Cultural Polyphony and Identity Formation: Negotiating Tradition in Attica Author(s): Dimitra Gefou-Madianou Source: American Ethnologist, Vol.

26, No. 2 (May, 1999), pp. 412-439 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/647293 . Accessed: 07/05/2011 03:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Ethnologist.

http://www.jstor.org

culturalpolyphony and identityformation: negotiating traditionin Attica

DIMITRAGEFOU-MADIANOU-Panteion University

At the turn of this century, standing at the top of Hymettus mountain which separates Athens from the Messogia region, Dimitrios Kambouroglou, an eminent Athenian historian and nationalist who belonged to the Athenian elite, looked toward Athens and exclaimed, "Thecity of spirit [Reason]," and then, turning toward the Messogia region, he said, "the countryside of spirits [alcohol and implied debauchery]" (1959[1889], 3:97; 1920:12).1 In this article, I explore the ways in which stereotypical representations of a rural marginal group expressed by a hegemonic urban elite may serve as a claim by both groups on national tradition as well as a basis for the subordinates' continuous or even furthermarginalization. In this way, a double dialectic of tradition is revealed: on the one hand, in conjunction with their own project of nationalism the elite have reworked elements of the subordinates' folk tradition, thus denying them a position of equality; on the other hand, the latter have employed similar chunks of folklore and elite visions in order to demonstrate their own equal participation in the project of nation building. This double dialectic unfolded throughout a long and eventful period that started in the second half of the 19th century when the Greek nation-state was still in the making and continues until today. As it were, the very fact that the project of Greek nationalism was based on the classic Greek civilization and on the appropriation of folk models that provided links with the Byzantine times and the Greek resistance against the Ottomans meant that all other images, traditions, and practices that were not in accord with this were either rejected or belittled. In this process, ruralgroups indeed offered such glorified folk elements, but were also Over the past century the Messogitic communities of Attica have been seen by the Athenian elite as degenerate and marginalgroups because of two elements central to their culture: the Arvanitic language and retsina wine. These elements were perceived as undermining the elite's project of constructing a homogenous Greek nation-state based on links to the ancient Greek language, a classical spirit, and a glorified vision of the folk. This dismissive discourse has influenced the ways Messogites have viewed themselves as well as the Athenians, and has given rise to a counterdiscourse. In this article, I attempt to follow the dialogue between the dominant Athenian discourse and the Messogitic counterdiscourse as these have been transformed over time. Arguing that traditions and identities are not only constantly invented in an ongoing negotiation process, I also seek to show how symbolic elements can be appropriatedby differentgroups and invested with novel meanings and significance in what I call a double dialectic of tradition. However, I contend, this process does not necessarily improve the subordinates' position, but may lead to their further marginalization. [double dialectic of tradition, identity, nationalism, local versus national, Arvanitic language, retsina wine, Greece, ethnicity]
American Ethnologist 26(2):412-439. Copyright? 1999, American Anthropological Association.

412

american ethnologist

characterized by other traitsthat simply did not fit this vision of the elite thus making them even more marginal. As I will show, this trend of marginalization and hidden dependency is still evident despite present-day conditions of intensified urbanization and economic cooperation between the urban center and such marginalized communities. As the quote in the beginning of the article suggests, since the late 19th century the Messogitic communities have been represented by the Athenian elite as culturally degenerate, uncivilized, and marginal.2This view was, and still is,3 based on the Arvanitic language (known throughout Greece as Arvanitika), which is Albanian idiom interspersed with some Greek and Turkish words, and retsina, a popular resinated white wine. These two Messogitic cultural elements the elite saw as undermining their project of building a homogeneous Greek identity for the newly established nation-state. At the same time, this negative portrait has influenced the way the Messogites have viewed themselves and their relation to Athens, as well as deepening the rift between wealthy and poor members of their communities. On the part of the Athenian elite, this dismissive view has taken differentforms at differenttimes with varying intensity depending on the sociopolitical situation. There has been a constant and dynamic negotiation of definitions in which the two groups borrow and lend objects of the present and images of the past. The interests and motives that condition this dialogue between a dominant Athenian/national discourse and the Messogitic one as they have been transformedover time are examined here. It should be emphasized, however, that the case under consideration has never been expressed or understood in terms of a "minorityproblem." As a matter of fact, the Arvanitikaspeaking rural communities in Messogia have managed to construct their identity within the framework of the Greek nation-state. Despite their marginalization by the Athenian elite, these communities have somehow managed to keep their language and other elements oftheir culture without perceiving themselves or being perceived by dominant Others as constituting an ethnic minority group within Greek society (cf. Schein 1975). Over the past decade an extensive anthropological and historical literaturehas centered on the theme of tradition that is closely related to the concepts of identity, nationalism, ethnicity, and the making of history.4 Perhaps, the most well known and influential anthology of articles has been that by Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983), which has inspired a series of studies on the "invention," "reinvention," "invocation," "objectification," and "variation"of tradition. Among such studies there are some, especially in the United Kingdom, that examine "local identity" as this is constructed and practiced primarily from the "inside," that is, how local people experience and represent a sense of commitment to a particular place.5 I would think, though, that by doing this, these studies tend to minimize the importance of "outside"discourses in this identity-making process and to present local communities as if they existed more or less in a vacuum. Tryingto overcome this, in the present article I seek to show how in the process of learning and validating their identity-through socialization, educational system, in interaction with and in opposition to dominant groups or hegemonic discourses (statist, religious)-people are continually transformingit, despite the fact that they (and often the researcher as well) see identities as stable (Borofsky 1987:2). In this, I follow Barth, who has already suggested that the critical focus of investigating the cultural content of ethnicity should be "the ethnic boundary that defines the group, not the cultural stuff that it encloses" (1969:15), and I also attempt to see these boundaries as pliant and fluid (Barth1994; Strathern1981, 1982).6 A consequence of this is that I cannot see identities as things that are experienced in the same way by all members of a community nor, for that matter, as things that are always positively perceived. To a certain extent, what may communicate such an impression of internal homogeneity is Hobsbawm's concept of "invented tradition."Hobsbawm has defined invented tradition as "a set of practices . .. and rules ... of a ritualor symbolic nature"that instill certain values and norms by repetition, thereby implying a "continuity with the past" (1983a:1). Inthis

cultural polyphony and identity formation

413

way, invented traditions "use history as a legitimator of actions and cement group cohesion" (1983a:12, emphasis added). I certainly agree with Hobsbawm's general thesis. However, the ethnographic example that I analyze in this article leads me toward emphasizing another side of the problem, that of intragroupvariability in relation to the objectification of a tradition.More precisely, in Messogia different population groups have tended to develop hierarchically perceived aspects of identity. This means that in issues such as national or ethnic identity there may be a more encompassing feeling of sameness, while in others, for example local ties, identity can be more personally and diversely expressed. Identitytherefore should be seen as historically constructed through a constant interplay with an Other who can be either internal or external. This means that within any group of people identity may have both positive and negative aspects, and, what is more, that there may be multiple individual perceptions and definitions of what constitutes the group's identity and tradition. It is what Taylor (1991:33-34) calls the "dialogical character"through which humans are able to understand themselves and hence are able to define their identity. Identity then should be understood not as an object that can be defined outright, but ratheras an ongoing process whereby relations of power, authority, and authenticity are negotiated and formulated within particular social and political contexts, both between different groups and between different individuals within a particulargroup. In other words, an interplay between identity and tradition is carried out. Traditions are aspects of identity within a historical context. Following Bloch's discussion of Merina identity and how this represents the way they "think of themselves, their body, their mind, their knowledge and their material culture as partof history which began before they were born and will continue after their death" (Bloch 1992:5), I examine the interaction or dialogue between locally based practices of identity and external, often hegemonic discourses of national (ethnic) tradition. This dialogue takes place in a broad arena where local traditions and images of self are in constant interplay with outside forces and discourses in an ongoing process of identity construction. Another issue is that since identities are said to be created or invented they have been often defined as lacking authenticity, as not being "real." Thus, while on the one hand, cultural representations are defined as products of a particularsociopolitical context, that is, as invented traditions, on the other hand, it is implied that a "real"tradition, history, or identity does exist: a premise arising from a positivistic approach and as such just as "invented." Indeed, in his study of the "scheduled monuments" of the town of Rethemnos in Crete, Herzfeld emphasizes that there can be no "real"past and that all traditions are "invented,"negotiated, and contested in order to meet overlapping local interests(1991:12,205). Inshort,the existence of "realpasts," or "genuine, autocthonous traditions"is untenable. All traditions are "invented" (Handler and Linnekin 1984; Wagner 1981 [1975]:51). Wagner (1981 [1975]) seeks to trace invention back to its symbolic origins. He emphasizes that all culture is invented by the development of social symbols7-language, education, ritual-which make it comprehensible and commonly shared.8 He notes that in order to communicate about self in ways that are meaningful to the Other one takes part in a dialectical process that defines not only the self, but the Other as well. This process of communication and self-definition is a creative process that defines contexts which provide "a collective relational base" (1981:40) and can be defined as culture itself (1981:35-36). And though Wagner does not explicitly refer to the process of group identity formation he still implies that culture is the main agent of identity. That is why his work is importantto the arguments made in this article. In the Greek ethnographic literatureon identity construction, the focus has been primarily on gender,9 with some attention to the links between gender and national identity?1and issues related to the assimilation and identity formation among Asia Minor and EasternThrace Greek

414

american ethnologist

refugees of the 1922 war between Greece and Turkey.1 It is only relatively recently that the emphasis has shifted to ethnic groups and to the political negotiation of national versus local identities. That was due to the post-1989 increased movements of ethnic groups (of Greek origin as well as non-Greek economic migrants) into the Greek state, the recent realignments in the Balkans after the collapse of former Yugoslavia, and the conflict raised over the "Macedonian issue,"12as well as the proliferatingliteratureon European diversity and issues of multiple and imagined identities. All these developments have revealed with increased intensity the problems inherent in the historical basis of Greek national identity and, more specifically, the manner in which the fluid and highly germane concept of ethnic identity has been perceived by the nationalist discourse as a frozen and absolutely fixed entity. A number of recent studies, both historical and ethnographic, have dealt with these issues and have approached the various versions of identity construction on a more diverse and fluid basis. Thus, the conception of Greekness as an organic whole that encompasses the Greek ethnos, 3 the state and the Greek Orthodoxy in one bounded unity has proven to be particularlyproblematic, especially in what concerns religious minorities in the context of the Greek nation-state (Pollis 1992), the study of Greek Jews (Abatzopoulou 1997), or the content analysis of the Greektextbooks on the issue of national identity (Frangudaki and Dragonas 1997). Other studies have shed light on the official Greek historiography by showing the way in which tradition may be seen as a key element in the nationalistic folklore for the construction of cultural continuity, as well as the way in which ethnic identity has been directly affected by the process of nation-building (Karakasidou1993, 1997b; Mackridge and Yannakakis 1997). Yet, others have managed to show the interrelationsof ethnic identity construction not only at the local and national levels, but also at the level of a transnational or global arena (Danforth 1995).14 Lastly, a number of other articles have focused mainly on the local level and on the cultural processes through which multiculturaland polyphonic groups have been adopted quite easily and were gradually assimilated into the local communities in Greek Macedonia since the beginning of the century (Agelopoulos 1993, 1997; Cowan 1997), or have resisted integration by presenting some elements of their distinct identity (Karakasidou1997a;15Voutira 1997). What all these studies have shown is a pluralism in the ways local groups have managed their identities in relation to other local groups and the Greek state (or even globally), and have contested a number of terms and concepts-from "locals" (dopyi) versus outsiders (xeni) to Greekness versus national identity-which for a long time have been taken for granted. Also, these studies have contested the manner in which boundaries and relations among ethnic groups are perceived and experienced locally, as well as the manner in which the national discourse has influenced their construction and management of identity. In agreement with the logic of the above studies, I intend to explore the interplay between a dominant group that traditionally championed the nationalistic discourse and a subordinate rural community that in certain respects did not quite "fit"in the elite's vision. Paraphrasing Hobsbawm (1983a:14), the study of "invented tradition" cannot be adequately investigated without careful attention to the study of nation building.

