Читать книгу The Grecanici of Southern Italy - Stavroula Pipyrou - Страница 10

Chapter 3

The Vicissitudes of Civil Society

The Non-Visit

In July 2006, one of the Greek associations in Reggio Calabria, comprised mainly of Greek nationals of the diaspora, invited a high-ranking member of parliament from the governing Greek New Democracy party to visit South Italy. The association acted as a mediator between the mayor of Reggio Calabria, Giuseppe Scopelliti, and the Greek government, and the invitation was intended to foster relations of good will between Reggio Calabria and Athens. According to the president of the Greek association, the meeting was conceived of as a New Democracy initiative toward pastoral care for Greek communities abroad. The association went to great lengths to organize the visit of the Greek politician. For weeks they spent endless hours with the mayor’s secretary and various assessori who could persuade the mayor to agree to a meeting. On my part, I had long discussions with people from the Greek politician’s office, trying to identify what they wanted to achieve from the visit and providing details about the Greek association. After much negotiation with the mayor, who attempted to thwart the plan at every turn, the association was in the position to send an official invitation to Athens with a detailed itinerary of activities for the five-day trip. According to the schedule, the Greek politician would meet the mayor to discuss the possibility of a Greek consul being set up in the city, the foundation of a “Greek Academy,” and further cultural and financial exchanges between Athens and Reggio Calabria. The politician would be entertained with a “Grecanico night out” at a local restaurant with traditional music and food.

One day was to be entirely devoted to visiting the area Grecanica and meeting with Grecanici who reside in the villages. This would be followed by a workshop with the numerous mayors from area Grecanica, chaired by Scopelliti, where they would “assess the problems of Hellenism.” The schedule addressed three fundamental aims of the association: to promote lines of communication between Reggio Calabria and Greece, to host the politician and introduce him to the historical sites of Reggio Calabria and Sicily associated with Magna Graecia, and to act as an influential mediator between the Greek nationals of the diaspora, Grecanici, the mayor of Reggio Calabria, and the Greek government.

Unfortunately, after a rather nasty phone call from the secretary of the Greek politician to the president of the Greek association, the visit was canceled. The secretary found the content of the invitation as well as the “language” employed “poor and unacceptable,” It was argued that the tone of the written language was not suitable for such a high member of the party and that the association “should first know who the politician is before they choose to invite them.” Nevertheless, the fascinating convoluted background that resulted in the non-visit far exceeded the “offensive language” of the invitation. For one thing, the mayor of Reggio Calabria was not really keen to invite the Greek politician and continuously postponed setting dates. Let us not forget that the invitation was not from the mayor personally, but delivered through the Greek association. Having spent a considerable amount of time answering questions regarding the nature of the association, it became clear to me that the politician’s office in Athens was not particularly happy that the invitation did not come directly from the mayor. They were also under the impression it came from a Grecanico association, not an association comprised mainly of Greek nationals of the diaspora. When this was clarified, it was evident they were disappointed and would rather have visited a Grecanico association. Despite that, the Greek association was asked to provide a short paragraph regarding its profile, scope, and initiatives. After all this, it was insinuated by the politician’s office that “they would obviously have to decide on the visit at the last moment.”

Decisive to the non-visit was the inability of the Greek ambassador to Italy to be present in Reggio Calabria. It was rumored that the ambassador wanted to avoid implicating himself in the conflict between Greek and Grecanico associations. Very disappointed, the president and board of the Greek association searched for possible reasons behind this rejection. They began questioning their own political position as Greeks of the diaspora as meriting equal attention as the Grecanici minority. Are the Greeks of the diaspora not as culturally worthy as the Grecanici? If not, what action should they take to alleviate this lack of worth? Sadly they came to realize that their failure to entice the Greek politician was the outcome of their failure to tap into Grecanico culture in a more systematic and creative manner. Finally, it became clear to the Greek association that the link with the Grecanici needed to be packaged on different terms, resulting in a change in governance for the association. This governance would involve creative tailoring of the scope and profile of the Greek association as directly related to the Grecanici, an “authentically traditional culture.”

