This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Report about Second Generation Migrants and the pedagogical approach in Slovenia
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Project nr: 502260-LLP-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
Alenka Janko Spreizer, Eva Brajkovič, Tomaž Gregorc
This text is one of the seven European national reports on second generation migrants composed within the framework of Bridge, an EU Grundtvig project. It deals with the situation of second generation migrants in Slovenia (chapter 2) and outlines main autobiographical pedagogical approaches that are applied in Slovenia to improve adult education skills and ability (chapter 3). Chapter 4 introduces three best practices of organizations/initiatives that adopt the method of biography work in their engagement with first and second generation migrants. The findings presented in this report are based on an extensive literature and internet research conducted by three researchers from the Department of Anthropology at the University of Primorska – Faculty of Humanities Koper. As elsewhere, the issue on migration is the field of knowledge in expansion: this can be percieved in Slovenian academic production. From the year 1991 on the research topics on migration are increasing. There are several institutions, such as research institutes and faculty units, where researchers are exploring “the new minorities”, “the Slovenian national question”, “the immigrants”, “Slovenian emigrants”, “the erased” etc. The issue of second generation migrants was not often and substantially addressed or explored. There are no statistical data on this topic since researchers were previously focused on Slovenian emigrants, and on ex-SFR Yugoslav (SFRY) immigrations. The reason for this is historical. Former SFRY was a poly-ethnic state. In this time (from 1945 up to 1991) Slovenia was one of socialist republics where the status of Italian and Hungarian minorities was legaly regulated: The members of these minorities had special collective rights, yet they were considered as native Slovenian citizens (for analysis on adult education cf Jelenc, Janko Mirčeva). On the other hand, from the year 1991, when Slovenia became an independant country, immigrants had and still have specific collective rights in terms of minority cultural, social and educational politics. In the period of the SFRY the main institutions where the issue of migration was explored were the Institute of Ethnic Studies and The Institute of Slovenian Emigration. There were also some researchers who started to ethnographically explore the situation of immigrant workers from former parts of SFR Yugoslavia (Mežnarič). In present day there are several reserachers who are affiliated to different scholar disciplines at the Slovenian public and private universities who explore the issue of migration. According to Josipovič (2009) in the times of the former state there were three migration 1 periods: the first period was after the WW2 up to the year 1970, the second period was the period from 1971 to 1991. Third period was dated from the year 1991, when Slovenia separated from the ex-SFR Yugoslavia and became the independent state. The first period could be descibed as migration
Josipovič (2009: 25) understands migrations as a part of human mobility or capability to move. He writes about movements or settlements when the person in questions changes the location of permanent or temporary address, and when he or she passes the boundary of the settlement. He warns the reader not to equalize daily mobility. It could be added, that the Josipovič’s term “migrations” joins internal and external migration.
period, when the ethnic structure of some parts of the Socialist Republis of Slovenia (SRS) (i. e. in Kočevsko, Pomurje, Obala as well as in bigger towns) changed. The last part of this period was connected with the immigration from the parts of the former SFRY, which were mainly directed to urban and other important centres. (Josipovič 2009: 26-27). After the colapse of theformer socialist state and after the independence of the Republic of Slovenia some researchers started to discuss the “new minorities”. This term does not include several categories of people such as gays, lesbians, or specific subcultural groups, as it is the case in some anthropological writing on multiculturalism. Instead of this, the term “new minorieties” signifies migrants from ex-SFRY republics, and their “non-Slovenian ethnic origin”. Among them, there were included also people with different national affiliation and yet some of them with Slovenian citizenship. In 1992 the refugees (or displaced persons) from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and other parts of former SFR Yugoslavia began to come to Slovenia. The politicians and the public were for the first time confronted with a relatively numerous migration of people seeking refuge; this gave rise to xenophobic media statements and political discourses about a Slovenian state threatened by the massive influx of people. The next comparatively large inflow of people seeking refuge in Slovenia happened in 1999, when military confrontations broke out in Kosovo. Throughout this time the transport and communication routes, which had been open in the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), were becoming less easily accessible to the majority of people. Additionally, the borders of former Yugoslav Republics, which at that time existed only on geographical maps, became borders of newly established states and the national police took over the control and surveillance of borders. For a short period of time people were able to cross the national borders with the old Yugoslav passports; later they had to apply for new documents and consequently for new citizenship. People who moved to Slovenia as migrant workers during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, when the growing industrialisation of SFRY created a need for predominantly low-qualified labour force, were confronted with increasing difficulties of mobility due to war and newly established national borders. At first some people were able to offer accommodation to their relatives who came to seek shelter. In those turbulent times some of the former migrants applied for a Slovenian citizenship, whereas some did not. Those who didn’t would later become ‘erased’ 2 from the register of permanent residency and therefore expelled from the new state. Many refugees from former ex- SFRY republics stayed in Slovenia and some of them applied for citizenship. Their status was very complicated, since they were not considered as refugees: instead of this, they got a permisson for stay on the basis of temporary shelter. It is also important to mention the category of the erased. Janko Spreizer (2008) first came across the term ‘the erased’ at the beginning of the year 2002, while she was conducting research 3 on the construction of Otherness. At that time she contacted a person after having listened to a radio show on ‘the erased’ and personally encountered a young man of Bosnian descent - who was, however, born in Slovenia - and his own experience of being erased. At the beginning of her research the notion of the erased was still unknown, since the phenomenon was not subject of discussion until the onset of 2002. This issue became more discussed only after the people without papers finally united their initiatives in the Association of the Erased Residents of Slovenia (February 2002), when the general public, including the academia, first became aware of the ‘administrative ethnic
This term is going to be described below. The research Imagining the Other: construction of Otherness in the case of immigrants (refugees, displaced persons, asylum seekers, No. Z6-3437 (B ) mainly dealt with the construction of cultural and ethnic difference, and with the several discourses on migrants, asylum seekers and refugees.
