Bulgarians and Gypsies in the Mediterranean Countries: Migratory Experiences and Multi-belonging

2011–2012

ERSTE Foundation Fellowship for Social Research Should we stay or should we go?

Migration and its effects on demographic and economic development in Central Eastern Europe

Bulgarians and Bulgarians and Gypsies in the Mediterranean Countries: Migratory Experiences and Multi-belonging Magdalena Slavkova

The Mediterranean Journey of the Bulgarians and the Rudari

by Magdalena Slavkova Abstract The purpose of this article is to explore, from an ethnological perspective, the experiences of Bulgarian and Rudari workers in the Mediterranean countries and back home, focusing on how they cope with the challenges of living and working in different socioeconomic and cultural settings, and how this dynamism impacts their social organization.

Greece became a preferred destination for Bulgarian citizens immediately after 1989, while Spain attracted them more in the late 1990s. Some of those Bulgarians and Rudari who left are temporary migrants, who return to Bulgaria eventually, while others turn from labor migrants into emigrants, settling permanently in the host country, and adjusting to the Spanish and Greek ways of life. Both groups have developed similar migration strategies in Spain and Greece, but their patterns of social adaptation in these countries have ethnic specificities.

These are mainly the various ways of connecting and interacting with foreign populations, the forms of inter-communal social organizations, and their impact on migrant communities. As a result of the communities’ development in both countries, Bulgarians and Rudari introduced various collective integration strategies. They tried to position and shape their traditional relationships within the new society by establishing associations and schools, thinking this would enable successful integration. This article also discusses the different ways that relationships have been shaped between members of the Bulgarian citizens’ communities within Spanish and Greek society. The reasons for different patterns of the Rudari social positioning among the Bulgarian community in Spain and Greece should be sought in the different migratory contexts and in the degree of social integration Rudari achieve within Bulgarian communities. In the end, the migration shifts lead to a new picture of Bulgarian and Rudari presence in Spain and Greece. Understanding the Gypsy and Bulgarian migration issue in contemporary Europe will help us to struggle with it.

Keywords: Bulgarian and Rudari mobilities and migrations, Greece and Spain, circles of communication, adaptation and integration strategies.

1

Introduction The purpose of this paper is to explore, from an ethnological perspective, the experiences of Bulgarian and Gypsy workers in the Mediterranean countries and back home, focusing on how the mobile groups cope with the challenges of living and working in different socio-economic and cultural settings, and how this dynamism impacts their social organization. In order to do so, this paper will first shed light on the issue of carrying out ethnographic fieldwork at home and abroad, and on the way interlocutors negotiate their multi-layered identities throughout the fieldwork process. Through exploration of ethnographic data, this work also aims to look at the social adaptation strategies of Bulgarian citizens generated by the transnational movement, and the ways in which relationships between members of the Bulgarian citizens’ community within the Spanish and Greek society have been shaped. Specifically, it focuses on two groups of labor migrants—Bulgarians and the Rudari (a group of Bulgarian Gypsies)—and their particular styles of migrant living. By researching the two groups comparatively, this paper hopes to provide insight into contemporary Bulgarian migrations, and to analyze the specific Rudari mobility pattern.

Some introductory methodological remarks: the Rudari and their surrounding population The Rudari are presented and analyzed within the theoretical framework of Romani Studies as a Gypsy group with specific ethno-cultural features that is considered an integrated part of the society in which they live, and not a homogeneous social layer or an exoticized closed community (Marushiakova 2008). The Rudari are a minority community numbering in the tens of thousands (as an unofficial count). It consists of two subgroups—the Linguari (spook-makers) and the Ursari (bear-trainers)—whose members currently identify with the same group of Rudari. The mother tongue of both groups is Romanian. They are traditionally Orthodox Christians; however, some of their members have begun to convert to Evangelism (Slavkova 2005). To understand the Rudari as a community, I employ a three-dimensional model to define them. The first dimension is at the group level. Because of their recent seminomadic lifestyle and certain physical characteristics, Bulgarian citizens perceive the Rudari as “Gypsies.” The Rudari sometimes identify themselves as Romanian Gypsies, but they usually emphasize the difference between their community and the population generally labeled as “Roma.” Their identity is multi-layered and, depending on the situation, their self2

presentation ranges from identifying as Rumanians (or old Rumanians), Vlachs, Gypsies (Romanian Gypsies), Rudari, or Bulgarians (the latter case being rather an exception), with a sense of belonging to completely different communities (Сикимиħ 2005; Piramida 2011). In recent years, their endonym “Rudari” (or Ludari) has gained popularity. They, however, are part of the largest Gypsy “community,” regardless of the fact that they do not always present themselves as such (second dimension). The surrounding Bulgarian population creates the image of Gypsies as a homogeneous community. The surrounding population determines its “boundaries” (Barth 1969), regardless of Gypsy self-perception or their preferred identity (Marushiakova and Popov 2011). The third dimension forms the Rudari as part of the society in which they live (Bulgaria or abroad), so they relate to and interact with other members of the society in specific ways. As part of the society in which they live, the Rudari emigrated to the Mediterranean, keeping their distinctiveness at group level. Abroad, Spaniards and Greeks, for instance, do not distinguish the Rudari from the Bulgarians, and therefore they imagine new boundaries within which they exist. These three dimensions of their belonging make up their complex identities and determine various approaches of study. Through this paper, I will look for answers to the following questions: What are the specifics of the Rudari migration? How does labor mobility to the Mediterranean and back home impact Rudari group identity and social organization?

Ethnographic trips in the motherland and abroad: approaches to fieldwork This article uses the approach of ethnology of mobility (Карамихова 2003; Marushiakova 2008; Balkanologie 2008). Gathering ethnographic data among migrant families at home and abroad is influenced by the following key factors: understanding the context of mobility (and migration), and the adaptation of the research approaches to the respective communities and their particular ethno-cultural features. My findings are based on a long-term study conducted among Rudari in Bulgaria; a nine-month ethnographic research that I carried out in Spain (Madrid, Castile and León, Catalonia, Valencia, Murcia and Andalusia) in 2006 and later in 2009, while working on a post-doctoral project concerning the Bulgarians and the Gypsies; and a three-week research with Bulgarians and Rudari that I conducted in 2011 in Greece (Athens and Chania) [1]. I have also conducted a series of field trips in Bulgaria in 2010, and worked with returnees in 2011 (the majority of my interlocutors were Bulgarians).

3

In order to adequately analyze the ethnographic materials and frame the labor mobility processes, it was first necessary to carry out an analysis of existing literature related to the Gypsy mobility and Bulgarian migration patterns. During the fieldwork, I employed a research strategy that combines different methods, such as participant observation, case study method, historical ethnography, and multi-sided ethnography (Geertz 1973; Marcus 1995). I applied several research techniques to collect data about the way of life of my interlocutors, such as life story interview (Atkinson 1998), interview with family members, and informal group-conversation. In addition, I kept a field diary, in which I recorded my personal impressions of the fieldwork. Finally, I completed the “field” data with statistical findings and media information.

In my fieldwork practice in Bulgaria, I employed the following approaches to gain access to communities: ethnographic expeditions in Rudari neighborhoods, sharing of information, and purposeful conversation with returnees. Because I had previous knowledge of the histories and ethno-cultural specifics of the groups under investigation, I had a solid preliminary starting point, and my negotiation with participants at the beginning of the study was successful. Using the ethnographic expeditions approach, I visited various Rudari neighborhoods usually located near water and woods because of their previous traditional occupations, such as producing wooden articles. They usually live in neighborhoods (formerly called “ţigănia,” which is now called “maleaua rudărească,” which means “Rudari quarter”) that stand apart from other Gypsies. Since 1989, cross-border labor mobility has become a widespread phenomenon among them. Almost all families have close or distant relatives working abroad, just as almost all villages or settlements have labor migrants abroad. In most cases, migrants invest their incomes in the construction and reconstruction of their houses, which is apparent in the new appearance of Rudari neighborhoods. I repeated my field trips in subsequent years to confirm my information and to observe the changes in Rudari life.

Sometimes, we planned interviews in advance; other times, our meetings were spontaneous.

The aim was to study the attitude of the interlocutors towards the researcher and the emotions they experienced towards him/her. At first, the Rudari seemed distrustful. It is challenging for a researcher to gain entry to their houses for continued conversation, which would mean he or she has won their trust. This is not to say they are inhospitable, but rather it is part of their complex identity, which has different dimensions depending on the situation. Another goal is to obtain additional “real” information about the group’s lifestyle without the direct intervention of the researcher, who would choose informants according to personal preference 4

and determine the interview outcome. Another major challenge for the researcher is accessing the relatives of the migrants living abroad. Families are not always willing to talk about their relatives, much less about the type or location of their work (if the respondents even remembered or knew the exact location of their family abroad) for fear that you might go abroad and take their relative’s job (Gabărski 2008).

Another approach that I used during my fieldwork in Bulgaria was sharing of information. My aim was to create a dynamic conversation model, open and exploratory, based on information sharing. The volume, nature, and quality of the information the field worker will receive depend largely on his or her personality and professional skills. S/he is involved in negotiations with different people throughout the entire research project, performing several roles and engaging in a variety of relationships (De Laine 2000; Tsuda 1998). Informants are also curious about the researcher’s personal life and tend to become more trustworthy once their curiosity has been satisfied. When asked, I told them stories about my relatives who live in Cyprus. Often, the interlocutors’ questions were related to whether there was work in Cyprus and how much my relatives earned.

