Kosovo Albanian diaspora in the frame of diaspora definitions and transnationalism
Abstract
56
Full text
Kosovo Albanian diaspora in the frame of diaspora definitions and transnationalism Lumnije Kadriu ABSTRACT The concept of diaspora as anotion nowadays is quite complex. In regard to this term’s extensive usage and ‘dispersion of the meanings of the term in semantic, conceptual and disciplinary space’ also wrote Rogers Brubaker in his paper titled ‘The Diaspora “Diaspora”’. Due to the development and expansion of this concept, in present times, into this category, in abroad sense, are included members of many mobile people. So, development path extends from the classical diaspora conception that considered as such only the Jews, Armenians and Greeks, whose reason of migration was a violent displacement, to the contemporary conception of diaspora, in which included different groups or communities that move to other countries for various reasons and motives, such as migrants, refugees, guest workers, expelled communities, etc. In addition, in social sciences the need for abetter understanding and analysis of social processes makes new approaches appear constantly. Such an approach is also the transnational approach that is focused on studying different ties or/and connections mobile people have in two or more countries. Issues related to how the Albanian diaspora in general was conceived and how Kosovo Albanian diaspora can be conceived today and how transnational studies can help in recognizing and understanding this diasporic community are amatter of scrutiny in this paper. KEYWORDS: diaspora, Kosovo Albanian, premodernity, modernity, postmodernity, transnationalism, holidays DEFINING NOTIONS OF DIASPORA In present times, any scholar dealing with diaspora issues accentuates the ever-increasing number of studies on this topic. Brubaker emphasizes that— ‘this has resulted in what one might call “The ‘diaspora’ diaspora”— dispersion of the meanings of the term in semantic, conceptual and disciplinary space.’ (Brubaker, 2005) As aresult there are numerous definitions and explanations which depend on the perspective of the scholars dealing with this issue and their respective disciplines, such as migration studies, transnational studies, social studies, ethnology etc. What is common to all definitions is that diaspora has to do with anumber of people, members of the same community, who move from one place that is called the place of origin, usually known as the homeland, for different reasons to live in some other place. Initially only the experience of Jewish people dispersed around the world was implied by the term diaspora. For Safran this even represents an ‘ideal type’ of diaspora. (Safran 1991: 83–84; Clifford 1994: 305; see also Cohen 2008). Over time, into this category, in abroad sense, were included members of other peoples, conceptualised as members of any nation or ethnicity. OPEN ACCESS
LUmNIjE KADRIU 57 Classifications of different diasporas were made not only according to the reason of dispersion (which was usually violent and traumatic, contributing to the retention of memory, its idealization, loyalty etc.), but also according to the ties and relations that members of the diaspora kept with the place of origin, i.e. homeland. Thus, we come across terms such as: ‘classic diaspora’ (Jewish, Greek and Armenians) (p.2), ‘victim diaspora’ (Palestine, Jewish) (p.2), ‘trade diaspora’ (China, Libyan, Indian, Baltic Germans) (p.2), etc.; some other groups of emigrants were classified as ‘nationalist in distance’ (Hindu, Irish, Albanians, Kurds, Tamils…) (p.2) because of their continued political engagement with the homeland, including terrorist and ultranationalist support. As aresult of further proliferation of the term diaspora as acategory, alabour diaspora who kept emotional and social ties with the homeland (Filipinos, Turks, Greeks, Italians, Polish, and Vietnamese etc) (p.2) was also included. So, aterm that initially described dispersion of Jews, Greeks and Armenians, now has, as Brubaker and other authors agree, meanings from the broadest semantic domain which includes words such as immigrant, emigrant, refugee, visiting workers, expelled community, ethnic community, etc. (Brubaker 2005: 2–3) In his definition of diaspora Safran lists six features that are characteristic for diaspora. According to him, diaspora constitutes: ‘expatriate minority communities’ (1) that are dispersed from an original ‘centre’ to at least two ‘peripheral’ places; (2) that maintain a‘memory, vision or myth about their original homeland’; (3) that ‘believe they are not— and perhaps cannot be fully accepted by their host country’; (4) that see the ancestral home as aplace of eventual return, when the time is right; (5) that are committed to the maintenance or restoration