Author: Lucie Neradová
Affiliation: Provozně ekonomická fakulta ČZU v Praze, Kamýcká 129, 165 21 Praha-Suchdol, Faculty of Economics and Management, CULS Prague, Czech Republic
Email: chudlarska.lucie@seznam.cz
The construction of collective identity through the eyes of witnesses – Volhynian Czechs in the border area (Sušice)
Author: Lucie Neradová
Language: Czech (Translation to English), En
Issue: 1/2013
Pages: 3–19 (17 pages)
Keywords: Collective identity, collective memory, biographical research, narration, generation, border, settlement, re-emigration, Volhynian Czechs, Volhynia
Summary/Abstract
The main goal of this thesis was to explore the construction of collective identity among the post-war re-emigrated group of Volhynian Czechs in the former district of Sušice and its transmission to the younger generation. This issue was addressed both from the position of witnesses to whom the departure from Volhynia was a lived reality and from the position of the next generation of offspring. Of key interest were attributes of collective identity, to which the first generation of Volhynian Czechs attach the highest priority as it forms a characteristic part of their everyday lived world. At the same time, the research also focused on the question of whether there is intergenerational transmission of semantically important elements of the collective memory of Volhynian Czechs. Information derived from literature on the process of re-emigration was extremely important for this project. This information was used in the empirical research to explore and compare the differences between the construction of “Volhynian Czech” in the researched area to other parts of the Czech border.
Konstrukce kolektivní identity očima pamětníků z řad volyňských Čechů v sušickém pohraničí (PDF)
Introduction
Figure 1: The journey of Volhynian Czechs to Volhynia (1868) and back to Czechoslovakia (1944–1947).
Source: http://www.p13.cz/stop/s0204/txt/32.html
The phenomenon of settling the borderlands with new inhabitants after the forced expulsion of Germans from Czechoslovakia became the focus of attention not only immediately after the end of the Second World War, when it was monitored mainly by Czechoslovak authorities with the need to build our[1] Czechoslovak borderlands. Later, it became the subject of interest in many ethnological studies that also focused on the settlement process itself and the perspectives of the individual actors who participated in this migration event. Examining certain cultural specifics and differences in culturally, locally, economically, and economically diversified border areas was also an important part of various ethnological studies.[2]
Although this is relatively recent history in Czechoslovak history, the actors of the border settlement process have already reached advanced ages. For this reason, it is extremely important to record the memories of new settlers, their life stories, the process of adapting to new conditions, a new environment, and overall coexistence in the borderlands. These are all phenomena that can be the subject of a wide range of research studies. The transmission of this life story to the younger generation, who did not directly participate in the post-World War II border settlement, also appears to be of interest. The question is whether the descendants of new settlers are aware of their ancestors‘ origins and know the historical memory of the group.
The aforementioned issue can be more precisely illustrated through individual re-emigration groups, which partly settled in the borderlands and brought with them certain cultural differences from the majority new settlers from the interior of Czechoslovakia or the autochthonous population. For this project, the largest re-emigration group of Volhynian Czechs was selected, characterized by certain cultural, historical, and social traditions. This regional distinction gave rise to another feature of the borderlands—both local and cultural diversity. The sense of foreignness and inferiority among Volhynian Czechs was certainly mitigated by the important cultural capital of the ethnic group, the Czech language[3], which they preserved and passed on to their descendants despite eighty years of living in a different national environment in Ukrainian Volhynia.
It is evident that living outside their homeland for several generations has undoubtedly influenced both the material and spiritual culture of Volhynian Czechs. This fact became a stigma for the group upon their arrival in the borderlands, where many new settlers from the interior, and often the Volhynian Czechs themselves, drew a sharp line between Czechness and Volhynian Czechness. This became an undeniable stigmatizing factor in the integration and adaptation process within the majority Czech society in the borderlands. Despite this, many Volhynians managed to maintain their Volhynian Czechness and, as a strategy in their struggle against assimilation tendencies, they focused on creating various places of memory – related to the battle of Volhynian Czechs at the Dukla Pass, the burning of the Volhynian village Český Malín, publishing various books on Volhynian themes, newsletters, associations, etc.