Approaching returnees is also an essential part of the research process. I arranged meetings with them prior to my visit. This way, I was sure to hear the returnees’ point of view and evaluations of their own experiences abroad. These conversations also provide opportunities to access other relatives and friends who have worked abroad. Whenever I asked if there were other relatives who had returned and whom I could visit, a negative answer often indicated that they did not want me to speak to another family because they wanted to be the only source of knowledge about life abroad. Working with returnees could be difficult also due to their dissatisfaction after returning from abroad and problems reintegrating into the local community, all of which was disclosed to the researcher during our conversations. On the other hand, they are sometimes worried about potential negative consequences of speaking to the researcher; I might find out how rich they are or that they failed to save enough money while abroad, which could give others reason to ridicule them.

Gaining access to returnees from the same settlement (hometown) was not easy either, because they tried to portray themselves as sufficiently prestigious by mending the information sharing with the researcher. Those involved in the research process have already established social (friendly and neighborly) relationships, and the returning migrants want to retain their social positions “in the eyes of the researcher” rather than be seen as failures.

5

It is easier to conduct fieldwork in one’s home country because the researcher is familiar with the studied communities. I did not live among the Rudari for long, although some anthropologists who work with Gypsies do (Stewart 1997; Gay y Blasco 1999 and many others). There is no need for such an approach in Bulgaria, where the majority population and the Gypsies live together in the same society, and there are many ways to maintain contact with the informants. On the other hand, I did not focus the study on people located in one fixed place because, as George Gmelch argues, “the nature of traditional anthropological fieldwork which involved research for a limited period of time in a limited space may also have led to a view of migration as a static event” (Gmelch 1980). Rudari live all over the country, and sometimes relatives of a particular group inhabit more than one location.

Ethnographers working with Gypsies cannot settle for a description of the local and particular (Sutherland 1998): they must adjust to a global and multicultural reality (Lecompte 2002).

During my fieldwork in Spain and Greece, I used several key approaches to gain access to the migrant community from Bulgaria—namely, insider knowledge, shared understanding (Watts 2006), key informant, and cluster approaches. The first step upon entering the research field is gaining access to the community in question. To accomplish this, one should make arrangements ahead of time. So-called insider knowledge is very important for securing access to the Rudari and the Bulgarians, whose members reside in Spain and Greece; I consider it a “gateway” to them. I identify two kinds of insider knowledge: (1) basic knowledge of the groups that I acquired prior to leaving for Spain and Greece, and (2) knowledge that I obtained by conducting my fieldwork abroad. Through this study, I tried to understand the group characteristics of the Gypsies, their areas of origin in Bulgaria, occupations, ways of life, and social statuses abroad. While the first question during a conversation with Gypsy informants in Bulgaria would be which group they belong to, one cannot always open with that question abroad because it might trigger a negative reaction in the informants, who initially prefer to identify as Bulgarian citizens. This is not because they changed their identity or prefer to hide their “Gypsiness/Rudariness,” but because they want to be sure that the researcher respects their “Bulgarianness.”

The shared understanding approach is another way to gain access to the informants.

My informants and I share a common motherland—we are all Bulgarian citizens. We also speak the same language and share similar perceptions of the world, which fostered mutuality and sympathy, and minimized discrepancies between our educational, ethnic, religious, or social backgrounds. Homesickness, the emotional need to disclose hardships and impressions 6

of life abroad, and exchanging information about what was going on at home, had a unifying effect and facilitated my access to the community. For instance, the Rudari usually say, “In Spain and Greece we are all Bulgarians,” and indeed, the feeling of belonging to the motherland increases when abroad, where one’s Bulgarian civil identity becomes emphasized.

On the other hand, this might be seen as a survival strategy in new social and economic surroundings. Previous disappointments for the Rudari in fellow Bulgarians abroad could negatively affect their relationships with Bulgarian researchers. Some Rudari were very cautious and kept their distance from the Bulgarian field worker. It took time for them to trust me due to the reasons mentioned above, but also for fear that I would reveal to the Spanish and the Greeks that they are not Bulgarians, but Gypsies.

The key informant approach can be defined as follows: certain informants are identified as key to gaining access to the community because of their authority, vast knowledge of community life, and positions within the internal social organization of the group. They are usually Rudari men and could be Bulgarian women (especially in the case of female Bulgarian activists, who play a major role in the development of various cultural and educational activities). Key informants have lived abroad with their families for many years, are fluent in Spanish or Greek (which enables them to establish contacts with local authorities), have a working knowledge of Spanish or Greek legislation, have good jobs with high pay, and look after their families in Spain or Greece and in Bulgaria. Early contact with these people’s families facilitates access to the community. The researcher “negotiates” the continuation of the study with them.

I relied mainly on the cluster approach because my stay in Greece was short. I spent one week in Athens and two weeks in a town in Crete. I conducted conversations only among Bulgarians in Athens who are part of one friend-and-relative network that actively maintains and organizes their compatriots’ community life. On Crete, I interviewed members of one Rudari family circle, and spoke with the families of their first- to third-grade cousins.

In conclusion, I can confirm that informants abroad were open to giving a different kind of information than informants at home. The researcher must feel comfortable and confident in the studied social milieu, and he or she should negotiate different social roles in different contexts during the field research process. Integration into the studied community is a complex process that requires professional (and friendly) relationships between the researcher and informants.

7

Bulgarian and Rudari labor mobility patterns: histories and itineraries The post-socialist era was not the first time Bulgarians had left their homes to work abroad; some previous ethnic minorities were also mobile. The experience of the migration process shows that contemporary cross-border labor mobility is an economic strategy, which has already been verified.

The labor mobility experience Current migratory movements resemble a traditional pattern in the Balkan area—the so-called “gurbet”—through which workers migrated abroad for short periods of time in order to provide extra income to their households, while their families stayed behind (Kaрамихова 2003). With this in mind, the Ottoman administration designated a specific category of the population that had various ethnic affiliations. For example, Ottoman sources sometimes listed the Gypsies under the name “cingene,” but also with the designation “gurbet” (Марушиакова и Попов 2000). Until 1878, workers on gurbet migrated to other regions controlled by the Ottoman Empire (Guentcheva et al. 2004; Soultanova). This model of labor mobility, though modified, has since been preserved in the Balkans.

During the nineteenth century, the majority of the Rudari arrived in what is today Bulgaria in several waves from Wallachia and Moldavia. They had recently practiced a seminomadic way of life, and the groups of Lingurari and Ursari had not traveled together. A leader, who was in charge of contacting the local authorities, led the travel of several families through villages within Bulgaria. The Lingurari sold their wooden articles (spoons, ladles, troughs, spindles, etc.) to locals to provide for their families while traveling. The Ursari trained bears to play along with the tambourine or rebec at fairs and markets (Marushiakova and Popov 1998). The seasonal movements resulted from their practice of traditional occupations, and they rarely crossed the border of Bulgaria. The Rudari settled down mainly between 1940 and 1960. During the “epoch” of Socialism (1944-89), they worked in cooperative farms and factories. Thanks to the housing credit provided by the state, they owned their own houses for the first time.

During the socialist era, the Bulgarians and the Rudari began to employ similar

economic strategies. Transnational economic travels included work both inside and outside 8

Europe (the Central European socialist states, East Germany, USSR, Libya, Cuba, etc.).

However, this state project required the Communist Party’s permission to leave, as well as the approval of the host destination, and very few people traveled abroad. Nearly all of them (Bulgarians and Rudari) worked as construction workers, drivers, etc. Another small group of people with various specialties (musicians, athletes, artists, interpreters, etc.) worked abroad on contracts. For example, a woman from Sofia worked as an interpreter in Cuba for three years in the 1980s. Currently, she works as a housemaid in Madrid.

After 1989, relatives of those Bulgarians and Rudari who previously went abroad were among the “pioneers” who went to Germany, the Czech Republic, Israel (as construction workers or service staff), and then to the Mediterranean countries. The main difference between Bulgarian out-migration during socialism versus after 1989 (besides different preferred destinations) is that journeys before 1989 were not made with the intention of settling permanently in the destination country, whereas those after 1989 were emigrations.

Timeline and mapping of the migrations towards Greece and Spain Greece and Spain are typical destinations of Bulgarian and Rudari migrant clusters, which often were founded by illegal workers whose families joined them later. The unofficial number of Bulgarian citizens in both countries is about 500,000 to 550,000 (Монитор 2010; Фокус 2010). Both countries have their own processes of community formation, although the same economic motivation inspired their exoduses.

The collapse of the socialist regime in Bulgaria has provoked a new mobility pattern.