of this homeland; and (6) of which the group’s consciousness and solidarity are ‘importantly defined’ by this continuing relationship with the homeland. (Safran 1991: 83; Brubaker 2005: 5; Cohen 2008: 6) Clifford and other authors who deal with diaspora build their own proposals, mostly by referring critically to Safran’s definition. (Safran 1991: 83; Clifford 1994: 304–5; Brubaker 2005; Cohen 2008; Povrzanović Frykman 2004a). The main criticisms of this definition were made because of its over emphasising the notion of a‘homeland’, which leads to amore essentialist explanation of diaspora as belonging to aterritorialised or bounded group of people, defined by their language, culture and sometimes religion. The most extreme attempts to get away from such interpretations were made by Social Constructionist Diasporists who, as Cohen claims, ‘sought to deconstruct the two core building blocks of diaspora, home/homeland and ethnic/religious community. (Cohen 2008 :9) At the present time Benedict Anderson’s explanation of the concept of the nation as ‘imagined community’ is broadly accepted and the avoidance of or departure from the essentialist and naturalised interpretation of concepts such as nation and ethnicity, knowing the negative consequences of nationalism, are made by all serious scholars. Moreover, multiple interpretations are made with great ease because of increasing complexity in the world, permeating social, economic and political dimensions globally. Thus different identities, such as ethnic and national among others, are explained in the terms of de-territorialzation, fluidity or flows, hybridity and mixing, etc. OPEN ACCESS
58 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 Clifford ascertains that: We should be wary of constructing our working definition of aterm like diaspora by recourse to an ‘ideal type’, with the consequence that groups become identified as more or less diasporic, having only two, or three, or four of the basic six features […] Moreover at different times in their history, societies may wax and wane in diasporism, depending on changing possibilities— obstacles, openings, antagonisms, and connections— in their host countries and transnationally. (Clifford 1994: 306) Brubaker says that: To overcome these problems of groupism, Iwant to argue that we should think of diaspora not in substantialist terms as abounded entity, but rather as an idiom, stance, aclaim. We should think of diaspora in the first instance as acategory of practice […]. As idiom, stance, and claim, diaspora is away of formulating the identities and loyalties of apopulation. Those who do the formulating may themselves be part of the population in question; or they may be speaking in the name of the putative homeland state. (Brubaker 2005: 12) However, in dealing with the problem of defining diaspora, scholars necessarily have to deal with certain features characterizing collective or group identification prescribed or ascribed as identity, which, nevertheless, is related to the notions of territory either as alocality, region or anation-state. According to Clifford, ‘diasporas are caught up and defined against (1) the norms of nation-states and (2) indigenous, and especially autochthonous, claims by “tribal” peoples.’(Clifford 1994:307). Similarly, Brubaker determines that yet ‘three core elements remain widely understood to be constitutive of diaspora. […] the first is dispersion in space; the second, orientation to a‘homeland’; […] and the third boundary maintenance.’ (p 12) Further he adds that: The metaphysics of the nation-state as abounded territorial community may have been overcome; but the metaphysics of ‘community’ and ‘identity’ remain. Diaspora can be seen as an alternative to the essentialization of belonging; but it also represents anon-territorial form of essentialized belonging. Talk of the deterritorialization of identity is all well and good; but it still presupposes that there is ‘an identity’ that is reconfigured, stretched in space to cross state boundaries, but on some level fundamentally the same. (pp. 11–12) Robin Cohen in his revised edition of the book Global Diasporas brings interesting perspectives on the concept of diaspora that encompass different theoretical and methodological perspectives regarding diaspora. He perceives that it is very important to try to define diaspora particularly because of its enormous proliferation, thus he proposes four tools to facilitate the categorization of diaspora. The first tool would be the ‘emic/etic relationship’, meaning how members of diaspora as acommunity OPEN ACCESS