Each border area of former Czechoslovakia was and still is characterized by certain different climatic, cultural, and economic potentials, which also influenced the adaptation and integration of Volhynian Czechs. The Sušice region, the area under study, is characterized by its mountainous terrain and overall significantly challenging living conditions compared to other border areas. This naturally impacted the process of gradual acclimatization, adaptation, and degree of identification with the environment by both Volhynian Czechs and other new settlers. The starting point for the studied group of re-emigrants was notably more difficult, as they had to cope with frequent rejection by new settlers from the interior, who often complicated their adaptation process. This led to significant social tension between Volhynian Czechs and new settlers from other parts of Czechoslovakia.
Theoretical and Methodological Framework of the Study
This study primarily aims to analyze and interpret the process of constructing collective identity among the most numerous re-emigration group of Volhynian Czechs through biographical narratives and the generational method[4]. The individual elements of collective identity are examined within a group of informants[5] who settled in the Sušice border area immediately after the end of the Second World War and belong to the re-emigration group of Volhynian Czechs. The research question thus focuses on determining which attributes are crucial for the construction of the collective identity of Volhynian Czechs and whether these attributes are transmitted to the next younger generation.
For the purposes of the research and to ensure a clear understanding of this text, it is necessary to define the terms first and second generation[6]. In this study, the first generation of Volhynian Czechs refers only to those who were born in Ukrainian Volhynia and re-emigrated to Czechoslovakia after 1945. The second generation of Volhynian Czechs refers to those who were already born in Czechoslovakia – the descendants of post-war re-emigrants.
From a methodological perspective, this project, based on qualitative research, primarily employs the biographical method, along with the analysis of historical documents. The primary subjects of the biographical approach are living people, and its main interest is the perceived and interpreted past. The biographical method involves obtaining so-called biographical material or life stories, which form the foundation of the method. A life story provides the researcher with insight into the informant’s life as a whole, as well as a focused view on certain life stages to which the informant attaches great significance (in this case, re-emigration and the resettlement of the Czechoslovak borderlands). The contents of people’s historical consciousness, authentic memories, and the experiences shared by individual witnesses are a very rich source of knowledge[7].
In the biographical method, the primary data collection technique is the so-called narrative interview. Conducting a quality narrative interview is not a simple task. It is necessary to use a consistent range of methodological procedures. Despite this, failures can occur on the part of both the researcher and the informant, who may summarize their life story in a few sentences and then struggle to continue. In such situations, the researcher must have a list of key questions ready to ask the informant about important moments in their life, which will also provide answers to the research question. The interview in such cases shows characteristics of a structured conversation between the interviewer (researcher) and the respondent. The literature defines this step as the use of a semi-structured interview, which increases the likelihood of obtaining sufficient research material suitable for subsequent data analysis and interpretation, ultimately leading to answering the research question[8]. The interviewer and respondent should avoid excessive standardization when the narrative interview fails. Without a thorough knowledge of the informant’s life story, the interviewer uses predetermined questions to determine which aspects to discuss in more detail, risking the omission of life situations that the interviewee considers significant[9]. For this reason, as much space as possible should be left for the narrator’s spontaneous storytelling, and only then should the interviewer attempt to guide the narrator to discuss parts of their life that have been overlooked or avoided[10].
Biographical research aims to find similarities and patterns in life stories by comparing different biographies, explaining personal or social phenomena[11]—in this project, the phenomena are re-emigration, subsequent settlement of the borderlands, and the formation of the collective identity of Volhynian Czechs in Czechoslovakia after 1945.
Classical methods of the humanities also include document analysis, which is an indispensable part of this project. Such documents include various newspaper and magazine articles related to Volhynian themes, as well as books published by Volhynian Czechs themselves, primarily obtained from the Association of Volhynian Czechs and their Friends, based in Prague.
Geographic Background of the Study and Field Research
The issue of border settlement by Volhynian Czechs and the subsequent research investigation of this work takes place in the same borderland area of the middle Pootaví—the former Sušice district. The project focuses on the newly settled borderlands of the Sušice district, with a detailed focus on the re-emigrant group of Volhynian Czechs, although these re-emigrants are not the most numerous group in this area[12].
The Sušice region, where the research was conducted, is characterized by its specific historical development, particularly after the end of the Second World War. This border area had been home to a German population for centuries, originating from a significantly late colonization period, known for the strength of its ancestral roots. The earliest traces of German settlers in the Šumava region date back to the 12th century, precisely in areas where the mountainous and forested barrier separating Bohemia from Bavaria was the most formidable – namely in Sušice. In the 14th century, the presence of Germans in this area became even more pronounced. However, the most substantial wave of Germanization occurred between the 16th and 18th centuries, when all the villages along the Otava River experienced significant Germanization towards Sušice, particularly around Hartmanice and Dlouhá Ves, as well as the villages between Kašperské Hory and Stachy.[13]
In the post-war period, most of the German population in Czechoslovakia was declared politically unreliable and was consequently forcibly expelled from the border areas. Similar to other border districts of the former Czechoslovakia, the Sušice region experienced a migration event in the 20th century involving the re-settlement of the borderlands. However, this process in the studied region was marked by a significant negative aspect of insufficient settlement. Harsh climatic conditions of the Šumava, the presence of mountains, a lack of industry and job opportunities, generally low levels of public amenities, and the political events following the February coup related to the construction of the Iron Curtain along the border with capitalist Bavaria – all these were negative specifics of the described area that prevented the Sušice region from being adequately settled. People left in search of a higher standard of living that was lacking here. The subsequent state-directed re-emigration action, involving the return of Czech compatriots, did not significantly help to settle this district adequately either.[14]
Today, one can find villages in the Sušice region that were compactly settled before the expulsion of the German population and are now more or less deserted. These are primarily places where new settlers struggled to farm, and whose land was later taken over by state farms during the period of intense agricultural collectivization around 1955–1957. This group includes the villages that were settled by re-emigrants from Volhynia in the Sušice region – these are Kašperské Hory, Humpolec, Svojše, and Platoř.[15]
The field research was divided into two basic periods, each with a different objective aimed at obtaining material for both the theoretical and empirical foundations of the study. The first part was conducted during June and July 2011, during which important materials concerning the settlement of the Sušice district by Volhynian Czechs were obtained. This primarily includes processed archival materials in book form about the course of settlement in the Sušice region. In this regard, the work relies on materials from the Museum of Šumava in Sušice. Additionally, research in the National Archives in Prague, within the archive fund of the Union of Czechs from Volhynia in Žatec (SČzV), provided precise numbers of Volhynian newcomer families in the Sušice district in 1947, including the names of villages that Volhynian Czechs settled during the re-emigration action.
The second crucial part of the field research involved conducting individual narrative interviews in the Sušice region with first- and second-generation Volhynian Czechs, which took place in August and September 2011. A total of 10 narrative interviews were recorded (six narrators from the first generation – four women and two men born between 1926 and 1937; four narrators from the second generation – three men and one woman born between 1948 and 1962). The interviews with first-generation informants lasted an average of 90 minutes, while the biographical narratives of the second generation were always shorter – around 30 minutes and exhibited characteristics of structured dialogue between the interviewer and the respondent. After each interview, the informants filled out a short questionnaire concerning basic identification information. This questionnaire was subsequently supplemented by me (the researcher) with a protocol including additional important notes such as the length, order, and environment of the interview, key moments that occurred during the recording and could have influenced its course, etc.
A total of two narrative interviews were interrupted by the unexpected arrival of a third person. Interventions in the interview were not considered during transcription, analysis, and interpretation because they were not related to the examined issue and could not significantly distort the biographical narrative. These third persons (in both cases, family members of the respondents) fully respected the interview and left the room after conveying information to my respondent, which is also part of the interview recording.
After the verbatim transcription of narrative interviews following the guidelines of Hans Joachim Schröder[16] (necessary for increasing the objectivity and validity of the testimonies and mitigating potential researcher bias), it was essential to analyze them using open coding, which is associated with the identification of individual categories. Subsequently, the next step involved interpreting excerpts from the narrative interviews.
The villages or towns in the Sušice region settled by the first-generation informants are always included in the excerpts from the biographical interviews of this study. Following this information is the current place of residence, but only if it differs from the place of residence after re-emigration in 1947. In cases of alignment, it is not mentioned. Some narrators migrated to other parts of the Sušice region for various reasons, such as unsuitable living conditions, women getting married and moving, etc., making it important to provide this information.
In this context, it is important to highlight that all excerpts from first-generation interviews also include pseudonyms and the year of birth. For second-generation informants, pseudonyms, the year of birth, and only the current place of residence are provided. First-generation narrators settled in the border villages of Bohdašice, Dlouhá Ves, Nové Domky, Svojše, Humpolec, and Nové Městečko. The descendants of the re-emigrants (second-generation informants) currently live in Kašperské Hory and Dlouhá Ves.
