In this article Theodora Dragostinova examines the interplay between official policies and popular demands in the nationalization of the Greek minority in Bulgaria. She explores why national activists and ordinary people chose to “speak national” in the context of the conflicting national interests and territorial aspirations of Bulgaria and Greece. At the official level, the national discourse and practice showed the co-existence of essentialist and constructionist understandings of nationhood; while the rhetoric of the primordial nation was ubiquitous, politicians realized that certain policies could “improve” the national body. At the popular level, the profuse use of national rhetoric functioned as an “emergency identity,” or a discursive strategy that allowed individuals to claim social legitimacy in emergency situations. Thus, despite the fact that people were forced to adopt clear-cut national allegiances, national side-switching remained a frequent phenomenon.
[1]
Theodora K. Dragostinova.
Competing Priorities, Ambiguous Loyalties: Challenges of Socioeconomic Adaptation and National Inclusion of the Interwar Bulgarian Refugees
,
2006,
Nationalities Papers.
[2]
Alexei Yurchak.
Soviet Hegemony of Form: Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More
,
2003,
Comparative Studies in Society and History.
[3]
Chad Bryant.
Either German or Czech: Fixing Nationality in Bohemia and Moravia, 1939-1946
,
2002,
Slavic Review.
[4]
R. Suny.
Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations
,
2001,
The Journal of Modern History.
[5]
A. pallis.
Racial Migrations in the Balkans during the Years 1912-1924
,
1925
.