setting the stage: Athenians and Messogites

In 1991 I was doing fieldwork in a semirural community in the region of Messogia,16 25 kilometers from Athens, where the population consists mainly of descendants of Albanianspeaking Orthodox Christianswho migrated from regions which today constitute Albania and settled in Attica between the 14th and 16th centuries.17 In the late summer of that year, I was invited to a young informant's name-day celebration. In the casual and merry atmosphere of

cultural polyphony and identity formation

415

Athanasia's house, young people from the area had fun drinking retsina wine or whiskey. Many of them were professionals or students at Athens University. The hostess herself was a lawyer practicing in Athens. In the small hours of the morning one of the guests, Athanasia's cousin Sotiris, put on a tape with Arvanitic songs, so he announced. Athanasia was surprised by the fact that some of her friends and cousins knew the tunes already, and though she did not express anything openly, I could see that she was feeling uneasy with the situation. As she put it, the neighbors might be disturbed by the loud music. In the meantime, the tape continued to play and had created an atmosphere with several people humming the tunes. Only a few could understand what the words meant, while others asked Sotiris for translation; this he offered instantly. Everybody danced in a way similar to the Kalamatianos, a popular Demotic Greek dance. I was amazed. Although I knew that these people were "Arvanites,"I also knew that this was something they did not really display openly. LaterI found out that Sotiris had bought the tape in Omonia Square, the most central place in Athens. Incidents like this, I realized, had been taking place quite often at that time, especially among younger people,18 and although some of them sensed that they were doing something that could create consternation and worry among older residents, it did not seem to bother them very much. With some of the local schoolteachers and other educated members of the community, however, things were slightly more complex as they were absolutely opposed to any expression of Arvaniticculture, although they themselves knew that language much betterthan the younger generations. The reasons for this became clear to me later. A few months before Athanasia's party,the crisis in southeastern Europe prompted migratory movements into the Balkans and tens of thousands of Albanians crossed the border, most of them illegally, to look for work in Greece. The majorityof them settled in Attica, the vast plain that surroundsAthens, and more particularlyin the area of Messogia where they were offered work in the fields. As I was able to observe, the Albanians could communicate with the locals either in Greek-since most of them had a rudimentaryknowledge of the language-or, and most often, in Arvanitika. A short time later, when Greece got involved in the "Macedonian issue"-that is, the dispute between Greece and the FormerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia regarding mainly the symbols and the name Macedonia itself-the local Messogites seemed (ostensibly, as will be seen) to have "forgotten"not only their "Arvaniticculture" but also the language itself (Gefou-Madianou 1993a). As far as I can say, they stopped conversing in Arvanitika at parties like Athanasia's as long as the crisis lasted-although they occasionally used the language at home. A year later, at a conference organized by the Messogitic local folklore society, an Athenian social scientist who made reference to the Albanian-speaking populations of Attica (i.e., the Messogites) angered the local mayor and other notables from the capital who retorted that there were no Albanian-speaking communities in Greece. In a way he was right in that Arvanitika is not widely spoken today, and, in any case, the Messogitic people have not felt themselves nor been seen by the state as a minority.19 Such events made clear to me why Kambouroglou's1889 words, mentioned at the beginning of the article, were still alive in the minds of the Messogitic people who knew the very words he had used and tried to refute them in my conversations with them. Implicitly, there was an issue concerning their local identity and its relation to the Greek national identity, a problem that was not always voiced directly there nor, perhaps, felt in the same way or with the same degree of intensity by all members of the communities. As will be seen, this problem has always been there since the establishment of the Greek nation-state and since Athens became the capital of Greece in 1834, encapsulating the ancient Greek spirit that focused among other things on Greek language. Undoubtedly the geographical proximity of the Messogitic communities to Athens, the administrative as well as ideological center of gravity of Greece, exacerbated their situation as their linguistic and other distinctive characteristics were all the more evident in their contrast with those of the Athenians. Being furtheraway from Athens, Arvanitika

416

american ethnologist

speakers in other parts of Greece were not as likely to experience the ambivalence and even discrimination experienced by the Messogites both in terms of severity and frequency. Until the 1950s, the economy of the Messogitic communities was largely self-sufficient and the social life self-contained. Land ownership, however, was based on unwritten claims that went back to Ottoman times and thus most of the population was almost entirely dependent upon and vulnerable to Athenian merchants, politicians, and administrators(Gefou-Madianou and the late introduction 1992a). High levels of poverty and illiteracy, the lack of infrastructure, of national insurance schemes also contributed decisively to the subordination of the Messogites to the Athenians. With the dramatic postwar expansion of Athens, which by the 1960s included more than one-third of the Greek population, trade relations between the Messogitic communities and the city became stronger. This opened up the local economy, rationalized vine cultivation and retsina wine production, and made many families wealthier than ever before. This dependency, however, has always been there symbolically. As a consequence, the petty tradersfrom the Messogia who took their carts of hay, vegetables, must, or wine to Athens would often be ridiculed for their red noses, alcoholic breath, and poor command of the Greek language. Itwas not uncommon for them to be diagnosed as alcoholics as soon as they entered an Athenian hospital for whatever reason. Truly, the Athenians have also been drinking wine, but allegedly in a more moderate fashion (cf. Allen 1985). And then, as far as we know for the 19th century, they did not drinkonly retsina but other types of wines from Peloponnese, as well as beer. In a sense, this may have its significance for the argument as it alludes to the fact that the Messogitic wine producers were not the main providers of wine for the growing capital city; for this they had to wait until the 1930s.20 It is only recently that these extreme distinctions between Messogites and Athenians have been considerably moderated-albeit not fully obliterated-as not only many Messogites are living in Athens and many Athenians buying land in or near the villages of the Messogia. Moreover, retsina itself has acquired a positive social and political significance. Largelythrough the expansion and growth of tourism and the Greek tourist industry, retsina has acquired a new cachet and has been identified as the characteristic Greek wine. In addition, since formalizing its relationship with the European Common Market (now the European Union [EU]) in 1981, Greece has been able to participate in the European and broader international markets with such "culturallyauthentic" products as feta cheese and retsina, although at least for the second, its European phase was curbed in the late 1980s. To a large extent that was due to the entrance in the EU of Spain and Portugaland subsequent pressure on Greece to increase the production of quality wines (i.e., wines officially classed by the EU as Vins de Qualite Produits dans une Region Determinee or v.q.p.r.d [Gefou-Madianou 1992c]). Despite these positive changes, Messogites are still likely on occasion to express feelings of inferiorityin relationto the Athenians as if they were still living in Kambouroglou's "countryside of spirits."

Greek national identity and the challenges

posed to Messogitic communities

This web of interlocking attitudes and practices that brings together the Messogitic communities and the Athenians, while at the same time keeping them apart, can only make sense if it is placed within the wider political framework of nation building and identity articulation in Greece. Arvanitic language, retsina wine, the ancient spirit of Hellenism and the Greek nationalist project are broughttogether by history,a historyof modern Athens, of modern Greece and Greek national identity. the roots of the problem Greek national identity is a product of 19th-century construction of national identity rooted in a truly ancient past and a glorified version of the "folk."Negating

cultural polyphony and identity formation

417

novelty, this national identity invented a tradition based on what was defined as the authentic history of Greece. In fact, Greece was the first southeastern European country that revolted against the Ottoman Empirein 1821 and won its independence in 1830. During the firstyears of its existence the newly formed constitutional monarchy was placed under the "guarantee" of the "Protecting Powers," Britain, France, and Russia (Clogg 1992:47). The Western powers had supported the Greek revolution, viewing the Greeks as the living ancestors of Europe's civilization. Feeling compelled to live up to this image, the Greek intellectuals of the early and mid-i 9th century sought to prove themselves as "Greek"as the Europeans'conception. In the early years of independence, the issue at stake was the construction of a single nation, a single state, which would unify the culturally diverse, polyphonic and scattered Greek people within the Ottoman Empire (Clogg 1992:48; Herzfeld 1987:102; Kitromilides 1990:43; Kofos 1990;104; Skopetea 1988:55, 96-98; Tsauossis 1983:16-17). What was needed was a sense of nationhood based on a common history, language, and folk images that could encompass all the people included within the original boundaries of the state and those perceived as appropriate for inclusion in the future; in other words, a shared sense of Greek identity.2' This was accomplished through the construction of an ancient common past and an invented tradition (cf. Anderson 1991:42; Hobsbawm 1983b:264). If the European and the Western worlds' heritage was based on ancient Greek culture, as their inhabitants claimed, then the Greeks clearly had an "ancestral"right to this heritage for the creation of their new modern nation-state (Herzfeld 1987:53).22 Similarly, this heritage helped to define them as a distinct ethnic group in relation to other groups that had been or were still under Ottoman rule. In that sense, Greece served as the geographical location for Europe's reified cultural heritage, as the land that gave birth to philosophy, democracy, and liberty, all of which were central to the project of European modernity. Viewed this way, the land of Greece embodied the tradition, the pure Spirit of Western Civilization (see Tziovas 1985:265; Sant Cassia and Bada 1992:5; see also, Herzelf for a discussion of why modern Greeks are still considered "imperfect Europeans" [1995:219]).23 This spirit, this tradition was cloaked with the folk costume of the 19th-century ordinary Greek peasant who fought against the infidel Turkto regain control of his ancestral land. Itwas his image and folk practices that were wedded to the ancient wisdom and traditions that the white marbles of Attica exuded. It was to such kind of people that the vision of the elite was addressed or, to put it the other way round, it was such people who could carry the implications of the elite's vision. Interestingly,this vision was occasionally carried to somewhat extreme manifestations as, for example, the first King of Greece, Otto, of German origin, who was installed by the Great Powers in 1833 wearing a fustanella (pleated skirt traditionally worn by Greek men).24But on the whole, the glorification of the folk followed the less extravagant, but equally ambitious, avenues of the Greek Folklore Studies. Based on German romanticism, Folklore Studies were established as an academic discipline by the mid-19th century (Herzfeld 1982:13, 53). This view was most clearly promulgated by the educated Greeks of the diaspora in western who admired Europe since the 18th century, in particulara group known as the "Fanariotes,"25 the Greeks of the classical period along with their language and philosophy. Deeply influenced by the French Revolution and the Enlightenment, they, and other elements of the diaspora intelligentsia,26 presented and promoted Greece as the land of the oppressed descendants of the ancient Greeks who were desperate for liberation. Not only did they stress the essentially Greek nature of European civilization, thereby influencing Europeans to support the Greek revolution, but they also played a crucial role in the pre- and postindependence intellectual revival of Greece. In their works they argued that the fundamental spirit of ancient Greek heritage had survived foreign invasions and subjugation to be passed down from generation to generation in the form of a Greek way of life, thought, and language that permeated those who lived on the land of the ancient Hellenes.

418

american ethnologist

Language was perhaps one of the most sensitive aspects of the emerging national identity, since the Greek of the 18th and 19th centuries was quite different than that spoken by the ancients.27 Discussions by scholars and politicians alike dealt with the degree to which the spoken everyday language should be "purified"to resemble the ideal ancient Greek of Plato and the Attic dramatists. Such people maintained that since language defines cultural identity, and since the inhabitants of Greece all spoke some form of Greek, they did exhibit a common tradition and sense of history that effectively made them a nation. Moreover, some of them supported the view that the prime determining characteristic of the Greek people during the Ottoman period was the Greek language in the context of EasternOrthodox Christianity.28It was for this reason that the personification of the Greek folk that was mentioned above, that is, the Christian peasant/fighter who was clad in a "traditional"costume, had to understand the language of the Church and had to speak an identifiable idiom of Greek. Of course, that was not at all simple. The whole issue echoed similar arguments propounded by European philhellenes who had conceived and presented an idealized image of Greece based on ancient Greek heritage and language that in practice was not spoken by the ordinary people with a a form degree of fluency. Itwas against this background that katharevousa,29 literary"purifying" of language close to ancient Greek, was thought worthy and was declared to be the official language of the state. The geographical focus of this cultural heritage was embodied in Athens, which became the capital of the newly independent Greece in 1834. This choice symbolized the orientation of the new state toward the classical past, for even the name of Athens directly linked the then small-town capital of 2,500 inhabitants with the glorious ancient city (Politis 1993:75).30 The Acropolis of Athens, with the shattered marble remains of its Parthenon, overlooked the new city and represented the only indisputable ethnic symbols at hand. Hellenism, finally, had found in Athens its new ethnic center (Sant Cassia and Bada 1992:14; Skopetea 1988: 251).31 And those who came to settle in Athens, and especially those intellectuals of the diaspora who were to make up the newly formed Athenian elite (SantCassia and Bada 1992:23),32 saw themselves as bearers of this spirit, responsible to uphold and represent it.33It was this heritage that many of the Athenian elite, of which Kambouroglou was an illustriousmember, sought to define and impose on a multicultural and polyphonic city and indeed on a multicultural and polyphonic newly constituted Greek nation.34 In this attempt they came eventually to criticize those who spoke languages other than Greek, such as the Arvaniticspeakers in communities around Attica. This sensitivity to language was belatedly aggravated with the publication of Jacob Philipp Fallmerayer's infamous work (1860) in which he contested the ancient heritage of the modern Greeks, choosing to focus on the perceived effects of a Slavic legacy. Forthat reason he aroused of outrage among the Greek intellectuals, since by questioning the "purity" the Greek race, that their Greekness, he also challenged the very reason for the existence of Greece as a new is, nation-state and, consequently, the Greeks' Europeanorientation (Skopetea 1988:172). Though until then the Greekness of the Arvanitic-speaking populations of Greece had not been questioned, with Fallmerayer'spublications this gradually changed, and in the closing decades of the 19th century their existence was completely negated. This negation was also reinforced by the rise of the irridentistprogramof the Megali Idea (Great Idea) (1844-1922), which aspired to unite, within the bounds of a single state with Constantinople as its capital, all the areas associated with Greek history or the Greek race and to embrace all Orthodox Christiansof the ex-Ottoman Empire(Clogg 1992:48).35 At the turn of the century, then, the combined forces of Fallmerayerand the Great Idea had brought to the fore the question of who were the real Greeks. Since the founding precept upon which the new nation had been built was the Greek language, it was implied that real Greeks were only those populations who spoke this language and thus could identify themselves with their ancient roots. Obviously, from that perspective the Arvanitic-speakingcommunities of the

cultural polyphony and identity formation

419

Messogia were in an inferiorposition as their language, Arvanitika,was an Albanian idiom with a mixture of some Turkish and Greek words. This language raised the question of the very heritage upon which the new nation's identity was being forged. Even vernacular Greek, with its Turkishand Slavic influences, was condemned since language had to be and indeed was "purified"with the advent of katharevousa (Herzfeld 1987:53-55; Mouzelis 1978:136). For the Arvanitic-speaking populations of the Messogia, however, language was not the definite criterion of their Greekness. Forthem, attributessuch as adherence to EasternOrthodox Christianity,a sense of localism, and ties to the land and kinship, attributesthat had long served as cohesive forces within the Ottoman Empire,provided a sense of ethnic unity and identified them as Greeks. They felt they could trace their ancestry back many generations and still be found to inhabit the same land: Attica. And, indeed, there is enough historical evidence to prove that such populations were inhabiting Athens and the surrounding villages in the Attica basin working as farmersor as mercenaries for the Dukes of Athens long before the establishment of the Greek nation-state and the declaration of Athens as its capital (see Ducellier 1994; Jochalas 1971; Panayiotopoulos 1985). Accounts by travelers of the 18th and early 19th century note their presence among other groups in the area (Pouqueville 1820:20). So, too, in works by Greek writers of the mid-1 9th century, Arvanitic-speakinggroups were described as one among many that made up the Greek nation-state (see, for example, Byzantios 1953 [1836]). Many of these groups identified with the Greek nationalists and actively participated in the 1820s war of independence not as separate groups, but as Greeks, clearly distinguishing themselves from the non-Orthodox (Muslim) Albanian populations. Although they could communicate with the Ottoman Turkish-Albanians who were fighting against the Greeks (Skopetea 1988:188-189), they were not identified nor did they identify themselves as Albaniinstead.36When the war for independence was over in 1830, ans, calling themselves "Arvanites" these Albanian-speaking Orthodox Christianswere embraced as citizens by the newly established Greek nation-state as they constituted a significant percentage of the population and the armed forces. After all, in terms of appearance, too, the Arvanites were indistinguishable from the rest of the population. The aforementioned folk image of Greek peasantry fitted them perfectly. Ironically perhaps, it was then that the dismissive attitude based on language that I discussed earlier made itself distinctly felt: whatever integrationthere was it had to be based on the "fact"that these populations were Greek, nothing more, nothing less. the recent past An element that complicated the mattereven more was the success of other nationalistic movements throughout the Balkans which, among other things, resulted in the establishment of the states of Serbia in 1882, Bulgaria in 1908, and Albania in 1912. Until that time the Albanian-speaking populations of Greece were "nationally homeless," something that, despite the problems presented above, facilitated their identification with the Greek State (Skopetea 1988: 187-188). Now their position became even more precarious as they could be easily identified with the newly established state of Albania, at least as far as language was concerned. A change for the worst is clearly reflected in parliamentarydebates of the period, in circulars of the Ministryof Education and in university speeches. And though some scholars and politicians thought differently, for the majoritythe dominant issue was language. Those speakers of Arvanitika who were living in or near the capital came under greater criticism since their presence allegedly embodied the infection that contaminated the purityof the ethnic heritage.37Thus, some decades later, during the dictatorship of August 4, 1936, the communities of Arvanites suffered various forms of persecution at the hands of the authorities, though during the 1940s their position improved somewhat as their members helped other Greek soldiers and officers serving in the Albanian front. Later,during the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, especially duringthe years of the militaryjunta (1967-74), their lot was undermined

420

american ethnologist

once more as the Greek language, and especially katharevousa during the junta, was actively and forcibly imposed by the government as the language of Greek nationality and identity. At the same time, however, a shift in emphasis can be discerned from the political and ethnic aspect of the Athens-Messogia relationship as it became more commercial. No longer viewed as a threat to national cohesion or a diluting element to the nation's character, the Arvanites instead were seen merely as backward, narrow-minded, drunken peasants whose language and wine culture reflected their unenlightened, ignorant state. And in a sense, it is true that up to the 1960s the Arvanitic communities of Messogia were essentially endogamous communities of subsistence agriculturalistswhose main product was wine. Even today, although the communities are in close contact with the Greater Athens area and its modern urban culture, the ownership of houses and vineyards, the cultivation of grapes, and the production of retsina wine constitute the core elements of Messogitic identity (GefouMadianou 1992a). Should a Messogitis cease to own even a small vineyard norto produce even a small barrel of wine for household use he would cease to be considered, even in his own eyes, a true Messogitis-though he might still acknowledge his origins. Equally,for women such a core element of their Messogitic identity is the sweet wine (glyko krasi),which is exclusively produced by them (see Gefou-Madianou 1992a:121-123).Thus, similarly with the past, the vines and nurturingof the fermenting must are very important components of the Messogites' identity. They drinkthe wine they produce on all occasions: at festivals, as medicine, to ensure male progeny, in Church rituals,as food. And as the supreme expression of commensal relations, men drink retsina in coffeehouses and in their cellars (Gefou-Madianou 1992a). Houses, family barrels, and vineyards, and even each separate vine plant (koutsouro), are closely associated with the male line. Though kinship is traced no more than seven degrees, vineyards go deeper than that symbolizing the family's as well as man's identity. They constitute the link with their ancestors and with the land where those ancestors lived, farmed, and are buried. Men personalize their relationships with their vineyards, giving them names that indicate who in the family first created them. These associations between land, ancestors, vineyards, and the production and consumption of wine are further reinforced by the Messogites' not openly expressed belief-yet occassionally practiced-that love making in the vineyards by newly married couples confers blessing and prosperity to their household, and it is closely associated with fertility and male progeny (see Gefou-Madianou 1992a:125). Vineyards, houses, barrels,and wine are the elements through which Messogites experience and symbolize kinship, birth, death, production and reproduction, and self. In short, these are the symbols that embody and express Messogitic identity. This being the case, what we are faced with is the double dialectic of tradition mentioned in the beginning of this article: an interlocking relationship of two antithetical visions of the Self and the Other. The result is a paradox-the Arvanites are what the Athenians accuse them of being, but for different reasons than the Athenians perceive; especially today, when many of them have been educated and acquired close links with the Athenian establishment, they can criticize their critics in a manner that reveals the existence of a counterdiscourse based on these very central elements of language and retsina wine. So once more, and for purposes quite disparate from those of their author, Kambouroglou'swords "the city of spirit [Reason] and the countryside of spirits"has come to sound to their ears as a bitter indictment of people who are proud of themselves and their culture.

from Arvanitic to Messogitic tradition: a counterdiscourse

One of the first impressions I had while in the Arvanitic communities of the Messogia was that many people consistently complained that the Athenians treated them as if they were inferior. Many of my informants over the age of 65 described their humiliation during their national service when they were assigned the lowest-rank jobs, remembered their school days

cultural polyphony and identity formation

421

when many teachers believed them slow because their fathers were regular retsina wine or drinkers,38 how, when visiting Athenian houses, they were asked to take off their shoes before entering so as not to sully the living-room floor. Such instances might take place even today, albeit more rarely and in a more refined way, as contacts between Messogites (or residents of the area) and Athenians have become obligatory now that Messogia has been converted into a more or less integral part of the capital's expanding economy and polity.39At any rate, this integration has followed the time-honored model of patron-client relationship, with many Athenian merchants serving as godfathers to their clients' families (see Tsoukalas 1984:52-53; 1996:65-68). But as greater numbers of Arvanites have started receiving more than just a rudimentary education, they have become increasingly aware of and sensitive to such attitudes that, significantly, they link to and specifically focus on Kambouroglou's earlier-mentioned words. To a certain extent, it is these words that provide a basis for their counterdiscourse. More precisely, after World War II a heroic discourse developed aiming at closely linking the Revolution for Independence in 1821 with the origins and history of the Arvanites. In another particularlypoignant illustrationof the double dialectic of tradition, this time from the point of view of the subordinates, a number of educated individuals, retired school teachers, and civil servants have been publishing books that focus on local Arvanitic traditions the roots of which went back to ancient, Byzantine, and in some instances even preclassical periods as well (see Gerondas 1984; Hatzisoteriou 1971; Kollias 1983; Papanikolaou 1947; Soteriou 1951, 1956; Tsingos 1991[1939]). Biographies of local Arvanitic heroes have been written: heroes like Mitromarasand his troops who revolted against the Ottoman Turksin 1 771, or Marcos Botsaris, a hero of the Greek Revolution of 1821, as well as lesser-known heroes like Yiannis Davaris (Hatzisoteriou 1971, 1973; Yiotas 1990). This heroic revolutionary discourse-Arvanites have a long history as warriors and mercenaries-aims to prove the Arvanites' "Greekness,"which counters Kambouroglou's dismissive rhetoric. After all, having repeatedly fought against the Ottoman Turksand having helped save Athens and the city's monuments, they feel they have the rightto declare themselves even more "Greek"than the Athenians, who were urbaniteswith no knowledge of guns and fighting. At the same time, in the context of this heroic discourse the Messogitic communities have also developed a systematic search for antiquities in the area. Temple walls, cemeteries, and inscribed marble vases found in their fields stand as evidence that their present-day communities are in some manner linked with those of ancient Greece. In this spirit the agrotowns of Markopoulo, Koropi, and Keratea trace their origins from the ancient Demos of Agnounton, Kropia, and Kefale respectively (Antoniou 1985:57-59, 1991:56; Papanikolaou 1947:17-19; Soteriou 1951:27). And many toponyms have been changed from Arvanitic language to ancient Greek or Byzantine names. Thus, the village of Liopesi has been renamed Peania, from the ancient Demos of Peania, Koursalashas become Koropi, and so on (Hatzisoteriou 1973:317). In this climate, some Arvanites invested the Greek Orthodox Church saint, Dionysis, with additional meaning. Indentifying him with the ancient Greek god of wine and entertainment, Dionysos, they suggest that he-Saint Dionysis as they call him-actually planted vines and made the firstwine in the area. Others have sought to prove that ancient Greek had its origins in ancient Illyria(which was roughly where Albania is today) tracing, forexample, the etymology of Poseidon, the ancient Greek God of the sea, to the Illyric(Arvanitic)stem words Potis (water) and Dan (Mother Earth). Poseidon was thus "the one who brings water to earth" (Kollias 1983:163). Despite all this, the period after World War IIhas witnessed a decrease in spoken Arvanitika. The growth of the educational system and the reduction of illiteracy, coupled with the spread of mass media were the most important contributing factors. The national school system has played an important role in educating the children of the area, and through them the whole

422

american ethnologist

family, in Greek national history as well as in ancient and modern Greek language. Yet this formal educational system has not only served to make the populations of the local communities particularly aware of the valued symbols of the dominant national discourse. Through the development and internal dissemination of the regional heroic discourse by the educated elite, the local population has also come to adopt or at least be aware of its "heroic past." It should be noted, however, that this local heroic discourse has been mainly expressed through written, literaryworks created to represent Arvanites in a more acceptable and positive light to those outside. Thus from inside the Messogitic communities, this heroic discourse is viewed and accepted in different ways by the different local, "inside" groups. Well-off Messogitic families, both large land-owners whose vineyards go back many generations and the more recently prosperous families who draw substantial income from local businesses, were the firstto adopt, albeit gradually, this heroic discourse, thereby nationalizing their tradition. This outwardly directed discourse has been associated also with the future lives of their children who are receiving higher or university education, and thus expect to acquire a different lifestyle, preferably in Athens. They avoid speaking the Arvanitic language, at least in public, and ceased calling themselves Arvanites, choosing ratherto referto themselves and their tradition as Messogitic. The language their parents spoke is no longer identified as Arvanitikabut as Vorio-Epirotika (northernEpirotic).Similarly, the bilingual Arvanites of Attica or claim to be Vorio-Epirotes-Illyrioi Dorian-Epirotes(Hatzisoteriou 1986:432), tracing their back to distant ancient and mythical times. origins Most significantly, this discourse has been associated with progress and modernization. Though the wealthy outwardly directed Messogites continue to be involved with intensive and systematic vine cultivation, they choose to sell their grapes to large wineries for the production of standardized retsina and nonresinated quality table wine that, as has been mentioned earlier, is more competitive in the EU market. Many keep a small vineyard and at least one of the old-style barrels for household consumption (Gefou-Madianou 1992a). They have adopted an urban mentality, rejecting everything that is considered to be backward and parochial. This is manifest in the ways they have built and decorated their homes, in the way they dress, in the recreational activities they choose to pursue, and in the eagerness with which they buy apartments in expensive areas of Athens as dowries for their daughters. In this context, they have begun referringto their village as a city and are in favor of the construction of a new road through Mount Hymettus that will connect Athens with Messogia, thus making the lattera virtual suburb of the capital (see also Sutton 1988). Moreover, the fact that many Athenians from the 1980s onward have bought land and built weekend homes in the region has only contributed to the wealthy Messogites desire to emulate them. And it is not only these Athenian weekenders who have moved into the area opening it up to outside influences. Beginning in the 1970s large numbers of internal migrants from other regions of Greece have settled in the area looking for a better future near the capital. These migrantswork in Athens and constitute a large partof the labor force in nearby factories. Today, these "foreigners," the locals call them, constitute fully as one-third of the total population of the Messogia. The once closed, inward-looking communities are becoming increasingly more integrated with and influenced by the capital and the larger Greek nation-state. These changes have been accepted by the wealthy Messogites, who have put some of these developments to their advantage, mostly through their involvement in the production of standardized wines, as well as the real estate market. By contrast, those less well off, the "self-made"household owners with small plots of vineyard lands, have reacted quite negatively to this influx of outsiders. They consider themselves "true"Messogites, for they were born and still live in the region and are still actively involved in the vine cultivation and retsina wine production, rejecting modern methods. They see themselves as the rightfulowners of the village and view the newcomers ("foreigners") the ones who have brought a number of unwelcome as

cultural polyphony and identity formation

423

changes to their communities, seriously threateningtheir character. Inconversations, these local people express a sense of loss, a deteriorationof values and way of life. Older people, especially, express distress: "We used to know everyone in the village. Everybodysaluted you in the street. Now, you go in the square and it's full of strangers." These villagers also remark that the distinction between city and village is less marked now as houses, shops, and factories line the main road from the Messogia to Athens. As they say, "Youdon't know anymore where the city stops and the countryside with vineyards begins. We used to be pure, vineyard cultivators and retsina producers. Now, people who move to Athens sell their vineyards and strangersdestroy them to build houses instead. We don't know what we are anymore." Together with the weekend homes of wealthy Athenians in the village, all these business facilities can be seen as embodiment of a furthermarginalization of Messogia, this time in terms of space. In reaction to such changes, these less well off Messogites have developed a romantic discourse that turns inward, to the history of their villages. This discourse is based on their vineyards. As "true Messogites" they nostalgically describe the old days when Messogia was exclusively a region of vine cultivation and retsina production. Their representations differ strikingly from those of rich Messogites, for they are based on locality, land, each individual vine plant and its cultivation, and the hardships of past life. The term "true Messogites" has achieved symbolic status. But as such it has also achieved a compelling moral force in the struggle of the Messogites to maintain control over their vineyards. One informant, now in his seventies, who still produces his own retsina wine, but who used also to work in the vineyards as a wage laborer with his brother, told me, We were workingin the vineyards fromsunriseto sunset.Ourfood was a piece of bread,olives, and retsina. wereworking and on We the trygopati [harvesting pressing grapes thesameday]when mybrother with died. He went down to the musttankandwas poisonedby the fumes.He lefthis wife andchildren no money,no socialsecurity, pension;nothing.Butmysons andhisworked no and together we keptmy father's We vines in order our vineyard. didn'tsell it. Now peoplefromoutsidecome anduproot father's to buildtheirvillas. When they referto their own communities, these less well off Messogites experience a sense of belonging "inside." They contrast this with the term outside when they referto Athens or the non-Messogitic world. This "inside"world refers specifically to those people who belong to or claim kinship with the vine cultivators and retsina-producingArvanitic-speakingfamilies. This type of village endogamy in Messogia among this population has remained high as long as the vine cultivation and wine production followed the traditional ways of production. Today, with the introduction of bottling facilities and standardization processes, this practice has been reduced in intensity and scope (Gefou-Madianou 1992c). "TrueMessogites" have to a certain extent preserved the virtue of a closed network of relations (friendship and mutal assistance) among the retsina-producingfamilies. They usually referto this by saying "we are one hundred cousins in the village with the same surname," an expression that has both genealogical and symbolic overtones. These "trueMessogites" view their village as a clean, hospitable, welcoming place, where people know how to drink and have fun. Their katoyia (cellars) and coffeehouses are unique places where producers share retsinawine and achieve transcendence through kefi, a state of merrimentand cheerfulness usually associated with the consumption of alcohol. The outside world belongs to the skliades ("bourgeoisie"in Arvanitika),that is, to those who they feel look down upon them: Athenian merchants whom they view as exploiting them, bureaucrats with whom they have difficulty in communicating, and weekenders and tourists who are threatening them with the changes they bring. In short, "trueMessogites" consider the Athenians to be sly merchants, with an educational superioritythat provides only a superficial veneer that masks their essential immorality.They reverse in this mannerthe accusation of moral and cultural inadequacy to accuse in their turn the Athenians of a type of modern, urban moral degeneracy.

424

american ethnologist

The well-off Messogites, while agreeing in the first instance with this view of Athenians, are increasingly adopting and identifying with many of the bourgeois Athenian values in a bid for acceptance. For this reason, well-off Messogites use the "inside"/"outside"opposition in a broader and more fluid sense. Although, as vineyard owners and retsina producers, they belong to the "inside" world of the Messogites, they also belong to the "outside" world through a broader network of relations, both in Athens and abroad. Moreover, in contrast to the less well off Messogites, their vested interests in loans for the systematic cultivation of the vineyards and standardized production of wine necessitates close ties both with the ministries in Athens and EU offices in Brussels (Gefou-Madianou 1992c). But, in a sense, these are two branches of the same monetary as well as moral economy since both groups, the more affluent and the less well off, construct their self-image vis-a-vis each other and the Athenian outsiders in terms of the political significance that vine cultivation and retsina production have acquired at the present juncture. On the one hand, well-off Messogites are interested in preserving this image of authenticity because through tourism (and the publicity it brings)an increase in their wine sales is observed. Through "tradition"they proclaim their reputation as "a pure wine-producing village" and in this way push the Greek wine industrytoward more standardization and are able to secure loans from the EU. In other words, they apply modern economics to an invented hegemonic wine-growing tradition.40 If anything, through them, as well as through similarly successful producers from other regions, Greece is seen as a wine-producing country on a par with the rest of Southern Europe and France. On the other hand, for the less well off Messogites who cannot compete at the level of industrywith the more affluent members of their communities, the situation is different. Not only are they marginalized in space by invading Athenians as has been suggested earlier, but they are also marginalized in an economic sense by their more affluent covillagers. At least in this relatively pure form, this is a new seam of marginalization that did not really exist before. Still, though, these less well off Messogites recognize in themselves another streak of significance that ties them to the polyvalent symbol of contempoAre raryretsina: are they not, after all, the "true"bearers of the Messogitic retsina "spirit"? they not those-nay, the only ones-who continue to be "traditional"vine-cultivators and retsina producers as they have always been, those who continue to strive to live up to their tradition as "true Messogites," maintaining their forebears methods of vine cultivation and retsina production so as to give retsina its cherished "traditional"halo? So, despite these two distinct and separate centers of tradition, what in the end links both the wealthy and the less well off Messogites, those illiterate and educated, younger and older, as well as those living in the village and those visiting regularly, is the retsina wine and the care and cultivation of the vines. Through them the Messogites construct their present by referring to a past associated with ancestral vineyards (koutsoura)and wine production. And this works at two levels: first,through it they are able to claim autochthonous rightsto the land; and second, at another level, through the commensal consumption of wine and the exchange relations it entails (kerasma)they recreate the authenticity of their community's spirit. Through continued cultivation of the vineyards and production of Messogitic retsina in the manner of their parents and grandparents, the Messogites have kept their "tradition" and their identity alive. But at the same time, and with a sense of irony perhaps, these core elements are also what link Messogia to Athens. the spirit of Athens and the spirit of Messogia: appropriating symbols traditions and

negotiating

In what has preceded I have shown how the Greek national and the Messogitic identities have been constructed and transformedover time as separate but also interactive entities. Now

cultural polyphony and identity formation

425

I examine in more detail what could be called a conjunction of symbols used in the creation of each of these identities in the process of this constant dialogue between Athens and Messogia. Of course, it has already been shown that this dialogue broughttogether two partnerswho were unequal: on the one hand, the Athenian elite whose hegemonic/national discourse imagined an identity that facilitated the creation of a new nation-state based on an ancient cultural past, and in this way they negated what the Arvanitic communities of Messogia represented while, on the other hand, as a result of this hegemonic discourse populations of these communities became conscious of themselves, thereby creating their own identity in conjunction with the one imposed upon them from the outside. It was within this ongoing dialectical process that Athenians again turned to the Messogia (among other areas) in search of an authentic folk Greek tradition-the double dialectic of tradition revisited. The rapid urbanization process beginning in the 1960s resulted in a massive growth of the population in Athens by 1980. For many Athenians this contributed substantially to a sense of alienation in terms of identity.4' Greece's entry into the EU in 1981 furthereroded their sense of identity, and the search for an authentic folk Greek tradition became more compelling. EU membership secured Greece's status as a European nation, but it also precipitated a new awareness of the need for a cultural distinctiveness, a trend also evident throughout Europewith the increasing interest, promotion, and glorification of ethnic and cultural identities in the wake of the homogenizing forces of the EU. The quest for authenticity and distinctiveness is often based on "ethnic anxiety" as Fisher (1986) calls it, reflecting a threat experienced by Western populations in the postmodern world, a threat stemming from the gradual homogenization of society "by the erosion of public enactment of tradition, [and] by loss of ritual and historical rootedness" (1986:197). Athenians and the Greek state, through its various organizations and ministries (Tourism Organization and the Ministryof Culture), in their search for an authentic tradition, looked to the rurallifestyle of Messogia, accepting and idealizing it in order to create a new version of an authentic Greek culture in line with the changing views in Europe, a version stressing the old and durable, "an authentic tradition." It seems that the ideas and ideals of the older folklore studies were still prevalent, albeit in more subdued ways. This trend became stronger in the 1980s with the then-government's policy of decentralization and development of local administrations. These gave opportunities to local populations to invent (or, should I say, re-invent) their identities in an attempt to express their ethnic and cultural distinctiveness without undermining their essential Greek national identity. InAttica an Arvanitic League was created along with a number of local cultural associations aimed to promote Arvaniticculture and tradition. The discourses assumed by these groups wove together the local heroic and romantic discourses mentioned earlier. Itwas at this time too that Botsaris' Greek-Albanian dictionary, compiled in 1809 (Pouqueville 1826, as referred to in Jochalas 1993:38-39), was finally published by the Athens Academy in 1980 (Botsaris 1993 [1809]). Even the Messogites living in Athens began to appreciate their Arvanitic origins. They contributed financial support to the local associations and sponsored folklore publications as well as the plans for a wine museum. Their attitude toward the Arvanitic language began to change as well and was no longer openly dismissive. This was evident especially among the educated young Messogites, who, perhaps feeling more secure in their social position within wider society, have rediscovered their grandfathers'language in a period when multiculturalismand the term "ethnic" have become tokens of a Western-flavored postmodernity that has reached Greece of late.42Such people began to show an active interest in their past, attend lectures that describe and extol their Arvanitic traditions, and listen to tapes with Arvanitic songs in social gatherings like Athanasia's party mentioned earlier.43Also, they began to appreciate the retsina that their parents produced and drank-together, that is, with whiskey and other imported spirits that had gradually become symbolic of Greece's newly found affluence.

426

american ethnologist

Inthis climate, Messogitic retsina,one of the key characteristicsof which the formerdismissive Athenian discourse had been constructed, came finally to be embraced by Athenians as a symbol of Greek identity, and thus Messogitic "backwardness"became emblematic of authentic Greek tradition. Already by the 1970s it had become fashionable for middle- and upper-class Athenians to produce homemade retsina kept in a barrel in their cellars. In this metaphorical "tavern,"as it was called, they would invite their friends to eat and drink, imitatingthe Messogitic commensal katoyia gatherings of the past (see Gefou-Madianou 1992a). Similarly, in the numerous taverns of Plaka, the old city of Athens, at the foot of the Acropolis, amongst tourists, neon signs, and fer-forge (cast-iron) chairs, retsina would be looked upon as the authentic symbol of Greekness. But this retsina is not quite the same as the Messogitic one. Rather, it is a type of "traditionally" produced wine that has been divested of its historically sanctioned cultural attributes and has been thrown into the world of commodities: commensality has been turned into consumption (Gefou-Madianou, 1992a). It seems then that Messogites have finally gained the spirit they were missing-the lack of which had marginalized them for years-but only by inflection. A weapon used in a negotiation of identity, as retsina wine has been, came to be employed by both sides and thus became a floating symbol in a shared sea of meanings.44 Besides, retsina now had political, ideological, and economic significance, for in the negotiation process of modern Greek identity within the EU it could serve as a currency with both national and European value-despite its being overshadowed by quality table wines. All this can be seen in the way the Messogia region as a wine-producing locality has gained publicity and importance. Traditional practices in the production of retsina have been revitalized and grape-harvest celebrations and wine festivals have been introduced or reintroduced in the local communities. Sightseeing visits for tourists aimed at offering an experience of traditional life by spending one day in an "authentic village" have been organized by the Hellenic American Union and other such groups. These excursions include a visitto a traditional Messogitic house with a loom, retsina-producing equipment, and katoyia, as well as visits to workshops of the remaining coopers in the area. For its part, the Ministryof Culture supports the establishment of a wine museum in the area, while a widely read Sunday paper, Kathimerini, has repeatedly published articles on the life history of a large Messogitic family that has been producing wine for three generations. The grandfatherwas a traditional retsina producer; the father a systematic cultivator and retsina trader, and the grandson is an oenologist educated in France, owner of a modern winery in the area where a number of differentwines are produced (Hatzinikolaou 1993, 1994). In many respects, this may be seen as an isolated example, but at the same time it points toward the existence of a trend. Messogites who were formerly looked down upon because of their production and consumption of retsina are now praised for it. The once deorgotary appellation, "wine-producing village" (krasochori),has now become a claim to authenticity through the employment in common with the Athenians of retsina's multilayered symbolism. Thus, both the Messogites and the Athenians constantly invent and reinvent their traditions in partby defining and redefiningwhat modernity and rurallife are; what the role of retsina is in the construction of the country's Europeanimage; who the authentic vine cultivators and retsina producers are; how the inside gives meaning to the outside and vice versa. But one could argue that from another point of view, this idyllic picture hides a sleight of hand at the level of representations. As retsina has become useful and profitable for the Greek nation-state and for the tourist industry, at the same time it expresses a situation in which the majority of the Messogites do not really control their economic interests and the manner in which they are represented. The implication of the machinations of mechanized wine production, as well as the image production that springs thereof, has indeed turned them into commodities, a spectacle of tradition "appropriately"wedded to the needs and prospect of a

cultural polyphony and identity formation

427

southern European state in the process of modernization. This, more than anything else, illustrates the point I have introduced at the beginning of the paper concerning the further marginalization of subordinate communities through the process of inventing tradition. As Herzfeld has argued (1997a:160), elites encourage the construction of stereotypes that offer a basis for both contesting and reproducing relations of power at the local level.45

conclusion
In this article I have attempted to show how in an ongoing process of negotiation between a dominant national discourse and a regional counterdiscourse, symbolic cultural elements are appropriated by both sides and are imbued with new meanings and political significance. This leads to a constant invention of traditions and identities that become intertwined at different nodes of social hierarchies, not only at the level of semiotics and representations, but also at the level of material exchanges. In the course of the 19th century, the emerging Athenian elite imagined an ancient Greek heritage as the sole basis upon which the new nation-state of Greece could be constructed. The Attica plain of Athens with its Acropolis, the language of Plato and other ancient philosophers, and the Byzantine blend of Graeco-Christiancivilization were the cornerstones of that project. At the same time, this project entailed the negation and marginalization of conflicting cultural traits that characterized a number of groups located within the topos of the new nation that detracted from the purity of this construct: non-Greek languages, non-Orthodox religions, and everyday practices. One such group comprised the Arvanitic-speaking and retsina-producing communities of the Messogia region, a short distance from the capital city of Athens. Indeed, these two elements of differentiation,the non-Greek Arvanitic language and retsinawine, were used by members of the Athenian elite as the basis of a dismissive discourse in which the Messogites were presented as drunkards and backward peasants whose distinctly different identity undermined the cohesiveness of the Greek nation-state. Being thus marginalized, the Messogites gradually developed a counterdiscourse that in a number of ways sought to prove what for them had always been true, that they too have always been as Greek as the Athenians. Traditions were invented, Arvanitic language was mildly or more forcefully suppressed and locally produced retsina became one of the principal table wines for the growing population of the capital. Geographical proximity to Athens became cultural proximity. Lately, however, the way in which this cultural proximitywas realized has reversed its course as the Athenians came to embrace retsina and became more tolerant-at least at an academic level-toward the Arvanitic language. And if the latter did not become a celebrated trait of modern Greek character the formerdid and very much so: throughout Europeand the Western world Greece is known for its retsina wine. This has had a profound impact on the way the Messogitic populations have begun to see themselves. Retsina has now become not a sign of difference, but a bond of similarity and acceptance. Chunks of folk culture and elite visions have finally become joined issue in this double dialectic of tradition and contest between subordinates and urban elite. This raises some importantquestions. Is this the same retsina as in the past? Has this been the same retsina for all those concerned? The answer to both of these is no. Although retsina in the Messogia is kept in barrelsto be consumed by men in the coffeehouses and the katoyia in order to achieve transcendence, it has been subtly transformed.At the beginning of the century this retsinahad significance for the local population only as an embedded aspect of the local culture. With the dismissive discourse retsina and its consumption assumed a different dimension. People became conscious of and had to deal with the negative associations that retsinaassumed just as later on they were conscious of and dealt with its valued aspects. Similarly, the retsina

428

american ethnologist

consumed in the taverns in Plaka does not carry the same symbolic load, nor does it serve to negotiate between the same groups of people as the retsinaconsumed in the Messogitic katoyia. This core characteristic of Messogitic and later Greek culture, retsina, which seems to have remained unchanged over the years, has been continuously reinvented through its interaction with Athens and the world beyond. But does not this fluidity, one may ask, give us a sense of an underlying inauthenticity and at the same time-to use a term I have employed earlier-a sense of furthermarginalization of the Messogitic communities? Can we not assume that this invention and reinvention of retsina questions Messogites' as well as Athenians' cultural authenticity and paves the way for the former's integration into the latter's cultural milieu and expanding economy? I would tend to agree with this. On the one hand, traditionsthat are symbolically created (Handler and Linnekin 1984:286) are not inauthentic; rather, all traditions are invented, and this very process of invention is the creative process through which cultures and cultural boundaries are constantly negotiated. On the other hand, in this process of negotiation, as in every negotiation, things are lost and other things are gained. It is evident that the Athenian elite has not remained content with its own ancestral spirit, but has sought to embellish it with the spirit of Messogitic wine. But in doing so, it has kept its own version of nationalism and cultural continuity in a dominant position and has commodicized those from whom it has borrowed elements of the folk. From their side, some of the Messogites have been drawn closer to the dominant discourse and its bearers, but the majority have not managed to attain what in their eyes is their rightfulposition in the process of modernization of the Greek nation-state.

notes
versionsof thisarticlewere presented the 3rdEASA at conferencein Oslo in Acknowledgments.Earlier and and June 1994 in a workshopentitled"Tradition MoralCreativity" in a seminarcalled "Issuesin of Tradition," Contemporary Anthropology: Memory, Identity, organizedby the Department Anthropology at UCLin November1995. I have benefitedfromdiscussionsthattook place on both occasions. More I A. D. M. Ch. specifically, would liketo thankM. Bloch,K.Hastrup, Kuper, Miller,N. Redclift, Rowlands, for commentsand suggestions improvement.would also like I for Tilley,and Ch. Torren theirpenetrating to expressmygratitude G. GeorgiosAgelopoulos, Allen,I.Antonakopoulou, Herzfeld, lossifides, to P. M. M. E. Kalpourtzi, Makris, Millett,E. Papataxiarchis, Veikou,and the anonymousreviewers the P. Ch. G. for for American commentsand carefulcriticisms the text. of Ethnologist providing insightful spirit(pnevma)is closely connected to Reason,intellect,education,as well as religiousreasoningand the does Moreprecisely, term the spirituality. Unfortunately, punspirit/spirits not come out well in English. in pnevma is used by Kambouroglou this and other worksof his (see, for example, 1959[1889], 1:10; with (Elliniko 1959[1889], 2:11; 1923:157) interchangeably the terms"Hellenicspirit" pnevma),"Helthe concepts "nationalsoul," "Hellenicspirit"and "Hellenism" Greektexts with an ethnocentric in orientation the turnof the 19th andthe beginning the 20thcentury, Tziovas1985. Theword Chora at of see with a capital c means city, capitalcity, state, nation-state, while chora with a lower-casec means a area,a localdistrict, 1988:84,92). Bothwords,howevercome geographical region,territory (Vostantzoglou fromthe same root, choros,which means space, area, room. The word choriates(peasants), which by used communities Athensderivesfromthe word Kambouroglou to call the Arvanitic-speaking surrounding which also comes fromthe same root. chorio(village), ton (1852-1942) in his Istoria Athinonwroteextensivelyaboutthe Albanian-speaking Kambouroglou of Attica withtheirbarbaric choriates) the Messogiaregion,who hadstigmatized peasants (Albanophonous namesand toponyms(1959[1889], 3:96). He describesthem as roughand vulgar,inhospitable, intrepid warriors, contrastingthem to the hospitable, amiable, sensitive, and smooth-tonguedAthenians were consideredby Kambouroglou superior as (1959[1889], 3:98-99). Athenians comparedto the Mesof was voice, theirlook,the pose of theirhead,the structure the neck,everything not only sogitesfor"their but the different, absolutely oppositefromthose of the Albanian-speaking [I peasants" foniton, to vlema, i thesistis kefalis,I kataskevi lemou,ta pantaitanou monondiafora, katapliktikos tou ala antitheta ta ton apo considered to (1959[1889], 3:100).Infact,Kambouroglou choriaton] Albanophonon Messogites be "inferior taxeosonta,os ti metaxizoon ke anthropon] [katoteras beings,somethingbetweenanimalsand humans" attitude toward Arvanitic the was (1959[1889],3:177).A dismissive language alsodisplayed, amongothers, was (1896), and Sourmelis(1862); but Kambouroglou the most by Gennadios(1926[1854]), Lambrou
lenic/Athenian spirit"(Elliniko/Athinaikopnevma), and "Hellenism" (Ellinokotita).For a similar analysis of 1. In Greek, "I Chora tou pnevmatos ke i chora tou oenopnevmatos." In the Greek language the word

cultural polyphony and identity formation

429

extreme and has proved more influential. It is his arguments that many modern authors from this region attempt to refute (see, for example, Hatzisoteriou 1971, 1973, 1986; Kollias 1983; Papanikolaou 1947; Sotiriou 1951, 1956; Tsingos 1991 [1939]). 2. This portraithas been and still is accepted by the Athenian population at large notwithstanding its dramatic change in composition throughout the last century, as the Athenian elite's dominant discourse has so much pervaded their articulationof difference and creation of stereotypes that other disparities stemming from locality, historical ties or places of origin have been minimized. This is so, as will be seen later, because the Athenian elite has traditionallyseen itself-and is seen by others-as the "purestrepresentatives"of the Greek national identity that was constructed in the 19th century during the nation-building process. Thus, although the expansion of Athens has brought many ruralpopulations to the capital and has created diverse and often contradictory identities of "Athenians"(see, for example, Faubion 1993; Panourgia 1995), Iwould feel comfortable in the following pages using the terms Athenians and Athenian elite interchangeably in their relation to Messogites. 3. Forthe problem of verb tenses and the all too common slippage into an "ethnographic present,"which I have tried to avoid here, see, among others, Davis 1992 and Dubisch 1993:284. 4. See for example Anderson 1991; Byron 1986; Cohen 1982, 1985; Gellner 1983; Handler 1986, 1988; Hanson 1989; Keesing and Tonkinson 1982; Linnekin 1983, 1990, 1991; McDonald 1990; Mewett 1982; Sahlins 1983; Thomas 1992; Tonkin et al. 1989; Vermeulen and Govers 1994. 5. Such as Byron 1986; Cohen 1982; Mewett 1982. 6. In this I follow Barth'smore recent work in which he maintains that "today we are more able, if we try, to conceptualize culture as flux in a field of continuous, distributed variation"(1994:30). I also follow Strathern's1981 and 1982 seminal works in examining boundaries and identity as fluid and in constant interaction with "outside"discourses. I also follow Jean Comaroff'sview of identity construction as a process of indigenous resistance against "outside" hegemonic forces of colonization (1985:24-25) and especially as an indigenous reaction against the colonization of consciousness (Comaroff and Comaroff 1992:235). For similar studies focusing on women, descendants of slaves and peasant groups, see Boddy 1989; Makris 1996; Scott 1985, 1990. 7. This idea is elaborated on by Turner,who suggests that this invented culture is represented through multivocal symbols that are "semantic molecule[s] with many components" (1979:239). 8. On the other hand, Hobsbawm, who has actually introduced the concept of invention of tradition, interpretsit as emerging ex nihilo. He maintains that a shared feeling that did not previously exist is created, and because of this, that is, because of the very fact of its creation, this shared feeling is experienced as common consensus (1983a, 1983b). 9. See, for example, Bakalaki1994; Campbell 1964; Dimitriou-Kotsoni1993; Du Boulay 1986; Dubisch 1986, 1995; Friedl 1962, 1967; Gefou-Madianou 1992b; Herzfeld 1985, 1986; lossifides 1991, 1992; Loizos and Papataxiarchis 1991; Papagaroufali 1992; Papataxiarchis 1991, 1992; Seremetakis 1991; Skouteri-Didaskalou1991 . Also for the study of gender-specific basis of social protest and resistance through the analysis of death laments and the construction of identities, see Caraveli 1986; Danforth 1982; Herzfeld 1993; and Seremetakis 1990, 1991. 10. See Herzfeld 1982, 1987; Dubisch 1993. 11. For ethnographic research in Greece on the construction of identities as they emerge in the negotiation of culturalsymbols that are crucial and meaningful forthe unity of communities with populations who are Greek Macedonians, refugees from Asia Minor, or eastern Thrace, see Cowan 1990; Danforth 1989; Gefou-Madianou 1985; Hirschon 1989; Michalopoulou-Veikou 1997. 12. The "Macedonian issue" concerns the relations between Greece and the FormerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia as the latteremerged after the disintegration of Yugoslavia. 13. See also Herzfeld 1982:13, where the author argues that in the context of 19th-century Greek nationalism ethnos was taken to as a synonym of the "people" (Volk). 14. A new element that Danforth brings in this work is the detailed presentation and analysis of biographical material. This approach has been later adopted by Van Boeschoten (1997) in her analyses of oral accounts and the examination of collective memory of civil war in a northern Greece region. 15. These interaction processes may also be described as national enculturatrion where the role of women as cultural mediators has been particularlyimportant(Karakasidou1997a). 16. The article is based on intensive fieldwork carried out in the Messogia region from 1988-91 and intermittentperiods from then until today. 17. Arvanitic-speaking communities exist in a number of regions in mainland Greece and the islands. For historical data see Ducellier 1994; Jochalas 1971; Panayiotopoulos 1985. Forethnographic analysis see Alexakis 1988, 1993; Oeconomou 1993; Toundassakis 1995; Tsitsipis 1992; Velioti-Georgopoulos 1996. 18. This was aided by the political climate of the 1980s, which allowed the expression of local "cultures" and "identities" in more open and "different"ways than before, and this was adopted by many local communities in Greece including Messogia. This process had been initiatedwith the fall of the militaryjunta and the restorationof democracy in 1974. 19. See also Mavrogordatos,who refersto them as "The Arvanites of Old Greece and especially Attica: Albanian-speaking Greek Orthodox villagers, with a long-standing Greek national consciousness" (1983:265). Karakasidou (1992, 1993, 1997b), in discussing the ethnic identityof Slavo-Macedonian groups in Greek Macedonia, seeks to show how the nation-building process has negatively affected existing patterns of local culture. See also Danforth (1995) for a detailed analysis of the Macedonian conflict in its

430

american

ethnologist

dimension.However,the Arvanitic-speaking communities the Messogiaregionpresenta transnational of differentcase since they have not felt themselvesor been perceived as anythingother than Greek languageand culture. citizens-despite theirArvanitic 20. A factorthatcontributed itwas the growingpopulation the capital,especiallywiththe influx to of of one andone-halfmillionAsiaMinorrefugeesin the 1920s andearly1930s andthe consequentincreasein the numberof tavernas. Certain Athenians,however,viewed themselvesas drinkingmore moderately. such as gettingAthenians tendedto exacerbate Athenian the inebriated, games playedby the Messogites, view thatthe Messogites whereasin fact,as they believed,they knewthe were themselvesheavydrinkers; "secrets" retsina how to protect of and fromgetting drunk. shouldalso be notedthatAthenians, themselves It and especiallythe elite, were more likelyto drinkbeer, a habitintroduced KingOttoand his Bavarian by advisors military and officers when they arrived Greecein 1833 (Skaltsa in 1986). 21. Actually, construction a singleethnoswas implicitin this project.Fora discussionof the term the of ethnos in Greecesee Just(1989:71, 85). Fora cultural definition ethnos,see Lekas1992. And for the of interelations betweenethnos,the GreekChurch,andthe state,see Stewart 1996. 22. Herzfeld's and its relationship the buildingof modern to generalthesison Greeknationalidentity Greeceandthe Greeknation-state particularly is to germane thissectionof my article(1982, 1987). Foran analysisof the reasonsthat explain the modernGreekidentitycrisis,see Tsaoussis1983. Fora critical of national discussion Greek as see the 1993, 1996. For influence identity a "stubborn stereotype," Tsoucalas of "national character" the belatedintroduction socialsciencesin Greece,see Gefou-Madianou993a. to of 1 23. Also, see Herzfeld a discussionon how modernGreeks for explainwhy they stillremain"imperfect (1995:219). Europeans" 24. Othersuch examplesincludedthe well-knownphilhellenLordByron, who also wore a fustanella; the wife of Otto, Queen Amalia,who had inventeda "romantic, ethnicfolkloriccostume"(Papantoniou elementswith local itemsof rural 1991:11)combiningsome European clothing;and Queen Olga, a few used the verysame Messogitic yearslater,who, significantly, weddinggown, thoughmorerichlyembroideredand of betterqualitycloth, as the officialdressof the court(Papantoniou 1996:30-31; Hatzimichali 1978:i, 74). Itwas clad in such costumesthatthe royalsdancedon national holidaysandotherceremonial occasionsthe Greekfolkdance of Kalamatianos (Krestenitou 1914:24). 25. Educated Greekscoming from Fanari, neighborhood Constantinople a in where the Ecumenical Patriarchate situated was sincethe 17thcentury. the classof Constantinople, Theyconstituted ruling having were the leadersof Dounavian gained a lot of privileges duringthe OttomanEmpire. Many Fanariotes while otherslived in Venice, Florence, Vienna,spokeEuropean or and Principalities, languages, were the bearers the ancientGreekheritage Europe of to (Dimaras 1973:7).The 18th century 1989:7;Vakalopoulos was calledthe "Century the Fanariotes" of himself was the descen1973:7).Kambouroglou (Vakalopoulos dant of one of these noble families.Initially fromConstantinople, Kambouroglou's familysettledfirstto Odessaandthento the first Whenthe capitalwas movedto Athens,the family capitalof Greece,Nafplion. also settledthere. Kambouroglou a dedicatedpatriotand Athenianloverwho spent most of his life was and tryingto establishlinksbetweenthe ancientAthenianlifestyle those of the contemporary (Megali city Elliniki based moreon ideological Engyclopeadia Pyrsos1933, 13:663). His tiradesagainstFallmerayer, thanhistorical facts,have become legendary. assumptions 26. Manyof these people were seminalfiguresof the GreekEnlightenment, EvgeniosVoulgaris like (1716-1806), lossipos Moisiodax (1725-1800), DimitriosKatartzis (1730-1807), AdamantiosKorais Velestinlis (1748-1833), and Rigas 1757-98) (see Dimaras 1989). (Phereos, 27. Itshouldbe notedthatalthoughmodernand ancientGreekare hardlyidentical,modernGreekis, in fact,actually and to veryclose to itsancientancestor bearsa greater similarity ancientGreekthanItalian does to Latin. 28. Thisis why the Ecumenical Patriarchate Constantinople Fanari a supporter the ancient of in was of Greeklanguage, that textsthathadcontributed the preservation both to of arguing it was the ecclesiastical the ancientGreeklanguageand the nationalconsciousnessduringthe Ottomanyears.One shouldnote thatduring Ottoman the the millet,whichwas calledthe Greekmillet,or the millet-iRum Empire Orthodox embracedall the Orthodox Christians the Empire, of Albanians including (Clogg1992:10). 29. Katharevousa seen as the moderate was betweenthe stance,the "middle way"(messiodos in Greek) demotic (vernacular) Greekand the "pure" AtticGreek(archaizousa) the 5th century,B.C.,which was of consideredthe language Platoand the greattragedians the classicalGreekperiod.Proponents the of of of archaizousa werecalledneo-Atticists aimedatrestoring classical who the Attic dialectto dailyuse(Babiniotis wentto extremes; AtticGreekadvocates 1982:7).Theobsessionwith language the 1979:4;Herzfeld started theirchildren withancientGreeknamesinstead saintnames,whichwas the custom.Also,the of baptizing of of was writtenin a languageso close to the proclamation Greece'sfirstConstitution Independence classicalAtticdialectthatveryfew could understand (Clogg1992:28;Herzfeld1982:6). Katharevousa it has remained officiallanguage the Greekstateuntilrecently the of of (1976),andgenerations Greekshave been educatedin this language. 30. Infact,the way Athenswas builtduringthe 150 yearsof its existenceas capitalof the new nation shows both admiration respectfor the Acropolis.Forexample,as it was argued,the reasonfor not and on was of building othermonuments the otherexistinghillsof Athens to emphasizethe uniqueness the any (Politis1993:85).Fora verysensitivedescription the city beingthe product of Acropolisand its Parthenon of the Romantic of the 19thcentury, also Panourgia era see (1995:36-40).

cultural polyphony and identity formation

431

31. As Skopetea (1988:171, 197) argues, the period of King Otto's monarchy and Bavarian influence (1833-62) helped this orientation toward the classical past, since many archaeological excavations started during this period and many neoclassic buildings were built then. This type of archaeological model, Herzfeld (1982:10) maintains, suited Greek intellectuals because by using it they could easily present to their Europeancolleagues their model of continuity with the ancestral past. 32. Sant Cassia and Bada call them Athenian aristocracy (archontes) and give a thorough description of their role in Athenian society (1992:23,24). Forthe relationship of the Diaspora with the "national center," see Skopetea (1988:68). 33. See also Politis 1993:84. Until today, members of this elite see themselves as the only "true" Athenians and frequently come together in "The Athenians Club" in Plaka. Significantly, the club is decorated with genealogical trees of old Athenian families, compiled by Kambouroglou. 34. Athens constituted a multicultural and polyphonic center during the first years after the revolution. The Albanian language could be heard in the villages surrounding Athens as well as inside the city (Sant Cassia and Bada 1992:27; Scopetea 1988:148). The new state was concerned with the official language rather than with the everyday spoken one. This model was familiar in ancient Greece (5th-century B.C. Athens) where a lot of dialects existed within the same city-state. 35. The vision of the Great Idea and the belief in their ancient past made the Greek people believe that they were in a superior position in comparison to the rest of the Balkan peoples. This superioritywas based on the fact that Greece had offered to the Balkans EasternOrthodox Christianityand the Greek language. An aggressive rhetoric developed concerning the domination of Hellenism over the Balkan people, while aiming at diminishing the Slavic element. Hellenism was believed to have an educational and a civilizing mission in the Balkans, and its task was to hellenize the barbarians, such as Bulgarians, Vlachs, and Albanians, especially those who were living within the boundaries of the Greek state (Skopetea 1988:138). See also Gennadios 1926[1854]; Paparighopoulos 1970[1853]. 36. In Greek Arvanites is the masculine pluralby which the whole population is included. The distinction between the termsAlbanians(Alvani in Greek)and Arvanitesis not well documented historically.A historical overview of the two terms undertaken by Vranoussi (1970)-which is not exhaustive of all existing sources-shows that during the first century of this millenium, people coming from "Arvanon" were originally called "Arvanites,"while the term Alvani (Albanians) was used to denote "foreigners"by the Byzantines. She found, however, that by the 14th century both terms Alvani and Arvanites were used alternatively, as equivalent to each other. Itseems that the term Arvanites was adopted by these Albanian-speaking ChristianOrthodox populations who had already settled in the land that at a later stage constituted Greece (Tsingos 1991 [1939]). The term has since been used to distinguish themselves from other Albanian-speaking populations and eventually (in the 20th century) from the citizens of the neighboring state of Albania. It has to be noted, however, that terms are being used to denote different things in different historical periods or during the same period by different groups of people (see Botsaris 1993 [1809]; Gefou Madianou 1993b; Panourgia 1995:25-30). 37. A. Kalos, a member of the parliament, went furtherthan this. In the discussion of the 1864 National Budget he stressed that it was the duty of the government to ostracize this barbaric language of Arvanitika, which was spoken so close to the capital. In other Arvanitic-speaking communities that are furtheraway from Athens the language has either fared better or died an almost naturaldeath according to the prevailing socioeconomic conditions. For example, in the village of Didima in Peloponnes the mainly pastoral population had no reason to abandon its language (Velioti-Georgopoulos 1996), while the maritime population of Andros had no chance of employment in Greek ships if they insisted in speaking Arvanitika (Toundassakis 1995). For the strategies behind such language shifts see Gefou-Madianou 1993b; Trudgill and Tzavaras 1979; and Tsitsipis 1983, 1988. Another source of valuable material concerning language is the results of national censuses. For example, the 1907 census shows that a large percentage of the Greek population in various areas spoke Arvanitika(26 percent in Boeotia, 11 percent in South Euboea, 17 percent in the province of Nafplion [the city of Nafplion included], and 40 percent in the province of Megara-Attica). Also figures based on 1951 census, the latest to give details of mother tongue, show that 22,736, or 0.3 percent of the total population of Greece, reportedthatArvanitikawas their mother tongue (Clogg 1992:233). Subsequent censuses do not inquire about mother tongues. 38. Until the 1950s many Messogitic youngsters startedtheir day with a piece of bread dipped in warm sugared wine (krassopapara). 39. Even Messogitic professionals in Athens encountered discriminatory attitudes and occasionally still do. 40. In the context, of this tradition these well-off wine producers are at the same time in a subordinate position (vis-a-vis EU) and in a hegemonic position (vis-a-vis other less affluent Messogites). For a similar case in southeastern France, see Ulin 1995. 41. See, however, note 2. 42. With the recent Macedonian problem that was precipitated by the split of former Yugoslavia in 1991, this renaissance of multiculturalismhas somewhat abated, especially those forms of it that have to do more directly with the question of ethnic identity. However, since then it has come back to informsociety's views and preferences as other issues have taken precedence in the country's political scene. The problem, of course, still remains. 43. The reason why I was amazed by what I experienced in Athanasia's party may now become more clear. Very often anthropologists deal with the "traditional"and the "modern" as if they were things in

432

american ethnologist

themselves that belonged to distinct categories of the actors' cultural experience. In a sense, this is part of the anthopologist's "inventing"of the culture she studies in order to communicate her findings to the larger anthropological community. As Wagner (1981 [1975]:26-27) argues, this inventing is an extension of the anthropologist's ideas of culture. 44. I employ the term weapon in the sense that it is used by Scott (1990) in his discussion on the infrared politics of subordinate populations. Among such weapons Scott includes not only acts of covert and indirect violence such as lying, pilfering, and absenteeism, but also ritual acts, artistic expressions, and other forms of symbolic behavior like possession, ecstatic singing and dance, burlesque, carnival, and ritual consumption. 45. In another essay, Herzfeld has made a similar point concerning the employment of tradition in the context of Greek nationalism and the dilemma that "the Greek nation-state confronts in attempting to formulate a policy that would address both the organization of an industrialbase and preserve the folkloric riches of artisantradition at the same time" (1997b:3). I would like to thank M. Herzfeld for allowing me to refer to his unpublished material.