Previously, it was popular to move east-south from Bulgaria to Europe’s Mediterranean countries. Bulgarian citizens left their motherland as part of the mass emigration to European Union countries. Generally speaking, Bulgarians’ motivations for emigration were related to a worsening standard of living after 1989. The Rudari began to travel outside the country after 1989 because most of them remained jobless, and they tried to adapt to new social and economic conditions by taking this “journey.” Bulgarian citizens also had non-economic migration motives, although these were of minor importance (Haug 2008). Many Bulgarians lost the prestige of their social positions that they had enjoying during socialist times. The goal of some others in going abroad was not only to earn more money, but also to see “how the Westerners live,” or “to try their luck” at finding better opportunities abroad. Motivations for emigration—as well as the preferred countries of destination—are geographically determined, and depend also on circumstances such as state control over borders, salary rates, 9

and the attitude of employers and local people towards foreigners. A very compelling reason to choose Spain or Greece was that finding a job in both places was relatively quick and easy, although they were initially manual jobs. Bulgarians were also attracted by the possibility of settling with their families, as well as by the perception among them that there was a cultural similarity between Bulgarians and Spaniards on the one hand, and Bulgarians and Greeks on the other. Greece became a preferred destination for migration immediately after 1989, due to its geographical proximity to Bulgaria and the relative cheapness of traveling there. Spain attracted Bulgarians more in the late 1990s with its higher salaries. Spain is quite far away from the Bulgarian territory; the journey by coach lasted two to three days. The migrants went abroad without any understanding of the culture of their destinations. Prior to 1989, Spanish and Greek language education was not common in Bulgaria. Some left for Spain or Greece without any command of the language. Others attended private lessons in Spanish or Greek, or studied the language on their own at home using “teach yourself” books. Some educated people had graduated from language schools or completed university degrees in languages (Spanish, French, English, Greek, etc.), which gave them great advantage. An important reason why the Rudari preferred Spain was the similarity of their mother tongue, Romanian, to Spanish.

The migration to Greece and Spain happened in three main phases: from 1989 to 2001, from 2001 to 2007, and from 2007 on. These stages are defined by the economic and political situation in Bulgaria, different management regimes of the illegal migration in Europe, and the profile of participants. The first period began with the end of the socialist regime in Bulgaria. It contributed to the emergence of mass emigration to the West in ways never before seen in Bulgarian history. The state limited travels with financial restrictions and visa requirements, although these obstacles were not insurmountable for people who were serious about leaving. The members of this pioneering group had different social, educational, and ethnic profiles. The first group—which was the largest—consisted of illegal workers who were temporary migrants (the so-called gurbetchii) and who left with the desire to “make some money” and return to Bulgaria within a couple of years. However, most of them stayed much longer. This group included members of different ethnic and religious groups (Bulgarians, Turks, Bulgarian Muslims-Pomaks, and Gypsies), but all of them developed a model of labor mobility similar to the traditional gurbet. A considerable number of these “gurbetchii” were members of the Rudari group. The Romanian-speaking Rudari led the emigration wave of the Gypsies toward Greece and Spain. They joined the flow of Bulgarian citizens, but also created their own regional networks by engaging with the adjacent Bulgarian 10

population. This is not a unique phenomenon; some other Gypsy groups from Bulgaria also established their own regional migration networks. For example, the Turkish Gypsies from Northeastern Bulgaria migrated to Poland, where they often work as traders, selling clothes and footwear (Erolova 2010). Before 2001, it was most common to travel by coach or through the use of “traffickers” (who drove their passengers across the border in vans). The Rudari who went to Greece in the 1990s quickly learned to reach their destination, and clandestine border crossings via small paths were common occurrences. Another popular way to travel prior to 2001 was the tourist visa to Spain or Greece, which guaranteed a legal clearing of border checkpoints.

Bulgarian citizens’ first destinations in Greece were Athens, Thessaloniki, and Crete.

In Spain, they expected work to be most available in Madrid, Barcelona, and Valencia.

According to the Address Register of the National Statistical Institute of Spain, their total number in 1996 was 1,231, and 137 of them already held a Spanish citizenship (ww.ine.es).

The majority of Bulgarians and Rudari from Northern Bulgaria traveled to Spain; those from Southern Bulgaria usually went to neighboring Greece. In the late 1990s, migration flows became more heterogeneous in terms of where they settled abroad. The Bulgarians settled in small, rural towns of provinces near Madrid, Valencia, and other regions (Castile and León, Andalusia, Murcia, Aragon, Canarias, etc.). Rudari headed for settlements in the regions of Madrid, Castile-La Mancha (Cuenca, Albacete), Castile and León (Valladolid, Segovia, and Burgos), Murcia (Murcia, Cartagena), Aragón (Zaragoza), and Catalonia (Barcelona, Tarragona, and Girona). In Greece, the Rudari and the adjacent Bulgarian population headed for settlements in the regions of Thessaloniki, Katerini, Kavala, Komotini, Volos, Larisa, Patras, Athens, Chania and Iraklion. The migrants sought destinations where they already had relatives or friends who could help them adapt, find a job, and secure housing. They all settled in migration quarters, due to affordable housing or housing in villages near the cities, where they expected to integrate into the local community. These destinations were also favorites because they provided plenty of job vacancies in the spheres of agriculture, tourism, and social and domestic services (Viruela Martínez 2008).

There is another small group of Bulgarian citizens (mainly ethnic Bulgarians) with both training and professional competences (musicians, medical staff, sport trainers, teachers, philologists, writers, painters, etc.) who went abroad informed about the country, with knowledge and prospects for career development, and sometimes with work contracts in hand.

Some of them were illegal and started working (like gurbetchii) in unqualified jobs, but this 11

was their best prospect for finding prestigious work. Many Bulgarians who arrived in Spain in the early 1990s and headed for Madrid and Barcelona came from the capital city of Sofia, unlike those who went to other cities (e.g. people from Gabrovo, Russe went to Athens, etc.).

An example of this is a Bulgarian woman who arrived in Spain in 1990. She had graduated from a French language school in Bulgaria and had studied Romanian Language and History at Sofia University. She said she had chosen to migrate to Spain because she respected Spanish culture and had a positive sense of the country. She left with a tourist visa for Nicaragua, on a flight via Madrid, and settled in the birthplace of Miguel de Cervantes. The female interlocutor took a job as caregiver of an elderly Argentinean woman, who taught her Spanish.

In 2001, Bulgaria was removed from the “black Schengen list,” which lifted the visa regimes with Greece and Spain. For a while, the pattern of circular migration prevailed; people traveled from home to host country to work during tourist or agricultural seasons, then returned to their lands of origin with other seasonal migrants on their heels (Ibáñez Angulo 2008). This type of migration soon became impractical, and Bulgarians found they preferred to stay illegally rather than travel between countries. The number of people who left for Spain and Greece changed considerably after 2001. According to data provided by the population census, there were 35,104 Bulgarians in Greece in 2001 (Stanchev et al. 2005). In Spain, Bulgarians already numbered 12,413, and in the coming years it increased drastically to 172,926 in 2011 (www.ine.es). After 2001, however, it seemed that a greater number of women were pioneering migration flows, emigrating on their own in search of work (Fakiolas and Maratou-Alipranti 2000; Macías 2003; Recaño Valverde y Domingo i Valls 2006). While women were often the first to leave, this was the result of family decision, while it had been very rare for women to depart alone (widows, divorced, or single women) to start a new life in a foreign land without their relatives. For example, the review of the official statistics in Spain revealed that women were equal participants in the migration process and that their number did not exceed that of men. In 2001, Bulgarian women numbered 5,007 (out of a total 12,413) (www.ine.es). The opposite case is illustrated by Greece, where a predominance of women is more typical (Rangelova 2006). This is due to the fact that Greece is a neighboring country and it is much easier for Bulgarians to travel there for work. According to the Greek population Census of 2001, women account for 60.4% while men are 39.6% of the total number of Bulgarians (Stanchev et al. 2005). The means of transportation also changed. More people started traveling by air. Among the Rudari, the transition from “nomadic times” (when 12

families or groups of relatives traveled from one village to another together in carts pulled by horses or donkeys) to traveling by plane to Spain brought dramatic changes in their lives.

Before 2001, it seemed that the workers were sojourners rather than settlers; they all regarded their stay overseas as temporary. After 2001, the transition from cross-border labor seasonal mobility to emigration occurred. It happened with the birth of migrants’ children, or when children born in Bulgaria joined them and had to start school or socialize in their new surroundings.

Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007 and Bulgarian citizens have since been able to travel freely to Greece and Spain. After that year, people continued going to both countries, but the intensity of migration is much less than previously. This is not the case, however, with the emigration of Bulgarians to the UK, which is a relatively new phenomenon that has become a massive movement since the admission of Bulgaria to the EU (Maeva 2010). Meanwhile, the Spanish and Greek governments reasoned that Bulgaria’s membership into the EU would translate into large numbers of migrants. To prevent this, they imposed a moratorium on the entrance of Bulgarian workers until 2009. Currently, Bulgarian citizens have legalized their status in both countries. Bulgarians and Rudari are successfully incorporated into the social and cultural spaces in which they live in Greece and Spain, regardless of the fact that they are foreigners and only a few of them hold Greek or Spanish citizenship; the same is true of Croatian economic migrants to Germany (Čapo Žmegač 2008). Since the global economic crisis in 2008 and 2009, some Bulgarian and Rudari families have returned to Bulgaria due to their unemployment; some of them planned to stay in Bulgaria temporarily and wait for the crisis to end, while others decided to return permanently.

In Bulgaria, the out-migration to the Mediterranean coincided with the end of socialism and the collapse of a socio-economic order that had been in place for forty-five years. From the early nineties to the present day, east-south moves constitute a practice that encompasses hundreds of thousands of people. We cannot quantify its effects simply by noting its impact on demographic characteristics within the countries of origin and destination. The Bulgarians and the Rudari developed similar migration strategies: traveling to the destination with the aim of a short-term stay, deciding to settle for an extended time in the destination, and eventually returning to the homeland. As a result of cross-border labor mobility and migration, the communities acquired a new social and economic space and settled within its boundaries. For them, migration constituted a goal, a new way to support

13

their families, and a new mode of community-building that reconstructed their national identity—all of which I will examine in the pages to come.

Migratory experiences and circles of communication By investigating economic and social adaptation strategies, and forms of community social organization, I seek to understand how these practices influence the way in which Bulgarians and Rudari imagine their position into new societies.

Economic strategies The Bulgarians and the Rudari develop similar labor activities through which they adapt to their new socio-economic milieu. Rudari styles of living and working do not look so different from the Bulgarians’. Money is the most important factor for every migrant leaving to work in Greece or Spain, regardless of their ethnic belonging. Because of this, initially only one member of a Bulgarian or Rudari family—or, at most, a pair (spouses, two brothers, two sisters-in-law, etc.)—went abroad, in order to find a job more quickly. After that, the most popular model was for parents to live abroad with their working-age children, while the elderly were left behind to look after the grandchildren. The final stage of migration from Bulgaria to the Mediterranean is for all family members to leave; the elderly continue to look after the grandchildren abroad. Regardless of the fact that family members often lived abroad for a long time, they saw their stay as temporary and saved money to improve their living standard back home. As George Gmelch found of Barbadians who left Barbados, most of them only planned to stay away long enough to save money to buy a house and perhaps a car (Gmelch 2004).

Labor activities and daily practices shed light on the nature of relationships between relatives and how their contacts gradually extended outside the community. Relatives tend to look first to each other for support when seeking a job or financial assistance; their second option is to rely on their compatriots or the locals. The job-hunting strategy of the Bulgarian citizens upon arriving in Spain—which consists of going to job sites and inquiring about opportunities with the simple words: “Busco trabajo” (“I am looking for a job”)—is similar to the strategy observed by Cristóbal Mendoza among the Africans in Catalonia (Mendoza 2001). Newcomers worked as farmers, in the field of domestic services, or as unskilled workers in construction, because they lacked language expertise, papers, and support from the 14

locals. It appears that in the sphere of agriculture, where employment is seasonal, some Rudari “revived” their seminomadic way of life. In some exceptional cases, their mobility even became transnational. A good example of agricultural employment is the Rudari family who arrived in Greece in the early 1990s and began seasonal work in the northern part of the country. The family lived in tents during the working season and had permanent winter lodgings. In the autumn, they lived and worked in Chalkida (Euboea island), where they picked grapes, but in the winter, they moved to Sparta (Peloponnese peninsula) or to Karditsa (Thessaly), where they harvested olives or peppers. In the spring, they moved to Katerini, where they picked strawberries; in the summer they worked in Veria (Central Macedonia) picking peaches. In another case, the families of two married sisters lived in Northern Spain during the agricultural season and worked on farms. In the cold season, they moved to Greece, where men worked in the construction sector and women in a sweets factory. The Bulgarian and Rudari women, who in many cases were pioneers in going abroad, quite often began working as domestic servants. The sphere of social and domestic services is reserved for migrant women; it is a gateway for their inclusion in the labor market (King and Zontini 2000). Although they find work more easily than men, the lack of prospects for career development is a great sorrow for women. The longer they work as housemaids, the harder it is for them to find a more prestigious job. Men manage to find work as unskilled laborers in construction, transport, and agriculture.

Women are seen as suitable kitchen assistants, cooks, shop assistants, factory workers, and tourist sector employees. The Rudari view cleaning the homes of Spaniards or Greeks as temporary work, and they quickly seek better work in taverns and restaurants, hotels, or factories. Some Bulgarian women also manage to break free from the “vicious circle” of social and domestic services, finding better jobs through networks of family and friends, or utilizing previous experience. For example, a math teacher from Northern Bulgaria came to Spain with her husband, who is a driving instructor. She started working in the fields, picking onions, after which she began cleaning people’s homes. After taking a qualification course at the University of Valladolid, she began teaching private math lessons to Spanish pupils, and became a principal at the Bulgarian Sunday school. Men usually hold second jobs as construction workers, drivers, garage mechanics, technicians, etc. Some Rudari men found jobs in different carpentry warehouses, which utilizes their woodworking skills.

During the process of adaptation, migrants found more fulfilling niches that also guaranteed a stable income. One option was to register as self-employed and develop a small15

or medium-sized business. The Rudari were more entrepreneurial in Spain and Greece than they had been at home, although the men continued to fear “big business,” as one interlocutor put it. Like other Bulgarians, they established family businesses and opened restaurants, bars, discos, shops for Bulgarian staple foods, phone centers (in Spain), and construction companies.

After several years of living in Spain and Greece, some families gradually changed their migration strategy. A number of families bought flats in Spain on credit. Over time, the money they earned paid for the housing credit, their children’s education, their monthly expenses, and holidays in Bulgaria. A female interlocutor from the Rudari group described the changes in migrants’ lives: “We have already forgotten why we came to Spain in the first place, but the bad thing is we started to live a life, and we no longer save any money.” Their plans to return to Bulgaria remain uncertain. Some informants said they intend to stay abroad until they retire.

Family adaptation and forms of group social organization The reproduction of the community life abroad, maintaining of ties between relatives away from the motherland, and creation of new relationships outside the community demonstrate group flexibility and the ability to adapt in a different milieu than where their travel started. Under the terms of transnational labor mobility, the family is the smallest mobile unit involved in and affected by the migration process. The common pattern is that, wherever they go to Spain or Greece, people communicate first with their fellow travelers (Deneva 2006). In the first stage, the Bulgarians and the Rudari preserve the boundaries between them, although they might have good relationships with neighbors after settling in one village. Relationships between Bulgarians and Rudari are limited. Rudari respondents say they cannot trust Bulgarians because they would cheat them. Bulgarians are perceived as very envious and unsupportive of one another. The Bulgarian respondents say, “With Gypsies, it is better not to deal at all.” Upon arriving, only relatives of the respective regional group are members of Rudari social circles, while Bulgarian social circles can include relatives, friends, and neighbors from their birthplace. Several families form the large Rudari kin unit called “jins”(джинс). There is great solidarity and support among the family and other relatives who comprise the jins. Gómez-Mestres and Molina point out that the Bulgarian social networks in Catalonia are based on kinship ties, not on the ethnic or religious community, in which the most important ties are those to parents (Gómez-Mestres et Molina 2010). Although this is 16

indeed the case, I will give examples of ties that are formed outside the ethnic group and kin unit. These ties are based on shared nationality or religion, as well as mixed marriages, which show the extension of ties beyond the boundaries of the traditional community.

Rudari initiatives—namely joint celebrations, visits, economic decisions, and entrepreneurship, regardless of the conditions and social milieu—take place within the circle of families and kin unit. The Rudari maintain their social life by, for example, going to a restaurant with several other families over the weekend, having a picnic, organizing weekly football or volleyball matches, going to a disco owned by other Rudari, or attending an Evangelical church. Also, Rudari in Crete—most often only women—visit a Greek Pentecostal church and a Rudari Church of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and after the religious services, they sometimes drink coffee together, chat, share information about job opportunities, or discuss life matters (or a member of the community). The most important family gatherings, which inspire cross-border travels so that relatives can be together, are weddings, babies’ christenings, and funerals. These are held both at home and abroad, but more often the dead are buried in the motherland. My interlocutors from Northwestern Bulgaria, for example, are residents of Spain. With it came time to christen their one-year-old, their family organized a big celebration in a restaurant in Northern Spain, and a Bulgarian Orthodox priest from Madrid was invited to perform the baptism. Two hundred guests from Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy were invited.

A second circle of communication is among people from Bulgaria. New friendships sprout up amongst neighbors and co-workers on a daily basis, regardless of their ethnic origin.

Bulgarian citizens are inclined to help one another, regardless of whether they are ethnic Bulgarians, Gypsies, or Turks. Visiting a doctor causes great anxiety for migrants because they cannot always explain how they feel in a foreign language. There is a tacit rule that when it comes to health, a migrant cannot refuse to help someone in need, whether they are Bulgarian or Gypsy (Rudari). A relative (or someone who speaks Spanish well; even a Bulgarian) always accompanies the patient and will assist in conversation with the medical staff (Slavkova 2010). The locutorios in Spain are small phone centers, where migrants can make phone calls to their home country at an affordable rate, use the Internet, and send money or parcels to their relatives back home. In addition to being businesses, they are places where Bulgarian citizens meet, talk, and socialize. There is, for example, a Bulgarian locutorio in Northern Spain. In the square in front of it, Rudari and Bulgarians meet on weekends to chat, share problems, or talk about their week. Rudari began communicating more actively with the 17

other Gypsies from Bulgaria who lived in their village. For example, the friend circle of a young Rudari family in Spain included their relatives, as well as a Turkish family and a Gypsy family from the group of Kalajdzhii (tinsmiths), all of whom often spent their spare time together.

At the inter-community level, Bulgarian citizens continue to differentiate themselves on the basis of their ethnic, regional, or religious belonging, but the Rudari also maintain boundaries between themselves and the other Gypsies. Bulgarians do this when they speak about the Turks or Gypsies in general, or when they become involved in an interpersonal conflict.

The

popular

term,

“tsiganska/balgarska

rabota”—literally,

a

job

done

Gypsy/Bulgarian style—refers to a shoddy piece of work or work done without sufficient effort. It is used to describe the above-mentioned differentiations. For example, when a conflict arose between the women in the Rudari family and the Kalajdzhii family, they broke off mutual contacts and began insulting each other as "Gypsies, but of the lowest kind.”

