university of nova gorica graduate school contested spaces and ...

inevitable or predefined, as some authors suggest. In my view it is more appropriate to
examine spaces of contestations or contradictions. Spaces and places are not contested by
themselves and in themselves, but always by somebody and for somebody, while somebody
else lives and perceives them as perfectly reconciled. For example, the “Greek pensions”,
which the majority of elderly people in the village receive, may seem disputable to the village
teacher who comes from Labëria, while the local people see them as welcoming assistance
from the Greek state, which enables them to survive in these places (Chapter One).
The contestations and contradictions, which define spaces, places and people in the process of
their constitution, are part of the process of (be)coming, which beside differences also reveals
connections between people and places. As shown in the chapters, people define spaces and
places in interrelation with other spaces, places and people. The endless movements and
travels of villagers throughout their history define the village and differentiate it from spaces
and places that lie across the sea and over the mountains, in Albania, Greece, Italy and United
States.
The contestedness and connectedness of spaces and places in Dhërmi/Drimades has three
major contexts. The first is related to movements and migrations of people through places; the
second to distinctions and divisions of people and places; the third to power relations, which
define places and people. For the people of Dhërmi/Drimades movements, travels and
migrations are constant activities throughout their history. Only their direction, frequency and
dynamics change. These factors are influenced by administrative, political, economical and
social delineations of people and places, which form the relations of power, constructing the
spaces and places for people who then form their identities within them. According to
Lefebvre (1974), de Certeau (1984), Ingold (1993 and 2000), Gupta and Ferguson (1997),
who replaced the study of spaces and places perceived as closed entities with the study of
processes of their construction, space and place have no clear centre. They do not follow the
logic of Euclidian rules. Centres and peripheries change their positions and constantly
reconfigure themselves. As Appadurai (1996: 46) suggests, today’s world is fundamentally
fractal, it lacks Euclidian boundaries, structures and regularities. Instead of that, irregular
fragments fluctuate from centres to peripheries, which can change their positions (cf. Green
2005).
220