Global Villages: Rural and Urban Transformations in Contemporary Bulgaria (Anthem Series on Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies) - Hardcover

Hardcover

ISBN 10: 0857280732 ISBN 13: 9780857280732

Publisher: Anthem Press, 2013

Synopsis

This book explores the multiple effects of globalization on urban and rural communities, providing anthropological case studies from postsocialist Bulgaria. As globalization has been studied largely in urban contexts, the aim of this volume is to shift attention to the under-examined countryside and analyse how transnational links are transforming relations between cities, towns and villages. The volume also challenges undifferentiated notions of ‘the countryside’, calling for an awareness of rural economic and social disparities which are often only associated with urban environments. The work focuses on how the ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ have been reconfigured following the end of socialism and the advent of globalization, in socioeconomic, as well as political, ideological and cultural terms.

About this title

About the Author

Ger Duijzings is reader in the anthropology of Eastern Europe at the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London.

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Global Villages

Rural and Urban Transformations in Contemporary Bulgaria

By Ger Duijzings

Wimbledon Publishing Company

Copyright © 2013 Ger Duijzings
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-0-85728-073-2

Contents

Preface and Acknowledgements, vii, 
Note on Transliteration, ix, 
Chapter 1 Introduction Ger Duijzings, 1, 
Chapter 2 Rural–Urban Relations in a Global Age Deema Kaneff, 33, 
Chapter 3 Every Village, a Different Story: Tracking Rural Diversity in Bulgaria Gerald W. Creed, 53, 
Chapter 4 Smugglers into Millionaires: Marginality and Shifting Cultural Hierarchies in a Bulgarian Border Town Galia Valtchinova, 67, 
Chapter 5 Rural Decline as the Epilogue to Communist Modernization: The Case of a Socialist 'Model' Village Lenka Nahodilova, 89, 
Chapter 6 No Wealth without Networks and Personal Trust: New Capitalist Agrarian Entrepreneurs in the Dobrudzha Christian Giordano and Dobrinka Kostova, 105, 
Chapter 7 Inheritance after Restitution: Modern Legislative Norms and Customary Practices in Rural Bulgaria Petko Hristov, 123, 
Chapter 8 Rural, Urban and Rurban: Everyday Perceptions and Practices Daniela Koleva, 137, 
Chapter 9 The Koprivshtitsa Festival: From National Icon to Globalized Village Event Liz Mellish, 153, 
Chapter 10 Fashioning Markets: Brand Geographies in Bulgaria Ulrich Ermann, 173, 
Chapter 11 Greek (Ad)ventures in Sofia: Economic Elite Mobility and New Cultural Hierarchies at the Margins of Europe Aliki Angelidou and Dimitra Kofti, 191, 
List of Contributors, 209, 

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Ger Duijzings

This book explores the multiple and combined effects of globalization on urban and rural communities, providing case studies from postsocialist Bulgaria. As globalization has been studied largely in urban contexts, the aim of this volume is to shift the attention to the countryside and analyse how transnational links are transforming the destinies of and relations between cities, towns and villages. Very few scholars have systematically studied the effects of globalization in the countryside. As one of them, Michael Woods, writes, place-based studies that show how rural localities are remade under globalization are lacking (2007, 486–7; see also 2011, 270). Theorists of globalization in anthropology such as Arjun Appadurai (1996) and Ulf Hannerz (1996) have failed to explicitly anchor their analysis in rural sites, while the widely used Anthropology of Globalization reader makes almost no reference to the countryside (Inda and Rosaldo 2008; see also Appadurai 2001). A notable exception is Anna Tsing's book Friction (2005), which combines a keen theoretical interest in globalization with an ethnography of what she calls 'awkward, messy and unpredictable encounters' in the rainforests of Indonesia, where foreign investors meet local communities and entrepreneurs, as well as environmental movements and other actors. The present volume attempts to make a contribution to this emerging debate, providing ethnographic accounts of global processes in specific rural places without losing sight of urban contexts.

The case studies are from postsocialist Bulgaria, providing examples of the effects globalization has had in a range of specific localities. This geographical focus brings unity and coherence to the book. In addition, drawing attention to a postsocialist country is fruitful since the impact of globalization has been particularly abrupt and dramatic here. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the global has quickly asserted itself: towns and villages are exposed to global flows and inequalities, resulting in the rescaling and remaking of places, and triggering new cultural and ideological engagements with the notions of 'urban' and 'rural' in public discourse. The links that previously existed between town and countryside, within the framework of the socialist nation-state, have been supplanted by new transnational connections and global 'shortcuts', which have been made possible by the opening of Bulgaria's borders (1989) and EU accession (2007).

Some localities are winners and others losers of these rapid restructurings, their fortunes depending on their 'positionality' (Kaneff this volume) and other factors (Creed this volume). This has produced great diversity in the Bulgarian countryside, leading to the emergence of globalized villages, but also to forms of rural marginalization. Thus, one of the aims of this book is to challenge undifferentiated notions of the 'countryside' and the 'rural community', calling for a greater awareness of the economic disparities and social divisions which we normally associate with urban contexts. It questions the notion of the stable and undifferentiated rural community as denoted in Ferdinand Tönnies's notion of Gemeinschaft (community), as opposed to Gesellschaft (society). As Woods has argued, there is no such thing as a static and homogenous rural community; there are many rural communities which overlap, interact and compete with each other (2011, 178–9).

As my anthropological expertise does not cover Bulgaria as much as the former Yugoslavia and Romania, this introduction will primarily offer comparative and theoretical perspectives complementing the local insights provided by the other contributors. The first part will offer a brief history of rural conditions and urban–rural relations in Bulgaria, starting with the Ottoman period followed by subsequent transformations (independence, collectivization under socialism, and restitution and privatization since the 1990s), not only as background to the case studies presented here, but also as a reminder that the Bulgarian countryside has never been immune from outside influences. The second part of the introduction will elaborate on certain key themes and concepts of the book, most importantly globalization, neoliberal restructuring, the transformation of urban–rural relations and the global countryside. It will also explore aspects of rural diversity and marginalization. The third and final part of this introduction will provide a summary of chapters.

A Brief History of Rural Conditions and Urban–Rural Relations in Bulgaria

Many have reiterated that Bulgaria has been a 'small nation of small peasants' for most of its history. Even if reflecting particular realities on the ground, this is primarily a political and ideological statement derived from a post-Ottoman national (or nationalist) frame of mind that ignores forms of economic development and cultural diversity, which has always been part and parcel of social life in Bulgaria. In the immediate postsocialist years it was a key slogan for Bulgarian politicians who wanted to turn the clock of history back and restore the land to its presocialist owners. It is clear, however, that Bulgaria has ceased to be a country of peasants: thanks to socialism, it is the most urbanized country in Southeastern Europe. With 70 per cent of inhabitants living in urban settlements, Bulgaria is the only Balkan state that can compare with countries in Western Europe, where urbanites make up between 70 to 95 per cent of the population. So even if some authors continue to depict Bulgaria as a 'traditionally rural country' (see for instance Abadjieva 2008, 8), it is more urbanized than Serbia and Romania, where just over half of the population lives in cities, or even Greece, which has a reputation of being far more advanced and developed (Duijzings 2010, 105; see also Angelidou and Kofti this volume).

Before achieving autonomy (1878) and independence (1908), Bulgaria was at the centre of the European section of the Ottoman Empire, close to the imperial capital Constantinople (Istanbul). Whereas Ottoman territories in the Western Balkans were positioned at the empire's periphery, Bulgarian lands commanded the military and trade routes into Europe and formed part of the protective zone around the capital. They constituted an agrarian hinterland, supplying and provisioning Constantinople and other major cities such as Adrianople (Edirne), Philippopolis (Plovdiv) and Sofia with a variety of agricultural and artisanal products (Crampton 2005, 34). Bulgarian merchants were more dependent on Ottoman markets than their Greek or Serbian counterparts, who were directing their trade towards Central Europe (Lampe and Jackson 1982, 151). Being close to the empire's centre also meant that the Bulgarian lands were under stricter control, with a higher concentration of Ottoman troops present than elsewhere. They were colonized and densely inhabited by Turks and remained under Ottoman control longer than other parts of the Balkans.

During the Ottoman period, most Bulgarians lived in small villages, cultivating the land as sharecroppers for feudal timar holders besides having their own vineyards, orchards and vegetable gardens. This agricultural regime is what made Bulgarians into a 'small nation of small peasants'. Villages were run by family elders who chose representatives from among themselves. Ottoman officials rarely visited these villages other than to collect taxes. Some villages were exempted from paying taxes in return for offering goods and services, like protecting bridges or guaranteeing safe passage, or providing cities with specific items such as wool, leather and water (Inalcik 1994, 175; Adanir 1989, 136–7; Crampton 2005, 35). From the end of the seventeenth century Ottoman timars passed increasingly into private and hereditary 'ownership', facilitating the development of commercial tax farming, which in some parts of the Balkans (especially Macedonia, Thrace and Thessaly) led to the emergence of the so-called chiflik estates. These estates were worked for profit, often at the expense of peasants who were subjected to exploitation in the form of rising taxation and corvée duties. Adanir, however, argues that their role should not be overstated, certainly in Bulgaria where large chiflik estates almost did not develop. One of the problems here was the recruitment of a labour force from a peasant population that was relatively free and well-off (Adanir 1989, 154). The Ottoman state also aimed at thwarting the development of chiflik estates in areas closer to the centre, since tax revenues from these estates tended to be low (Lampe and Jackson 1982, 135). Small peasant farms were better cultivated and comparatively more productive than farms employing labourers.

During the eighteenth century the Bulgarian population increasingly settled in towns due to growing artisanal and commercial activity, and because life in the countryside became more insecure. Small towns were established in the protected environment of the hills, which were dominated by Bulgarians, while cities located in the plains or along the Danube or Black Sea coast (such as Sofia, Plovdiv, Ruse and Varna) were Ottoman cities typically inhabited by Turks, Greeks and other groups such as Armenians and Jews, although Bulgarians too started to form an important element here (Crampton 2005, 53; see also Lampe 1986, 20–22). After the Porte re-established peace and security during the 1820s, many upland towns entered a period of economic expansion driven by the Ottoman demand for livestock products (such as meat and wool). In this respect, Bulgaria, being close to the centre, was susceptible to the influence of what Karen Barkey has called the 'provisionist mentality' (2005, 142) of the Ottoman state, geared to supply urban populations with sufficient food and other items. The local crafts and trade centres that blossomed during the nineteenth century were catering primarily for internal Ottoman markets. An example is Gabrovo, a town located high on the northern slopes of the Balkan range, where the Ottoman army was one of the largest buyers of local products such as meat, leather and shoes, as well as raw wool and woollen garments. Another example is Koprivshtitsa in central Bulgaria (Mellish this volume), where the local economy was dominated by long-distance sheep trade and textile manufacturing. It created a close link between local agriculture (especially animal husbandry) and crafts and commerce. As these mountainous areas were short of farmland, the Bulgarian population living here was forced into nonagricultural activities (Palairet 1997, 66–76).

Although rural overpopulation was still not an issue, the doubling of the Bulgarian population in the nineteenth century encouraged such activities. While the share of the urban population remained at around 20 per cent, the geographical spread over a large number of smaller towns facilitated the growth of commercial networks (Lampe and Jackson 1982, 140–44). The Tanzimat reforms (1839–76), an attempt to modernize the empire, gave a further boost to these activities as Bulgarian merchants received the right to trade freely in Ottoman lands. Because of their growing wealth, the mountain towns became the breeding ground for an emerging national elite, which played an important role during the national revival period (Crampton 2005, 53; Lampe 1986, 20–22). The reforms also entailed a change in land tenure, which enabled Bulgarian peasants to acquire almost complete ownership over their land, including the right to sell. The second half of the nineteenth century was thus characterized by a transfer and sell-out of land by Turkish owners and officials to Bulgarian peasants. As the primary aim of the reforms was to improve the state's fiscal position, they did little to modernize agriculture – 'small peasants' continued to cultivate the land in traditional ways (Lampe and Jackson 1982, 136–7). Yet they did boost production – one of the effects was a dramatic growth of agricultural exports (Adanir 1989, 151). Bulgaria became the most productive and dynamic region of all the Ottoman territories, and fared well compared to Serbia, which had experienced a process of economic decline after independence (Palairet 1997, 2).