Finally, the new social milieu is a platform for establishing ties with locals and other migrants. New contacts created at the workplace are a source of information from outside the group about possible job opportunities. They can also become a source of support in the context of emigration. When Spanish employers trust migrants, they will help the next wave of arriving relatives find a job. For instance, a father, son, and nephew work together at a construction company, while the mother and daughters-in-law work as nannies and maids in the Spanish company owner’s house. The support of local people is important to the Bulgarians because they will always be foreigners. Bulgarians from Sofia, for instance, have a good neighborly relationship with an elderly Spanish couple. This couple helps them look after their school-age children, takes them on holidays, and teaches them to speak and write in proper Spanish. Some changes also occur while organizing a Rudari wedding in Greece, for example. Couples usually become engaged in Bulgaria, and then a civil ceremony is held. The wedding celebration is organized abroad, and around 400 or 500 guests gather. Besides the traditional gifts (such as blankets), guests give household appliances and envelopes of money.

If a brother or sister marry, their closest relatives give them €300 to €400 (the more distant relatives give less). They invite popular Gypsy musicians from Bulgaria to play, paying €2000 to €3000 per occasion. Besides traditional Bulgarian folklore music, more contemporary popfolk and Greek music have entered the Rudari wedding celebrations. Sometimes, Greeks are even invited to weddings.

18

Mixed marriages result from the influence of the local environment on group development. Intermarriage can be seen as a strategy for adaptation and integration into new societies. Mixed marriages were rare in Spain, both among Bulgarians and Rudari. By tradition, Rudari marriages occur only within the regional group; mixed marriages are not considered successful. Traditionally, mixed marriages are to a member of another regional group, a member of Ursari (although there are examples of such marriages), to Bulgarians, or to other Gypsies. In migration situations, intermarriage to members of other regional groups who live abroad in the same or neighboring villages, and to foreigners, has become more common. In Greece, several examples of cohabitation between Greeks and Bulgarians can be found, as well as examples of intermarriage. For example, the headmistress of one of the Bulgarian schools in Greece lived with a Greek man; it was a second marriage for both of them. In another case, a Bulgarian schoolteacher was married to a Greek man, whom she met while they were studying together in Bulgaria. In Greece, marriage in the form of cohabitation with Greeks is more common among the Rudari, especially if both parties are already divorced. For example, the sister of my informant had a second marriage with a Greek man, who owned a hotel on Crete. In another case, a female interlocutor was married to a Rudar from another regional group, but upon separating from her husband, her son stayed to live with his father. She remarried and had a daughter. Her second husband left her and went to live with a Greek woman, with whom he had another child.

An interesting question is whether there are mutual relationships between the Rudari and other Gypsies (local Spanish and Greek Gypsies, or Romanian Gypsies from Romania), as well as between Rudari and Romanians from Romania. The Bulgarian Gypsies, including the Rudari, have no contact whatsoever with the local Spanish, Greek, or foreign migrant Gypsies. The living standards of Gitanos (or Calé/Calos) (San Román 1976), for example, are higher than those of the Balkan Gypsies. They occupy their own specific economic niches, and do not have professional or other contact with the Gypsy migrants. There is a local Rudari population in Greece; the Bulgarian Rudari had often never heard of them. If they had, the Rudari considered the two groups to have nothing in common; they considered themselves more Bulgarian. This also applies to the Romanian Gypsies (Gamella 2006), whom the Rudari perceive as beggars and nomads. This is also the case with the Rudari, who demonstrate an identity of Rumanians (old Rumanians) while living in Bulgaria, but always present themselves as Bulgarians to Spaniards and Greeks; this is not to say that they change their identity, but by comparison with the Romanians from Romania, the Rudari realize they are 19

totally different from them. The Rudari avoid speaking Romanian in front of them so as not to be misconstrued as Romanians—or worse, as Gypsies—for fear of being excluded. According to the interlocutors, the Romanians from Romania were poor workers and thieves, and this is why nobody wants to be identified with them. For example, my informants from Crete were neighbors of a Romanian family. They did not maintain any contact with them. When I asked why they did not communicate with them, they told me that they “felt Bulgarian,” and there was “no need to communicate with Romanians.”

Contact with other migrants is limited to co-workers or housemates (if they live in shared accommodation). Of course, there are examples of friendly relationships with other foreigners, but Bulgarians and the Rudari create more friendships with the local people and rely on their support. This is a form of adaptation in the host society. Presumably, people from the Balkan countries and those from the former socialist countries are perceived as being closer than other migrants, but usually they do not even interact with each other. The Bulgarians and the Rudari have almost no contact with migrants who are Latin American, African, or Moroccan, other than in cases where they happen to live in the same neighborhood, work in the same construction company, or shop regularly in the same Chinese stores. Thus, a family of Bulgarians in Spain shared a house with Peruvians – the Bulgarians lived on the first floor and the Peruvians on the second—but they had very little contact with each other, apart from saying hello if they happened to meet.

Development of collective integration strategies Spanish and Greek state and local institutions influence the communities I have been studying. Bulgarian citizens depend on such authorities, and they communicate with them on a regular basis. They also keep in contact with Bulgarian institutions. The community has created its own structures to mediate between the receiving country and their motherland around legalizing their status. The community creates associations and schools, which represent them as a foreign group in Spain and Greece, and as Bulgarians to the Bulgarian authorities. Thus, they have their own representatives who can interact effectively both with the members of the community and with the respective institutions. In Spain, there are over fifty-five;

Greece

has

around

ten

associations

and

Sunday

schools

(http://www.aba.government.bg). The principle behind their function is the following: an association is established first, and then a Sunday school is opened in conjunction with it. The Bulgarians in Spain and Greece have not yet established their own national federal structure 20

like the Romanians did in Spain. In Spain, an attempt at unification failed a few years ago; one of the two candidates was from the Rudari group. The associations and schools function on educational and cultural levels. The cultural functions are carried out via Sunday schools, which teach Bulgarian language, literature, history, and geography, and hold extracurricular classes in applied and stage art, folklore, singing, and dancing. The Rudari children go to Spanish schools and Bulgarian schools; occasionally, they fill up the entire class. The situation is different in Greece: they rarely attend Bulgarian classes and only go to Greek schools.

Bulgarian activists are endlessly oppositional. The dynamics of the distances depend on the interactions with the local and Bulgarian institutions. This trend is similar in Greece and Spain; activists’ confrontational behavior stems from their desire to become established members of the Bulgarian community. The contradictory relation of cooperation/competition within the community is evidence that the Bulgarians see themselves as a community. The presidents of associations, headmasters, and teachers often compete amongst themselves; for instance, a teacher in one of the schools will decide to set up a new school, and break away from the old school. The first Sunday schools that originated in Spain were often subsidized

by Spanish institutions with funding from Bulgarian organizations. This is not, however, the case in Greece. There, the collective initiatives of the migrants, related to the performance of Bulgarian culture and language, is influenced by the Greek ideology of the nation-state orientated to the preservation and promotion of a unified Greek national identity and culture (Kaurinkoski 2010). Bulgarian school in Thessaloniki, for example, has the status of a religious school; religion classes are included in the curriculum. Its director is of Greek origin and the teachers are Bulgarian. Some Catholic churches and organizations in Spain allow Bulgarian schools to hold classes on their premises free of charge. For example, the school in Gandia donates its facilities for training purposes to the Palace of the Borgias, which is partially occupied by the Jesuits. The Bulgarian state began providing financial assistance to schools in the 2008/2009 academic year. The creation of the national program, “Native language and culture abroad,” helped open more Sunday schools throughout Spain and Greece, but contributed to the process of disintegration. There are a growing number of schools that prefer to manage their own budget and funding. There is a trend of better cooperation among organizations and schools within the same Spanish autonomous community. This is due to geographic proximity, and the fact that they have access to the same resources and communicate with the same institutions. For example, on the anniversary 21

of Bulgaria’s national hero Vasil Levski in 2010, six Bulgarian Sunday schools in Valencia staged a cultural and musical program together under the motto: “Alive in Time.” However, the Bulgarian organizations and their respective schools in Madrid and Valencia have positioned themselves as the most proactive centers that try to attract activists from other regions, thus contributing to the unification process on a supra-regional level.

The second direction is cultural. The promotion of Bulgarian history and traditions is implemented through various initiatives. They are not intended solely for the Bulgarian community, although mostly Bulgarians attend, and official invitations are yet to be sent out to members of the majority and other migrant communities. Some holiday celebrations are more ostentatious in Spain and Greece than they used to be in Bulgaria. The initiatives correspond to the organization of celebrations on various occasions—usually events related to Bulgarian history (March 3, the Day of Bulgaria’s Liberation from Ottoman rule; May 24, the Day of the Cyrillic Alphabet and Bulgarian Education and Culture, etc.), or common Bulgarian holidays (Christmas; March 1, Baba Marta, Grandma Marta; March 8, International Women’s Day, etc.). Next, I will give a few examples of good practices of Bulgarian associations. The organization of the all-nation conventions and conferences was a positive step toward the unification of Bulgarian citizens. The first gathering of Bulgarians from the region of Castile and León took place in October 2009 in Cuéllar (Northern Spain). It was organized by the newly-formed “Tzar Simeon” (King Simeon) Federation, which is a Rudari federation. The event was advertised as a Bulgarian festival, with Bulgarian cuisine, music, and dance. The motto of the first Bulgarian convention in Spain was: “All the Bulgarians Together.” The slogan of the first joint conference of Bulgarian schools in Spain (organized in 2010) was: “The Bulgarian school in Spain; specifics, achievements and challenges.”

