Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Construction of Borders and Practices of Labour Migration
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
22
The intensity of the mobilised networks is even
stronger than in the case of Spain. Men who work on construction
sites in Sofia travel, work and live in groups of five
or six people. They are mostly from the same kin: father,
son and uncle, cousins, or brothers. They often travel in
one car, live in the same place, and work for the same
employer. The mechanism of finding work does not differ
much from the other types of migration. It is mainly sought
through networks, especially now, when many men originally
from the mountain villages have established themselves
over a few years and consequently have useful connections
with construction employers.
THE REPRODUCTION OF THE ETHNIC,
RELIGIOUS AND VILLAGE COMMUNITY
The reproduction of the community on different
levels will now be discussed, with focus on the everyday
practices when away from the village. The respondents'
accounts of their life outside of the village demonstrates
a tendency toward a re-production of the community at
several levels: the dense networks-based groups of immediate
family and kin, the village community, the ethnic Bulgarian
Muslim community, and finally the broader Muslim religious
community. The possible explanations for this tendency
will be looked for in the cultural, historical and religious
characteristics of the community as well as in the context
of the particular migration type.
I will look at the 'everyday practices' of the migrants
when away from the village. 10 The common pattern in all types
of migration is that, wherever they go, people from Ribnovo
communicate first with the immediate group with whom they
have travelled, which is a kin-based group. A second level of
communication and sharing of everyday practices is with the
co-villagers who have migrated to the same area. If there are
no co-villagers the next level is communication with other
Bulgarian Muslims. Finally, the shared religion is also a basis
for establishing ties and for support (this happens in Spain
and in Sofia through the mosques). Hence it might be more
appropriate to speak of tighter and wider circles rather than of
levels. Returning again to the differences between internal and
international migration, I will argue that the border-crossing
factor is less influential for the community reproduction when
compared to the specifics of the particular place and context.
The four types of migration lead to different
circles of ties being activated. A basic difference can be
observed along the lines of family versus male-only migration
on the one hand, and of domestic versus international
migration on the other. In the case of family migration
there is a strong tendency toward delimiting all kinds of
communication to the immediate group. While with male-only
migration the circles are wider, surpassing the immediate
kin ties either to the community of the people from
Ribnovo or to the wider community of Bulgarian Muslims.
Family migration both in Greece and in the region
of Dupnitsa is characterised by a noticeable kin clustering.
This is directly related to the narrower circle of re-production
of the community. The kin clustering reflects a re-construction
of the 'home' both in the social and in the material meaning.
In the case of migration to Greece, the lack of language
knowledge leads to a higher level of isolation, whereas in
the case of the migrants in Dupnitsa this is because of the
high level of discrimination which the Bulgarian Muslims
are conscious of.
In the case of Greece, the men spend their free
time having a cup of coffee in or simply hanging around
the centre of the village. The people with whom they communicate
are usually the men from the other kin families
with whom they work and live together. The women either
gather in their gardens and chat for an hour in the evening
or take a walk in the village centre. This is to a great extent
similar to what they do in terms of everyday practices when
they are in Ribnovo. Since there are no other Bulgarian
Muslims or other Muslims in general in the villages,
it could be argued that the re-construction of the community
in this way is partly contributed to by the lack of other people
with whom to share common cultural, religious, or linguistic
features.
The pattern amongst the migrants to Greece
is similar to that formed in the Dupnista area. One of the
differences is that both men and women go out once
a week, on Fridays when the whole family goes into
Dupnitsa. Some of the men gather in a house where one
of the respondent's brothers organises the prayers. In the
meantime the women take a walk in the city. Again, there
is almost no communication between the migrants and the
local people in the villages, which are mainly inhabited by
small numbers of elderly people. Whereas the lack of
communication with the people in the nearby bigger city
(Dupnitsa) could be explained through the feeling of
marginalisation and could also be linked to the threatened
ethno-religious identity which is felt by many Bulgarian
Muslims. 11 The other type of network mobilisation is within
the men-only migratory groups. Here the circle of
communication and the sharing of everyday practices are
wider. In Sofia, the whole Ribnovo community and the
other Bulgarian Muslims gather in the mosque. Migrants
to Spain have developed the widest circle of networks,
where not only the Bulgarian Muslims but also the other
Muslims, from Northern Africa for example, meet in the
mosques and so form part of the established community
in which everyday practices take place.
Since the community of people from Ribnovo is
quite big in Sofia – about 100 men – there are three circles
of contacts: 1. with the immediate small group with whom
one works, travels and lives; 2. with the village community
Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity