JESI KUĆI –– NISI KUĆI. MIGRANTSKO ISKUSTVO POVRATKA ““DOMU””

• Main Author: Vukušić, Ana-Marija; Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, Zagreb, Croatia
• Format: Text
• Language: Croatian; English
• Published: Institute of Ethonology and Folklore Research 2011
• Subjects: dom; povratak; migracije; etnografija pojedinačnoga; home; return; migrations; the ethnography of the particular; sami
• Online Access: http://hrcak.srce.hr/69363; http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/103396; http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/103397

Usredotočujući se na konkretno iskustvo migracije i povratka, autorica se bavi narativnim i praktičnim načinima uspostavljanja, potvrđivanja, pa i opovrgavanja pripadnosti određenomu fizičkomu prostoru. Kao nosivi analitički konstrukt pritom je odabrala pojam doma, kojim se, među ostalim, nadilaze tradicionalne koncepcije njemu značenjski bliskoga pojma identiteta. Promiššljajući ideju doma u svjetlu suvremenih pristupa povratnim migracijama koji naglasak stavljaju na pluralnost, kompleksnost i ambivalentnosti, a ne na uniformnost povratničkih iskustava, autorici se etnografija pojedinačnoga nametnula gotovo jedinim prihvatljivim načinom dohvaćanja ““stvarnosti”” antropološških subjekata (određene značenjima koja oni sami pridaju svojemu iskustvu migracije, povratka i doma). U kontekstu takva pristupa dom je izniknuo u viššeznačju, bivajući i prostorno i vremenski, odnosno po pravima i obvezama ili nekim drugim kriterijima definiran prostor zajednišštva. While focusing on the specific experience of migration and return, the author deals in her work with narrative and practical ways of establishing, affirming and even denying belonging to a particular physical space. As a supporting analytical construct she chooses the term ““home”” which, although adjacent in meaning, surpasses the more commonplace concepts implied by the term identity. Thinking about home in light of contemporary approaches to return migrations which emphasize plurality, complexity and ambivalence rather than uniformity of returnees’’ experiences, the author relies on the ethnography of the particular as almost the only acceptable way of grasping the ““reality”” of anthropological subjects (determined by the meanings that they themselves attach to their experiences of migration, return and home). In the context of such an approach, home emerges as a multilayered space of commonality defined by place, time, rights, obligations as well as other different critera.