podlagi osebne (ekonomske) odločitve (prim. Pišek 2016). Iz povedanega izhaja, da je najprimernejši koncept za razumevanje identitete Cvetke Lipuš teoretski okvir transkulturnosti, ki se je v Evropi spričo razprav v spremenjenih kulturnih konceptih – takrat so se intenzivirali globali­zacijski in migracijski procesi – uveljavil v devetdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja. Wolfgang Welsch (1997: 78; 1999: 196) je tako uvedel koncept transkulturnosti, ki ga razume kot prelivanje elementov identitet(e) med kulturnimi mrežami (posa­meznika), znotraj katerih se elementi identitete delno ali v celoti prekrivajo, lahko pa se tudi razlikujejo. A medtem ko Welsch kljub nekaterim pomislekom ne preseže tradicionalnega kulturnega koncepta in se ozira v nacionalno preteklost in na od-nos do (nacionalne) kulture, pa novejše raziskave binarne kategorije vzpostavljanja (kulturnih) identitet nadomeščajo s konceptom prehodnih identitet (več o tem Jurić Pahor 2012a, 2012b; 2015a, 2015b; 2018; Zadel 2016: 71–101). Bistvo sodobne identi­tete, kot kažejo koncepti, nastali v okviru kulturoloških in postkolonialnih študijev, je ravno v njenem revidiranju, (samo)zanikovanju in redefiniranju (Hall 1996; Bhabha 2000; Jurić Pahor 2012a). Različne identitete namreč posegajo po različnih kulturnih tradicijah in so rezultat zapletenih identifikacij in križanj, tako da se subjektova iden­titeta nenehno »preklaplja« (Jurić Pahor 2015: 184). Aplikacija razumevanja transkul­turnosti na primeru Cvetke Lipuš je prikazana na Sliki 1. Slika 1: Transkulturnost pesnice Cvetke Lipuš (vir: lastni prikaz). Transkulturnost Cvetke Lipuš se tako kaže s prekrivanjem treh identitet:2 manjšin­ske identitete koroške Slovenke, identitete avstrijskega okolja, v katerem je Cvetka Lipuš prešla primarno in sekundarno socializacijo, ter identitete njenega življenja v Združenih državah Amerike, ki je bila povezana predvsem z osebnimi in ekonomski-mi razlogi. Trojnost identitet Cvetke Lipuš se v transkulturnosti ne pojavlja v enako­vrednih delih. Manjšinska identiteta, ki je pesnico oblikovala v okviru njene osebne formacije, je bila prvi pogoj za oblikovanje družbenih kategorij in osebnih ter sku­pinskih identifikacij, ki zaznamujejo njeno sekundarno in terciarno identiteto. To pa pomeni, da Cvetka Lipuš prihaja do fluidnih prehajanj, in čeprav že dvajset let nima stika z manjšino na Koroškem, jo identifikacija z njo zaradi preteklih socializacijskih vzorcev in praks še vedno deloma zaznamuje in uokvirja.3 Vse povedano nas vodi do dveh raziskovalnih vprašanj, ki jih raziskujemo v pri-čujočem članku, in sicer: R1: Kako se transkulturnost, ki je tudi posledica stalnih migracij, kaže pri Cvetki Lipuš oziroma kako se pesnica sooča s tremi identitetami, ki jo določajo, in kako kombi­nacija treh identitet in treh domovin vpliva na njeno ustvarjanje? R2: Ali pesnica Cvetka Lipuš v svojem literarnem ustvarjanju zavestno poudarja slo­vensko komponento? Ugotoviti želimo, kako močan vpliv imajo različni kulturni krogi, v katerih se giblje, pravzaprav njene identitete, ki jih združuje v svoji biti, na literarno ustvarjanje, hkrati pa tudi, ali se pri avtoričinem ustvarjanju identitete prelivajo iz ene v drugo, se do-polnjujejo ali si morda celo nasprotujejo; ter, če pride do slednjega, kako se pesnica »spopada« (če se) s tovrstnimi intrapersonalnimi izzivi. Navedeno ni pomembno le zaradi ugotavljanja odnosa med identitetami posameznika, ampak tudi zaradi ume-ščanja teh spoznanj v sistem sposobnosti države (v našem primeru Slovenije), da individualno identiteto »izkoristi« za krepitev kolektivne identitete in prisotnosti v tretjih državah. (Prim. tudi Lukšič Hacin, Toplak 2012: 107–117; Durnik, Gombač 2012: 119–133; Valentinčič 2016: 153–166: Durnik 2017: 103–118; Žigon 2018: 127–145.) Prispevek je sestavljen iz treh med seboj povezanih delov. Uvodu in orisu pro-blematike sledi kratek prikaz pesničinega ustvarjanja, temu pa analiza zastavljene problematike. Pri analizi smo uporabili dve dopolnjujoči se metodi, in sicer analizo dostopnih primarnih (predvsem njena objavljena lirika) in sekundarnih virov (inter­vjuji in javna pojavljanja Cvetke Lipuš v slovenskih medijih) ter kombinacijo polstruk­turiranega in nestrukturiranega intervjuja (pogovori), ki smo ga avtorji članka op-ravili s Cvetko Lipuš (v slovenščini). Vprašanja smo avtorji pesnici postavljali ob več 2 O identitetnih vprašanjih prim. Milharčič Hladnik (2007: 31–46; 2015: 171–182); Repič (2010: 121–134); Hoerder (2012: 97–105); Žitnik Serafin (2011: 35–45; 2014: 31–42) in Lukšič Hacin (2016: 79–91). 3 Pri tem moramo poudariti, da je uokvirjanje identitete zaradi primarnega in sekundarnega socializacijskega procesa veliko rahlejše, kot bi bilo samodefiniranje identitete. priložnostih, predvsem ob neformalnih druženjih, komunicirali pa smo tudi po elek­tronski pošti.4 Analizi sledi zaključek, v katerem so povzeti odgovori na raziskovalna vprašanja ter podani predlogi za nadaljnje raziskovanje omenjene problematike. CVETKA LIPUŠ NA PARNASU SLOVENSKE KNJIŽEVNOSTI Cvetka Lipuš je začela pisati že v gimnaziji. Nekaj njenih pesmi so natisnili v Dijaškem glasu in v literarni prilogi časnika Wiener Zeitung. Sredi osemdesetih let je v antologiji sodobne slovenske lirike na Koroškem z naslovom V lunini senci (1985) objavila tudi svojo poezijo. Poleg tega je redno objavljala tudi v slovenskem (koroškem) glasilu Mladje, ki ga je leta 1960 začel izdajati njen oče Florjan Lipuš, v devetdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja pa je z Majo Haderlap in s Fabjanom Hafnerjem sama prevzela njegovo uredniško taktirko.5 Avtorica je doslej izdala sedem samostojnih pesniških zbirk, prve tri so izšle v Celovcu, druge pa v Ljubljani, tri med njimi so nastale v Pitts-burghu. Njene pesmi, ki jih piše izključno v slovenščini, so prevedene v številne jezi­ke, med drugim v nemščino, angleščino, italijanščino, srbščino, češčino, slovaščino, bolgarščino, francoščino in madžarščino, kar poleg pesničine biografske zgodbe in različnih krajev nastanka in izida pesmi prav tako kaže na transkulturno razsežnost njenega ustvarjanja. V angleščino je prevedena tudi že naslednja zbirka, ki še čaka na izid in bo tako v obeh jezikih (tj. slovenščini in angleščini) skoraj hkrati izšla leta 2020. Cvetka Lipuš pravi, da v slovenščini piše predvsem zato, ker je ta emocionalno njen prvi jezik, s katerim jo povezujejo močnejša čustva kot z drugimi jeziki (Pišek 2016), ki jo spremljajo. Čeprav tega nikjer eksplicitno ne poudarja, na velikih literarnih dogod­kih nikoli ne pozabi povedati, da je slovenska pesnica.6 Pesmi Cvetke Lipuš izdajajo bivanjski element posameznika, razpetega med domačim slovenskim jezikom, nemškim jezikom okolja in angleškim jezikom, ki je postal njen jezik izobraževanja in komunikacije v ZDA, vseeno pa, kot to velja za leta 2016 nagrajeno zbirko Kaj smo, ko smo, v njih »ni čutiti zamejske bolečine niti pato­loške zavezanosti rodni pokrajini, še več, tujina je [avtorici] le ena od postankov, ki ponuja dvoje optimalnih rešitev: ostati ali vrniti se« (Vincetič 2015: 764). 4 Vsa mesta, ki v besedilu niso posebej označena, so povzeta iz osebnih pogovorov/intervjujev z avtorico. 5 Mladim ustvarjalcem je tako uspelo umetnost na avstrijskem Koroškem postaviti ob bok sodobni avstrijski in slovenski umetnosti, revija pa se je prav tako znebila tudi »umetniške estetike preteklega stoletja ter hkrati omogočila slovenskim ustvarjalcem večjo umetniško svobodo in kreativnost« (Kozin 2008: 88). 