cleansing’ (Dedić, 2003a: 17). The term ‘the erased’ is used to designate individuals who lived in Slovenia and were entered in the Slovenian Register of Permanent Residents. In terms of their ‘ethnic label’ they were Slovenians, Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Bosnians or Bosniaks, Roma, etc.; in short, they were mainly emigrants from former Yugoslav republics or their offspring or they were born in some of the former republics of the SFRY. Many of them were born in Slovenia; however, they were often listed by the authorities in the Register of republic citizenship 4 according to the logic of racial and blood relations with the territory of their parents’ descent. Before the erasure many of these ‘new aliens’, as they were designated by the government, had had permanent residence and employment in Slovenia, paid contributions to their insurance and social security funds, paid taxes, exercised their right to vote, and enjoyed rights concomitant with residential status. Erasure can be seen as an intentional political act, especially since no notification had been given to the people in question as to potential repercussions of not applying for citizenship. In February 26th, 1992, with one single act, shaped by an employee of the Ministry of Interior following an internal order and thus without any legal or administrative grounds – they were erased from the Register of permanent residents without ever being notified of this decision. The legal basis of their existence in Slovenia was gone. Their valid personal documents, such as passports and identity cards were destroyed; they lost their jobs and were denied the possibility to work legally, many of them could not retire and enjoy their pensions. (Cf. Krivic, 2003: 159). 5 The authorities interpreted the erasure as a transfer from the Register of citizens to the Register of aliens. This move rendered the erased politically displaced or dead: they were treated as permanent residents who no longer live in Slovenia for various reasons, such as death or permanent emigration (Cf. Dedić, 2003b: 19). Consequently, some of them were completely marginalized and sank into illegality. All their papers were officially annulled. Some of the erased were advised by police to leave the country to avoid deportation, while others left Slovenia of their own initiative. Some were suggested to get their papers in order in the countries where the war was still raging: for some of them the regulation of their new status of foreigners was not possible. (Krivic, 2003: 157–164). In several cases individuals who were born in Slovenia became apatrids - due to administrative negligence they had not been entered into the Register of citizenship. The general public remained silent for a decade; then the silence was broken; the issue of the erased precipitated the publication of research on the legal context of this violation of human rights and an ethnographic study (Dedić, Jalušič, Zorn, 2003).
At the time, the institution of the 'republic citizenship' was unknown even to numerous legal experts and had been considered fairly insignificant before the break-up of Yugoslavia; in any case, it definitely did not hold as much relevance as it did after the year 1992 (Cf. Zorn, 2003: 93). 5 After the successful plebiscite on the sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Slovenia (held on the 23rd December 1990), the Basic Constitutional Charter on the Sovereignty and Independence of the Republic of Slovenia, Declaration of Independence and several acts asserting sovereignty were passed on the 25th June 1991. 26th December 1991 was the application deadline for obtaining Slovenian citizenship. On the 26th February 1992 stipulations from the Aliens Act come to force for individuals who had registered permanent residence in Slovenia but failed to apply for Slovenian citizenship or had their requests denied. The Ministry of Interior conducts an ex officio erasure on the 26th February 1992, without accordingly notifying the persons concerned. In 1994 the first constitutional initiative against the Aliens Act is filed (Dedić, 2003a: 152). It is only in April of the year 2003 that the Constitutional Court finds The Act Regulating the Status of the Citizens of Other Successor States of the Former SFRJ in the Republic of Slovenia (ARSCSS), passed in 1999, not in accordance with the Constitution, since it denied the erased the status of permanent residence. A six-month period is set for the elimination of the discrepancies with the constitution. By May 2005 this issue has still not been resolved by the new Slovenian government. 502260-LLP-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
Statistics of ethnic affiliation and diversity
We explored the statistical data for the year 2002, when of The Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (SORS).http://www.stat.si) did a national census of population. We also looked at the statistics of EUROSTAD. We did not find the data we were searching for. On the one side, the statistical data on national diversity in former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia were collected. The national censuses population data are published on the website of The Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (SORS) (avaliable at: http://www.stat.si/doc/statinf/05-si-088-0301.pdf). There are several data on ethnic structure avaliable in Slovenian and in English language: • on national belonging/ethnic affiliation structure, • data about the national belonging/ethnic affiliation and mother tongue, • data about national belonging/ethnic affiliation and the spoken language in the household; • data about national belonging/ethnic affiliation, the country of the first residence and sex. • data about citizenship, sex and age (page 10) The avaliable data which are published in this report are also: • numbers and shares of immigats to Slovenia, by year of immigration, country of first residence and sex6 • the country of first residence and sex, in the intervals on every 6 years; • data on national belonging/ethnic affiliation, age group and sex (page 12-13) At this webpage there are also some publications published but on the basis of these it is not possible to conclude how many people are SGM. On the other side, from the year 1971 on, the data about ethnic or national affiliation are opional: it was stated by the National Census Instructions that people were free to declare their national/ethnic affiliation. In 2002 among the options also appeared the statement that person does not want to declare his/her national/ethnic affiliation. (Šircelj, M, 2003). Josipovič who is one of the leading demographers studying fertility behavior, ethnicity and demography warns us that from the data on “non-declared” (neopredeljen) it could not be concluded that people who did not declared themselves by nationality were necesarry immigrants or their decendants. With the statistical data from the municipalities where the migration was not substantial, he illustrated that among “non-declared” there is a big share of the majority, i.e. Slovenians. (cf Josipovič 2006: 257). We closely looked at the page of ESS (http://www.ess.gov.si) where the annual reports are published from 1998 up to 2008. There are data available on ethnic affiliation of immigrant workers from 1998 up to 2003 and could be found in the category of Employment and Unemployment Trends – as a subsection there were data in details according to ethnic affiliation 7. From the year 2004 on, when Slovenia became a member of EU, the data about the ethnic affiliation are
Data are classifies for Countries of former Yugoslavia: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia Yugoslavia Macedonia; Member States of EU: Austria, Germany, Italy, France; other members of EU; Other European countries: Candidate Countries, other European countries; Non-European countries
http://www.ess.gov.si/eng/AnnaulReport/lp03/Pogl03.htm#3.%203%20Employment%20and%20work%20of%20foreig n%20workers 502260-LLP-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
summarized under the categories of workers from EU; workers from new member states. The data about national affiliation of foreign workers from the year 2007 are not available. In the Annual Report of ESS for the year 2008 it is reported that a total of 85,333 work permits were issued – an increase of 40.7 % from the year before. An increase in the number of work permits of all types issued, particularly the number of permits for employment is reported for the year 2008. ESS issued 58,897 of such permits; number represents a rise of 54.1 % in comparison with 2007. The increase in the volume of permits for employment is chiefly the result of a substantially increased demand for workers which ESS has witnessed over the last few years: These are mainly workers that have been in short supply in Slovenia for a number of years (welders, builders, long-haul drivers) and where the employment of foreign workers is justified by the lack of domestic staff in these occupations. In the year of 2008 most foreign workers were employed in construction (approx. 60 % of all foreign workers), followed by employees in the metal manufacturing industry (locksmiths, welders, etc.), long-haul transport, agriculture, etc. In the year 2008 there was also an 8.4 % increase in the number of permits for work issued (15,786). In the report of the ESS for the year 2008 it is claimed that the raise was the result of an increase on the employment of posted workers and managerial staff, and of the need for seasonal workers in construction and agriculture. The share of the total number of work permits issued in the year 2008 is 31.6 % higher than in 2007, which counts 7,815 personal work permits. At the end of the year 2008, there were 90,749 valid work permits issued, which is 37.3 % more than at the end of the year 2007. At the ESS there have been expectations of a large influx of workers from the EU into Slovenia in recent years, and this prognosis has not occurred. According to figures from the Health Insurance Institute of Slovenia for 2008, 6,037 EU citizens were employed in Slovenia. Of this number, most came from the new Member States, and most of these from Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary. They were mostly occupied in activities such as construction, metal industry, international transport, which is similar to foreign workers from non-EU countries. Most of the workers from the old Member States were employed as professionals and managers in mixed companies (http://www.ess.gov.si/eng/AnnaulReport/lp08/eng/15-tujci.htm). At this point we need to underline that this category does not mean the same as immigrants since there is a variety of usage of the term “immigrants”: some researchers use the term “immigrant” also for people who already have Slovenian citizenship and who stay in Slovenia permanently. We were not able to find statistical information on Second Generation of Migrants. Instead of this researchers prefer to speak about immigrants and their offspring (“priseljenci in njihovi potomci”) and within the SGM category it is not possible to explore its structure in terms of age, sex, educational attainment, occupations and working activities.
2. Brief overview about Second Generation of Migrants
For the purpose of this national report about the SGM we did a desk research about statistical data, which were published by social science scholars. According to instructions from the University of Milan we were searching for information about SGM and statistic data about national origins and distribution of people who could be described as SGM in Slovenia; how many are they in Slovenia according to national and regional databases; what is their age and sex structure; what is their level of education and from what country of origin did their parents come to Slovenia (parents’ nationality); do they still have their parents’ nationality or do they have the nationality of the
country where they live? We also wanted to find data on work – where do they work, in which sector and what type of jobs did they have. We looked at the report on Employment and working conditions of migrant workers - Slovenia (Trbanc, M. 2007) 8. The author reports on the statistical data about migrant workers who are in the national statistics of The Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia (SORS) referred to as foreigners. According to Trbanc, “Migrant workers represent about 5% of active population in Slovenia. The majority of migrant workers are workers from countries of ex-Yugoslavia. They are mostly poorly educated and hold hard, low paid jobs in construction, metal manufacturing and similar sectors. After 2004 the numbers of migrant workers from new EU member states somewhat increased, while numbers of migrant workers from old EU member states and from other countries are very low”. Her report brings also the data of Employment Service of Slovenia (ESS) 9, Ministry of Labour, Family and Social Affairs (MLFSA) and the Labour Inspectorate, which is an agency of MLFSA 10. In these reports the category of migrant worker is considered as foreign worker, which could mean that these people do not have Slovenian citizenship and that they only hold temporary working permits. In Trbanc’s publication, the term SGM is not used nor is any the similar term which would include people denoted as SGM. In this document the statistical data on migrant workers are available and the researcher explains that these categories of people are termed as foreigners. Additionally, there is no statistical data about the structure in terms of age and sex of migrants (i.e. foreigners) available and there are no data on SGM published. In our search for the category of SGM we have looked at several documents, such as the suggested report of Thomas Liebig, T. (2009) Children of immigrants in the Labour Markets of EU and OECD Countries. We did not find any data relevant for the Slovenian case.
2.1. Second Generation of Migrants in estimated numbers According to Josipovič migrations in Slovenija from some locations of the former SFRY represent the main part of the immigration. The total number of immigrated in Slovenia is 169.605: those who migrated from the former SFRY represent 89,3% or 151.432 people. These imigrants from the former SFRY represent 7,7 % of the Slovenian population. Immigrations were not coincidental: ethnic structure is in accordance with the ethnic structure of emmigrated sites (območje). Immigrations in Slovenia could only paritally be explained with economical reasons. Josipovič explained that there were also political and geographical reasons and contexts of Yugoslav migrations: the intention of these migrations was to change ethnic structure in certain parts of SFRY. The majority of immigrants from abroad is in towns, but they rarely overcome 16% (Josipovič 2009: 28).
available at: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/studies/tn0701038s/si0701039q.htm 9 ESS Annual Reports in English language are available at: http://www.ess.gov.si/eng/AnnaulReport/AnnualReport.htm. 10 available at: http://www.id.gov.si/en/annual_report/).
Also Janja Žitnik (2004) published data on the share of the immigrant population in Slovenia in her paper on Integration. In the 1991 national census of population in Slovenia the share of immigrants was 12.2 %, and a considerable number of the rest refrained from declaring their nationality was reported. In the year 2002 their share was 17 %. 2.5 % of the population skipped the question about their nationality, (meaning ethnicity, not citizenship). Another 6.4 % are those whose nationality is “unknown”, and 2 % are foreign citizens or people with unknown citizenship. The largest minorities, considered as autochthonous minorities, i.e. the Italians and the Hungarians, constitute – together with the Italian and the Hungarian immigrants – approximately 0.5 % of the population (0.6 % by their mother tongue, and only 0.4 % by their declared nationality). In her description Žitnik (2004) explains, as follows: “Mostly due to the recent increase in their immigration rate, the share of the Romany population has risen from 0.01 % in 1961 to the present 0.17 %. 11 A deduction from these figures shows that at least 14.5 % of the current population in Slovenia are those immigrants who state their nationality other than Slovenian; whereas the share of either those immigrants or their descendents who state Slovenian nationality (most of the latter are children of nationally mixed couples), is unknown”. Josipovič warns about the difficulties in defining the descendants of immigrants in Slovenia. Generally he agrees with the conclusion of Janja Žitnik, who wrote that the share of immigrants and their descendants in Slovenia is approximately 15% of population. Josipovič thinks that the share is a little bit lower. However, it could be concluded, that this share is big enough, that these people could obtain certain rights (Josipovič, personal communication; cf Josipovič 2009b). Further Janja Žitnik (2004) states that the number of the present first generation immigrants who settled in Slovenia before 2002 is 169,605 (or slightly over 8.6 % of the entire population). Majority of them is ex-SFRY by origin: “Of these 169,605 first generation immigrants, 150,763 came from the former Yugoslav republics”. Žitnik also quoted The National Report on Cultural Policy in Slovenia, where the immigrants are reported as economic migrants. She underlined that the joint number of the first generation immigrants and their descendents born in Slovenia was not directly evident from the published statistics. In the National Report on Cultural Policy in Slovenia from the year 2003 the share of the “economic migrants” was estimated that the current result would actually exceed 14 %. According to their stated nationality, the largest groups are the Serbs, the Croats, the Bošnjaki, the Muslims and the Bosnians. 12 It is known that the distribution of immigrants in Slovenia is mainly concentrated in urban areas, and the share of immigrants in some cities is much larger than in others. In the Slovenian capital Ljubljana for example, “only in 63.4 % of teenagers (at the age of 15), both parents state Slovenian nationality, which reflects their choice rather than their ethnicity; in 12.5 % one of the parents declares a nationality other than Slovenian, and in 22 % both of their parents identify themselves in terms of one of the Non-Slovenian options” reports Žitnik (2004). She added that it would be a superficial oversimplification to say that if immigrants in Slovenia declared Slovenian nationality it would mean that they had been assimilated.
Ibid. The option of the Bošnjaki nationality was introduced in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1994. In the 2002 Slovenian census, Muslim pertains to one’s ethnic (and not religious) affiliation. Those who identified their nationality in previous Slovenian censuses as Bosnians, were placed in the column “regionally identified”. 502260-LLP-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
Žitnik (2004) underlined that “the share of those (first and second generation) immigrants who declare Slovenian nationality has not been undisputedly established – but it seems to be relatively large. Some immigrants have ‘adopted’ Slovenian nationality on the basis of two facts: 1) after several decades of their lives spent in this country they now actually identify themselves with Slovenian nation; and 2) the 2002 census, like previous censuses, offered a free nationality choice. Many immigrants, on the other hand, state Slovenian nationality for other reasons, the most frequent of which is fear”.
3. Pedagogical intercultural approaches based on autobiographical narratives
In our search for examples of pedagogical intercultural approaches based on autobiographical narratives we conducted a three-step survey. The first step consisted of web search where we examined the webpages and web materials provided by different Slovene educational and pedagogical institutions. These were: The National Educational Institute (http://www.zrss.si), University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Arts, Department for pedagogy and adult education (http://www.pedagogika-andragogika.com/), Slovenian Institute for Adult Education (http://www.acs.si/), Slovenian Institute of Migration (http://isi.zrc-sazu.si/), Faculty of Education Ljubljana (http://www.pef.uni-lj.si/), Faculty of Education Maribor (www.pfmb.uni-mb.si), Faculty of Education Koper (www.pef.upr.si). In addition to this we searched via www.google.com using the following keywords: autobiographical learning, intercultural education/intercultural learning, intercultural approach, intercultural pedagogy (in Slovene: učna biografija, učni življenjepis, interkulturno učenje/izobraževanje, interkulturni pristop, interkulturna pedagogika). This first step gave us directions and links to different experts in the field of pedagogical and educational sciences in Slovenia. The second step included contacting 14 of the selected experts by e-mail. These were: Klara S. Ermenc (University of Ljubljana), Dragica Motik (The National Education Institute), Irena Lesar (Slovenian Institute of Migration), Marija Javornik Krečič (University of Maribor), Petra Mrvar (University of Ljubljana), Mojca Sikošek (CDI Univerzum), Natalija Vrečer (Slovenian institute for Adult Education), Monika Govekar Okoliš (University of Ljubljana), Vida Dimovska (University of Ljubljana), Andreja Hočevar (University of Ljubljana), Mirjana Ule (University of Ljubljana), Nena Mijoč (University of Ljubljana), Marko Radovan (University of Ljubljana), Natalija Žalec (Slovenian institute for Adult Education). 11 of them answered our enquiry and two of them provided additional links to other researchers. 9 of those who answered reported that they don’t know any examples of the use of pedagogical intercultural approches based on autobiographical narratives – neither in research nor in practice. One is using the method of professional autobiographical narrative (the impact of teacher’s professional development and competences on the process of teaching) in her research and one gave a reference to a special issue of the journal Socialno delo, 2001, no.2-4 which dealt with the use of the method of autobiographical narrative in social work, but none of the articles dealt with migrants and their narratives. Only one article dealt with the so called “ethnically mixed-marriages” (families in which spouses have different ethnical background) and the author (Sedmak, 2001) used the autobiographical method in her research. The third step consisted of reading the articles and materials that we gathered via web search and e-mail enquiry (for list see: References). We provide the summary of these bellow. Overall our survey revealed that in Slovenia actually no examples of pedagogical intercultural approches based on autobiographical narratives can be found. In the search for major intercultural pedagogical approaches based on autobiographical narratives (oral autobiography, written autobiography such as diaries, letters etc.) in Slovenia we found no significant production of knowledge from this field of social sciences. In the same time we found a relevant amount of researches done in the field of intercultural/multicultural pedagogy. Between the