LUmNIjE KADRIU 59 perceive themselves (emic) and how outsiders perceive them (etic) (p.15). The second tool would be ‘the passage of time’ since ‘astrong or renewed tie to the past or ablock to assimilation in the present and future must exist to permit adiasporic consciousness to emerge…’ (p.16). The third tool is alist of ‘common features’ (p.16) 1, consisting of Safran’s revised features and Cohen’s additions, and as the final tool Cohen uses Weberian ‘ideal types’ (p.16), according to which diasporas are typoligized and classified into several groups, such as victim, labour, imperial, trade and deterritorialized diaspora. He explains that the Weberian ‘ideal’ actually means the structure which has to be contrasted with different ‘real’ examples, which are deviations from the ideal, formed from different combinations of 9 common features; thus each combination presents aparticular type.2 Thus, it is understandable that each community defined as adiaspora contains different combination of features from Safran, Weber 1 Cohen’s ‘Common features of diaspora’ are: 1.Dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically, to two or more foreign regions; 2.alternatively or additionally, the expansion from ahomeland in search of work, in pursuit of trade or to further colonial ambitions; 3.acollective memory and myth about the homeland, including its location, history, suffering and achievements; 4.an idealization of the real or imagined ancestral home and acollective commitment to its maintenance, restoration, safety and prosperity, even to its creation; 5.the frequent development of areturn movement to the homeland that gains collective approbation even if many in the group are satisfied with only avicarious relationship or intermittent visits to the homeland;6. astrong ethnic group consciousness sustained over along time and based on asense of distinctiveness, acommon history, the transmission of acommon cultural and religious heritage and the belief in acommon fate;7. atroubled relationship with host societies, suggesting alack of acceptance or the possibility that another calamity might befall the group; 8.asense of empathy and coresponsibility with co-ethnic members in other countries of settlement even where home has become more vestigial; and 9.the possibility of adistinctive creative, enriching life in host countries with atolerance for pluralism (p.17). 2 Ideal types of diaspora, examples and notes Main types of diaspora Main examples in this book Also mentioned and notes VICTIM Jews, Africans, Armenians Also discussed: Irish and Palestinians. Many contemporary refugee groups are incipient victim diasporas but time has to pass to see whether they return to their homelands, assimilate in their hostlands, creolize or mobilize as adiaspora. LABOUR Indentured Indians Also discussed: Chinese and Japanese; Turks, Italians, North Africans. Many others could be included. Another synonymous expression is ‘proletarian diaspora’. IMPERIAL British Also discussed: Russians, colonial powers other than Britain. Other synonymous expressions are ‘settler’ or ‘colonial’ diasporas. OPEN ACCESS
60 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 and Cohen, presenting in this way aunique case, regardless of possible similarities with others. Cohen argues that diaspora as anotion and phenomenon has undergone several development phases, beginning with so-called ‘Prototypical Diaspora’, ‘The Expanded Concept of Diaspora’, ‘Social Constructionist Critiques of Diaspora’ and the present time ‘Consolidation Phase’.(Cohen 2008) Below Iwill elaborate more on these phases trying to explain the development and the position of Kosovo Albanian diaspora within these frames. In addition Iwill try to reframe or/and match his categorization within three main societal development phases, namely pre-modernity, modernity and postmodernity, while adding contemporary conditions. This way Ibelieve the development of the term of diaspora and the context of Kosovo Albanian diaspora within it will be more comprehensively and clearly understood. Premodernity— The ‘prototypical diaspora’ contains the Jewish and Armenian diaspora, which is also named ‘classical diaspora’ by some authors. (Brubaker 2005:2) These communities are peculiar because their homeland at the time their dispersion happened was not bounded as anation-state territory in the modern sense. Both states, Israel as astate of Jews and Armenia of Armenians, were created in the twentieth century, while their community names are related to certain, correspondent/ respective religious or ethnic communities or/and identities. Thus not only the Jewish and Armenian Diasporas but also other diasporas which have constructed their identity around religious or ethnic or racial belonging in abroader regional sense within kingdoms or empires or continents could be included in the concept of premodernity. As for the Albanians they were recognized as an ethnic community since the premodern age. They called themselves Arbëresh and from this name derived different