6 Med večjimi prireditvami naj omenimo njen nastop septembra 2008 pred več tisoč poslušalci na prireditvi City of Asylum v Pittsburghu, v letih 2014 in 2017 je bila gostja knjižnega sejma v Ljubljani, maja 2016 je v organizaciji slovenskega in avstrijskega veleposlaništva brala na avstrijskem veleposlaništvu v Washingtonu D.C. in se predstavila tudi v Knjižnici Ameriškega kongresa (The Library of Congress), leta 2017 pa je gostovala na literarnih večerih v Pragi in na festivalu Vilenica. ANALIZA: MIGRACIJE IN TRANSKULTURNOST V ŽIVLJENJU IN DELU CVETKE LIPUŠ Cvetka Lipuš se je rodila v Železni Kapli in je hči pisatelja Florjana Lipuša, čeprav se je, kot je v spremni besedi k njeni četrti pesniški zbirki Spregatev milosti zapisal Fabjan Hafner, »sprva komaj opazno, z leti pa vse bolj osvobodila teže imen, zlasti lastnega priimka« (Hafner 2003: b. s.). V okolju, iz katerega izhaja, se je srečevala s številnimi pomembnimi intelektualci slovenskega rodu, kot npr. z Gustavom Janušem, Jankom Messnerjem in Majo Haderlap, hkrati pa živela v okolju, kjer je med njenim odrašča­njem in študijem prevladoval nemški jezik. Temu se je po odhodu v Pittsburgh pri­družila še lingua franca današnjega sveta, angleščina. Gre torej za večjezično pesnico, ki glede na okolje, delo, sogovornika menja jezike. Značilnost njene večjezičnosti je pravzaprav parcialna, torej »delna večjezičnost« (Kozin 2008: 99), saj je posamezni jezik vedno vezan na določeno obdobje ali na določeno delo ter je zato v ospred­ju: znanstvene prispevke s področja literarne vede in književnosti največkrat piše v nemščini, medtem ko eseje in strokovne članke objavlja tudi v angleščini. Tako tudi v jezikovnem smislu pušča za seboj transkulturno sled. Ker pa so njeno življenje zazna­movale migracije, sama o sebi meni, da je pravzaprav nekakšna »jezikovna brezdom­ka« (prav tam: 90). S pisanjem poskuša iz jezika ustvariti prostor, ki obljublja stalno bivališče (prav tam: 91), slednje pa ni nič drugega kot transkulturna geografija življe­nja in dela pesnice, ki samo sebe dojema kot otroka ne le dveh, slovenske in nemške (Hell 2000: 45–50), temveč treh kultur. Slovenščina pa je pri Cvetki Lipuš ostala temelj, na katerem je zgradila svoj pe­sniški opus. To je njen notranji jezik, jezik otroštva, jezik njenih čustev. Vendar pa, kot pravi sama, je treba jezik negovati, sicer zakrni, zato se ji zdi pomembno, da redno prihaja v Slovenijo, saj, kot pravi, je nekako začela pogrešati ta prostor, a ne v geo­grafskem smislu. Pogrešala je predvsem slovenščino, imela je namreč občutek, da se bo popolnoma odtujila, če se ne bo zavestno vračala ne le na Koroško in Dunaj, kjer ima prijatelje, temveč predvsem v Slovenijo (Kondrič Horvat 2008: 27; 2008a: 13). Meni, da se s podobnimi težavami pogosto srečujejo izseljenci in ljudje, ki so »pov-sod doma«, saj je nemogoče, da bi lahko ohranili vse navezave. Bistveno pri tem pa je seveda tudi to, da je slovenščina na avstrijskem Koroškem bolj ali manj omejena na zasebno rabo in ni jezik vsakdanje javne komunikacije. Če smo se uvodoma spraševali, ali Cvetka Lipuš sebe dojema kot predstavnico manjšine, je treba povedati, da pesnica že od svoje prve pesniške zbirke Pragovi dne­va (1989) ne pristaja na to, da bi jo kritiki in bralci poskušali uokviriti kot koroško, torej manjšinsko avtorico ali kaj podobnega, in dodaja, da ni medij za kakršnokoli manj­šinsko potrebo, saj to ni njena stvar (Petrič 2008: 1681). V drugi pesniški zbirki Doba temnjenja (1993) se avtorica manj ukvarja z vprašanji identitete in se raje osredotoča na ljubezenski odnos med človekom in naravo, na neizživete strasti in psihična stanja (Rakusa 1996: 19), medtem ko v tretji zbirki Geografija bližine (2000) z opisovanjem eksistencialnih položajev v iskanju prave mere bližine bralcu ponuja načrt za »arhi­tekturo sožitja, v katerem posameznikovega osebnega prostora ni treba žrtvovati na oltarju skupnosti« (Debeljak 2000: 55). Geografija bližine je izšla leta 2000, ko je bila Cvetka Lipuš že pet let v Ameriki, in zdi se, kot rada pove tudi sama, da ji je najbrž razdalja izostrila čut in pogled, čeprav dodaja, da je razdalja lahko tudi past, kar neka­tere zanese v nostalgijo, da vidijo le še delčke in ne več celote. V Geografiji bližine se pesnica sprašuje, kako se približati drugim oziroma drugemu, ne da pri tem izničiš ali podrediš sebe, pri čemer seveda ne moremo spregledati dejstva, da gre za povezavo med pesničino osebno izkušnjo na dvojezičnem ozemlju, kjer se vse ocenjuje skozi prizmo narodne pripadnosti. Gre za pojem, ki bi ga v širšem pomenu lahko zamenjali tudi s pojmom »identiteta«. »Pripadnost,« pravi Cvetka Lipuš, »je v [avstrijskokoroški] stvarnosti bolj ali manj sveta krava. S pripadnostjo se loči zrno od plevela. Lahko si naš, lahko si njihov, ni pa možno, da se kot posameznik postaviš izven teh kategorij« (Kozin 2008: 94). Tudi obe naslednji zbirki, Spregatev milosti (2003) in Obleganje sreče (2010), sta močno povezani s pesničino transkulturno izkušnjo, saj se je zaradi selitve v Ameri­ko njeni dvojezični izkušnji pridružila še ameriška, svoje občutke in najglobje misli pa je spet ubesedila v slovenščini. Pri Spregatvi milosti se je osredotočila na več osnovnih tem, ki jih povezuje naslov, mednje pa zagotovo sodita vera in zaupanje, to, čemur bi v angleščini rekli concept of faith, vendar ne v religioznem smislu. Gre bolj za to, »da enostavno verjameš, da obstaja določeno zaupanje, da se bodo stvari končale dobro, da se bo vse uredilo« (Kondrič Horvat 2008: 23). Kot pravi sama, jo je na svoj način presenetil ameriški pogled na stvarnost, zelo pozitiven odnos do vsakdana, ki ni značilen za pesimistične Evropejce. Pesnica izhaja iz lastne izkušnje, ukvarja se s pripadnostjo in ugotavlja, da če si medkulturen, ne moreš pripadati temu ali onemu (prim. Žitnik Serafin 2008; 2011). V tem primeru si del vsega, hkrati pa si »povsod izven, na obrobju, si bežna opomba na robu osrednjega besedila« (Kondrič Horvat 2008: 23). V Spregatvi milosti se tako dotika skritih in bolečih točk svoje osebne, a tudi širše zgodovine, vendar ne v cankarjanskem smislu, saj se je dokončno osvobodila »jar-ma koroškosti« (Hafner 2003, b. s.). V nasprotju z zbirko Spregatev milosti predsta­vlja osrčje Obleganja sreče pesničino novo okolje preko Atlantika. Cvetka Lipuš rada omenja, da že Jeffersonova izjava o neodvisnosti iz leta 1776 vsakomur zagotavlja 'življenje, svobodo in prizadevanje za srečo' (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), torej je iskanje sreče v ameriški družbi »fatamorgana, blaženo stanje, v katerem bi naj bil po možnosti človek noč in dan«, in čeprav država ne more zagotoviti osebne ozi­roma emocionalne sreče, je materialno blagostanje zagotovilo, da se bo slej ko prej pojavila tudi ta (Kondrič Horvat 2008: 23). V pričujoči zbirki jo zanima prav to drugo, torej emocionalna izpolnitev, iskanje sreče, do katere vodijo različne poti. Sicer pa je tudi v teh pesmih navzoča »troedina pripadnost Cvetke Lipuš slovenščini, nemščini in angleščini«, saj njena življenjska izkušnja, kot v oceni zbirke piše Andrej Hočevar, »nikakor ni ločljiva od jezika, je izkušnja domač(n)osti in pripadnosti skozi tujost in odtujenost« (2009: 245). Podobno pesnica tudi v zbirki Pojdimo vezat kosti (2010) »preigrava eno samo stra­tegijo preživetja, ki se v strahu pred ničem oprime upanja« (Petrič 2016: 9), v pesmih prehaja iz kolektivnega v individualno, iz zunanjosti v notranjost, ter ugotavlja, da je življenje ena in edina pot k sebi, pot, ki jo pogojujejo geni, okolje, geografska bli­žina ali oddaljenost. Prav te plasti, pogojene z biografsko transkulturno izkušnjo, so nanizane tudi v doslej zadnji objavljeni zbirki Kaj smo, ko smo (2015). Ta je nastala v Salzburgu in ponuja odgovor na vprašanje, kaj se skriva pod vsemi plastmi pripadno­sti, pod vsem, kar imamo, in prikaže mnogoterno misel o bivanjski danosti vsakega izmed tistih, ki jo beremo (prim. Sagadin 2015: 102–112). Za to delo je pesnica pre­jela nagrado Prešernovega sklada, David Bandelj pa je v utemeljitvi Cvetko Lipuš iz obrobja postavil v središče, tja, kamor sodi s svojim »široko odprtim svetovljanskim pogledom na svet« (Bilban 2004: 91), kot »živ primer transkulturnosti« (Kondrič Horvat 2016: 71), kot slovensko pesnico z avstrijskim državljanstvom in ameriško izkušnjo: Težnja raziskovalcev je, da avtorje t. i. obmejnih literatur, kakor je književnost Slovencev v Avstriji, obravnavajo skozi prizmo njihove geografske pripadnosti, ki hočeš nočeš zaznamuje tudi etnično identiteto.7 Kljub temu da je Cvetka Lipuš pol-nopravna članica takega sistema, pa je njegove meje že dodobra presegla in s svojo ustvarjalnostjo sega že močno v slovenski prostor in ga preoblikuje ter prek njega osvaja tudi mednarodni kontekst. Zato je nagrada Prešernovega sklada primerna oddolžitev za táko ustvarjalko, ki v svojem kozmopolitskem duhu biva predvsem v slovenskem jeziku in v njem upesnjuje identitetno mnogoplastnost slehernika. (Bandelj 2016) RAZPRAVA IN ZAKLJUČEK Če zaokrožimo in odgovorimo na prvo vprašanje, kako se transkulturnost, ki je tudi posledica stalnih migracij, kaže pri Cvetki Lipuš oziroma kako kombinacija treh iden­titet vpliva na njeno ustvarjanje, je odgovor naslednji: Cvetka Lipuš je svetovljanka s transkulturnimi nazori. Njena transkulturnost je utemeljena že v njeni življenjski poti, izkušnjah, selitvah. Številni kraji se menjujejo in jo zaznamujejo, a niso stalnica – stalnica je le jezik njene poezije. Zdi se, kot da je njeno življenje gibanje, ki ji omo­goča, da je svobodna, da pusti mislim prosto pot, da razmišlja zunaj okvirov. Njena