The research investigation began with exploration at the Museum of Šumava in Sušice and Kašperské Hory, where the staff provided me with specific names of Volhynian Czechs who still live in the former Sušice district and are willing to give biographical interviews. The start of the research and the recording of the narrative interviews were accompanied by significant distrust from the informants, particularly from the first generation. Therefore, it was essential to have a guide with me who was well-known and trusted in the research area. This individual vouched for me as a researcher, for example, by assuring that the recorded interviews would be used solely for study purposes and that individual informants would be referred to under pseudonyms.
The research then continued using the snowball sampling method, where the initial narrators who were willing to share their biographical stories informed me about other Volhynian Czechs in the nearby areas of the research site and often accompanied me to meet them. During my empirical investigation, I also encountered refusals to participate in narrative interviews. This occurred with two Volhynian Czech couples from the village of Hartmanice, who considered the topic of re-emigration to Czechoslovakia to be very sensitive and personal. Despite all my ethical assurances that the biographical narratives would not be misused and would serve only for study purposes, they had no interest in sharing their stories. In this case, trust was not established between me as the researcher and the potential narrators, as these individuals were highly concerned that the collected data would be used against them and published without their consent. The interview in this instance began and ended with the sentence, „We are doing well here now, and I won’t say anything more about it!“
On the other hand, the level of distrust was significantly lower among the younger generation, and I did not encounter any refusals in this case.
Another issue that arose during the narrative interviews in the field was convincing one informant that her biographical narrative was very valuable research material for me and that knowing exact historical dates and contexts was not essential. When approached, the informant remarked, „My life hasn’t been that interesting, and I don’t know what I could talk about after all this time.“ After reassuring her that I was genuinely interested in her story, she agreed to participate in the biographical interview. The atmosphere of trust was certainly facilitated by the informants‘ home environment, where all the narrative interviews were conducted, as it made the narrators feel more comfortable and natural.
Overall, it can be stated that the individual narrators (both first and second generation) were very willing to share their life stories, even enthusiastically showing various items from their private archives, such as photo albums, books, and audiovisual recordings from visits to Ukrainian Volhynia. The storytelling was thus enriched with additional information about relatives, acquaintances, and other people depicted in the photographs.
This study examines the construction of collective identity through the lens of empirical research and from the perspective of the narrators themselves
This study primarily focuses on answering the research question regarding the key elements of collective identity among the first-generation Volhynian Czechs in the Sušice region and their subsequent transmission to the second generation – their descendants. Significant attention was given to the literature on Volhynian themes, which addresses previous empirical research conducted on this re-emigrant group in the borderlands. Based on the analysis of such research, the most prominent attributes of the collective identity of Volhynian Czechs were defined, which, in light of the literature, reveal the „true Volhynian way,“ a distinct lifestyle that these compatriots brought to the borderlands after the Second World War. These attributes include style of dress, language and linguistic differences, diet and cuisine, religiosity, poems and songs, a strong aversion to war, regional identity, and participation in public life, including group cohesion.
These defined elements of the collective identity of Volhynian Czechs, based on previously conducted research in the border areas, were subsequently compared with the narrative life stories of individual informants from the first generation in the Sušice region, who were still born in Ukrainian Volhynia. From the conducted biographical interviews, it became clear which attributes are reflected as key in the life stories from the perspective of the first generation. The following excerpts from interviews with narrators focus on these attributes.
It can be stated with certainty that food and diet occupy the primary position in the aforementioned hierarchy of collective identity attributes, particularly in the form of beetroot borscht and spring sorrel soup. In this regard, there is substantial concordance with the existing literature. Concurrently, this aspect of collective identity was most effectively transmitted to the younger generation, thereby becoming an integral component of their daily routine. The typical way of eating was identified in the narrative interviews of the first and second generation without prompting or questioning by the researcher.