notions “multicultural” and “intercultural” different authors stress different conceptual differences or similarities (cf. Vrečer (ed.), 2009; Grobin, 2006; Motik and Veljić, 2007; Pevec Semec, 2008; Žitnik, 2004). Intercultural is mostly used as a notion in the critiques of multicultural conceptualizations of social realities. Multiculturalism is by some authors seen as a concept that implicitly carries the meaning of different cultures that have no impact or contact while living in the same geographical space. On the other hand, interculturalism presupposes a conceptual frame where different cultures are in a complex interaction and from this interactions new (mental, social, cultural) categories are formed. In this sense intercultural pedagogy a key issue in the new reality of EU (cf. Grobin, 2006). Intercultural education mostly remains in the domain of the individual but may carry long term political results. In difference to the multicultural approaches – where cultures are mostly seen as isolated categories or realities – the intercultural approach in education must by necessity produce new qualities and new knowledge that in the same time preserves the previous qualities and exceeds them (a sort of aufhebung we may say). EFIL (European Federation for Intercultural Learning) already in 1970 defined intercultural education as a form of learning where pupils are engaged in thinking about differences as crucial points and a source for wider consciousness and not as obstacles or deviations from established norms (Grobin, 2006: 35). Some authors redefine and use the concept of multiculturalism as a synonym for interculturalism (cf. Vrečer (ed.), 2009). A specific for Slovenia after 1991 (after the independence) is the conceptual move from “Yugomulticulturalism” to “Euro/Anglo-centric” notion of multiculturalism (Pevec Semec, 2008: 2). Most of the above mentioned authors are concerned with theoretical, methodological and practical issues of an intercultural/multicultural pedagogy by which migrants would be able to participate in a normal pedagogical process but none of the mentioned authors concentrate systematically on second generation migrants. Different authors (Ermenc (2003, 2005, 2006, 2007), Motik (oral source, 2010), Lesar (year not stated), Mrvar (2004), Javornik Krečič (2006)) stress the importance of intercultural approach in learning and intercultural competence of teachers. Some of them are quite critical about the ways in which these are being implemented in practice. Irena Lesar from the Slovenian Institut of Migration in her article Response of Slovenian teachers to children of migrants from ex-Yugoslav countries (summary published at http://isi.zrc-sazu.si/?q=node/106) reports that the results of her study show that Slovenian teachers feel considerably less responsible for achievements of migrant children than for the achievements of other children, and, furthermore, do not feel responsible for migrant children’s successful inclusion in the class. The question therefore is where this feeling of irresponsibility towards migrant children felt by teachers comes from. For this reason, Lesar concludes, it is necessary to pay utmost attention to making teachers aware of their key role in implementing moral and educational goals of education as well as teaching them to be more sensitive to the real problems of migrant children and to be better prepared for intercultural education. Klara S. Ermenc is also very critical regarding the implementation of intercultural learning in elementary schools. She argues that the hidden and official curriculum of Slovenian public elementary schools work together to develop an ethnocentric and Eurocentric frame of mind when judging other cultures. This presents an obstacle for the professed promotion of intercultural learning and valuation, and fosters the social marginalisation of ethnic minorities. She also reports that since independence, Slovenian schools have not collected data on the pupils’ ethnic origins, and the teachers—as could be seen in the study—generally prefer not to have knowledge about this (Ermenc, 2005: 11).
Dragica Motik from The National Education Institute told us that their institute is involved in different projects that aim at improving the implementation of intercultural learning in elementary schools. They are the main authors of „The strategy for education of children of foreigners in kindergartens and schools“, a paper which defines the categories of foreigners and their children (and surprisingly totally excludes the migrants with Slovene citizenship and their children!), states some compulsory measures that the schools and kindergarten must partake, and gives some broad principles and recommendations, for example that the children of foreigner should start attending kindergartens at least two years before they enter elementary school so that they could learn the Slovene language; that their language and culture should be respected etc. The far most important issue that this strategy is concerned about is assuring that children of foreigners properly learn the Slovene language. Dragica Motik also told us that they are not satisfied with the implementation of the intercultural approaches in elementary schools. They only play an advising role and cannot supervise the actual implementation which is mostly left to the teachers themselves. Regretfully the teachers still mostly try to assimilate the pupils rather than integrate them through an intercultural approach. The research methods they have been using in their survey are mostly inquiries and questionnaires and not interviews and/or autobiographical narrative.