transkulturna biografija se odraža tudi v njeni poeziji, jezikovno večdomstvo pa je del njenega bitja. In čeprav jo je koroško okolje, predvsem dvojezično odraščanje, zaznamovalo, saj so za štirimi zidovi govorili slovensko, ko pa je prestopila prag hiše, je smuknila v drug jezik, ugotavlja, da v bistvu nikjer ni bila popolnoma doma, ter O nastanku te prim. tudi Vukić in Bara (2013). dodaja, da v umetniškem delu ne čuti nobene navezanosti na manjšinsko stvarnost in se tudi ne vključuje v družbeno in politično dogajanje na Koroškem (Kozin 2008: 90). Prav tako v njeni ustvarjalnosti ni mogoče izločiti okvira njene ameriške izkušnje. Cvetka Lipuš spretno kombinira svoje različne identitete tako, da jih spaja. Identitet ne razume kot ločnic, ampak kot presečnice, v okviru katerih lahko poudarja svoje sebstvo kot celoto. V tem okviru se oblikuje tudi njeno ustvarjanje, in sicer predvsem znotraj vseh treh identitet, ki nanj vplivajo sinhrono in simultano. Glede drugega raziskovalnega vprašanja, ki se je osredotočalo predvsem na to, če (in če da, kako) Cvetka Lipuš v svojem literarnem ustvarjanju zavestno poudar­ja slovensko komponento, lahko najbolje odgovorimo kar z njenim samoumešča­njem, ko pravi: Moj mož se je že desetletje pred mano odselil v ZDA, pa se to njegovi nemščini prav nič ne pozna. Seveda so to zavestne odločitve. Nekateri raje zrahljajo navezave in se popolnoma predajo novemu okolju, nekateri pa vztrajajo. Tudi sama sem se za­vestno odločila, ko mi je postalo jasno, da bom ostala tam dalj časa, za to jezikovno navezavo. Začelo me je malce skrbeti, da se mi bo živ govor bolj ali manj odtujil. Saj se včasih izseljencem po govorici sliši, kdaj so se odselili. V Slovenijo pa sem se začela vračati predvsem zato, ker na Koroškem prevladuje nemščina. Na avstrijskem Koroškem je slovenščina bolj ali manj jezik privatnega življenja in ne javne vsakdanje komunikacije. Moja vsakodnevna jezikovna izkušnja je sedaj popolnoma angleška in bi želela, da je za nekaj časa popolnoma slovenska. V Ljubljano pa rada pridem, ker mi je bolj ali manj domača, a ne preveč, saj tukaj nikoli nisem živela in je zame dovolj zanimivo in novo mesto, da ostanem mesec dni. (Kondrič Horvat 2008: 27) Iz navedenega izhaja, da Cvetka Lipuš svoj odnos do slovenščine gradi zavestno, tega odnosa pa ne povezuje z odnosom do Slovenije. Ugotovimo lahko, da je slovenščina del njene identitete, Slovenija (kot država) pa ne. Tako kot se identitetno ne počuti manjšinka, tako se tudi nima za Slovenko (v smislu nacije). Počuti pa se kot slovenska pesnica (v smislu narodnosti). To nazorno ponazori sama v verzu iz cikla Za trenutek v istem telesu iz Geografije bližine, kjer zapiše: »Občasno si nekdo prizna, kdor išče dom v sebi, ni brezdomski« (Lipuš 2000: 45). To je ambivalentnost, ki pomirja in vzne­mirja obenem, kajti, kot na nekem drugem mestu pravi pesnica: »Brezdomski, udo­miš se v lesket zvezd« (prav tam: 20). Cvetka Lipuš pravi, da nikoli ni čutila posebne navezanosti na določen prostor, geografsko območje, na to, kar imenujemo domo­vina. Vsakršna zagledanost v nacionalne mite in nacionalno pripadnost jo je vedno odbijala, saj gre za vprašanje vključevanja in izključevanja; medtem ko so nekateri (domačini) avtomatično vključeni, so drugi (priseljenci) izključeni (prim. Hall 1996). A čeprav smo družabna bitja in se radi stisnemo skupaj, se trepljamo po ramenih in si ob narodnih ali drugih družabnih manifestacijah patriotsko pritrjujemo, kako poseb­ni smo, »ima ta vzajemnost svojo ceno, saj zahteva podreditev lastnih prepričanj in ambicij vrednotam določene družbe« (Kondrič Horvat 2008: 27). To je sebstvo, ki vključuje večdomovinskost Cvetke Lipuš. Sogovornik dobi ob­čutek, da je ta večdomovinskost prav tisto, kar njenemu delu daje posebnost – je hkrati vse in nič. Nikjer se ne udomači ali ukorenini (v geografskem in časovnem prostoru). Sama sebe definira skozi jezik, skozi to, kar je, in to, kar se v svoji stalnosti ves čas spreminja. Zato vedno znova išče nove, začasne in nadčasne (geografske) prostore, ki ji omogočajo nove začetke oziroma, kot pravi sama: »Skozi svojo celotno pisateljsko kariero sem v zemljevide vrisovala tako resnična kot izmišljena ozemlja pripadnosti« (Lipuš 2010: 117; prim. tudi Lipuš 2016: 61). K pisanju je torej ni spodbu­dilo neko domoljubje ali opisovanje koroške izkušnje – s čimer se deloma ukvarja v esejih – ampak veselje do branja in veselje do lastnega umetniškega izražanja. Čeprav je živela in se izobraževala v Avstriji in ZDA, je zanjo slej ko prej samoumev-no, da poezijo piše v slovenščini, eseje pa v nemščini in angleščini. V enem od esejev z naslovom Writing in Between (Lipuš 2016)8 sama poudarja, da nikoli ni želela biti glasnik svojega plemena, ki je kot slovenska manjšina živelo na avstrijsko-slovenski meji, pa tudi ne glasnik Slovencev v Sloveniji, obenem pa meni, da je jezik globoko vtkan v njeno mišljenje, v njene socialne in politične odnose in v njeno psiho (prim. o tem Zlatnar Moe in Grahek Križnar 2012: 71–90). Materinščino povezuje z izkušnja-mi iz otroštva, s spomini in z občutki, ki jih povezujemo s svojimi primarnimi odnosi (prim. tudi Petrič 2015: 16). A tudi drugi in tretji jezik ji nista breme oziroma ju ne občuti kot pritisk, temveč kot dodano vrednost, omogočata ji, tako kot je to značilno za vsak nadaljnji jezik, da se ji odpirajo nova obzorja in dovoljujejo, da vstopa v nove prostore in nove ob-like izražanja. Zanimiv je tudi njen odnos do nemškega jezika – sploh glede na to, da je v tem jeziku odrasla zunaj domačih zidov. Kot poudarja sama, ji nemščina ni­koli ni bila blizu, saj je bila v njenem svetu jezik tistih, ki so veliko prebivalcev njene doline deportirali v taborišča. A to se je prelomilo med študijem in nato življenjem v nemščini, ko je nemščino začela razumeti ne kot omejitev, ampak kot osvobodi­tev. Z nemščino je namreč zgradila most do drugih pisateljev in do literarne tradi­cije, ki ji je bila vsaj tako blizu kot slovenska. Šele tedaj jo je zavestno sprejela in ji je postalo jasno, da se ne more omejiti ne geografsko ne jezikovno. Edina omejitev, ki jo je od takrat razumela, je bila funkcionalna omejitev, tj. vprašanje, kako dosegati tisto, kar si želiš. Jezik je v tem okviru postal sredstvo za doseganje ciljev. Ta prelom pa je pomenil še drugačno razumevanje, in sicer, da je wittgensteinovska napoved »meje mojega jezika so meje mojega sveta« pomembna ne samo za pripadnike matičnega naroda, ampak za celoten sistem narodov in civilizacij, ki jim kot po­sameznik pripadaš. Zato ne preseneča, da Cvetka Lipuš sama poudarja, da ne želi pripadati nobeni smeri ali literarnemu krogu (Borovnik 2006: 438), prav tako pa ni­kakor noče, da se jo označuje kot zamejsko pesnico, saj gre za klasifikacijo, ki je nas­tala v osrednji Slovenji, kjer literarna stroka pisatelje in pesnike zelo rada prišteva Ker je šlo prvotno za predavanje, je slovenski prevod z naslovom Pisati nekje vmes izšel že prej (Lipuš 2010). k določenim pokrajinam in njihove značilnosti mnogokrat tudi poistoveti s pisate­ljem. Prav tako v izrazu »manjšinski« prepozna kategorijo marginalnosti in obrobja, kar po njenem pomeni le opombo pod črto v kanonu slovenske književnosti. V današnjem svetu in času, ko se po eni strani soočamo z globalizacijo, po drugi pa s partikularizacijo, najdemo predvsem v literarnih delih veliko elementov trans-nacionalnega in transkulturnega, s katerimi se pisatelji in pisateljice v svojih subver­zivnih delih upirajo ustaljenim (običajno binarnim) miselnim in jezikovnim vzorcem ter vzorcem obnašanja, ki jih navadno določa središče. Transkulturnost identitet se v literarnih delih pojavi pri ustvarjalcih, ki imajo bi- ali plurikulturne življenjepise in ki z literarnimi besedili, ki jih razumemo kot demonstratorje kulturne različnosti, omogo-čajo širjenje in razširjanje znanja o razumevanju in razlikah med kulturami, kar hkrati omogoča tudi ohranjanje in spodbujanje kulturne pestrosti. V to skupino nedvomno sodi tudi Cvetka Lipuš, ki v svoja lirična besedila vpleta osebne izkušnje in čutenja in jih z njimi prepleta, kakor tudi z izkušnjami iz svojih treh domovin, ki so jo zaznamo-vale, svojo primarno kulturo povezuje s kulturo dežele, v kateri živi. Sklenemo lahko, da smemo pri Cvetki Lipuš govoriti o transverzalnem umu (Welsch 1995/2000), bistvo njene poezije pa je transkulturno, kar pomeni, da so ob-zorja njene poezije neomejena, vsak dodatni identitetni del v kulturi pa sama razu-me predvsem kot širino in ne kot omejitev. Prav to je pri njej, ki jo je že od nekdaj motila ozkost, zelo očitno. Tako