references cited
Abatzopoulou, Fragiski of 1997 The Image of the Jew in the Literature Salonica. In Ourselves and Others: The Development of Greek Macedonian Cultural Identity since 1912. Peter Mackridge and Eleni Yannakakis, eds. Pp. 217-224. Oxford and New York: Berg. Agelopoulos, Georgios 1993 Mothers of the Nation: Gender and Ethnicity in Greek Macedonia. Paper presented at the conference "Ethnicityand Anthropology: A Critical Review," Amsterdam, December 15-19. 1997 Gamilies Antalages se PolitismikaMiktesAgrotikesKoinotitestis Makedonias (MarriageExchanges among Multicultural Rural Communities of Macedonia). In Taftotites sti Makedonia (Identities in Macedonia). V. Gounaris, I. Michaelidis, and G. Angelopoulos, eds. Pp. 103-122. Athens: Papazisis. Allen, Peter 1985 Apollo and Dionysos: Alcohol Use in Modern Greece. East European Quarterly 18(4):461-480. Alexakis, Eleftherios 1988 Gamilies Paroches stous Albanophonous tis NA Attikis-Lavreotikis (1850-1940) (MarriagePayments among the Albanian-Speaking Greeks of SE Attica-Lavreotiki[1850-1940]). In Proceedings of the Third Scientific Meeting of South East Attica. P. Philippou-Angelou, ed. Pp. 471-514. Kalyvia, Attica: Poreia Publ. 1993 Ikogenia ke Metavivasi tis Periousias stous Albanophonous tis NA Attikis-Lavreotikis (1850-1940) (Family and Property Transmission among the Albanian-Speaking Greeks of SE Attica-Lavreotiki [1850-1940]). InProceedings of the ThirdScientific Meeting of South EastAttica. P. Philippou-Anselou, ed. Pp. 569-642. Athens: Techniki Ekdotiki-Lambrinos Publ. Anderson, Benedict 1991 Imagined Communities. London and New York:Verso. Antoniou, Athanasios 1985 Thei ke Iroes ston Archeo Dimo Kephali (Gods and Heroes of the Ancient Demos Kephali). In Proceedings of the FirstScientific Meeting of South EastAttica. P. Philippou-Angelou, ed. Pp. 47-74. Kalyvia,Attica: Poreia Publ. 1991 Ta Toponymia tis Kerateas(Toponyms of Keratea).Athens. Babiniotis, Georgios 1979 A Linguistic Approach to the "Language Question" in Greece. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 5:1-16. Bakalaki,Alaxandra 1994 Gender Related Discourses and Representationsof CulturalSpecificity in Nineteenth-Century and Twentieth-CenturyGreece. Journalof Modern Greek Studies 12:75-1 12. Barth, Fredrik 1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organisation of Cultural Difference. F. Barth,ed. Pp. 7-38. Boston: Little, Brown and Co. 1994 Enduringand Emerging Issues in the Analysis of Ethnicity. In Anthropology of Ethnicity:Beyond "EthnicGroups and Boundaries." Hans Vermeulen and Cora Govers, eds. Pp. 11-32. Amsterdam:Het Spinhuis. Bloch, Maurice 1992 Internaland ExternalMemory: DifferentWays of Being in History. Suomen Anthropology 1:3-15. Boddy, Janice 1989 Wombs and Alien Spirits:Women, Men and the Zar Cult in Northern Sudan. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Borofsky, Robert 1990[1987] Making History:Pukapukan and Anthropological Constructionsof Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

cultural polyphony and identity formation

433

Botsaris, Markos 1993[1809] Lexikon tis Romaikis ke Arvanitikis Aplis. Filologiki Ekdosi tou Aftographou ipo Titou Jochala (Dictionary of Greek and Arvanitika.Philological Editionof the Autograph by Titos Jochalas). Athens: Academia Athinon Press. Byron, Reginald 1986 Sea Change: A Shetland Society 1970-1979. Newfoundland: Instituteof Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Byzantios, Dimitrios 1953[1836] Babylonia. Athens: PapadimitriouPubl. Caraveli, Anna 1986 The BitterWounding: The Lamentas Social Protest in RuralGreece. In Gender and Power in Rural Greece. Jill Dubisch, ed. Pp. 169-194. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. Campbell, John 1964 Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Clogg, Richard 1992 A Concise History of Modern Greece. Cambridge: Cambrigde University Press. Cohen, Anthony 1982 Belonging: Identity and Social Organisation in British Rural Cultures. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 1985 The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd. Comaroff, Jean 1985 Body of Power Spirit of Resistance: The Culture and History of a South African People. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Comaroff, John, and Jean Comaroff 1992 Ethnographyand the Historical Imagination. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Cowan, Jane 1990 Dance and the Body Politic in Northern Greece. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. 1997 Idioms of Belonging: Polyglot Articulations of Local Identity in a Greek Macedonian Town. In Ourselves and Others: The Development of Greek Macedonian Cultural Identity since 1912. Peter Mackridge and Eleni Yannakakis,eds. Pp. 153-171. Oxford and New York:Berg. Danforth, LoringM. 1982 The Death Ritualsof RuralGreece. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. 1989 Firewalking and Religious Healing: The Anastenaria of Greece and the American Firewalking Movement. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. 1995 The Macedonian Conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a TransnationalWorld. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. Davis, John 1992 Tense in Ethnography:Some Practical Considerations. In Anthropology and Autobiography. J. Okely and H. Callaway, eds. Pp. 221-241. London and New York:Routledge. Dimaras, K. Th. 1989[1977] Neoellinikos Diafotismos (Modern Greek Enlightenment).Athens: Ermis. Dimitriou-Kotsoni,Sibylla 1993 The Aegean CulturalTradition.Journalof Mediterranean Studies 3(1):62-76. Dubisch, Jill 1986 Introduction. In Gender and Power in Rural Greece. Jill Dubisch, ed. Pp. 3-1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1993 "ForeignChickens" and Other Outsiders: Gender and Community in Greece. American Ethnologist 20(2):272-287. 1995 In a Different Place: Pilgrimage, Gender and Politics at a Greek Island Shrine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Du Boulay, Juliet 1986 Women-Images of Their Nature and Destiny in Rural Greece. In Gender and Power in Rural Greece. Jill Dubisch, ed. Pp. 139-168. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. Ducellier, Alain 1994 I Alvani stin Ellada: I Metanastefsi mias Kinotitas (13os-15os aeon.) (Albanians in Greece: Migration of a Community [13th-15th Century]). K. Nikolaou, trans. Athens: Goulandri-Horn Foundation. Fallmerayer,Jacob Philipp 1860 Das Albaneiche Element in Griechenland. In Abhandlungen der Historischen Classe der Koeniglich. Munich: Verlag der K. Akademie. Faubion, James 1993 Modern Greek Lessons: A Primerin Historical Costructivism. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. Fisher, Michael J. 1986 Ethnicityand the Post-ModernArtsof Memory. In Writing Culture.J. Cliffordand G. Marcus, eds. Pp. 194-233. Berkeley: University of California Press.

434

american

ethnologist

Frangoudaki,Anna, and Thalia Drafonas 1997 Introduction. In "Ti ine i Patrida mas": Ethnokentrismosstin Ekpedefsi ("What Is Our Country": Ethnocentrism in Education). Anna Frangoudaki and Thalia Drafonas, eds. Pp. 13-26. Athens: Alexandria. Friedl, Ernestine 1962 Vassilika: A Village in Modern Greece. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1967 The Position of Women: Appearance and Reality. Anthropological Quarterly40(3):97-108. Gefou-Madianou, Dimitra 1985 Family and Hashish Use in an Asia Minor Refugee Community in Athens. Ph.D. dissertation, Panteion University. 1992a Exclusion and Unity, Retsina and Sweet Wine: Commensality and Gender in a Greek Agrotown. In Alcohol Gender and Culture. Dimitra Gefou-Madianou, ed. Pp. 108-136. London and New York: Routledge. 1992b Introduction: Alcohol Commensality, Identity Transformationsand Transcendence. In Alcohol Gender and Culture. Dimitra Gefou-Madianou, ed. Pp. 1-34. London and New York:Routledge. 1992c Retsina and EC:Identity in Messogia, Greece. Paper presented at "Towards an Anthropology of Europe"at the 2nd EASAConference, Prague, August 28-31. 1993a MirroringOurselves through Western Texts: The Limitsof an Indigenous Anthropology. In The Politics of Ethnographic Reading and Writing: Confrontations of Western and Indigenous Views. H. Driessen, ed. Pp. 160-181. Saarbucken:Verlag breitenbach Publishers. 1993b The Politics of Choice: Negotiating Languagein ArvaniticCommunities of Attica. Paperpresented at the conference "Anthropology of Ethnicity:A Critical Review," Amsterdam, December 15-19. Gellner, Ernest 1983 Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gennadios, loannis (Xenofon Anastasiadis) 1926[1854] Georgiou Gennadiou Vios, ErgaEpistole (Georgiou Gennadio's Life, Works and Letters). Paris. Gerondas, Alexandros 1984 I Arvanites tis Attikis (The Arvanites of Attica). Athens: Historical and Ethnological Society of Greece. Handler, Richard 1986 Authenticity. Anthropology Today 2(1):2-4. 1988 Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Handler, Richard, and Jocelyn Linnekin 1984 Tradition:Genuine or Spurious. Journalof American Folklore 97:273-290. Hanson, A. 1989 The Making of the Maori: Culture Invention and Its Logic. American Anthropologist 91(4): 890-902. Hatzimichali, Angeliki 1978 ElinikiLaiki Foresia (Greek Folk Costumes), vol. 1. Athens: Melissa and Benaki Museum. Hatzinikolaou, Dimitrios 1993-94 "I Ambelones ton Vassiliou" (Vassiliou's Vineyards), Kathimerini-Epta Imeres, September 7 and 14, 1993; June 5, 1994. Athens. Hatzisoteriou, Georgios 1971 1821: Messogites and Yiannis Davaris. Athens: Asklipios Publ. 1973 Istoriatis Peanias kai ton Anatolika tou Hymittou Periohon (Historyof Peania and the Regions East of Mount Hymettus). Athens: Asklipios Publ. 1986 Ta Eponima stin NA Attiki:Sigrisi afton me alles Perioches tou Ellinikouke N. Alvanikou Chorou (Surnames in SE Attica and Comparison with Other Regions in Greece and South Albania). In Proceedings of the Second Scientific Meeting of SEAttica. Kalyvia, Attica: Poreia Publ. Herzfeld, Michael 1982 Ours Once More: Folklore, Ideology and the Making of Modern Greece. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1985 The Poetics of Manhood: Contest and Identity in a Cretan Mountain Village. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1986 Within and Without: The Category of "Female"in the Ethnographyof Modern Greece. In Gender and Power in RuralGreece. Jill Dubisch, ed. Pp. 215-233. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. 1987 Anthropology through the Looking Glass: Critical Ethnography in the Margins of Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991 A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1993 In Defiance of Destiny: The Management of Time and Gender at a Cretan Funeral. American Ethnologist20(2):241-255. 1995 Hellenism and Occidentalism: The Permutationsof Performance in Greek Bourgeois Identity. In Occidentalism: Images of the West. J. Carrier,ed. Pp. 21 8-233. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1997a Cultural Intimacy:Social Poetics in the Nation-State. New York and London: Routledge.

cultural polyphony and identity formation

435

1997b The Aesthetics of Individualism:Artisanship,Business, and the State in Greece. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC, November 26. Hirschon, Renee 1989 Heirs of the Greek Catastrophe: The Social Life of Asia Minor Refugees in Piraeus. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hobsbawm, Eric 1983a Introduction:Inventing Traditions. In The Invention of Tradition. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds. Pp. 1-14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983b Mass Producing Traditions:Europe, 1870-1914. In The Invention of Tradition. EricHobsbawm and Terence Ranger,eds. Pp. 263-307. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Hobsbawm, Eric,and Terence Ranger, eds. 1983 The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. lossifides, A. Marina 1991 Sisters in Christ:Metaphors of Kinship among Greek Nuns. In Contested Identities: Gender and Kinshipin Modern Greece. P. Loizos and E.Papataxiarchis,eds. Pp. 135-155. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. 1992 Wine: Life's Blood and Spiritual Essence in a Greek Orthodox Convent. In Alcohol Gender and Culture. Dimitra Gefou-Madianou, ed. Pp. 80-100. London and New York:Routledge. Jochalas, Titos 1971 Uber Die Einwanderungder Albaner in Griechenland. Dissertationes Albanicae 13:89-106. 1993 Introduction. In Lexikon tis Romaikis ke ArvanitikisAplis: Filologiki Ekdosi tou Aftographou ipo Titou Jochala (Dictionary of Greek and Arvanitika:Philological Edition of the Autograph by Titos Jochalas). Pp. 15-50. Athens: Academia Athinon Press. Just, Roger 1989 Triumph of the Ethnos. In History and Ethnicity.E.Tonkin, M. McDonald and M.Chapman, eds. Pp. 71-88. London and New York:Routledge. Kambouroglou, Dimitrios Gr. 1920 O Anadromaristis Attikis (The Antiquity Loverof Attica). Athens M. Zikakis Publ. 1923 Melete ke Erevne:Attica (Studies and Investigations:Attica). Athens: Estia. 1959[1889] Istoriaton Athinon (The History of Athens), vols. 1-3. Athens: Papadimitriou publ. Karakasidou,Anastasia 1992 Fields of Wheat, Hills of Shrub: Agrarian Development and the Dialectics of Ethnicity and Nationality in Northern Greece, 1870-1990. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. 1993 Politicising Culture: Negating Ethnic Identity in Greek Macedonia. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 11:1-28. 1997a Women of the Family, Women of the Nation: National Enculturationamong Slav-Speakers in North-West Greece. In Ourselves and Others: The Development of Greek Macedonian Cultural Identity since 1912. Peter Mackridge and Eleni Yannakakis,eds. Pp. 91-109. Oxford and New York: Berg. 1997b Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood: Passages to Nationhood in Greek Macedonia 1870-1990. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Keesing, Roger M., and RobertTonkinson, eds. 1982 Reinventing Traditional Culture: The Politics of Kastom in Island Malanesia. Special issue. Mankind 13(4). Kitromilides,Paschalis 1990 Imagined Communities and the Origin of the National Question in the Balkans. InModern Greece: Nationalism and Nationalities. Thanos Veremis and Martin Blinkhorn, eds. Pp. 51-59. Athens: ELIAMEP [EllinikoIdrymaEvropaikiske ExoterikisPolitikis]. Kofos, Evangelos 1990 National Heritage and National Identity in Nineteenth-Century Macedonia. In Modern Greece. Nationalism and Nationalities. Thanos Veremis and Martin Blinkhorn, eds. Pp. 23-66. Athens: ELIAMEP [Hellenic Foundation for Defence and Foreign Policy]. Kollias, Aristides 1983 Arvanites ke i Katagogiton Ellinon (Arvanitesand the Origin of Greeks). Athens: I. M. Rallis. Krestenitou,Anna 1914 Anakinosis peri Elinikon Horon (Communication about Greek Dances). Athens: Typografion tis Vassilikis Avlis A. Raftaki. Lambrou,Spiridon 1896 I Onomatologia tis Attikiske i is tin Choran Epikisiston Alvanon (Onomatology and the Settlement of Albanians in Attica). Parnassos Epetiris,vol. A:157-170. Lekas, Pantelis 1992 I EthnikistikiIdeologia: Pente Ipothesis Ergasiasstin IstorikiKinoniologia (Nationalistic Ideology: Five Hypotheses in Historical Sociology). Athens: Mnimon. Linnekin,Jocelyn S. 1983 Defining Tradition:Variations of the Hawaiian Identity.American Ethnologist 10:241-252. 1990 The Politics of Culture in the Pacific. In Cultural Identity and Ethnicityin the Pacific. J. Linnekin and L. Poyer, eds. Pp. 149-273. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