4. Some good practices about autobiographical narratives in adult learning for migrants and second generation of migrants
We found little references on educational programs based on autobiographical narratives. Theoretical approaches are mostly homogenized (there is no wider evidence of diversificated theoretical production) and there is almost no evidence of examples of good practices; mostly we found approximations to it: a pedagogical approach that does not stand on autobiographical data but contains fragments of such practice, like: “my hidden identity”, “I was falsely accused”, “this is me”, “people like me”, “my values” etc (Pevec Semec, 2008: 6). Since in Slovenia we have two legally acknowledged national minorities (Italian and Hungarian) in some regions there is a common practice of bilingual education. Some parents enrol their children deliberately in this schools where the majority of the pedagogical process is done in the minority language (for example in Italian) (Pevec Semec, 2008: 4). From the research (interviews) we conducted it is evident that some parents (second generation migrants) enrol their children – in our case – in Italian schools because of the supposition of a lesser degree of stigmatization: they feel more comfortable as a “minority among a (official) minority”. Motik and Veljić (2007) propose an educational model (for teachers and students/pupils) on intercultural/multicultural basis with the scope of expansion of consciousness about this problems (a multicultural classroom has to present a challenge for the teacher not a burden to carry). Their proposals are different models of education that “sharpen” the sense for managing a multicultural milieu (the classroom). i) The primary schools “Livada” in Ljubljana, “Zali rovt Tržič” and “Stopiče” and the Secondary nursing school in Ljubljana are public schools where an implementation of multicultural education is in practice. This is due to the increasing realizations of the existence of multicultural classrooms (and indeed realities). In the case of the secondary nursing school the main discourse is the discourse on “social sensibility” because the students will be working with people of different “descents”, social strata and disabilities 11
while in the primary schools the main discourse is based on a “new” multicultural reality of the classrooms. ii) The methods of multicultural education were implemented in the primary school in the subjects: “Environmental education”, “Musical education”, “Slovenian language”, and “Arts”, while in the secondary school in the subjects of “Health education” and “Classroom hour”. The presented case studies are at some points essentialistic: “In their souls, their blood they keep their melos” (Motik and Veljić, 2007: 63). Most of the cases of best practices are based on “nationalistic” and folkloristic grounds. In primary schools teachers managed “projects” based on autobiographical narratives of the pupils where they talked about “the nations of their origins”, “roots”, “customs” (folk tales, songs, traditional wear). The teachers noted a radical change in the behaviour of the pupils when they spoke in their mother tongues or talked about themselves. At the same time the pupils became aware of the Slovenian culture and costumes. This project lasted from a few days to the entire school year. The scope was to get knowledge of festivals, costumes, folklore, music of classmates and their own culture and increasing the social sensibility for life in a multicultural milieu. In the secondary school the programs were mostly concentrated on the auto reflexivity of students and thus stimulating a more open perception of any kind of diversity (elders, migrants etc.). (cf. Motik and Veljić, 2007: 57-94).
5. Concluding remarks
On the basis of our extensive research it could be concluded that the issue of second generation of migrant is not substantially explored in Slovenia. There are no precise data about ethnic structure avaliable. Some remarks about the terminology need to be underlined. Scholars in the field of studying migration do not widely use the term SGM. Furthermore, on the basis of reading and phone interviews it can be concluded that the preferred term in use is “immigrants and their descendants/offspring” (“priseljenci in njihovi potomci”.) With this category the immigrants from ex-SFRY are denominated and among them many of them have Slovenian citizenship. The statistic about immigrants on labour market is reported: here the immigrants are represented as foreign workers, i.e. people without Slovenian citizenship. It is not possible to establish among them how many of them may be SGM. Some other categories of people and the satistics on them were explored for the purpose of the Bridge SGM research. The usage of autobiography is neglected in the educational programs in Slovenia. Autobiography, life history is widely used in socio-cultural anthropology and ethnology and also in migrant research, but the issue of educational biography is quite neglected. Here a lot of work shoud be done in the near future. Janko Spreizer did a short interview with a person from the Slovenian Insititute for Adult education who developed the project connected with autobiography in education and reported that in practice the issue is not accepted by practitioners. Some models of good practice were found, yet on the other hand and through the eyes of anthropology they are full of essentialism which could have perioulus effects.