variations used in other languages, such as, for example: Albanians (Eng.), Albanese, (Italian), Alabanac, Albanec (Slavic), Arvanitas (Greek), Arnaut (Turkish) etc. At the present time they call themselves Shqiptar, their state Shqipëri and the language they use is called Shqip (Çabej 1975 (a): 62–67; 1975 (b) 68–70; Islami 2008: 418). They are descendents of Illyrians. The identity of the Albanians is mainly based on their language, which is an independent branch of Indo-European languages, and their TRADE Lebanese, Chinese Also discussed: Venetians, business and professional Indians, Chinese, Japanese. Note also the auxiliary elements discussed in Chapter 5. DETERRITORIALIZED Caribbean peoples, Sindhis, Parsis Also discussed: Roma, Muslims and other religious diasporas. The expressions ‘hybrid’, ‘cultural’ and ‘post-colonial’ also are linked to the idea of deterritorialization without being synonymous. (Cohen, 2008:18) OPEN ACCESS
LUmNIjE KADRIU 61 culture. Although it is admitted that they are the most ancient inhabitants of the Balkans, their territoriality has been quite fluid historically, moreover since borders in the pre-modern age did not have the same meaning as in the modern age. The same could be said regarding their religion. At the present time most Albanians are of the Muslim religion, but there are also Christian (Catholic and Orthodox, and recently small number of Protestant) Albanians. Thus as far as premodernity is concerned, Albanians then represented aparticular ethnic group, with aparticular language and culture on the Balkan Peninsula. In the literature regarding Albanian migrations, movements of Arbëreshs to other places such as to Greece, Italy, Croatia, Hungary, that happened as aresult of wars while the Ottoman Empire was permeating the Balkans, are described as Historic Diaspora (that seems to be in line with “prototypical diaspora’) in contrast to Contemporary Diaspora, in which migrations after the state of Albania in 1912 was established are included. (Çabej 1975; Islami 2008; Sulemani 2009: 5) 3 Modernity— In Cohen’s ‘Expanded Concept of Diaspora’ are included most if not all kinds of diasporas, which are related in one way or another, not only to the concept of nation-state and nationality, but also to the concept of ethnic minorities. People, because of wars and conflicts, were not only dispersed, in certain cases forcefully and traumatically, but also divided by the newly established borders of national states. As aresult of the fact that ethnic or/and national identities were built during along process, and national state frontiers were assigned as aresult of different political and power decisions, as Brubaker perceives, some groups were accidentally left outside their ethno-national ‘homeland’, and could be/are, according to him, counted as Accidental Diasporas. (Brubaker 2000; Brubaker 2005: 5). He defines this phenomenon not only as adispersion of people but also as adispersion of borders/frontiers. Thus, modernity, if simplified, is characterised by the establishment of nation states and “fixed” borders that contributed to the complexity of diasporan phenomena. Over time, as aresult of the differing political and economical development stages of nation-states, i.e. due to industrialisation, other categories of diaspora emerged, grounded in the activity in which the dispersed people were involved, such as the afore mentioned labour diaspora, trade diaspora, nationalist diaspora etc. It is important to note that in the period of modernity, although ties with the place of origin were maintained, the intensity of contacts with people there and with the place itself was considerably lower and much more difficult. Modernity in the Balkans is often marked by the fall of the Ottoman Empire that was followed by several Balkan Wars and Two World Wars that at the same time represented not only wars between powers but also wars over lands and borders between the newly established nations, which represented new state borders. These borders were defined by ‘boundary commissions’ established by the Great Powers, who started their work after the fall of Ottoman Empire and finalized it in 1926, and since then “Albania’s borders have remained relatively the same”. (Sulemani 2009: 9) At that 3 It should be noted that Kosovo Albanian diaspora was included in most books dealing with Albanian diaspora in general. See also (Schmitt 2012: 219–224). OPEN ACCESS
