Preliminary Programme

The research proposal is aimed at studying the role of memory and history in the construction of group identity among the descendants of immigrants from the geographic region of Macedonia in the big industrial centres of Canada and the U.S. at the turn of the 20th c. How are ‘memory’ and ‘history’ interpreted in the various discourses of articulation of the identity of Macedonian Americans? What kinds of politics of memory are implemented in the processes of identity construction? What is the interplay between official (political and scholarly) and family histories in these processes? What does being Macedonian mean from the point of view of present-day Macedonian Americans, and how does their concept of ‘Macedonian-ness’ comply with the ideological constructions, articulated by the official and everyday ideologies produced in European context (in Greece, R Macedonia, Bulgaria). These questions outline the scope of the proposed study. The discussion draws upon fieldwork conducted in a few U.S. cities in 2006, and is an attempt at illuminating the case of the Macedonian Americans in the perspective of contemporary migration studies’ approaches. (Show less)

In recent years, the incorporation of migrants has been discussed in the light of either citizenship or of transnational and multicultural belonging. The ensuing debate about the role of the nation-state confronted one with the other. While the first is relatively static in its conception the latter struggles to conceptualize national belonging and inclusion. I suggest that looking at the changing role of memories in public debates about migration incorporation helps to relate both approaches and to understand the changing nature of migrant and national belonging. Social memories are an important means to construct social cohesion. How society is constructed depends on how the past is remembered and how memories are employed.

In this paper, I explore what role memories of a host society play for the incorporation of immigrants by examining Australia’s post-Second World War immigration and social inclusion policies. Australia has always been an explicit immigrant country, but with very distinct and varying notions of not only who may belong but also – which is more important here – how new members are included. Specifically, I explore how memories were used to either promote citizenship, the predominant means of political inclusion until the 1970s, and subsequently, how memories supported the establishment and development of multiculturalism. I examine the shifting relationship between Australia Day, commemorating the first arrival of Europeans, and naturalization ceremonies as well as the foundation of migration museums since the 1980s. Originally, the past stood for a trajectory of political action from which civic responsibilities derived for being a citizen. Later, the past became a point of reference for cultural and ‘ethnic’ identity in a multicultural society. I argue that analyzing to the role of memories the 1970s can be understood to stand for a major transformation of social inclusion and migrant incorporation, from a predominantly civic perception towards a mostly communal imagination.

In a final step, I impose the historical findings of, on the one hand, civic and, on the other, communal belonging to more recent developments. The introduction of the Australian citizenship test in 2007, which examines among other themes the applicant’s knowledge of Australian history, stands for a further transformation, back to a civic notion of Australian belonging while keeping with the communal imagination of society. Thus, it offers a case to examine the relationship between both forms of belonging and incorporation as two sides of one coin. In conclusion, I will add some remarks on why it is difficult but very helpful to transfer these results onto European cases, especially Germany. (Show less)

One of the remarkable aspects of modern American politics is the inability of anti-immigration groups to muster anything closely resembling the political influence and organization that their counterparts in most European countries have managed. While right-wing parties whose primary platform issue is opposition to immigration routinely garner the votes of a substantial minority of citizens in many European countries, anti-immigration platforms gain relatively little traction in the United States and the Republican Party has for decades remained relatively impervious to occasional spates of anti-immigration sentiment. Grassroots anti-immigration movements in the United States have proven incapable on numerous occasions of becoming a major element of conservative American politics.

While there are important economic, demographic, and political explanations for this phenomenon, this paper will explore an historical and cultural one: conservative narratives of American history emphasize the “godly” character of the Protestant immigrants who “built the nation” – rather than more worldly-minded profit-seeking immigrants – and celebrate the edifying social effects of their migration to America in search of religious freedom. Although the waves of religiously-motivated immigration from Europe are over, the predominant historical image of immigrants as “Pilgrims” deeply informs many conservatives’ views of contemporary immigration, even for migrants from non-Protestant backgrounds. Because they count on American immigrants to be more religious and family-oriented than American society at large, conservative politicians have expected their domestic social platform to be strengthened in the long run by immigration.

By analyzing traditional American history textbooks, the writings of contemporary conservative public intellectuals, and the speeches of Republican leaders during the immigration reform debate of 2007 and the presidential primary of 2008, this paper will examine how the historical memory of the God-fearing and virtuous immigrant is crucial for conservatives’ image of America’s founding, and consequently, for their preferred constitutional interpretations of the First Amendment clauses on religion, free speech, and free association. The paper will then examine in particular how conservatives’ “pilgrim” typos has been employed with reference to recent migrants from Latin America in order to counteract public sentiment that the growth of Latin American immigration threatened traditional American cultural values. (Show less)