Marie, (1935), Bohdašice, Nové Městečko u Hartmanic, 1st generation:
„Well, I can definitely say, yeah, the borscht, that borscht, yes, my husband loves it, my kids eat it too, and yeah, it’s definitely good. It’s got all the vegetables, and it’s made with three kinds of meat, that’s not bad, it’s really good.“
Anna, (1936), Nové Domky, Sušice, 1. generace:
„Borscht, yeah, I still make borscht, I make it all the time. I grow my own beets in the garden, and I’ve got sorrel, so in the summer I make sorrel borscht too, they call that borscht too, but it’s more like a soup. Other than that, I don’t make any other Ukrainian dishes, those bliny or whatever they call them, I don’t remember and I don’t know what they called them.“
Josef, (1948), Kašperské Hory, 2nd generation:
„Our mom would make borscht, I remember the pierogi or uszka, those filled dumplings, with mushrooms, sometimes meat. We kept those traditions, gathering around the Christmas tree. Our friends, or actually people who came here with us, you know, one family went to Prague, the other stayed here, distant relatives from my dad’s side. We sang carols by the tree, reminisced, ate, and served kutya ceremoniously. We told stories, those are faint memories, but we still make borscht today. Even my friend makes it, and others too, and my son, it just became part of the tradition that we always have borscht at Christmas.“
The linguistic expression associated with negative connotations and the pejorative ethnonym Volyňák (Volhynian) from the novoosídlenci from the interior has also become a frequently mentioned issue among narrators from the first generation. These negative experiences naturally did not contribute to an effort to identify with the Czech borderland environment in the Sušice region, which also reflected on the regional identity of Volhynian Czechs in the studied locality. The majority of informants identify with the region in the most basic sense, linked merely to habit or the establishment of their own family, as was the case with both the first and second generations.
Anna, (1936), Nové Domky, Sušice, 1st generation:
„In Dlouhá Ves, they didn’t accept us, we were just Volhynians to them, nothing but Volhynians. That’s what they said, we were nothing else, something inferior, like we weren’t on the same level, couldn’t write properly or speak Czech well. I felt it for a long time at school, that not everyone wanted to be friends with me, especially when we went to the secondary school in Sušice. There were the builder’s daughter, the photographer’s son, and to them, we were just country bumpkins who didn’t know anything, so I didn’t have many friends. But now it’s not like that anymore […].“
Vlastimil, (1937), Dlouhá Ves, 1st generation:
„We spoke Czech at home like normal, and yeah, we could write in Czech too, but with mistakes, you know, like soft or hard i/y, that wasn’t really our thing, but we wrote, yeah, we spoke, but with mistakes. We came here in ’47, and those Boudů folks, they couldn’t speak Czech at all, but we spoke Czech perfectly, like there, yeah. So there was a community in Volhynia, it was a Czech village, and we only spoke Czech there.“
Interviewer: „And did you perhaps encounter any negative perceptions from other people here in the borderlands, like being called Volhynians?“
Narrator Vlastimil: „Yeah, yeah, well, they thought we were idiots and losers, like we couldn’t speak Czech, you know, like we didn’t belong here, we heard stuff like that, yeah. But they were dead wrong, because at home we only spoke Czech, only Czech, and they were surprised to see that.“
The second generation often did not encounter the aforementioned stigma, yet they also exhibited a low connection to the region. Local patriots, representing the highest level of identification with the area, were completely absent in the biographies.
František, (1958), Dlouhá Ves, 2nd generation:
„But I was already born here in Sušice, so I don’t know any Ukrainian or Russian, not a bit, not even from school. I wasn’t a good student, and I don’t even know if my parents spoke Russian. I was already here, so I don’t remember them ever speaking Russian or Ukrainian at home, not at all. […] You know, being born in Sušice, I never really encountered anything about being a Volhynian, not at all […].“
In the biographical interviews with the first generation, the part of their life story associated with their home (domov) in Volhynia during the Second World War often emerged at the very beginning. The wartime experiences of the informants unequivocally demonstrated a strong aversion to war, primarily associated with poverty, hunger, and suffering. This subsequently resulted in the phenomenon of home being linked to the borderland of the Sušice region for the first generation. After visiting Volhynia, which occurred with five out of six narrators, there was often disappointment and a reinforced feeling that their true home was now in the borderland (however, from the perspective of regional identity, this represents the lowest or most basic level of identification with the given locality).