62 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 time, aconsiderable number of Albanians remained outside these borders, within what was then the Serbian-Croatian-Slovenian Kingdom, and after the Second World War within Yugoslavia, respectively in Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and South Serbia. (Schmitt 2012: 177; Malcolm 2001) Nevertheless, their already established ethnic and national awareness remained and even strengthened, and the state of Albania was referred to as amotherland. So, at this time Brubaker’s previously mentioned Accidental Diasporas have happened: Kosovo Albanians were also such acase. Besides, as aresult of apre-war agreement between Yugoslavia and Turkey to move the Turkish population to Turkey, agreat number of Albanians were treated as Turks and therefore forced to migrate. ‘Arms action’4 was just one way of making Albanians leave the country. It is estimated, as Schmitt puts it, that between 1953 and 1966, atotal number of 100,000 Muslim Albanians migrated to Turkey. (Schmitt 2012: 177) So, as is obvious, in this short period Kosovo Albanians produced both an “accidental diaspora’ and a“victim diaspora”. This only changed after 1966 with constitutional changes that awarded Kosovo more provincial rights. However, this political relaxation after 1966 produced aKosovo Albanian labour diaspora that actually resulted from the contract between Western European countries and Yugoslavia for the employment of seasonal workers. (Mustafa at al. 2007: 27)5Later, in the late 1980s and 1990s, Kosovo produced apolitical and economic diaspora as aresult of the deteriorating situation in Kosovo and its status. The escape of young boys from military service, the closure of the university, and the mass expelling of Albanians from workplaces resulted in increased migration and economic and political asylum seeking that produced and added anew wave of victim diaspora. To put it simply there was produced acombination of victim diaspora, due to political situation, and labour diaspora, due to economic situation. The peak of diaspora production by Kosovo Albanians occurred with their mass expulsion in 1999. Postmodernity— ‘Social Constructionist Critiques of Diaspora’ includes old and new diasporas interpreted in the frame of postmodernist theoretical explanations and conditions, which are, as mentioned above, characterized more by processes than forms, more by formations then forms, more by constructions then something predetermined by territory, essence or nature, more by transborders then borders, more 4 Arms action was called astate action to collect weapons from civilians. The insistence was so great that if people did not have weapons they were forced to buy them and pretend they are giving away those they had, otherwise in the cases when one would claim that they do not have they would be physically tortured to extreme. (Malcolm 2001: 334) 5 Most recent migration waves of Kosovo Albanians can be found in Mustafa at al. who were engaged in so called Forum 2015 working in ‘Diaspora and Migration Polities’, aproject of Kosovo SOROS Foundation and RIINVEST Institute that offers expertise and advocates development issues in Kosovo. Forum 2015 through its activities stimulates the debate on different topics and promotes the development of an advanced political culture. In broader perspective, Forum 2015 aims to prepare Kosovo for Euro-Atlantic integration. In 2007 Forum has conducted above Survey published in 2007 that can be found in internet. OPEN ACCESS
LUmNIjE KADRIU 63 by mixing than purity, thus hybridity, etc. This was, on the one hand, aresult of developments in technology, which made migration, i.e. mobility, increase significantly at aglobal level, resulting also in social, cultural, political and economical conditions for people. Thus, because of these new emerging phenomena, this age is also called ‘postnational’, alluding to the weakening of nation-states.(Appadurai 1996; Brubaker 2005; Cohen 2008: 174) So, seen chronologically, while during modernity nations were considered certain communities bounded by certain borders, by the end of the modern period nations were defined as ‘imagined communities’ beyond nation-state borders, whilst in postmodernity, nations, as Appadurai put it, are coming to an end, giving way to formation of ‘diasporic public spheres’ […] in ‘apost-national political order’ (Appadurai 1996: 22) as aresult of increased mobility of humans and goods around the world due to the development of technology and communication, enabling moving people and groups to maintain more consistent and frequent connections with their religious or ethnic communities across the borders. Contemporary conditions— Cohen’s ‘The consolidation phase’ following the postmodern one could be considered to be an age where contradictory tendencies are not only present and persistent but are also being acknowledged and studied. Different contradictory tendencies in societies have been acknowledged since Durkheim, however, in the modern age, i.e. modernity, there were schools like the Frankfurt School that assumed that evolution goes in unilinear pattern thus one (i.etradition) would be replaced by another (modernity); so, it was assumed that modernity would result in ultimate uniformity. However, in current times, it seems quite obvious that the replacement of one form with another is out of the question, and that complexity is increasing, and therefore the emergence of extraordinary new phenomena is going on, particularly due to the persistence of contrasting tendencies. For example, many scholars have foreseen the erosion of nation-states, evidencing the emergence of different supranational projects such as the European Union, the liberalization of movement and trade, and numerous transnational companies, etc. As aresult of the postmodern condition in contemporary times, mixing, hybridity and imagination are prominently highlighted. As diaspora communication and maintenance of ties with the homeland have never been easier postmodern condition in contemporary times is very much reflected culturally but also economically and politically. As Cohen avers: What nineteenth-century nationalists wanted was aspace ‘for each ‘race’, aterritorializing of each social identity. What they have got instead is achain of cosmopolitan cities and an increasing proliferation of sub-national and transnational identities that cannot easily be contained in the nation state system’ p.174 Nevertheless, again, as many scholars have presupposed erosion of nation states, they also note that migration has never been more controlled. (Brubaker 2005: 9) Thus in this phase we have to deal with the persistence of nation states but also the persistence of people in their cultural identities even across borders. We have to deal also with the creation of supranational reorganization upon whose policies not OPEN ACCESS
64 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 only national states depend but also the fates of increasingly mobile people interacting in different ways. Acontradictory tendency in regard to diasporas can be noticed for example when Cohen claims that ‘they want not only the security and opportunities available in their countries of settlement, but also acontinuing relationship with their country of origin and co-ethnic members in other countries […] Diasporas articulate their demands in terms of human rights or “group rights”’(p.173). And in similar fashion studies on diaspora highlight new ways of maintaining the ‘“changing same”, something endlessly hybridized and in process but persistently there— memories and practices of collective identity maintained over long stretches of time’ (Clifford 1994: 320). And this ‘changing same’ is considered by Clifford a‘harmless ethnocentric survival tactic […] not an absolute end in itself’ (p.322). Martin Sökefeld’s concept of ‘diaspora formation as a“special case of ethnicity”, as “imagined transnational communities which unite segments of people that live in territorially separated locations”’ (Sökefeld 2006: 2; see also in Cohen 2008:13) and Appadurai’s ethnoscapes and production of localities (1996) could be understood in the same way, as ways of maintaining the ‘“changing same”. These contradictory tendencies are seen by Konrad Köstlin as two sides of the same coin i.e. modernisation. In his observations in ‘New Meanings of the Region and Culture’6 he elaborates the influence of the globalization process and its effects on many meanings and contexts of region and culture as constructed by the elite, ordinary people and politicians, both during the era of nationalization and contemporarily. As he puts it: Since globalization gained new vigor there is shown adirect emphasis and anew, somehow surprising, interest in regional culture. This interest, which can be called localism or regionalism, is obviously closely related to the phenomenon of globalization. Regionalism is the other side of the coin of globalization. It turned out that the old idea of growing nations by uniting their regions was awrong initial assumption. All around the world today, the new state determines itself as ethnically different, trying to become independent in relation to the former big wholes and thus wanting to create new nations. Thereby they use selected symbols of popular culture as asymbol of their own difference. Some of the new states have names that we never heard before. Even in most remote places, today we can identify traces of transnational processes, in other words, globalization. We can see, for example, satellite dishes even on the poorest huts or Coca Cola cans thrown by the roadside. (Köstlin 2001: 33; 2011: 79–80). Thus contradictory tendencies are present, are fluid, they flow and often intertwine. So, apost-national tendency grows as atendency of self-ethnization leading to asort 6 Konrad Köstlin, ‘Nova shvaćanja regije ikulture’, in: Narodna Umjetnost 38/2 (Zagreb: 2001), pp 33–49, or Konrad Köstlin, ‘Kuptimet ereja të regjionit dhe të kulturës’ in Gjurmime Albanologjike Folklor dhe Etnologji (GjAFE) 40 (Prishtinë; Instituti Albanologjik iPrishtinës, 2011), pp.79–98. OPEN ACCESS