Participation in multicultural festivals and other initiatives organized by the Spaniards is an essential part of the work of associations and their Sunday schools. They are part of the state’s strategy for immigrant inclusion in Spanish community life. The Bulgarians feel honored by these festivals. They also see them as expressions of their desire to be recognized as a united community, and equally important to Spanish society as the other migrant communities. One such event is “The New Segovians,” an annual festival held in the city of Segovia, Northern Spain. Spanish, Bulgarian, Romanian, Bolivian, and Peruvian people participated in this festival in 2009. They presented national costumes, cuisine, and dances.

Participation in such initiatives is crucial because Bulgarians want to feel integrated into Spanish society as much as they want to demonstrate their nationality.

22

The Rudari in Spain are more active than those in Greece with their political participation, engagement in various associations of Bulgarians, and formation of their own organizations. They want to manifest their identity as Bulgarian citizens. Rudari men are often invited to be members of the electoral committees in Spain during the Bulgarian general and presidential elections. They are listed as candidates for different parties in Spain during local elections. For example, a Rudari man was included on the People's Party ticket with the candidates for local elections in Spain in 2007. The activities organized by the Rudari associations can be seen as a strategy to maintain solidarity and sociability between members.

For example, the “Tzar Simeon” federal structure in Spain—which houses several Rudari organizations whose leaders are related—holds its annual gatherings under the guise of official meetings of Bulgarian citizens abroad. In fact, it is a way for the members of the Rudari group to socialize and maintain their group identity. Furthermore, the president of the Rudari federation not only looks after his own community, but after all Bulgarians. He oversees educational, cultural, and social events for the Bulgarian community; for instance, he held a football tournament for immigrant youth in Spain, and formed a Sunday school for Bulgarian kids. Some time ago, his second association, “Gabriela,” signed a contract with a Bulgarian bank and a Spanish bank that facilitated access for Bulgarian nationals to housing credits at favorable interest rates and terms; this made it easier for them to purchase houses in Bulgaria or Spain. The situation in Greece is different from that in Spain; Rudari in Greece stay away (to some extent) from the inter-community organization of the Bulgarians, and do not form their own organizations.

Identity imaginations When it comes to Bulgarian citizens in Greece and Spain, it also appears that their new environments influence their identity. All Bulgarian citizens abroad feel that they belong to the Bulgarian community first and foremost, regardless of their ethnic or religious affiliation.

These members think and act depending on the position they occupy within the community, and accept the other people by mimetism or contrast (Рагару 2010). They define their neighboring communities (the majority and the other migrants) in ethnic dimensions (Spanish and Greek people, Gypsies, etc.), and also by country of origin (Spaniards, Greeks, Romanians, Ecuadorians). Under the terms of migration, the process of identification as Bulgarians/Bulgarian citizens is enhanced; one of the reasons is that they feel attached to their homeland. Unifying effect plays not only the tendency that they all declare themselves as 23

Bulgarian citizens, but also the fact that they are “imagined” as a “united” Bulgarian community by the surrounding Spanish and Greek population (Аnderson 1991).

In a way, Bulgarians and Rudari have become part of the Spanish and Greek societies, regardless of their status as a foreign community. Along with their inclusion in various social circles of Bulgarian citizens, members might be part of Spanish or Greek social circles as well. Among the Bulgarians, there is a tendency to demonstrate to the other compatriots that they are better integrated and belong more to the Spanish or Greek communities than to the community of migrants from Bulgaria. They express this feeling of belonging to the local communities in various ways: some Bulgarians say they prefer to stay in touch only with locals, and they avoid communicating with their own compatriots because relations with them only bring trouble. They sometimes say that there is no need for their children to attend Bulgarian classes or to speak Bulgarian, because they will not return home, and so knowledge of the Bulgarian language would be useless. Life in a foreign-language environment, and the linguistic proximity of the Spanish and Romanian languages, gives the Rudari from Bulgaria reason to feel that they share common origins with the Spanish. According to some informants, the Rudari and the Spanish bear a physical resemblance (they share an anthropological closeness). On the other hand, their stay in both countries enhances the feeling of Rudari identity. It proves they have nothing in common with the “Gypsies” and that they belong to a separate Rudari community that has its own history and origins, and who are more similar to Spaniards, for example, than to Gypsies.

Finally, as I have observed during my fieldwork in Spain and Greece, life in emigration also has another religious dimension related to the identity imagination. For instance, the only Rudari from Bulgaria—which could have closer relationships with the local Gitanos and with local Greek Gypsies, or with the migrant Gypsies from Romania—are the Evangelical Christians. Keeping in mind the religious profile of the migrants (Muslim, Orthodox, and Evangelists), we could say that the Evangelists are the one who help each other out to the greatest extent. Evangelical Gypsies, except for the sense of belonging to their own Gypsy group or to the Bulgarian migrant community, also have the consciousness of belonging to the community of “God’s chosen people,” and to those who are “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Slavkova 2007).

Adjusting to home

24

Some authors argue that returning is just another kind of immigration (Čapo Žmegač 2010). Homecoming is desirable to all migrants, regardless of how long they have lived and worked abroad. For them, coming home is the natural completion of their journey to the “Mediterranean.”

Homesickness It is no coincidence that the migrants who have lived the longest in Spain and Greece are the ones with strong, nostalgic feelings for their homeland. They are often impatient to visit Bulgaria and their relatives. During holiday visits, migrants realize that it is possible to have the material comforts from abroad with a more fulfilling life at home. During such visits, migrants often feel confident that they will return home for good soon, but this is usually an illusion. The Bulgarians and the Rudari travel to Bulgaria almost every year to spend their vacation with relatives. Often, traditional holidays or family gatherings are the reason they return to Bulgaria. At the same time, of great importance at home are the so-called “welcome” and “send” days of the gurbetchii. Big celebrations are organized on these days; a lamb is slaughtered, and relatives and friends participate.

Causes for returning home Changes in the economic situation of Spain and Greece over the last couple of years have triggered new challenges for families. Some remained jobless and were confronted with the dilemma of whether to stay or return to Bulgaria. For the time being, the majority of them remain in Spain and Greece, despite the increasing number of families that have returned to Bulgaria since 2008. Some families returned to Bulgaria with the intention of going back to Spain or Greece as soon as the crisis is over. Some families prefer to remain on the job market in Spain and Greece, and to look for new job opportunities. A particularly difficult dilemma is raised for families whose children were born and socialized abroad; it would be difficult for them to move to Bulgaria. There are no exact numbers of how many returnees went home.

According to the data of the last census in Bulgaria (in 2011), there are 233,463 people who have resided abroad for different periods of time (www.nsi.bg).

Return migration is also motivated by personal reasons, such as ill health, the death of a relative, or the breakup of marriage. A couple returned after having lived for seven years in Athens because the woman got sick and preferred to be treated in Bulgaria. They decided to stay in their hometown, where she currently works as an engineer in the municipality and the 25

man works as a taxi driver. Another important reason to return home is that migrants feel attached to their land of birth, despite their complaints and dissatisfaction. Some elderly migrants want to have a comfortable retirement at home and to be buried there—not in a foreign land.

Re-adaptation of the returnees Some Bulgarians went abroad to earn money, to get life experience, and to return home, satisfied that they have achieved something in their lives. When returning home, they expect to be welcomed with respect by their local communities, and to occupy a new, more authoritative social position because of the experience and knowledge they have acquired. It is, however, rarely as easy as they expect. Most of my interlocutors were dissatisfied after returning home, and they believe they would be happier going abroad again. Some of my female informants, for example, said that during the first year at home, they dreamt they were still living abroad, and sometimes fell into depression because of their dissatisfaction. All returnees move from a developed to a less-developed country (in economic terms), and some of them move from an urban area back to a small town or village. The problem is that they have become very experienced abroad, and this has changed them both personally and professionally. At home, the economic situation has not improved—at least, not as much as they expected—and their homecoming did not meet their expectations, all of which results in disappointment. A good example is this is of a female interlocutor, who works as a rehabilitator. She had lived for ten years in Athens, where she did unskilled work as carehelper, after which she used her Greek friend contacts and managed to find work as a rehabilitator. Meanwhile, her husband and two children were living in Bulgaria. She returned to Bulgaria in 2007 due to personal problems. After her return home, she was very disappointed that nothing in her native town had changed for the better, but rather for the worse. She opened a private medical center but was soon compelled to close it, due to administrative difficulties, and the fact that people in her native town were poor and could not afford massages. Now, she intends to return to Athens, this time with her daughter, who is a student in Greek at the Veliko Tarnovo University. Some returnees are disappointed by what is happening at home in terms of relations between the people because it differs from what they expected to be, although the things were the same when they were gone. After returning, their demands of other people are higher. Some returnees reported being disappointed by having to wait while a civil servant chatted with colleagues, or by an unsmiling shop assistant, or even by the fact that nobody greeted them on the street.