The historical trajectory outlined above does not warrant the position held by some that the changes introduced in the nineteenth century began with a pristine patriarchal stage, lasting for at least five centuries, in which peasants were tied to the land and 'land possession was in every respect undividable and not for sale' (Giordano and Kostova 2000b, 162). As Todorova (1990) has argued, it is difficult to be certain of this since we lack demographic data, and the information we do have suggests that the patriarchal extended family (zadruga) never existed as a stable reality, as it was constantly prone to forms of fissure. We may also challenge the stereotypical notion of a 'small nation of small peasants' because it ignores the presence of a relatively large urban population. Even if we accept that a substantial part of the population was based in the countryside, many centres of craft and commerce existed, inhabited by an active and mobile population consisting both of Bulgarians and non-Bulgarians. The economic 'renaissance' of the mid-nineteenth century led to the diffusion of an indigenous enterprise culture that set the Bulgarian lands apart from most other parts of the Balkans (Palairet 1997, 2).

As Giordano and Kostova write, the 'small nation of small peasants' trope can be widely encountered in the writings of domestic politicians and foreign travellers and observers between 1850 and 1945. It became a cornerstone of Bulgarian national identity, which drew on the ethnically homogenous rural, as opposed to the mixed urban, population. It is true that after Bulgaria achieved autonomy, with the loss of the Ottoman markets and the arrival of cheap industrial goods produced in the West, the class of artisans declined noticeably and the country's population had to rely again on quasi-subsistence agriculture (Lampe and Jackson 1982, 142). Bulgaria entered a period of economic decline, leading to rural overpopulation and no industries to absorb the surplus populations from the countryside (Palairet 1997, 2; Brunnbauer and Höpken 2007, 9). This was a period of failed modernization, in which 'Europeanization' and the introduction of modern laws regarding land inheritance led to fragmentation of agricultural land, producing a truly 'small nation of smallest peasants' (Giordano and Kostova 2000b, 162; see also Hristov this volume).

The homogenous mass of impoverished peasants embraced an extreme egalitarianism harnessed by Aleksandar Stamboliyski, who from 1919 until his assassination in 1923 led the first agrarian government (Bell 1977). As the country's leader he exacerbated the problem of land fragmentation by introducing redistributive land reforms, achieving an even more equal distribution of land and establishing the small peasant farm as the idealized and dominant form of land property (Crampton 2005, 148–53). The huge popularity of radical populist ideas in the countryside was part of a Southeast European trend, where nationalist elites idealized the traditional peasant community and embraced the rural past as the source of true national values, against the culturally diverse cities which had been the centres of foreign domination (see for instance Giordano 2003).

With Stamboliyski, Bulgaria produced one of the most powerful peasant movements in the Balkans, which tried to dissociate itself from modernization and the penetration of Western capitalism (Giordano 2003, 265; see also Mouzelis 1976). Indeed, the class suffering most from the impact of capitalist penetration was the peasantry, which, strapped for cash (to pay taxes and buy Western products), was forced to abandon subsistence agriculture and produce for the market under conditions of extreme land fragmentation and lack of technological progress. The main political cleavage in the country took the form of 'peasant masses versus urban elite' (Mouzelis 1976, 102). Stamboliyski's Bulgarian Agrarian National Union was radically antiestablishment, antibourgeois and antiurban, embracing a bipolar view of society in which the village was seen as possessing moral superiority over the town. This world view had an ethnic dimension too, as it drew on the opposition between peasants and foreign (particularly Greek) merchants. Bulgarian rural virtues were contrasted with the corrupt habits of the 'Greeks', a category which also included merchants of (Hellenized) Bulgarian and/or other ethnic origin (Mouzelis 1976, 93).

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Global Villages by Ger Duijzings. Copyright © 2013 Ger Duijzings. Excerpted by permission of Wimbledon Publishing Company.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: Anthem Press
• Publication date: 2013
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0857280732
• ISBN 13: 9780857280732
• Binding: Hardcover
• Number of pages: 222
• Editor: Duijzings Ger