Preamble Narratives and Social Memory - Universidade do Minho

‘Diaspora Space’ as Heard and ObservedDaiva Repeckaitepublic profiles could be seen to analyze their self-presentation. Often forum posts weremore spontaneous than interviews and were reacting to topics considered important bythe subjects, not the researcher. On the other hand, the users of forums were conscious thattheir posts were public and most likely refrained themselves from more personal messagesthat were available in interviews. In addition, possibilities of direct interaction and clarificationof the informants’ points were very limited.Using multiple research methods allowed seeing the advantages and limitationsof each of them when researching several interrelated topics, such as diaspora space andcultural codes. Narratives exposed how individuals felt or wanted to show that they felt, butnot necessarily practiced in everyday interactions, whereas observations showed what behaviorwas normalized and mainstreamed, but, of course, did not offer any insights whether theparticipants were willingly accepting these practices.Diaspora spaceThe findings of the fieldwork suggest that urban space is not only affected by interactions,identity-building and establishment of community activities. It also structures theouter boundaries of identity. In this empirical case, the Northern (more affluent) and centralpart of Tel Aviv facilitated defining one’s identity vis-à-vis the mainstream population. Mostinformants said they had learned the ‘Israeli ways’ of living. They maintained their identitythrough more sophisticated cultural consumption and networking with other Russianspeakers.Meanwhile, in Southern Tel Aviv (poor, allegedly dangerous neighborhoods) spacewas shared with migrant workers, refugees and many people living in poverty and exclusion.The effects of downward class mobility were particularly harsh and shared with the othergroups mentioned above. ‘Us’, the collective, was defined not only vis-à-vis the ‘mainstream’population, but also in relation to the ‘double Other’ (of theirs and of the Israeli populationat large). Both frameworks of identity building (and translation of habitus into ethnicitybasedsolidarity) are likely to be sustainable, as (a) living in relatively privileged areas andhaving contacts with mainly native Israeli population produced class and ‘higher culture’awareness, and ethnic migrants from the former USSR wished to sustain their intellectual,transnational identity for generations; (b) poorer, unprivileged Russian-speakers, who weredriven to disadvantaged and conflicted neighborhoods were likely to maintain their identityand group boundaries when being ‘bombarded’ with difference from the ‘double Other’.Interestingly, the inner boundaries of the latter group were more blurred, sub-ethnic boundaries(differences between Russian-speakers from the European part of Russia, Central Asia,Ukraine, the Baltic States, etc.) played a much lesser role.Those more economically and socially challenged Russian-speakers in particulardrew a sharp distinction between ‘culture’ and ‘no culture’ along the dividing line betweenOccident and Orient. One middle-aged Russian informant ironically exclaimed: ‘It’s not thatthe culture is different from Russia. There’s no culture here! It’s anarchy.’ A young informantof mixed heritage (Jewish mother, but grew up as a majority ethnic in Latvia) had a morenuanced view: ‘Here eastern mentality prevails: less culture, unsophisticated communication.Narratives and social memory: theoretical and methodological approaches247