436

american ethnologist

1991 Cultural Invention and the Dilemma of Authenticity. American Anthropologist 93(2):446-449. Loizos, Peter, and Evthymios Papataxiarchis 1991 Introduction: Gender and Kinship in Marriage and Alternative Contexts. In Contested Identities: Gender and Kinship in Modern Greece. P. Loizos and E. Papataxiarchis,eds. Pp. 3-25. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mackridge, Peter, and Eleni Yannakakis 1997 Introduction. In Ourselves and Others: The Development of Greek Macedonian CulturalIdentity since 1912. Peter Mackridge and Eleni Yannakakis,eds. Pp. 1-22. Oxford and New York:Berg. Makris, Gerasimos P. 1996 Slavery, Possession and History: The Construction of the Self among Slave Descendants in the Sudan. Africa 66(2):159-182. Mavrogordatos, George 1983 Stillborn Republic: Social Conditions and Party Strategies in Greece, 1922-1936. Berkeley: University of California Press. McDonald, Maryon 1990 We Are Not French! Language, Culture, and Identity in Britain.London and New York:Routledge. Megali EllinikiEngyclopaedia Pyrsos (LargeGreek Encyclopaedia Pyrsos) 1933 Vol. 13. Athens: Pyrsos. Mewett, Peter G. 1982 Associational Categories and the Social Location of Relationships in a Lewis CroftingCommunity. In Belonging: Identity and Social Organisation in British RuralCultures. A. Cohen, ed. Pp. 101-164. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Michael-Dede, Maria 1987 I Ellines Arvanites (The Greek Arvanites). loannina, Greece: North-EpiroticResearch Foundation. Michalopoulou-Veikou, Christina 1997 To Matiasma: I Koinoniki Diastassi tou Vlemmatos se mia Koinotitatis Makedonias (The Evil Eye: The Dynamics of Seeing in a Community of Macedonia). Ph.D. dissertation, Panteion University, Athens. Mouzelis, Nikos P. 1978 Modern Greece: Facets of Underdevelopment. London: MacMillan. Oekonomou, Andromaque 1993 Paragogi ke Emboriatis Ritinissta Villia tis Attikis(Production and Trade of Resin in Villia-Attica). Ethnologia 2:5-21. Panayiotopoulos, Vasilis 1985 Plythismos ke Ikismi tis Peloponnisou, 13os-18os aeonas (Population and Settlements in the Peloponnese, 13th-18th century). Athens: Historical Archive-Commercial Bank of Greece. Panourgia, Neni 1995 Fragments of Death, Fables of Identity: An Athenian Anthropography. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Papagaroufali, Eleni 1992 Uses of Alcohol among Women: Games of Resistance, Power and Pleasure. In Alcohol Gender and Culture. Dimitra Gefou-Madianou, ed. Pp. 48-70. London and New York:Routledge. Papanikolaou, Stavros 1947 Koropi. Athens. Papantoniou, loanna 1991 Ellinikes Foresies: Sillogi tou Lykiou ton Ellinidon Kalamatas(Greek Costumes: Greek Women's Lyceum Collection-Kalamata's Branch).Athens: EkdotikiAthinon. 1996 EllinikesTopikes Endimasies(Greek Local Costumes). Nafplion, Greece: Peloponisiako Laografiko Idrima(Peloponnesean Folk Foundation). Paparighopoulos, Konstantinos 1970[1853] Istoriatou EllinikouEthnous(Historyof the Greek Ethnos).K.Th. Dimaras,ed. Athens: Nea EllinikiBibliothiki. Papataxiarchis, Evthymios 1991 Friends of the Heart: Male Commensal Solidarity, Gender and Kinship in Aegean Greece. In Contested Identities:Gender and Kinshipin Modern Greece. P. Loizos and E. Papataxiarchis,eds. Pp. 156-179. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press. 1992 Eisagogi. Apo ti Skopia tou Filou: Anthropologikes Theorisis tis Sichronis Elladas (Introduction. From the Gender Perspective: Anthropological Observations in Contemporary Greece). In Taftotites ke Filo sti Sichroni Ellada (Identities and Gender in Contemporary Greece). E. Papataxiarchisand Th. Paradellis, eds. Pp. 11-98. Athens: Kastaniotisand Aegean University. Politis, Alexis 1993 Romantica Chronia: Ideologies ke Nootropies stin Ellada tou 1830-1880 (Romantic Years: Ideologies and Mentalities in 1830-1880 Greece). Athens: Mnimon. Pollis, Adamantia 1992 Greek National Identity: Religious Minorities, Rights, and European Norms. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 10(2):171-195.

cultural polyphony

and identity formation

437

F. Pouqueville, C. H. L. 1820 Voyagede la Grece,vol. 4. Paris. Sahlins,Marshall Other The of American 85:517-544. 1983 Other Customs: Anthropology History. Times, Anthropologist SantCassia,Paul,withConstantina Bada in 1992 TheMaking the Modern and Athens. of GreekFamily: Marriage Exchange Nineteenth-Century Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Schein,MurielDimen in 1975 WhenIsan Ethnic and Greece.Ethnology 14:83-97. Ecology ClassStructure Northern Group? Scott,JamesC. 1985 Weaponsof the Weak:Everyday Forms PeasantResistance. of New Haven,CT:YaleUniversity Press. New Haven,CT:YaleUniversity Press. 1990 Domination the Artsof Resistance. and C. Seremetakis, Nadia of 1990 The Ethics Antiphony: Social Construction Pain,Gender,and Powerin the Southern of The 18:481-511. Peloponnese.Ethos in Mani.Chicago:University Chicago of 1991 The LastWord:Women, Death,and Divination Inner Press. Matoula Skaltsa, Sinanastrofon Athinatou 19ou Aeona (SocialLife stin 1986 Kinoniki ke DimosiiChoriKinonikon Zoi in ScholiMoraiti. Athens: and PublicPlacesforSocialGatherings 19th-Century Athens). Skopetea,Elli stin kai Provlimatos Ellada 1988 To "Protipo Vassilio" i MegaliIdea:Opsistou Ethnikou (The"Model in and Kingdom" the GreatIdea:Aspectsof the NationalProblem Greece).Athens:PolytypoPubl. Eleonora Skouteri-Didaskalou, on 1991 Anthropologika to gynekio zitima (Anthropological Writings the Women's Question). gia Athens: Politis. 0 Soteriou,NikolaosA. Athens. 1951 Markopoulo. Athens. kai 1956 Anthropi Thesmi(Peopleand Institutions). Dimitrios Sourmelis, Publ. Athens:Karabinis 1862 TaAttica(About Attica). Charles Stewart, of Churchvs. State in Greece. Paperpresentedat "Anthropologies 1996 Who Owns the Rotonda? Panteion the Athens,April25-26. Culture," Identities, Bodyand Material University, Modernity: Strathern, Marilyn Press. at 1981 Kinship the Core.Cambrigde: Cambrigde University and in Essex.In Belonging: of 1982 The Villageas an Idea:Constructs Village-ness Elmdon, Identity Manchester A. in Rural Cultures. Cohen,ed. Pp. 247-277. Manchester: Social Organisation British Press. University SusanBuck Sutton, GreekStudies6:187-215. of in Journal Modern 1988 WhatIsa "Village" a Nationof Migrants? Charles Taylor, Harvard Press. of 1991 The Ethics Authenticity. University Cambridge: Thomas,Nicholas American of 1992 The Inversion Tradition. 19(2):213-232. Ethnologist eds. McDonald,and MalcomChapman, Tonkin,Elizabeth, Maryon and London New York: and 1989 History Ethnicity. Routledge. Irene Toundassakis, Ecoledes Hautes Ph.D.dissertation, dans le Villagede Vourkoti. et 1995 Parente, Marriage Succession en Etudes SciencesSociales,Paris. Peter,and GeorgeA. Tzavaras Trudgill, Shiftin Atticaand Biotia.In Language, Are 1977 Why Albanian-Greeks Not Albanians: Language AcademicPress. Giles Howard, Pp. 171-184. London: ed. Relations. and Ethnicity Intergroup Dimitrios G. Tsaoussis, The and Taftotitas tis To ke (Hellenism Greekness: 1983 Ellinismos Ellinikotita: Provlima Neoellinikis ed. Dimitios Tsaoussis Pp. 15-25. G. In ke of GreekIdentity). Ellinismos Ellinikotita. Problem Modern Athens:Estia. Athanasios Tsingos, Athens:N. Tabakopoulos Publ. aboutArvanites). 1991[1939] Kimena tousArvanites (Texts yia Loukas Tsitsipis, 25:288-308. of Shift 1983 Language amongtheAlbanian Linguistics Speakers Greece.Anthropological ofArvanitika and Narratives. On Performance: theStructure Function Shift 1988 Language andNarrative in Language Society17:61-86. in 1992 On Some Uses of Poetics in the Ethnographic Studyof Speech: Lessonsfrom Interaction of Shift Journal ModernGreekStudies10(1):87-109. Language Contexts.

438

american ethnologist

Constantine Tsoucalas, stin tou and ke Greece).InOpsis 1984 Kratos Kinonia Ellada 19ou aeona(State Societyin 19th-Century of D. Kinonias 19ou Aeona(Facets GreekSocietyin the 19th Century). G. Tsaoussis, tou tis Ellinikis Estia. ed. Pp. 39-54. Athens: in and WorldOrder.InGreece,the New 1993 GreekNational Europe a Changing Identity an Integrated International Order.H. J.Psomiades S. B.Thomadakis, Pp.57-78. and eds. and Europe the Changing Pella. New York: Ethniki ke Simberiforas Ellada stin Ethnikos Charactiras Ethnika 1996 Emona Taftotita, Protipa Stereotipa: NationalIdentity, National Character NationalBehavioral and ke sti Diaspora (Stubborn Stereotypes: In Kimena in 1969-1996 (Journey Patterns Greeceandthe Diaspora). Taxidisto Logoke stin Istoria: ed. and Texts1969-1996), vol. 2. Konstantinos to Discourse History: Tsoukalas, Pp.290-31 1. Athens: Plethron. Victor Turner, in Periodin Rites Passage.InReader Comparative de and The 1979 Betwixt Between: Liminal Religion: An Anthropological W. and Approach. A. Lessaand E.Z. Vogt,eds. Pp.234-243. New York London: and Harper Row. Tziovas,Dimitris A In of Demoticism: Tropological 1985 The OrganicDiscourse Nationalistic Approach. The Textand M. eds. Pella. ItsMargins. AlexiouandV. Lambropoulos, Pp. 253-277. New York: C. Ulin, Robert 1995 Inventionand Representation CulturalCapital:SouthwestFrenchWinegrowingHistory. as American 97(3):519-527. Anthropologist A. Vakalopoulos, E. 1973 Istoria Neou Ellinismou tou of vol. (History ModernHellenism), 4. Thessaloniki. Van Boeschoten,Rikki 1997 AnapodaGhronia: Mnimike Istoria ZiakaGrevenon-1900-1950 (Awkward sto Years: Syllogiki in and CollectiveMemory History Ziaka,Grevena-1900-1950) Athens: Plethron. Maria Velioti-Georgopoulos, 1995 L'aspectdynamique la Grecerurale. de et culturelle liensde Changement economique,identite Ecoledes HautesEtudes Sciences en parentea Didima,villagedu Peloponnese.Ph.D. dissertation, Sociales,Paris. Vermeulen, Hans,and CoraGovers In 1994 Introduction. TheAnthropology Ethnicity: of Hans Beyond"Ethnic Groupsand Boundaries." Vermeulen CoraGovers,eds. Pp. 1-9. Amsterdam: Spinhuis. and Het Era Vranoussi, 1970 I Ori Alvanike Arvanite i Protimniatou OmonymouLaoutis Balkanikis tas Pigastou IA ke is Aeonos (TheTermsAlvaniand Arvanites the First and Mentionof the ThesePeopleof the Balknsin the Sourcesof the 11thCentury). Simmikta-National Research vol. Foundation, 2:207-254. Vostantzoglou, Theologos 1988 Antilexikontis neoellinikis of GreekLanguage). Athens:Estia. glossis(Anti-Dictionary Modern Eftihia Voutira, 1997 PopulationTrasfers and Resettlement Policies in Inter-War The Case of Asia Minor Europe: in froman International National and In and The Refugees Macedonia Perspective. Ourselves Others: Cultural since 1912. PeterMackridge EleniYanand Developmentof GreekMacedonian Identity eds. Pp. 111-131. Oxfordand New York: nakakis, Berg. Wagner,Roy 1981[1975] The Invention Culture. of Press. Chicago: ChicagoUniversity Yiotas,Dimitrios 1990 I Menidiates ton 180 aeonake tin Epanastassi 1821 (Menidiates kata tou the during 18thCentury and the Revolution 1821). Acharnes, of Attica: Historical Folklore and Societyof Acharnes.

acceptedMarch31, 1998 finalversionsubmitted May13, 1998 Dimitra Gefou-Madianou SocialAnthropology PanteionUniversity Athens at 136 Syngrou Avenue Greece176 71 dmadia@panteion.gr

cultural polyphony and identity formation

439