A Paradox

In the initial stages of my fieldwork I worked closely with the Greek associations that acted in Reggio Calabria. Representing the Greeks of the diaspora, these associations mainly comprised of Greek nationals who at some point in their lives moved to Italy. All cultivated close relations with Grecanico associations in financial and cultural collaborations and exhibited a “protective” attitude toward the Grecanici. As we have seen above, the Greek associations are keen on linking themselves with the Grecanici linguistic minority, acknowledging the powerful capital that is invested in Grecanico language and culture. Very often the common thread in these collaborations is “Hellenism” or “Greekness” that are binding concepts through which history, politics, sameness, and difference are easily glossed over through the mists of time.

Through relations with the Greek associations, I was further introduced to a number of religious, philosophical, gastronomic, and card-playing associations in Reggio Calabria. Thus I had the opportunity to participate in administrative meetings, various fiestas, and celebrations that furnished me with data regarding the colorful civic life in Reggio Calabria. In time I managed to gain access to almost all the Grecanico associations based in Reggio Calabria and work closely with their representatives. Generally, presidents and board members were open in talking to me, although in our meetings they usually recited rhetoric regarding language, victimhood, and pessimism about the future of the minority. People also demanded to know with whom I was talking and I was often questioned as to the content of my conversations with other civic representatives. Actors were curious whether they were, or were not, mentioned by other Greeks or Grecanici and, if so, in what terms. Did people speak well of them or not? Parlare bene (speak well) or male (ill, bad) about the other was a confrontational question that highlighted not only the level of connection between people but also an experiential anxiety about reputation where the level of connection was the foundation of and directly informed such anxiety.

At times the pressure to reveal the topic of conversations reached uncomfortable levels (see also Herzfeld 2009a). Actors were never offensive or aggressive but there was a tone of caution regarding my dealings with people of whom others disapproved. Such comments were scaled from a protective “be careful when you speak to this and that person” to a more cautious “you should not speak with this and that person as they are illiterate, corrupt and mafiosi,” That last comment was accompanied with a stern face, upper body leaning toward me, low voice and a direct look as if to communicate something that the anthropologist was not, but should be, informed about.

As Time Goes By: Contextualizing the Grecanico Associations

The development of civic and political associations after the Risorgimento in a united Italy was not a casual event but followed the general revival that the Enlightenment brought to political life among the European elites of the nineteenth century. The Italian associations acted as centers of information and arenas for the exchange of ideas among the elites, inside and outside Italy, without however avoiding localismo (socioeconomic interest related to a locality) and campanilismo (feeling of superiority attached to one’s place of origin), political clientelism and exclusion—especially in cases where membership was determined by birth and status (Caglioti 1996).

During the 1870s and 1880s, growing legal concerns¹ and alterations to the voting legislation made the associations more appealing to a wider variety of people. Membership was now offered on terms of political affinity, common economic interests, kinship, and locality (Kertzer 1983). The associations’ interests were broad enough to pursue collaborations with local authorities in return for crucial votes and other favors. Political transactions often coincided with clientelism and kinship (Campbell 1964; Allum 1973:93–107), provoking, in some cases, an associationistic shift from the rural periphery to urban centers (Caglioti 1996:4).

The creation of the first Grecanico association during the 1960s came as a result of the recognition of the problem of minorities on a European level and the “explicit ethnicization² of policy preceded the significant development of the politics of identity” (Crowley 2001:108). During the 1980s and 1990s Italy experienced a boom in associations which “injected its own dynamics into modern Italian society” (Ginsborg 2001:xi).³ Antonella is a middle-aged woman of Grecanico origin who lives in Reggio Calabria on a part-time basis. She is university educated and used to be an active member of a political party in her village of origin. She is a fluent speaker of the Grecanico language and speaks Modern Greek quite competently. Antonella attributes the love she holds for the Grecanico language to her love for her late grandmother.

As a child I loved my grandmother deeply. She was speaking Greco. My mother could understand her, but she did not speak the language. Because both my mother and father were working in administrative positions they did not speak Greco because the language was considered inferior to the official Italian. But I remember my grandmother speaking to me in Greco and her voice was the best music to my ears. I still have her voice in my mind calling us; “Elate pedía”^GO (“come children”). At that age I loved my language deeply. When we first formed Jonica no one was really interested in the language and its salvation. They were saying that the language is outdated and has no use in finding a job. But then, after changes in legislation that made it easier to find funding (she rubs her thumb against her index finger, a gesture which indicates money) suddenly everyone started loving both the Grecanico language and the culture. Especially after the interest of the EU in the linguistic minorities, numerous books were written and you could see action towards language promotion and preservation. In those days I hoped that something could happen, something could change and the new generation would love to speak the language. How young and innocent we were, running from village to village talking to the people and trying to make them see things from a different perspective. But now I do not believe that something can change. They say that the only way to move forward is to introduce Modern Greek into our language. I really do love (Modern) Greek but I would like my language (Grecanico) to be spoken too (she sighs).

Apart from directly criticizing the general policy of Grecanico associations past and present as set up only to exploit funding opportunities, Antonella further reflects on the issue of “salvaging” the Grecanico language. In her narrative she purposely refers to her language as il Greco (the Greek)—the term Grico, often spelled Griko, is also sometimes used when Grecanici refer to their language. According to Filippo Violi (2004) the terms “Grecanico” and “Grico” are widely accepted with reference to the language and culture of the Greek autochthonous populations of Calabria and Puglia (Lecce) respectively. The two terms—Grecanico and Grico—are not distinguished by Italian law as two different languages; they are both referred to as one Greek language (Greco) spoken by the linguistic minorities of Calabria and Puglia.

The term “Grecanico”—indicative of language, culture, and territory (Violi 2004)—that is adopted by researchers as well as administrative and cultural representatives, appears to pose a problem in terms of origin. Grecanici intellectuals like Violi and Mosino, despite drawing on Gerhard Rohlfs (1966, 1972) and Anastasios Karanastasis (1984), fail to give a satisfactory answer as to the origin of the term (Violi 2004). Nevertheless, the term “Grecanico”—first introduced in Rohlfs’ Lexicon Graecanicum Italiae inferioris in 1964—is widely adopted. Antonella as well as a small number of Grecanici oppose the term, believing it is derogatory. Greco di Calabria (Greek of Calabria), Grecofono (Grecophone), Ellenofono (Hellenophone), Ellenofono di Calabria (Hellenophone of Calabria), Calabrogreco (Calabrian Greek) are some of the alternatives proposed. However, these terms have failed to gain popular support. The aforementioned linguistic proposals are not devoid of political interest related to the direct sympathies of their supporters. Especially when the word ends in fono^GO (from foni^GO, meaning “voice”), it calls to mind Bakhtinian notions of language where language is never unitary. Mikhail Bakhtin (1981:288) argues,

Actual social life and historical becoming, create within an abstractly unitary national language a multitude of concrete worlds, a multitude of bounded verbal-ideological and social belief systems; within these various systems (identical in the abstract) are elements of language filled with the various semantic and axiological content and each with its own different sound.

Literary language—both spoken and written—although it is unitary not only in its shared, abstract, linguistic markers but also in its forms for conceptualizing these abstract markers, is itself stratified and heteroglot in its aspect as an expressive system, that is, in the forms that carry its meanings.

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

Tracing the Roots 1960–1980: La Jonica dei Greci

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Civil Society in Italy

In his definition of civil society, Paul Ginsborg (2001:95) brings attention to the terms civil and uncivil, arguing that

It (civil society) … covers an intermediate area between family and state, but intends to distinguish between “civil” and “uncivil’ ” society, between those networks and associations which stimulate democracy and pluralism, and those which do not. Civil society, in this definition, is not a catch-all area broadly equivalent to the English term “society,” but rather an area of interaction which fosters the diffusion of power rather than its concentration, builds horizontal solidarities rather than vertical loyalties, encourages debate and autonomy of judgment rather than conformity and obedience.