26

The most challenging part of the return is re-adaptation. Nearly all of the migrants expected to socialize in their native communities with the help of relatives and friends. For the returnee, initiation of work at home means a lower salary, another operation mode (because many come back with a changed attitude towards work), and—eventually—a lower living standard than abroad. Many said they learned abroad the value of hard work and how to be successful. Yet, when the Bulgarian migrants return to Bulgaria, they feel alienated, because other Bulgarians may not understand their new perspective and cannot share their criticism of certain Bulgarian attitudes (e.g. working at a low wage). Another aspect of their disappointment was related to their expectations of being given special attention by the state and politicians. Indeed, in Bulgaria, a National Strategy for Migration and Integration (20082015) has been launched, with special measures proposed for enticing emigrants to return home and for integration of the returnees. Some of the returnees, however, do not evaluate the measures positively, because they still believe that the state does not care for its citizens, as a female returnee claims in the next example. During a conference devoted to the integration of Bulgarians in Spain (which took place in late 2010 in Sofia, and was organized by the Embassy of Spain in Bulgaria), a Bulgarian woman—a lawyer by profession—who lived in Spain for twelve years and then returned, explained that Spain had been a second homeland for her, where she had experienced her best years, and she stressed her disappointment with what happened to her after returning home.

Impact of the returnees on their community I expected the returnees to play a more important role in the development of their local communities. Their role as agents of new knowledge, transferring their successful experience abroad, is not so impactful. Their impact at this stage is more at the level of family and friend social circles; these are who benefit the most. Opportunities for migrants to apply their experience abroad exist more in the private sector than the public (Oxfeld and Long 2004).

Upon their return to Bulgaria, some of them invest their earnings in housing (or in renovating their homes in a new Spanish or Greek style), in buying furniture and technology for the home, or in a car. Many of them start their own business in construction, mushroom exports, cars imports and exports, auto service, or a restaurant or shop. Successful migrants are expected to be rich. They become the new “businessmen” of the neighborhood. Ownership of a new car and the purchase of a house are important status symbols. The next example is of a Rudari family who, until recently, had worked in Greece, but remained jobless and returned to 27

Bulgaria. They decided to settle in the capital Sofia rather than in their native town. They opened a bakery, relying on the support of her sister’s family. They do not want to return to their hometown, because it is a small and rural, and local people are not well off. Gurbet influences people’s self-esteem upon their return to Bulgaria. Besides being better off than their neighbors and acquaintances—which they never fail to demonstrate—those who have returned start to feel more like “Europeans,” because they have left their native neighborhoods,

been

to

the

West,

and

tackled

the

challenges

abroad.

“European=Spanish/Greek” is demonstrated by various means. Informants from the Rudari group from South Bulgaria threw a party in a restaurant for their son's prom. The father organized the celebration the way “the Spanish do it.” The only difference is that the graduate is not given presents. Instead, every one of the guests leaves behind an envelope with some cash inside.

Conclusion This paper developed a comparative perspective of the experiences of the Bulgarians and the Rudari in two different migration contexts in Greece and Spain. Conducting field research in the respective countries among the Bulgarians and Rudari, I followed the “way of the migrants from home to the destination and back,” trying to understand their perspectives.

By highlighting the process of ethnographic fieldwork, I tried to show how the interlocutors negotiated their identities and social positions. By introducing my method of doing fieldwork, I hoped to make the study more accessible to migrants.

The text provided a panoptic picture of the labor mobility process, its histories, and its itineraries. Labor mobility appeared to be an important part of Bulgarian and Rudari life from the past until currently practiced differently by them during the historical periods and in different specific modes (gurbet, seminomadic mobility, and economic travelings during socialist times). After 1989, the emigration of Bulgarian citizens to the EU countries was a widespread phenomenon. The east-south move to the Mediterranean countries in the 1990s was a part of this flow. These countries were recognized by many Bulgarian citizens as possible destinations and later became second homes for them. The contemporary Rudari mobility pattern is similar to the pattern of Bulgarians; one of the main reasons for this is that they (as Bulgarian citizens) are part of the same Bulgarian society, and the Gypsies (Rudari, in this case) are its ethnically-based integral part within. The two groups had identical reasons for emigration: most of them left due to economic reasons, such as lack of work and the desire 28

to improve their families’ standard of living. The differences between the two migrant communities become visible when we examine them at the "group" level. This is evident especially in the case of the Rudari, who are a small, relatively well-preserved endogamous group. Rudari mobility, which was practiced in the past, has been revived in modern times, but in a modified version where—along with the Bulgarians—they joined the common migration flows to the Mediterranean. The gurbet becomes something more than a literal crossing of borders; namely, a very important community feature for the Rudari. The current mobility of Bulgarians also has similarities to their traditional mobility of gurbet, since they recreated previous economic strategies. The transnational movement has important economic and social functions: by traveling, the communities can sustain their families and develop their social group organizations. Labor mobility does not ruin the ethnic and social structures or inter-communal way of life of migrant groups; in fact, it maintains their internal harmony.

The emergence of migrant clusters is one of the main results of transnational labor migration.

Bulgarian citizens and Rudari developed similar migration strategies abroad. Some are temporary migrants, who return to Bulgaria eventually, while others become emigrants, settling permanently in the host country and adjusting to the “Spanish and Greek way of life.”

Their pattern of social adaptation in these countries, however, has ethnic specificities. These are mainly the various interconnections and interactions with the foreign populations, the forms of inter-communal social organizations, and intermarriages (and their impact on migrant communities). I also discussed how different levels of social networks sustained the reproduction of the ethnic community while living and working outside the homeland.

Generally, the boundaries between these groups are preserved. They are not static and are not visible to the local population, to whom they appear to be the same group. As a result of the communities’ development in both countries, Bulgarian citizens have introduced various collective integration strategies, establishing associations and schools through which they position and shape their traditional relationships within the new society. These organizations and schools are far more comprehensive in their public commitments, developing various strategies to demonstrate their affiliation to the motherland while incorporating Bulgarian citizens into their causes. Various forms of identity development appeared because some members of the groups began to imagine themselves as part of the local communities and to pretend that they were involved, not only in their traditional social circles, but also in new social circles of Spaniards and Greeks. The negotiation between Bulgarian citizen identity and

29

Rudari identity impacts the social organization of the Rudari and the way they conceive their social position.

There are similarities and differences between migrations to Spain and Greece.

Different configurations of groups exist in the different destinations. I argued that the differences between contexts (in terms of levels of reproducing the community and the significance of network mobilization) depended on the specifics of the different contexts, as well as the structural conditions in which the migrating group was involved. Migrations to Spain and Greece are similar in their intensity and scale. Because the two countries are recognized by Bulgarian citizens as the most attractive destinations in Europe, Spain and Greece both attracted families who believed they could adapt there successfully and start their lives anew. Seasonal mobility towards Greece still exists due to its geographical proximity. A specific feature of the migration to Spain is that it attracted migrants with its higher standard, and the possibility that migrants could remain invisible to the Spanish society. In Spain, Bulgarian citizens develop various collective integration strategies on a larger scale, have greater political influence on the Bulgarian community there, and try to have a decisionmaking impact on the politics related to Bulgarians back home. In Greece, the Bulgarian citizens’ communal way of life is less organized and smaller scale, due to attitudes towards foreigners and the politics around their integration. It also appears that, in the Spanish case, the Rudari are successfully included in Bulgarian community life, and that they develop the same integration strategies, while in Greece, they remained outside Bulgarian communal life, maintaining their group social organization based on kinship ties. The reasons for this difference can be found in their different migratory contexts and in the higher or lower degree of social integration of Rudari within Bulgarian communities.

This paper argues that the “Mediterranean journey” is part of a dynamic and reversible process that brought about a number of changes in the migrants’ way of life. Just when the two groups felt well-adapted in both Spain and Greece, economic crisis negatively affected these countries—especially the sectors that employed many Bulgarian citizens. As a result, returning migration gave rise. Returnees use their knowledge and experience abroad, and when they return home, they assume they will occupy the same social position they had before leaving; some expect to occupy a new, more prestigious position because of their experience abroad. The reality is a challenge for returnees; local people do not always accept them the way they had hoped, or their new expectations of how others should treat them cause disappointment. In returning, they use the same strategies of adaptation that they used abroad: 30

they initiate small businesses, and rely on their kinship to re-adapt and resume their old neighborhood or friendship ties. If these adaptation strategies of migrants and returnees are successful, they will establish permanent lives in the destination countries. If they are unsuccessful, the reasons for emigration will arise once more, and this will cause them to seek new destinations for employment and a better life.

Notes: [1] The article uses the results of studies carried out among the Bulgarian community in Spain under the project, “Labor activities of Bulgarians in Spain,” funded by the National Science Fund of the Bulgarian Ministry of Education, Youth and Science, as well as results from studies conducted among migrant families in Greece and Bulgaria under the project, “Moving People, Changing Perspectives: Bulgarian Migrations and Economic Crises,” supported by ERSTE Foundation, Social Research Fellowship “Generations in Dialogue,” Austria.

Literature: Аnderson, Benedict 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Atkinson, Robert 1998. The life story interview. Sage Publications.

Balkanologie 2008. Partir, revenir: imaginaires et itinéraires migratoires bulgares en Europe (sous la direction de Nadège Ragaru), vol. XI, n°1-2.

Barth, Frederik, ed. 1969. Introduction. Barth, Frederic, ed. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen-Oslo-London: George Allen and Unwin. Čapo Žmegač, Jasna 2008. Parochial Transnationals: Being of Croatian Descent in Germany. Marushiakova, Elena, ed. Dynamics of National Identity and Transnational Identities in the Process of European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 323-339. Čapo Žmegač, Jasna 2010. Return Migration: the Changing Faces and Challenging Facets of a Field of Study. Ethnologia Balkanica 14, pp. 227-245.