Dedić, J., V. Jalušič & J. Zorn. (2003): The Erased. Organized Innocence and Politics of Exclusion. Ljubljana. Peace Institute. http://www.mirovni-institut.si/Publikacije/Detail/si/publikacija/IzbrisaniOrganizirana-nedolžnost-in-politike-izkljucevanja/, 29.1.2010 Dedić, J. (2003a): “Discrimination in Granting Slovenian Citizenship”. In: J. Dedić, Jalušič and J. Zorn: The Erased. Organized Innocence and Politics of Exclusion. Ljubljana. Peace Institute. http://www.mirovni-institut.si/Publikacije/Detail/si/publikacija/Izbrisani-Organizirana-nedolžnostin-politike-izkljucevanja/, 29.1.2010 Dedić, J. (2003b): “The Erasure. Administrative Ethnic Cleansing in Slovenia”. Roma Rights: Quarterly Journal of the European Roma Rights Center 3/2003, Budapest, 17–25. Ermenc, K. S.: (2003): Komu je namenjena interkulturna pedagogika?, Sodobna pedagogika, 2003, 54/120, No.1 Ermenc, K.S. (2005): “Limits of the effectiveness of intercultural education and the conceptualisation of school knowledge”, 2005, Intercultural Education, Vol. 16, No. 1, March 2005, pp. 41–55 Ermenc, K. S. (2006): “Slovenska šola z druge strain”. Sodobna pedagogika. 2006, Vol. 57, Posebna izdaja (Upoštevanje drugačnosti – korak k šoli enakih možnosti), pp. 150-167. Ermenc, K. S. (2007): “Interkulturnost v učnih načrtih slovenske osnovne šole”, Pedagoška obzorja, 2007, Vol. 22, No. 1-2 Ermenc, K. S. (2009/10): Slovenska strategija vključevanja učencev migrantov v izobraževanje v kontekstu evropske izobraževalne politike, Lecture for PAD 2009/10 Grobin, I (2006): Interkulturni stiki in interkulturo učenje, 2006, diplomsko delo http://dk.fdv.unilj.si/dela/Grobin-Iva.PDF (14.1.2010) Janko Spreizer, A (2008): “Being as a Slovenian, and being an erased: the story of a Roma immigrant family in Slovenia”, Monitor ZSA, Annales, ZRS Koper Josipovič, D (2009): “Demografska, etnična in migracijska dinamika v Sloveniji”, in J. Žitnik Serafin (ed.) Demografska, etnična in migracijska dinamika v Sloveniji in njen vpliv na Slovensko vojsko, 29.1.2010 Krivic, M. (2003): “Post Scriptum”. In J. Dedić, V. Jalušič & J. Zorn: The Erased. Organized Innocence and Politics of Exclusion. Ljubljana, Peace Institute. http://www.mirovniinstitut.si/Publikacije/Detail/si/publikacija/Izbrisani-Organizirana-nedolžnost-in-politikeizkljucevanja/, 29.1.2010
Lesar, I.: Odziv slovenskih učiteljev na otroke priseljencev iz bivše Jugoslavije, http://isi.zrc-
sazu.si/?q=node/106, 14.1.2010) Liebig, T. (2009): Children of immigrants in the labour markets of EU and OECD countries: An overview, Directorate for employment, Labour and Social affairs, 29.1.2010
Motik, D. And Veljić, I. (2008): Spoznavam sebe, tebe, nas: Priročnik za učitelje za delo z učenci in starši, 2007, Zavod republike Slovenije za šolstvo Pevec Semec, K.: Provision for Ethnic Minority Pupils and Parents in Slovenia, 2008 http://www.migrationhistory.com/files/group/12/Slovenia_Education_minorities_April2008.pdf, 14.1.2010 Statistične informacije Rapid Reports: 5 Prebivalstvo Population (16. april 2003, Št./No 2: Popis prebivalstva, gospodinjstev in stanovanj, Slovenija, 31. marca 2002/ Census of population, households and housing, Slovenia, 31. march 2002. http://www.stat.si/doc/statinf/05-si-0880301.pdf, 29.1.2010 Šircelj, M. (2003): Verska, jezikovna in narodna sestava prebivalstva Slovenije: popisi 1921- 2002, Ljubljana: Statistični urad Slovenije. 29.1.2010 Trbanc, M. (2007): Employment and working conditions of migrant workers- Slovenia, available at: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ewco/studies/tn0701038s/si0701039q.htm, 29.1.2010 Zorn, J. (2004): “The politics of exclusion during the formation of the Slovenian State”. In: J. Dedić, V. Jalušič & J. Zorn. The Erased. Organized Innocence and Politics of Exclusion. Ljubljana. Peace Institute. http://www.mirovni-institut.si/Publikacije/Detail/si/publikacija/IzbrisaniOrganizirana-nedolžnost-in-politike-izkljucevanja/,29.1.2010 Vrečer, N. (ed.) (2009): Medkulturne kompetence v izobraževanju odraslih, 2009, Andragoški center republike Slovenije, http://arhiv.acs.si/publikacije/Medkulturne_kompetence_v_izobrazevanju_odraslih.pdf, 14.1.2010 Zasedanje Sveta EU za izobraževanje, mladino in kulturo, (2009): Bruselj: 4. Izobraževanje otrok s priseljenskim poreklom. 26. in 27.11.2009, http://www2.gov.si/upv/vladnagradiva08.nsf/.../$FILE/BESEDILO.RTF , 24.1.2010 Žitnik, J. (2004): “Immigrants in Slovenia: integration aspects”, Migracijske i etničke teme, vol. 20, no. 2–3, pp. 221–241.
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.