jo je na primer med bivanjem na Koroškem pri ko­roških Slovencih motila konservativnost, saj je v zatohlem družbenem ozračju, kjer se je o vojnih izkušnjah dolgo molčalo, pogrešala odprtost. In tudi v Sloveniji ni bilo nič drugače.9 Z vidika ustvarjanja in oblikovanja slovenskega naroda ter prevladujoče teorije razvoja slovenskih manjšin je Cvetka Lipuš izjema. Ideje, da je treba manjšine zašči­titi, ker trpijo že zato, ker so odrezane od matice, Cvetka Lipuš ni nikoli ponotranjila. Slovenski jezik zanjo nikoli ni bil cilj sam po sebi, ampak sredstvo za njeno bivanje, umevanje in ustvarjanje. Zato je logično, da ji ne moremo nadeti nalepke zamejska/ manjšinska pesnica – ne le, ker se opremljena s takšno etiketo ne počuti dobro, tem­več predvsem zato, ker bi s tem izrazili svojo omejenost in geografsko pozicioniranje izrazili z oholostjo. Kajti označiti nekoga za manjšino, pomeni le, da imaš sebe za pri­padnika večine in da imaš zato per definitionem več pravic in boljši status. Končno je treba ugotoviti, da moramo tudi njeno poezijo brati predvsem v okviru njenega sve­tovljanstva in transkulturnosti, ki jo resda definira v prvi vrsti slovenski jezik, a drugi dve izkušnji (avstrijska in ameriška) štejeta kot obogatitev njenega sebstva in bistva. V stik s Slovenijo je intenzivneje prišla v začetku osemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja, ko je izšla njena prva samostojna zbirka, a v Slovenijo je hodila bolj poredko, saj je bolj samotarske narave, in drugič, pravi, so ji bile nekatere značilnosti osrednje slovenske družbe preveč kon­servativne. LITERATURA Arbeiter, Jana, Udovič, Boštjan (2017). Does the Mediterranean Exist in States' Diplo­matic Rituals?: A Comparison of Mediterranean States' Pre´se´ance. International Journal of Euro-Mediterranean studies 10/2, 79–106. Bandelj, David (2016). Pesnica Cvetka Lipuš. Almanah Prešernove nagrade 2016, http:// www.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/o_ministrstvu/ Presernov_sklad/2016/2016_ALMANAH_PRESERNOVE_NAGRADE.pdf (5. 5. 2019). Bhabha, Homi K. (2000). Die Verortung der Kultur. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Bilban, Tina (2004). Cvetka Lipuš: Spregatev milosti. Ampak: Mesečnik za kulturo, poli­tiko in gospodarstvo 8/9, 91–92. Borovnik, Silvija (2006). Slovenske književnice v Avstriji. Slavistična revija 54/3, 431–442. Debeljak, Aleš (2000). Spremna beseda. V: Cvetka Lipuš: Geografija bližine. Celovec: Wieser, 55. Durnik, Mitja (2017). Slovenian Migrants and the Ethnic Economy in Contemporary Canada. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 46, 103–118. Durnik, Mitja, Gombač, Jure (2012). Theorizing the Potential of Political Economy and Social Economy Approaches in Studying the Structure of Ethnic Economies. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 35, 119–133. Hafner, Fabjan (2003). Kako naj razložim in utemeljim […] (Spremna beseda na za­vihkih). V: Cvetka Lipuš: Spregatev milosti. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba, nepag. Hall, Stuart (1996). Who Needs Identity? Questions of Cultural Identity (ur. Stuart Hall, Paul du Gay). London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 1–17. Hell, Cornelius (2000): Leben und Schreiben in zwei Sprachen: Splitter zur sloweni­schen Literatur in Kärnten. Literatur und Kritik 341/342, 45–50. Hočevar, Andrej (2009). Čustveno z okvirom. Literatura 21/215–216, 243–250. Hoerder, Dirk (2012). Belonging, Membership, and Mobility in Global History. Dve do-movini / Two Homelands 35, 97–105. Jurić Pahor, Marija (2012a). Čezmejni in transkulturni imaginariji: Alpsko-jadranski prostor v kontekstu njegovega zamišljanja in o(d)smišljanja. Annales: Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije, Series historia et sociologia 22/2, 409–424. Jurić Pahor, Marija (2012b). Transkulturacija in kulturna hibridnost: Dva ključna pojma postkolonialnih študijev kot izziv za proučevanje nacionalnih in etničnih identi­tet. Razprave in gradivo: Revija za narodnostna vprašanja 69, 36–65. Jurić Pahor, Marija (2015a). Od starih k novim imaginarijem pripadanja: Nacionalna in etična identiteta onkraj binarnih o/pozicij. Annales: Anali za istrske in mediteran­ske študije. Series historia et sociologia 25/1, 183–196. Jurić Pahor, Marija (2015b). Univerza kot transnacionalni in transkulturni prostor: Raz­mislek o porajajoči se »eliti znanja«. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 4, 139–150. Jurić Pahor, Marija (2018). Transkulturnost in kulturna hibridnost v kontekstu migra­cij: Primer mesta Trst. Annales: Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije. Series histo­ria et sociologia 28/1, 51–64.  Kočan, Faris, Arbeiter, Jana (2019). TIKA Turkey's Platform for Development Coopera­tion or Something More?: Evidence from the Western Balkans. International Jou­rnal of Euro-Mediterranean studies 12/1, 167–193. Kondrič Horvat, Vesna (2008). Če se ne bom zavestno vračala v Slovenijo, se bom odtujila: Pogovor s Cvetko Lipuš. Ampak: Mesečnik za kulturo, politiko in gospodar­stvo 9/10, 22–27. Kondrič Horvat, Vesna (2008a). »O, kako dobro govorite nemško. Ja kdaj ste se pa pri­selili?«: O medkulturnosti s pesnico Cvetko Lipuš. Večer 64/173, 28. julij 2008, 13. Kondrič Horvat, Vesna (2016). A Bittersweet Homecoming: An Interview with Cvetka Lipuš in Washington, D.C., 20. maj 2016. Slovene Studies 38/1–2, 71–78. Kozin, Tina (2008). Po naravi sem sezonsko družabno bitje z dolgimi fazami osame: Pogovor s Cvetko Lipuš. Literatura 20/210, 88–105. Lipuš, Cvetka, Hafner, Fabjan (ur.) (1985): V lunini senci. Celovec: Drava. Lipuš, Cvetka (1989). Pragovi dneva. Celovec: Wieser Lipuš, Cvetka (1993). Doba temnenja. Celovec/Salzburg: Wieser. Lipuš, Cvetka (2000). Geografija bližine. Celovec: Wieser. Lipuš, Cvetka (2003). Spregatev milosti. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Lipuš, Cvetka (2008). Obleganje sreče. Ljubljana: Cankarjeva založba. Lipuš, Cvetka (2010). Pojdimo vezat kosti. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. Lipuš, Cvetka (2010). Pisati nekje vmes (prevedel Andrej Hočevar). Literatura 22/223– 224, 117–127. Lipuš, Cvetka (2015). Kaj smo, ko smo. Ljubljana: Beletrina. Lipuš, Cvetka (2016). Writing in Between. Slovene Studies 38/1–2, 61–69. Lukšič Hacin, Marina, Toplak, Kristina (2012). Teoretizacija multikulturalizma in etnič­ ne ekonomije v luči ohranjanja kulturne dediščine med migranti. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 35, 107–117. Lukšič Hacin, Marina (2016). Theorizing the Concept of Multiculturalism through Taylor’s ‘Politics of Recognition’. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 44, 79–91. Milharčič Hladnik, Mirjam (2007). Avto/biografičnost narativnosti: Metodološko teo­retični pristopi v raziskovanju migracijskih izkušenj. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 26, 31–46. Milharčič Hladnik, Mirjam (2015). Kultura mešanosti v nacionalnem in migracijskem kontekstu. Annales: Anali za istrske in mediteranske študije, Series historia et socio-logia 25/1, 171–182. Novak Popov, Irena (ur.) (2007). Antologija slovenskih pesnic 3 (1981–2000). Ljublja­na: Tuma. Petrič, Tanja (2008). Cvetka Lipuš: Obleganje sreče. Sodobnost 72/11–12, 1681–1685. Petrič, Tanja (2015). Če bi bila rojena v Španiji, bi bila španska pesnica. Pogledi 6/12, 16. Petrič, Tanja (2016). Med vsakdanom in vesoljem: Cvetka Lipuš, pesnica. Pogledi 7/3, 9. Pišek, Mojca (2016). Cvetka Lipuš: Ko hodim po Ljubljani, mi slovenščina zveni dru­gače kot vam. Dnevnik, 29. marec 2016, https://www.dnevnik.si/1042732722 (20. 4. 2019). Poniž, Denis (2001). Slovenska lirika 1950–2000. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. Rakusa, Ilma (1996): Gedichte von Cvetka Lipuš. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 5. februar 1996, 19. Repič, Jaka (2006). »Po sledovih korenin«: Transnacionalne migracije med Argentino in Evropo. Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kultur-no antropologijo. Repič, Jaka (2010). Ambivalent Identities Emerging in Transnational Migrations between Argentina and Slovenia. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 31, 121–134. Sagadin, Vid (2015). Dramatični telesni performans. V: Cvetka Lipuš: Kaj smo, ko smo. Ljubljana: Beletrina, 103–112. Strutz, Johann (ur.) (1998). Profile der neueren slowenischen Literatur in Kärnten. Celo­vec: Mohorjeva založba. Valentinčič, Dejan (2016). Vračanje potomcev slovenskih izseljencev v ZDA in Kanadi k slovenski identiteti v kontekstu globalnega trenda individualizacije. Dve domo­vini / Two Homelands 44, 153–166. Vincetič, Milan (2015). Cvetka Lipuš: Kaj smo, ko smo. Sodobnost 79/6, 763–765. Vukić, Aleksandar, Bara, Mario (2013). The Importance of Observation, Classification and Description in the Construction of the Ethnic Identity of Bunjevci from Bačka (1851–1910). Dve domovini / Two Homelands 37, 69–81. Welsch, Wofgang (1995/2000). Vernunft: Die zeitgenössische Vernunftkritik und das Konzept der transversalen Vernunft. Frankfurt na Majni: Suhrkamp. Welsch, Wofgang (1997). Transkulturalität: Zur veränderten Verfassung heutiger Kul­turen. Hybridkultur: Medien, Netze, Künste (ur. Irmela Schneider, Christian Werner Thomsen). Köln: Wienand Verlag, 67-90. Welsch, Wofgang (1999). Transculturality – the Puzzling Form of Cultures Today. Spa­ces of Cultur: City, Nation, Word (ur. Mike Featherstone, Lash Scott). London: Sage Publications, 194–213. Zadel, Maja (2016). Vloga italijanskih medijskih vsebin pri oblikovanju transkulturnih identitet na območju slovenske Istre. Doktorska disertacija. Koper: Univerza na Pri­morskem, Fakulteta za humanistične študije. Zlatnar Moe, Marija, Grahek Križnar, Nina (2012). The Influence of Ideological Orien­tation on Target Language Text Production. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer 6/1, 71–90. Zupančič, Jernej (1997). Slovenci v Avstriji: Število, način poselitve, struktura, identi­teta. Geografski vestnik 69, 115–138. Zupančič, Rok, Arbeiter, Jana (2016). Primitive, Cruel and Blood-thirsty Savages: Ste­reotypes in and about the Western Balkans. Teorija in praksa 53/5, 1051–1063. Žigon, Zvone (2018). Med poslom in domoljubjem: Etnična ekonomija in Slovenci zunaj Republike Slovenije. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 47, 127–145. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (2008). Večkulturna Slovenija: Položaj migrantske književnosti in kulture v slovenskem prostoru. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (2011). Literarna zapuščina slovenskih izseljencev v drugih deže­lah Evrope. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 34, 35–45. Žitnik Serafin, Janja (2014). Vloga izseljenske/priseljenske književnosti in literarne vede pri raziskovanju migracij. Dve domovini / Two Homelands 39, 31–42. SUMMARY QUESTIONS OF IDENTITY, MIGRATIONS AND TRANSCULTURALITY: THE CASE OF THE POET CVETKA LIPUŠ Tanja ŽIGON, Vesna KONDRIČ HORVAT, Boštjan UDOVIČ The paper presents a case study of the internationally acclaimed and multi-award-winning poet Cvetka Lipuš. Her life and work have been influenced by three languag­es and cultures, Slovenian, German and English. The paper deals with two research questions. First, we discuss how transculturality, caused among other things by her constant migrations, is manifested in her work, how the poet addresses the three identities that define her, and how this combination of three identities and three homelands affects her work. Second, we ask whether Lipuš intentionally emphasizes her Slovenian identity in her literary works, and whether this identity is an inherent part of her essence and as such a part of her unconscious. The article is based on an analysis of accessible primary and secondary sources (interviews with and public appearances by Cvetka Lipuš in Slovenian print or audio-visual media). This analy­sis is complemented by results obtained through a combination of semi-structured and unstructured interviews which we conducted with the poet. On the basis of the data we reviewed and evaluated, we can conclude that Lipuš is a cosmopolitan who stands for transculturality, a stance that is rooted in her life path, experiences, and migration. She has lived in and been influenced by many places, but none of them function as a constant; her only constant is the Slovenian language, i.e. the lan­guage of her poetry. Her transcultural biography is also reflected in her poems, and multilingual affiliation is an inherent part of her. As a poet, she is neither limited by geographical boundaries nor by those of language and culture. Therefore, it is not surprising that Lipuš herself stresses that she does not wish to belong to any literary movement or group. She has no wish to be labelled as a minority poet, since this is a marginal category. Cvetka Lipuš has crossed national boundaries and shaped her identity within a supranational, international or global frame. This means that she does not conform to any boundaries and does not belong to any category (but re­jects them). Her work is influenced in the highest degree by her identity as a person with multiple homelands. Thus, her sense of belonging is not linked to established political and sociological concepts such as ethnicity, nation, or nation-state. Cvetka Lipuš is also an exception within the framework of the formation and development of the Slovenian nation, as well as in connection with the prevalent theory on the evolution of the Slovenian minority. She has never internalised the idea that minor­ities should be protected because they live outside their homeland and thus suffer by default. For her, the Slovenian language has never been an end in itself but in fact a vehicle for living, thinking and writing. KNJIŽNE OCENE BOOK REVIEWS John Paul Enyeart, Death to Fascism: Louis Adamic’s Fight for Democracy Baltimore, University of Illinois Press, 2019, 216 str. Ameriški zgodovinar s pensilvanske univerze Bucknell, John Enyeart, je intelektualno biografijo Louisa Adamiča naslovil z geslom, ki si ga je slovensko-ameriški pisatelj sposodil pri Osvobodilni fronti in večkrat uporabil v svojih esejih. Pozdrav, ki so ga uporabljali partizani, po Enyeartovem prepričanju odlično povzema srž Adamičeve­ga delovanja, ki je temeljilo na nenehnem boju proti izključevalni politiki, kakršno je utelešal fašizem. Monografija Death to Fascism tako prinaša podroben vpogled v Adamičevo razgibano intelektualno pot, ki jo ameriški zgodovinar kljub razlikam med posameznimi etapami poveže v sklenjeno celoto boja proti politiki, ki v vsakem tujcu vidi sovražnika. Znano je, da se je Adamič od večine izseljencev razlikoval po svojem raziskoval­nem nemiru. Ves čas ga je zaposlovala sla po odkrivanju Amerike, ugotavljanju vzro­kov njenega uspeha, a tudi razumevanju protislovij te »džungle«, iz katere mnogi priseljenci niso našli izhoda. Navduševal se je nad socialističnimi pisci, ki so opisovali bedo težaškega dela in poudarjali revolucionarni zalet delavcev, a je njihovo pisanje obenem ocenil kot kratkovidno. Enyeart v nasprotju s tistimi, ki poudarjajo Adami-čevo solidariziranje z delavskim razredom, ocenjuje, da se je pisatelju boj delavcev proti korporativnemu gospostvu zdel jalov, bil je prepričan, da je le nadaljeval v srži brezpredmetno igro. Bolj kot klasična levica, trdi zgodovinar, sta mu bila blizu Can-kar in Nietzsche. Če je od prvega prevzel idejo o delavskem fatalizmu, ga je drugi navdihnil z razmišljanjem o duhovni izpraznjenosti ameriškega načina življenja, ki naj bi vselej odtujeval migrante. Kljub temu da je pisatelj simpatiziral z idejami pri­seljenih levičarjev slovenskega rodu, se zato nikakor ni mogel poistovetiti z njihovim ponotranjenjem ameriških, po njegovem mnenju izvotljenih idealov. Vendarle pa se je imel za Američana, poročil se je z Američanko, in življenje, kot je sam rad povedal, preživljal med pravimi Američani. A kljub temu je pri decidiranem odmiku od slovenstva in afirmaciji ameriške identitete treba biti pazljiv, pravi Enyeart. Trdi, da je pri Adamičevem pisanju o izgna­nih kmetih, ki so jih ameriški stroji povsem izsesali, potem ko so ostali brez organske zveze z domom, mogoče zaznati tradicijo slovenskega modernizma. Navsezadnje je, opozarja Enyeart, Adamič kmalu po proglasitvi svoje ameriške identitete preve­del Cankarjevega Hlapca Jerneja in njegovo pravico. Stopitev z družbo, ki je pod plaš-čem obljub o uspehu skrivala predsodke do novih priseljencev, je bila za Adamiča le žalostna uteha. Njegovo zgodnje pisanje, ugotavlja Enyeart, je tako zaznamovala svojevrstna liminalnost, saj je bilo zanj značilno prikazovanje izvzetosti iz domačega okolja, hkrati pa tudi nezmožnost vživetja v družbo izpraznjenih idealov. V skladu s tradicijo slovenske moderne je Adamičeve junake uspeh običajno povedel v ka­tastrofo. Kaotični ameriški kapitalizem je porajal prehude napetosti, da bi lahko v njem uspeli kako drugače kot s predrznostjo, ki ji prevare in izsiljevanje ne bi bile tuji. Edini recept za spoprijemanje s to neurejeno, a zaslepljujočo in zapeljivo industrijsko džunglo je Adamič videl v smešenju nebrzdanega ekonomskega kolosa. Tu so se, kot zatrjuje Enyeart, pokazali vplivi slovenske moderne. Z namenom, da bi sprožil premislek o ameriški družbi, se je torej Adamič, čeprav prepričan v svojo ameriškost, ozrl k tradiciji slovenske moderne. Priložnost temeljitega premisleka o obeh domovinah se mu je po prejemu Gug­genheimove štipendije leta 1932 ponudila ob obisku Jugoslavije. Ob prečkanju Italije se je prvič zdrznil zaradi fašistične avtokracije. Brezobzirnost Mussolinijevih orožni­kov in fanatizem njegovih pristašev sta ga napotila k vztrajnejši refleksiji dogajanja v Združenih državah. Izkušnja z režimom kralja Aleksandra je bila še bolj grenka, saj je kritično pisanje o kraljevi diktaturi v knjigi The Native’s Return (Vrnitev v rodni kraj) povzročilo diplomatski pritisk in prepoved kakršnih koli uradnih vezi z (nekdanjo) domovino. Po povratku je ugotovil, da so tisti, ki jih je postavljal ob bok evropskim fašistom, odločilno vplivali na ameriško javno življenje. Njihov prodor je zaznal v gi­banju nativistov, ki so krčevito nasprotovali novim migrantom. V delih, ki so izšla v tem času, zlasti v eseju Thirty Million New Americans (objav­ljenem novembra 1934 v Harper’s Magazine), je ugotavljal, da so najhujše čase preživ­ljali pripadniki druge generacije novih priseljencev, ki se nikakor niso mogli usidrati v ameriškem življenju in so živeli kot nekakšne sence. Brez dejavnega udejstvovanja v javnem in političnem življenju in ob pomanjkanju profesionalnih aspiracij je bilo nji­hovo življenje polno občutkov inferiornosti in obstranstva. Krivdo za mučen položaj potomcev priseljencev ni videl le v nemoči staršev, da bi v drugi generaciji vzbudili zanimanje za preteklost svojih prednikov, temveč v ameriški družbi, ki je prepreče­vala, da bi novi priseljenci postali polnopravni člani skupnosti. Problem novih prise-ljencev ni bilo zgolj vprašanje identitete, vključeval je tudi delavsko vprašanje, prav novi priseljenci so bili »gnoj«, ki je poganjal ameriško industrijo. Vključevanje novih prišlekov in Afroameričanov v ameriški okvir torej ni moglo delovati brez dejavne participacije delavcev pri upravljanju industrije. Adamičeva prizadevanja za drugačno, vključujočo Ameriko pa vendarle niso po­menila sprejemanja komunizma. Slepo sledenje Moskvi je namreč pisatelja ravno tako odbijalo kot dvoličnost propagatorjev amerikanizma, ki so govorili o stopitvi v talilnem loncu, ob tem pa zahtevali nedvoumen primat anglosaških primesi. Adamič, poudarja Enyeart, se je raje pridružil idejam kulturnega pluralizma in si prizadeval za Združene države kot entiteto »v nenehnem oblikovanju«. Pluralisti so zavračali zamisel, da je kultura Združenih držav utemeljena na anglosaškem jedru in so na­mesto tega pri oblikovanju državne skupnosti in historične naracije zahtevali ena­kopravno zastopanost tako Afroameričanov kot novih priseljencev. 'Amerikanstvo' (americanness) je za Adamiča pomenilo boj za dosego novega humanizma, ne pa privilegija, ki bi ga Anglosasi dali priseljenim. V drugi polovici tridesetih let, ko je pisatelj dokončno prešel iz tradicije slovenske­ga modernizma v objem kulturnega pluralizma, je, kot ugotavlja Enyeart, na ameriš­kih tleh postal eden od zastavonoš boja proti ksenofobiji. Boj, ki ga je vodil s peresom in z javnimi nastopi, je postal tako odmeven zaradi njegovega nespodbitnega talenta za pripovedovanje zgodb. V njih je uspel identificirati probleme, ki so pestili ameri­ško družbo, in tudi predlagati domišljene rešitve. V esejih, kakršen je bil Aliens and Alien Baiters (objavljenem v Harper’s Magazine junija 1936), ni skoparil z ostrimi bese­dami na račun tistih, za katere je ocenil, da so imeli glavno vlogo pri spreminjanju na svobodi utemeljene države v izpostavo evropskega fašizma. Čeprav je bilo nav­dušenje nad evgeniko pri ameriških nativistih splošno razširjeno, je posebno zavze­tost za presajanje fašističnih idej Adamič zaznal pri vplivnem lobistu Johnu Trevorju Bondu; ta je imel leta 1924 pomembmo vlogo pri sprejemanju zakona o omejitvi priseljevanja. Dejstvo, da je obveljal za velikega patriota, je za Adamiča pomenilo, da je patriotski čut v ZDA postal sorazmeren s stopnjo ksenofobije. Amerika, v kateri so tovrstni hujskači uspeli doseči, da so pri priseljencih poskušali najti kakršne koli prekrške, na podlagi katerih bi jih lahko izgnali iz države, ni bila Amerika, za katero si je prizadeval Adamič. Enyeart v času proti koncu tridesetih let, ko se je povezal s široko pahljačo civilno­družbenih organizacij, kakršni sta bili Foreign Language Information Service in nje-gov naslednik Common Council for American Unity (Skupni svet za ameriško enot­nost), beleži Adamičevo neutrudno prizadevanje proti nativizmu in rasizmu. Njegov družbenokritični angažma, za katerega je uspel pridobiti tudi podporo zvezne vla­de, je v tem času dosegel vrhunec. Z obsežnimi raziskavami priseljenskih skupnosti v projektu Nation of Nations si je prizadeval prikazati njihovo dejansko življenje in spodbiti prevladujoče predsodke. Marsikomu je šlo njegovo udejstvovanje v nos – tako ni bil pogodu niti kritikom z levice, ki so Adamiča takrat označevali za konserva­tivnega asimilacionista, niti pripadnikom slovenske skupnosti, za katere je bil slavni pisatelj nemarni sodnik, ki ocenjuje življenje skupnosti, ne da bi se ji zares približal. Adamič pa je, kot piše Enyeart, nadaljeval svojo pot, ki se je izmikala enostavnim kategorizacijam, a je z izbruhom druge svetovne vojne postajala vse bolj militantna. Prepričan je bil, da se je Rooseveltova vlada z internacijo japonskih priseljencev na zahodni obali in nepripravljenostjo, da bi odpravila zakon o omejitvi priseljevanja, izneverila idealom kulturnega pluralizma. Zakon, ki je od tujcev zahteval prstne odti­se ter državi omogočal izgon vseh, ki bi kritizirali ameriško vojsko (Alien Registration Act iz 1940), je pri Adamiču vzbudil strah, da se bo ponovil scenarij iz prve svetovne vojne, ko je država deportirala kritike uradne politike. Kot ugotavlja Enyeart, je bil Adamič vse bolj prepričan, da zmage nad fašizmom ni bilo mogoče doseči zgolj s porazom koalicije sil osi, ampak je bilo treba za to pora­ziti imperialistično politiko belske nadvlade, ki je v Ameriki pridobivala na moči. Tis-tega, ki bi utegnil odločilno prevesiti tehtnico v prid globalni solidarnosti, je Adamič zaznal v liku Josipa Broza – Tita. Vodja jugoslovanskih partizanov je pri angažiranem pisatelju požel odobravanje, ker si je prizadeval za državo, ki bi bila v nasprotju s cen­tralistično in z unitarno Kraljevino Jugoslavijo utemeljena na principu narodne ena­kopravnosti. V njegovem gibanju je torej videl pendant svojih prizadevanj za kultur-no raznolikost nasproti angloprotestantski nadvladi. Da bi se zoperstavil ideologiji belske premoči, je Adamič kulturni pluralizem povezal z antikolonializmom ter začel z odmevnimi nastopi podpirati prizadevanja Afroameričanov. Amerika uresničene enakopravnosti pa je bila vendarle tista, za katero je verjel, da bo v povojnem svetu lahko prenesla svoj revolucionarni model v Evropo. V ta namen se je pisatelj celo ses­tal z ameriškimi vplivneži, mdr. s tedanjim županom New Yorka Fiorellom LaGuardio, ki naj bi mu pomagal pri presajanju vzorca na evropska tla. S podporo partizanski vojski je Adamič spet našel skupni jezik s skupnostjo slo­venskih Američanov, tako da je pomagal organizirati zvezo, ki se je odločno postavila na stran Titove vojske. Slovensko-ameriški narodni svet, kot se je združenje imeno­valo, se je zaradi sporov med privrženci partizanov in tistimi, ki so obsojali njihovo nasilje in se zavzeli za upor proti Titovi politiki, kmalu začel krhati. Stališča slednjih so še ostreje nasprotovala komunizmu po objavi članka Death in Front of the Church (Harper’s Magazine, september 1943), v katerem je Adamič zagovarjal eksekucijo bana Marka Natlačena in vodje Stražarjev Lamberta Ehrlicha. Adamičeva kritika ključnih osebnosti slovenskega političnega katolicizma je merila na njuno delovanje, ki je, kot je bil prepričan, izhajalo iz tradicije Slovenske ljudske stranke in temeljilo na onemo­gočanju drugače mislečih. Poglede slovenskega katolicizma je primerjal z usmerit­vami ameriških antikomunistov ter sklenil, da sta bili obe skupini za ceno boja proti komunizmu pripravljeni voditi avtoritarno politiko. Kljub temu da je Adamič tedaj dosegel zavidljive uspehe v boju proti rasizmu – razpravo Peace as a World Race Problem so avgusta 1944 predvajali po vseh večjih ameriških radiih – ga je podobna usoda kot pri delu slovenske skupnosti v ZDA do-letela tudi v ameriškem