31

De Laine, Marlene, 2000. Fieldwork, Participation and Practice. Ethics and Dilemmas in Qualitative Research. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd. Deneva, Neda 2006. The Role of Ethnicity in the Re-construction of the Community: Internal and International Migration in a Bulgarian Muslim Village. Szczepanikova, Alice, Marek Čaněk and Jan Grill, eds. Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity. Prague: Multikulturní centrum Praha, pp. 20-25.

Erolova, Yelis 2010. Labor migrations of the Bulgarian Roma in Poland (A case study on Roma from Balchik). Romani mobilities in Europe: Multidisciplinary perspectives.

University

of

Oxford.

Conference

Proceedings

(http://romanimobilities.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/conference-proceedings1.pdf), pp. 5257.

Fakiolas, Rossetos, and Laura Maratou-Alipranti 2000. Foreign female immigrants in Greece. Papers, vol. 60, pp. 101-117. Фокус 2010 (Информационна агенция „Фокус”). Благородна Филевска: През последните години в Гърция пристигат все повече млади емигранти от България [Number of young emigrants from Bulgaria arriving in Greece increased in the recent years].

18 April 2010 [http://www.focus-news.net/?id=f14625].

Gabărski, Nikolay 2008. Les expériences migratoires bulgares en Grèce depuis 1989.

Balkanologie, Vol. XI, n° 1-2 [http://balkanologie.revues.org/index1142.html].

Gamella, Juan 2006. L’immigration ignorée : les Roms roumains en Espagne », Etudes tsiganes. Migrations tsiganes, vol. 27-28, p. 116-156.

Gay y Blasco, Paloma 1999. Gypsies in Madrid. Sex, Gender and the Performance of Identity. Oxford - New-York.

Geertz, Clifford 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Gmelch, George 1980. Return migration. Annual review of Anthropology, vol. 9, pp.

135-159.

Gmelch, George 2004. West Indian Migrants and their Rediscovery of Barbados.

Oxfeld, Ellen, and Lynellyn D. Long, eds. Coming Home? Refugees, Migrants, and Those Who Stayed Behind. Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn Press, pp. 206-225.

32

Gómez-Mestres, Sílvia et Jose Luis Molina 2010. Les nouvelles migrations dans l’Europe : chaînes migratoires, établissement et réseaux sociaux des Bulgares en Espagne et en Catalogne. Balkanologie [http://balkanologie.revues.org/index2211.html], Vol. XII, n° 2.

Guentcheva Rossitza, Petya Kabakchieva, and Plamen Kolarski. 2004. Migration Trends in Selected EU Applicant Countries. Vol. 1 Bulgaria. The Social Impact of Seasonal Migration, Viena: IOM. Haug, Sonja 2008. Migration Networks and Migration Decision-Making. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 585-605.

Ibáñez Angulo, Mónica 2008. Nation Building within the European Union: Reframing Bulgarian National Identity from Abroad. Marushiakova, Elena, ed. Dynamics of National Identity and Transnational Identities in the Process of European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 154-189. Карамихова, Маргарита, съст. 2003. Да живееш там, да се сънуваш тук. Емиграционни процеси в началото на ХХІ век [Living There, Dreaming Here: Emigration Attitudes in the Beginning of 21st Century]. София: МЦИМКВ.

Kaurinkoski, Kira 2010. Priviliged Co-ethnic Greek Migrants from the Former Soviet Union in the Greater Athens Area: Reflection on Individual and Collective Intergration Strategies into Greek society. Čapo Žmegač, Jasna, ed. Co-ethnic Migrations Compared.

Central and Eastern European Contexts. München-Berlin: Verlag Otto Sagner, pp. 119-139.

King, Russel, and Elisabeta Zontini 2000. The role of gender in the South European immigration model. Papers, No. 60, pp. 35-52.

Lecompte, Margaret 2002. The transformation of ethnographic practice: past and current challenges. Qualitative Research, vol. 2 (3). London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 283-299.

Macías, Almudena 2003. Mujeres inmigrantes extracomunitarias en Navarra. Laparra Navarro, Miguel (coord.). Extranjeros en el purgatorio. Intergación social de los inmigrantes en el espacio local. Gobierno de Navarra, Universidad Pública de Navarra: Edicions Bellaterra, S.L., p. 247-268.

33

Maeva, Mila 2010. Organizations and institutions of Bulgarian imigrations in the UK. Karamihova, Margarita, ed. Readings in the history and culture of the Balkans. In support of the University teaching. Sofia: Paradigma, pp. 173-195.

Marcus, George E. 1995. Ethnography In/Of the World System: the Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 24, pp. 95-117.

Marushiakova, Elena, and Vesselin Popov 1998. Bear-Trainers in Bulgaria (Tradition and Contemporary Situation). Ethnologia Bulgarica. Sofia, vol. 1, pp. 106-116. Марушиакова, Елена, Веселин Попов 2000. Циганите в Османската империя. [Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire]. София: Литавра.

Marushiakova, Еlena, ed. 2008. Dynamics of National Identity and Transnational Identities in the Process of European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Marushiakova, Elena, and Veselin Popov 2011. Between Exoticization and Marginalization. Current Problems of Gypsy Studies. Benemoth, a Journal on Civilisation, Nr. 1. Verlag Walter de Gruyter, pp. 51-68.

Mendoza, Cristóbal 2001. Cultural dimensions of African immigrants in Iberian labor markets: a comparative approach. Russell King, ed. The Mediterranean Passage. Migration and New Cultural Encounters in Southern Europe. Liverpool Univ. Press, pp. 41-66. Монитор 2010. Всеки трети български емигрант заминава за Испания [Every third of the Bulgarian emigrants went to Spain]. 27 November 2010 [http://bginfo.es].

Oxfeld, Ellen, and Lynellyn D. Long 2004, eds. Coming Home? Refugees, Migrants, and Those Who Stayed Behind. Philadelphia: Univ. of Penn. Press.

Piramida 2011. Revistă de cultură, investigaţie şi atitudine, num. 2, an. I. Băieşii în contextual sud-slav. Institutul de cultură al Românilor din Voivodina. Zrenianin. Рагару, Надеж 2010. Преплетените времена на настоящето. България 20 години след 1989-та [Intertwining times of the present. Bulgaria 20 years after 1989]. София: Критика и хуманизъм.

Rangelova, Rossitsa 2006. Gender dimension of the New Bulgaria’s Migration: Comments on Empirical data. Migration Online (April 2006) [www.migrationonline.cz].

Recaño Valverde, Joaquín y Andreu Domingo i Valls 2006. Evolución de la distribución territorial y la movilidad geográfica de la población extranjera en España. Aja, 34

Eliseo y Arango, Joaquín, eds. Veinte años de inmigración en España. Perspectiva jurídica y sociológica [1985-2004]. Barcelona: Fundació CIDOB, p. 303-339.

San Román, Teresa 1976. Vecinos gitanos. Madrid: Akal editor. Сикимиħ, Биљана, уредн. 2005. Бањаши на Балкану. Идентитет етничке заjеднице. Београд: Српска Академиjа Наука и Уметности, Балканолошки Институт „САНУ.” Славкова, Магдалена 2005. Rudari u istočnoj Bugarskoj i jevanđeljski pokret [Rudari Group in the Eastern Bulgaria and the Evangelical Movement]. Сикимиħ, Биљана (уредн.). Бањаши на Балкану. Идентитет етничке заjеднице. Београд: Српска Академиjа Наука и Уметности, Балканолошки Институт „САНУ,” 277-294.

Slavkova, Magdalena, 2007. Evangelical Gypsies in Bulgaria: Way of Life and Performance of Identity. Romani Studies, vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 205-247.

Slavkova, Magdalena 2010. Estrategias migratorias de la población gitana bulgara en España. Perifería. Revista electrónica. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Departamento de Antropología Social y Cultural (http://antropologia.uab.es/Periferia/index.html), núm. 12.

Soultanova,

Ralitza.

Les

migrations

multiples

de

la

population

bulgare.

[http://balkans.courriers.info/IMG/rtf/Les_migrations_multiples_de_la_population_bulgare.rtf ].

Stanchev, Krassen et al. ed. 2005. Bulgarian Migration: Incentives and Constellations.

Sofia: Open Society Institute.

Stewart, Мichael 1997. The Time of the Gypsies. Boulder: Westview Press.

Sutherland, Anne 1998. The making of Belize. Globalization in the Margins. Westport, London: Bergin & Garvey.

Tsuda, Takeyuki 1998. Ethnicity and the Anthropologist: Negotiating Identities in the Field. Anthropological Quarterly, vol. 71, No. 3, pp. 107-124.

Viruela Martínez, Rafael 2008. Población rumana y búlgara en España: evolución, distribución geográfica y flujos migratorios. Cuad. de Geográfia, núm. 84, p. 169-194.

Watts, Jacqueline 2006. “The outsider within”: dilemmas of qualitative feminist research within a culture of resistance. Qualitative Research, vol. 6(3), pp. 385–402.

35

Magdalena Slavkova is a Research Associate in the Balkan Ethnology Department, Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. Her research interests are related to Romani communities’ identities, Evangelical religious mobilization of Romani groups and their leadership patterns, and labor mobility of Romani communities in Europe. She also studies the lifestyles of Bulgarian citizens in the Mediterranean countries.

Slavkova has experience in doing research among various Romani groups in Bulgaria and abroad, and she has also conducted fieldwork among Bulgarian migrants in Spain, Greece, and Portugal. Slavkova has been working both individually and as a member of research teams to research and document Romani religion, identity, and mobility, as well as engaging in several projects related to the Bulgarian migrant communities.

36 Â Â