Ethnographic research in Italy has highlighted the multiplicity of meanings incorporated in terms such as civil, civic, uncivil, civility, and civil society (Herzfeld 2009a:182). Discussing the term civiltà (civilization, also including civic), in Umbria Sydel Silverman (1975:8–9) notes the class overtones associated with a celebration of urbanity, however Antony Galt (1991) in Locorotondo in Puglia, shows that peasants express an open condemnation of the urban ways of life. In its political dimension, civiltà demonstrates a communal capacity for economic and political self-government and autonomy (Silverman 1975:3; Pipyrou 2014c:536). Palumbo (2003) examined the relationship between civic and civil in more general terms. He talks of civic identity “as the collective pride enmeshed in familiar traditions of governance which feeds on strong sentiments of local attachment and an attachment to one’s ‘own’ ” ways of doing business. Palumbo (2003:371) moves away from the civil/civic dichotomy and focuses on the two different meanings embedded in the civic—the local and the universal, the first emphasizing civility—a culturally embedded value in Italy—the second assuming that ideals of good governance will have little to do with cultural peculiarities (Herzfeld 2009a:336).

In Rome, Michael Herzfeld (2009a) argues that the opposition between civil and civic is often remarkably strong. He notes that civility is often associated with urbanity and simultaneously conceals and displays arrogance, power, and hierarchy, thus subverting formal rules of governance. This implies that on occasion “civil” may include corruption. In this sense a range of actors, from corrupt association presidents to members of illegal (criminal) organizations, can lay claim to “civil society”—“not to be sure in the sense that nongovernmental organizations are often so labeled, but still with a powerful implication of providing a morally coherent alternative to official, bureaucratic norms” (Herzfeld 2009a:182). In Lombardy, Andrea Muehlebach (2012, 2013) associates civic engagement with morality in what she terms the new “ethical citizenship,” which substitutes public systems of social security with voluntarism and collective caretaking (see also Pardo and Prato 2011). According to Muehlebach (2012:6–7), since the 1980s the neoliberal state has invested into areas “seemingly untouched” and “unpolluted” by market ideology. Usually passive and dependent citizens have been marshaled into volunteering, allowing them to purchase some sort of social belonging at times when their citizenship rights are under threat. Here state government and civic governance overlap in the area of civil society that is infused with ideals of moral duty. The government rhetoric regarding the installation of power to the people gives the impression that power can be harnessed from below with the potential to transform the state (2012:62).

In light of the above discussion I need to draw attention not only to the terminology employed when actors talk about civil society but also to those terms that are not present. First, Grecanici do not refer to the civic associations as civil society but simply as “associations” or “cultural associations.” Second, terms such as civil, civic, and civility are not employed in discourse. Third, actors do however emphasize associazionismo (associationism) in terms of participation, belonging, mentality, and morality (see Herzfeld 2002: 147–49, 2004:33). Associationism at once encapsulates the desire to participate in often exclusive understandings of governance (such as ’Ndrangheta, often referred to as an association in a similar sense), that would conflict with democratic ideals developed in older definitions of civil society (see Putnam 1993).

Poly-Antagonism

What characterized the first Grecanico associations (and continues to this day) were the local antagonisms and accusations of a different mentalità (mentality) between and within the association boards. The following testimony of Nino, an engineer and former member of La Jonica who lives and works in Reggio Calabria, further illustrates this antagonism. He first makes it clear that he no longer belongs to any of the associations “that claim to fight for the Grecanico cause” since “there is not such a thing as a Grecanico cause. There are only personal causes,” In relation to Jonica he maintains that

things got worse when the Bovesiani (from Bova) entered the club. You see they imported their corrupt ideologies and had their minds on money. When they founded their associations in Bova Marina, they managed to implicate a number of local politicians promising them electoral support. Of course the issue was not to promote the Grecanico cause, but theirs. They utilized the votes of the association’s members for personal reasons.