mainstreamu. Resda je uspel Američane prepričati, da je bil Tito temeljna figura boja za samoodločbo narodov in upora proti fašizmu, vendar je bila njegova prepričevalna moč (pre)kratkega daha, da bi preživela vojno in levici nenaklonjeni povojni čas. Adamičeva prizadevanja so bila v očitnem razkoraku s po­tezami Trumanove administracije, ki je tlakovala pot antikomunističnemu diskurzu. Pisatelj, čeprav nekomunist ter zavezan boju proti kolonializmu in premoči korpo­racij, je, kot poudarja Enyeart, postal priročna tarča antikomunističnega pohoda, v katerem je doživel usodo nevarnega rdečkarja. Kot takemu mu ni bilo dopuščeno javno izražati stališč, da je bila ameriška politika v vehementnem boju proti komuniz-mu pripravljena podpirati režime, ki z demokracijo niso imeli nič skupnega. Obtožbe Adamiča, da naj bi bil del komunistične zarote, so se vrstile še zlasti po izpeljanem programu 'zvezne lojalnosti' (federal loyalty) predsednika Trumana, s katerim so dr­žavno administracijo morali zapustiti tisti, ki so se še vedno navduševali nad poli­tikami New Deala. Mnogi nekdanji Rooseveltovi sodelavci so, da bi lahko obdržali pomembne pozicije, opustili sporna stališča in se preprosto priključili antikomuni-stičnemu diskurzu. Protikomunističnemu valu so se pridružili tudi pribežniki iz Jugo­slavije, ki niso skrivali svojega srda nad Titovim režimom. Zgodovinarji iz njihovih vrst so skupaj s kongresniki začeli časopisno gonjo proti angažiranemu pisatelju, ki se je, kot vemo, končala s še vedno ne povsem razčiščeno avtorjevo smrtjo. Enyeart opozarja, da je današnji pogled na Adamiča izkrivljen prav zaradi krivič­nega prikaza jugoslovanskih emigrantov, ki so ga želeli očrniti kot sovjetskega lakaja in antiameriškega avtorja. Vendar pa Adamič, kot uspe Enyeartu prepričljivo pokaza-ti, nikoli ni krožil v sovjetski orbiti in ni razgrajeval Amerike, le boril se je za drugačno razvojno vizijo. Pravzaprav je bil ena pomembnejših intelektualnih figur tovrstnih prizadevanj. Z vztrajnim bojem proti izključevalnim politikam je bil Adamič eden redkih, ki jim je uspelo povezati prizadevanja ameriških pluralistov s konca dvajsetih let z antikolonialnim gibanjem po drugi svetovni vojni. Raziskovalec Adamiča s pensilvanske univerze Bucknell v angažiranem sklepnem poglavju ne pozabi na presojo pisateljeve aktualnosti. Prepričan je, da je Adamiču s pripovedovanjem zgodb uspelo mobilizirati množice za progresivne ideje, te pa so tudi v današnjih časih regresije demokracije vse pomembnejše. Za slovenskega bral-ca je Enyeartova biografija intelektualca dragocen doprinos k poznavanju pisatelje­ve angažirane misli zlasti zaradi dveh pomembnih spoznanj. Prvo se – kljub znatnim odstopanjem med njegovim zgodnjim in »zrelim« delovanjem – nanaša na sklenje­nost Adamičeve intelektualne poti. Drugo, še pomembnejše, pa Adamiča, proč od udomačenega konteksta ene ali druge domovine, umešča v kontekst globalnih pri­zadevanj za drugačno – a nikakor ne sovjetsko, kot so mu skušali očitati – družbeno ureditev. Enyeartova monografija na novo osvetljuje avtorja, ki ostaja prezrt v obeh domovinah, in s tem ponuja smernice za njegovo ponovno odkrivanje. Miha Zobec NAVODILA AVTORJEM ZA PRIPRAVO PRISPEVKOV ZA »DVE DOMOVINI / TWO HOMELANDS« 1. Usmeritev revije Revija Dve domovini / Two Homelands je namenjena objavi znanstvenih in strokovnih člankov, poročil, razmišljanj in knjižnih ocen s področja humanističnih in družboslovnih disciplin, ki obravnavajo različne vidike migracij in z njimi povezane pojave. Revija, ki izhaja od leta 1990, je večdisciplinarna in večjezična. Dve številki letno v tiskani in elektronski obliki izideta na svetovnem spletu (http://twohomelands.zrc-sazu.si/). Prispevke, urejene po spodnjih navodilih, pošljite uredništvu v elektronski obliki na naslov hladnik@ zrc-sazu.si. Članki so recenzirani. Avtorji naj poskrbijo za primerno jezikovno raven in slogovno dovršenost. Prispevki morajo biti oblikovani v skladu z Navodili avtorjem za pripravo prispevkov za Dve domovini / Two Homelands. Rokopisov, ki jih uredništvo revije Dve domovini / Two Homelands sprejme v objavo, avtorji ne smejo hkrati poslati drugi reviji. V skladu z Zakonom o avtorskih pravicah in 10. členom Poslovnika o delu uredništva revije Dve domovini / Two Homelands se avtorji z objavo v reviji Dve domovini / Two Homelands strinjajo z objavo prispevka tudi v elektronski obliki na svetovnem spletu. 2. Sestavine prispevkov Članki morajo imeti sestavine, ki si sledijo po naslednjem vrstnem redu: • glavni naslov članka (z velikimi tiskanimi črkami, okrepljeno); • ime in priimek avtorja (priimku naj sledi opomba pod črto, v kateri so navedeni: 1. avtorjeva izobrazba in naziv (na primer: dr. zgodovine, znanstveni sodelavec); 2. ime in naslov avtorjeve institucije (na primer Inštitut za slovensko izseljenstvo in migracije ZRC SAZU, Novi trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana); 3. avtorjev elektronski naslov); • predlog vrste prispevka (izvirni, pregledni ali kratki znanstveni članek/prispevek, strokovni članek); • izvleček (slovenski naslov članka in slovenski izvleček, skupaj s presledki do 700 znakov); • ključne besede (do 5 besed); • abstract (angleški prevod naslova članka in slovenskega izvlečka); • key words (angleški prevod ključnih besed); • članek (1. skupaj s presledki naj ne presega 45.000 znakov; 2. celotno besedilo naj bo označeno z »Normal« – torej brez oblikovanja, določanja slogov in drugega; 3. pisava Times New Roman, velikost 12, obojestranska poravnava, presledek 1,5; 4. odstavki naj bodo brez vmesnih vrstic; prazna vrstica naj bo pred in za vsakim naslovom in predvidenim mestom za tabelo ali sliko; 5. odstavki so brez zamikov; 6. naslove označite ročno, podnaslove prvega reda z okrepljenimi malimi tiskanimi črkami, podnaslove drugega reda z okrepljenimi poševnimi malimi tiskanimi črkami; 7. (pod)poglavij ne številčimo; • summary (angleški povzetek članka, največ 3000 znakov s presledki). V besedilih se izogibajte podčrtovanju besed, okrepljenemu in poševnemu tisku; s poševnim tiskom označite le navedene naslove knjig in časopisov. V slovenskih prispevkih uporabljajte naslednje okrajšave in narekovaje: prav tam, idr., ur., »abc«; v angleških: ibid., et al., ed./eds., “migration”. Izpust znotraj citata označite z oglatim oklepajem […]. Poročila in ocene morajo imeti sestavine, ki si sledijo po naslednjem vrstnem redu: • poročila s konferenc in z drugih dogodkov, razmišljanja: naslov dogodka, datum poteka, ime in priimek avtorja, besedilo naj obsega med 5.000 in 15.000 znaki skupaj s presledki; • knjižne ocene: ime in priimek avtorja ali urednika knjige, ki je predmet ocene, naslov knjige, založba, kraj, leto izida, število strani, besedilo naj obsega med 5.000 in 15.000 znaki skupaj s presledki, na koncu sledita ime in priimek avtorja ocene. 3. Citiranje Avtorji naj pri citiranju med besedilom upoštevajo naslednja navodila: • Citati, dolgi štiri ali več vrstic, morajo biti ročno oblikovani v ločenih enotah, levo zamaknjeni, brez narekovajev. • Citati, krajši od štirih vrstic, naj bodo med drugim besedilom v narekovajih in pokončno (ne poševno). • Navajanje avtorja v oklepaju: (Anderson 2003: 91–99); več navedb naj bo ločenih s podpičjem in razvrščenih po letnicah (Milharčič Hladnik 2009: 15; Vah Jevšnik, Lukšic Hacin 2011: 251–253). • Seznam literature in virov je na koncu besedila; v seznamu literature na koncu se navajajo samo navedbe literature iz besedila; enote naj bodo razvrščene po abecednem redu priimkov avtorjev, enote istega avtorja pa razvrščene po letnicah; če imamo več del istega avtorja, ki so izšla istega leta, jih ločimo z malimi črkami (Anderson 2003a; 2003b). a) Knjiga: Anderson, Benedict (2003). Zamišljene skupnosti: O izvoru in širjenju nacionalizma. Ljubljana: Studia Humanitatis. b) Članek v zborniku: Milharčič Hladnik, Mirjam (2009). Naša varuška. Krila migracij: Po meri življenjskih zgodb (ur. Mirjam Milharčič Hladnik, Jernej Mlekuž). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 15–20. c) Članek v reviji: Vah Jevšnik, Mojca, Lukšič Hacin, Marina (2001). Theorising Immigrant/Ethnic Entrepreneurship in the Context of Welfare States. Migracijske i etničke teme 27/2, 249–261. Polnopomenski elementi v angleških naslovih knjig in člankov (razen veznikov in predlogov) se pišejo z veliko začetnico. d) Spletna stran: • Becker, Howard (2003). New Directions in the Sociology of Art, http://home.earthlink. net/~hsbecker/newdirections.htm (1. 2. 2008). • Interaction: Some Ideas, http://home.earthlink.net/interaction.htm (1. 