LUmNIjE KADRIU 71 25. Prishtinë: Akademia eShkencave dhe eArteve eKosovës / Academia Scientiarum et Artium Kosoviensis. Seksioni iShkencave Shoqërore. Kadriu, Lumnije. 2013. Identity Construction among Albanians of Kosovo. In Annuario 2. Tiranë: The Albanian Yearbook of Historical and Anthropological Studies, Center for Historical and Anthropological Research. Kadriu, Lumnije. 2017. Pushimet, Familja, Vendlindja në praktikat ediasporës shqiptare të Kosovës. Prishtinë: Instituti Albanologjik. Köstlin, Konrad. 2001. Nova shvaćanja regije ikulture. In Narodna Umjetnost 38/2. Zagreb. pp.33–49, or Köstlin Konrad. 2011. Kuptimet ereja të regjionit dhe të kulturës. In Gjurmime Albanologjike Folklor dhe Etnologji (GjAFE) 40. Prishtinë: Instituti Albanologjik iPrishtinës. 79–98. Lazăr, Andreea. 2011. Transnational migration studies: Reframing sociological imagination and research. In Journal of Comparative Research in Anthropology and Sociology. Vol 2. Number2. Levitt, Peggy. 2004. Transnational Migrants: When “Home” Means More Than One Country <http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/ transnational-migrants-when-home-meansmore-one-country> [accessed 22 August 2014]. Levitt, Peggy and Nina Glick Schiller. Conceptualizing Simultaneity: aTransnational Social Field Perspective on Society. In International Migration Review, 38 (145) (2004), 595–629 <http://policydialogue. org/files/events/Levitt_Glick_Schiller_ Conceptualizing_Simultaneity.pdf> [accessed 3 October 2015]. Malcolm, Noel. 2001. Kosova— Një histori eshkurtër. Second edition. Prishtinë: KOHA & Tiranë: Shtëpia elibrit. Marcus, George. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography. In Annual Review of Anthropology 24. 95–117 Mustafa, Muhamet at. al. Diaspora dhe Politikat eMigracionit. Prishtinë: Forum 2015. <www.riinvest.org/index.php?gjuha=en&- action=category&cid=3> [accessed 13 October 2014]. Portes, Alejandro. 1997. Globalization from Below: The Rise of Transnational Communities. Princeton University. <http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/ working%20papers-/portes.pdf>. [accessed 5January 2015]. Povrzanović Frykman, Maja. 2004a. Transnational Perspective in Ethnology: From “Ethnic” to “Diasporic” Communities. In Maja Povrzanović Frykman ed. Transnational Spaces: Disciplinary Perspectives. Willy Brandt Conference Proceedings. Malmö University. Povrzanović Frykman, Maja., 2004b The transnational lives of immigrants: transnationalism as abodily experience. In Attila Paládi-Kovács et al. eds., Times, Places, Passages: Ethnological Aproaches in the New Millennium. Budapest: Académiai Kiadó. Safran, William. 1991. Diasporas in Modern Societies: Myths of Homeland and Return. Diaspora 1(1), 83–99. Schmitt, Jens Oliver. 2012. Kosova –histori eshkurtër enjë treve qendrore ballkanike. Prishtinë: Koha. Sökefeld, Martin. 2006. Mobilizing in transnational space: asocial movement approach to the formation of diaspora. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006.00144.x. Sulemani, Valbona. 2009. The Albanian diaspora: immigration and settlement experiences (Theses and dissertations). Paper 624. <http://digital. library.ryerson.ca> <file:///C:/Users/V/ Downloads/OBJ%20Datastream.pdf>, [accessed 10 September 2014]. Waldinger, Roger and David Fitzgerald. 2004. Transnationlism in Question. In AJS Volume 109 Number 5. The University of Chicago, 179–195. Lumnije Kadriu is aresearch associate at the Institute of Albanology, Department of Ethnology in Prishtina, Kosovo. She has earned Diploma degree in Ethnology and General linguistics at the University of Zagreb, Master’s Degree in Ethnology at the University of Prishtina, and Doctoral degree OPEN ACCESS
72 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 in European Ethnology at the University of Vienna. Her thesis was about Kosovo Albanian diaspora practicing holidays and their keeping ties with family and homeland. Since 2011, she is periodically engaged as an adjunct lecturer at the Department of Ethnology and Cultural Anthropology, University of Prishtina. She is an author of the monograph Glocalization— ethno-cultural perceptions. She participated in numerous national and international conferences organized in Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Israel. She is amember of editorial board for the journal Gjurmime Albanologjike, Folklor dhe Etnologji published by the Institute of Albanology, as well as of the journal Antropologjia publish by the Institute of Cultural Anthropology and Art Studies in Tirana, Albania. She is also member of SIEF and InASEA. Her recent research interests are processes of globalization and transnationalism. OPEN ACCESS