2. 2008). 4. Grafične in slikovne priloge • Fotografije, slike zemljevidi idr. – z izjemo tabel, narejenih v urejevalniku Word, ki pa morajo biti oblikovane za stran velikosti 16,5 x 23,5 cm – naj ne bodo vključeni v Wordov dokument. Vse slikovno gradivo oddajte oštevilčeno v posebni mapi s svojima priimkom in imenom. Opombe v podnapisih ali tabelah morajo biti ločene od tekočega teksta. Fotografije naj bodo v formatu jpg. • Lokacijo slikovnega gradiva v tekstu označite na naslednji način: Fotografija 1: Kuharica Liza v New Yorku leta 1905 (avtor: Janez Novak, vir: Arhiv Slovenije, 1415, 313/14) ali Preglednica 1: Število prebivalcev Ljubljane po popisu leta 2002 (vir: Statistični urad RS, Statistične informacije, 14). • Za grafične in slikovne priloge, za katere nimate avtorskih pravic, morate dobiti dovoljenje za objavo. INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS PREPARING ARTICLES FOR PUBLICATION IN “DVE DOMOVINI / TWO HOMELANDS” 1. Editorial content Dve domovini / Two Homelands welcomes the submission of scientific and professional articles, reports, discussions and book reviews from the humanities and social sciences focusing on migration and related phenomena. The journal, published since 1990, is multidisciplinary and multilingual. Two volumes are published per year in print and electronic form on the internet (http://twohomelands.zrc-sazu.si/). Articles should be prepared according to the instructions stated below and sent in electronic form to the editorial board at the following address: hladnik@zrc-sazu.si. All articles undergo a review procedure. Manuscripts that are accepted for publishing by the editorial board should not be sent for consideration and publishing to any other journal. Authors are responsible for langue and style proficiency. Authors agree that articles published in Dve domovini / Two Homelands may also be published in electronic form on the internet. 2. Elements Articles should contain the following elements in the order given: • Title (in capital letters, bold); • Name and surname of the author (after the surname a footnote should be inserted stating the author’s: 1. education and title (e.g. PhD, MA in History, Research Fellow etc.); 2. full postal address (e.g. Slovenian Migration Institute, Novi Trg 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana); 3. e-mail address; • Type of contribution (original, review or short scientific article; professional article); • Abstract (title of the article and abstract, up to 700 characters with spaces); • Key words (up to 5 words); • Article (1. should not exceed 45,000 characters with spaces; 2. the style of the entire text should be “Normal”; 3. font: Times New Roman 12; 4. paragraphs should not be separated by an empty line, empty lines should be used before and after every title and space intended for a chart or figure; 5 paragraphs following titles should not be indented, bullets and numbering of lines and paragraphs should be done manually; 6. titles should be marked manually, subtitles Heading 1 in bold lower-case letters with initial capital, Heading 2 in bold lower-case italics with initial capital; 7. (sub)sections of articles (Heading 1 and Heading 2) should not be numbered); • Summary (Povzetek) in Slovene, 3000 characters with spaces). Avoid underlining and using bold in all texts. Italics should be used when emphasising a word or a phrase. Italics should also be used when citing titles of books and newspapers. In articles in English, the following abbreviations should be used: ibid., et al., ed./eds. When using inverted commas/quotation marks, use double quotation marks; single quotation marks should be used only when embedding quotations or concepts within quotations. Omitted parts of quotations should be indicated by square brackets with ellipsis […]. Reports and reviews should contain the following elements in the order given: • Reports from conferences and other events, discussions: title of the event, date of the event, name and surname of the author, 5,000 to 15,000 characters with spaces; • Book reviews: name and surname of the author or editor of the book, title of the book, name of publisher, place of publication, date of publication, number of pages, 5,000 to 15,000 characters with spaces, with the name and surname of the reviewer at the end. 3. Quotations in articles • Long quotations (four lines or more) should be typed as an indented paragraph (using the “tab” key), without quotation marks, the first line of the paragraph after the quotation should not be indented; quotations shorter than four lines should be included in the main text and separated with quotation marks, in normal font (not italic). • When citing an author in brackets use the following form: (Anderson 2003: 91–99); when citing several authors separate their names with a semicolon and cite them according to the year of publication in ascending order (Milharčič Hladnik 2009: 15; Vah Jevšnik, Lukšič Hacin 2011: 251–253). • A list of references should be placed at the end of the text and arranged in alphabetical order according to the author’s surname. The list of references should include only cited sources and literature. Multiple references by one author should be arranged according to the year of publication. Multiple references by one author published in the same year should be separated with lower-case letters (e.g. Ford 1999a; 1999b). a) Books: Anderson, Benedict (1995). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, New York: Verso. b) Articles in a series: Milharčič Hladnik, Mirjam (2009). Naša varuška. Krila migracij: Po meri življenjskih zgodb (eds. Mirjam Milharčič Hladnik, Jernej Mlekuž). Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU, 15–20. c) Articles in journals: Vah Jevšnik, Mojca, Lukšic Hacin, Marina (2001). Theorising Immigrant/Ethnic Entrepreneurship in the Context of Welfare States. Migracijske i etničke teme 27/2, 249– 261. All major elements of English book and article titles should be capitalized (except conjunctions and prepositions shorter than five letters). d) Internet sources: • Becker, Howard (2003). New Directions in the Sociology of Art, http://home.earthlink. net/~hsbecker/newdirections.htm (1 Feb. 2008). • Interaction: Some Ideas, http://home.earthlink.net/interaction.htm (1 Feb. 2008). 4. Graphics and illustrations • Photographs, illustrations, maps etc. – with the exception of charts produced in Microsoft Word, which have to be adjusted to page size 16.5 x 23.5 cm (6.5” x 9.25”) – should not be included in the Word document. All illustrative material needs to be numbered and submitted separately in separate folder with the author’s name and surname. Please submit visual material in jpg. form. • Locations of figures in the text should be marked as follows: Figure 1: Lisa Cook in New York in 1905 (Photo: Janez Novak, source: Archives of Slovenia, 1415, 313/14) or Chart 1: Population of Ljubljana after the 2002 Census (source: Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, Statistics, p. 14). • Permission to publish must be obtained for uncopyrighted graphic and illustrative material. ISSN 0353-6777 DVE DOMOVINI • TWO HOMELANDS Razprave o izseljenstvu • Migration Studies 51 • 2020 TEMATSKI SKLOP / THEMATIC SECTION LOUIS ADAMIČ / LOUIS ADAMIC Janja Žitnik Serafin The Relevance of Louis Adamic for the 21st Century Ksenija Šabec Representations of Native Americans in the Works of Louis Adamic John Paul Enyeart Trieste and Louis Adamic’s Transnational Identities Leonora Flis Social Engagement and Multiculturalism in Louis Adamic’s Literary Journalism and Documentary Prose Matjaž Klemenčič, Milan Mrđenović Louis Adamič in druga svetovna vojna v ameriški in slovenski historiografiji Milan Mrđenović Odmevi Adamičevih del v ameriškem in slovenskem časopisju med letoma 1931 in 1934 ČLANKI / ARTICLES Joan Lacomba, Mourad Aboussi Migration and Development Organizations: The Diversification of Civil Society in Spain Laure Zarif Keyrouz Mobility and Identity in the Art and Literature of Etel Adnan Mirjam Milharčič Hladnik Kolektivna izkušnja prebežništva in drugih oblik izseljevanja mladih po drugi svetovni vojni v pisnih, ustnih in drugih avto/biografskih virih Blaž Lenarčič Migracijski proces v omrežni družbi Tanja Žigon, Vesna Kondrič Horvat, Boštjan Udovič Vprašanja identitet, migracij in transkulturnosti: Primer pesnice Cvetke Lipuš KNJIŽNE OCENE / BOOK REVIEW John Paul Enyeart, Death to Fascism: Louis Adamic’s Fight for Democracy (Miha Zobec) 770353 677013 ISSN 1581-1212