Vlastimil, (1937), Dlouhá Ves, 1st generation:
„I remember the war very well, it’s hard for me to talk about it, but I recall the years when they started bombing Zhytomyr. We were all shocked, everyone ran to see what was happening, and the old folks were looting the shops. The Russian police, the NKVD [Narodnyj komissariat vnutrennych děl – People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, the former Soviet secret police – author’s note], they were shooting the looters right there on the spot, it was pure chaos. After the bombing, the Germans occupied us again, and the first time was sort of like a break, nothing much happened, but by the seventh time, it got worse. Zhytomyr was taken and released seven times, and I was there all along. We experienced nothing but fear and misery, there was just hunger, hunger, and hunger, and sheer poverty, you can’t even imagine what it was like […].“
Other elements of collective identity did not receive as much attention in the biographical memories of the first and second generation narrators as the previously mentioned aspects of diet and cuisine, stigmatizing linguistic expression, or regional identity. To obtain more diverse biographical material for a clear answer to the research question, supplementary questions regarding other attributes of collective identity were posed to the narrators. It was at these moments that the narrative interview transitioned into a semi-structured interview, as demonstrated in the following excerpt from an interview with informant Miroslav.
Miroslav, (1960), Dlouhá Ves, 2nd generation:
Interviewer: „So, do you know the story of your parents? From Volhynia?“
Narrator Miroslav: „They went, instead of going to America, they went to Russia, and that’s the end of it. I didn’t care, I didn’t care, the old lady just said they were doing well there, but I didn’t care.“
Interviewer: „And do you know which village they lived in there?“
Narrator Miroslav: „I don’t know, she lived there with her sister, well, more like they were there, I don’t know her. Venca went there to see it, he was there, but I never cared about it in my life, like some Russia, shitty Russia, I didn’t care what they did for us, they just fucked up the republic, those damn Russians. I’m telling you, the old lady should have gone to America and not some shitty Russia. Yeah, if they brought dollars instead of rubles, that would be different, but this is just worthless, you know. Look, otherwise, I didn’t care, I never asked them about it.“
Despite these efforts, in most cases the interviewer did not confirm another attribute of collective identity as significant for the first generation of Volhynian Bohemians in Sušicko, which was of course reflected in the transmission to their descendants, which largely did not take place at all or at a very low level. Thus, the second generation is familiar with the Volhynian origin from their parents, but only superficially, the places of memory as materialised reminders of the past are more or less absent. This is clearly declared by the much shorter interviews with representatives of the second generation, where in most cases these interviews show signs of a bound dialogue between the respondent and the researcher. In contrast, the informants from the first generation told their life story more or less chronologically in succession.
As far as the overall summary and the unambiguous answer to the research question is concerned, the core attributes of the collective identity of the Volhynian Czechs in the area of the former Susice district, based on the analysis and interpretation of the biographical interviews, can be considered to be the diet and food, as well as the linguistic stigmatization in the period immediately after the actual re-migration, the strong opposition to the war, the regional identity and the concept of home as a special kind of this human identity.
The attributes of collective identity that were subject to transmission to the younger second generation of Volhynian Bohemians in Susik are again the menu and eating, which clearly occupy the first position in the hierarchy of attributes. Furthermore, the very ‚Volhynian origin of the parents‘, where the second generation was familiar with this fact in all narratives, even if only in a superficial way. The other attributes were not given significant attention in the biographical interviews by the second-generation informants. After subsequent ‚enquiry‘ by the researcher, it was again confirmed that the remaining elements of collective identity were not considered central and therefore not an important part of the lived everyday life of individual informants.
Conclusion
The settlement of the border areas after the Second World War, which was further enriched in 1947 by the state-controlled re-emigration of compatriots from abroad, including the Volhynian Czechs as the largest re-emigration group, imprinted the Czechoslovakian borderlands (and the area of the Sušice region under study) with a character of social and cultural heterogeneity. Consequently, the Volhynian Czechs constituted the majority of the re-migrants, although they constituted a minority of the Czech population. This differentiation constituted one of the principal stigmatising factors in the adaptation of the Volyn Czechs among the majority Czech population in the borderland. Nevertheless, the Volhynian Czechs have already undergone a notable process of assimilation in the Sušice region, resulting in the gradual dissolution of the cultural distinctions that initially set them apart, particularly in comparison to the more numerous new settlers from the interior. The considerable assimilation and the current absence of a typical Volhynian culture have been identified as key factors preventing the transmission of Volhynian Bohemian culture to the younger generation.
The lack of settlement in the region, resulting from the imposition of higher standards by new settlers, which this particular borderland area was unable to meet, has also contributed to the absence of cohesion and a sense of belonging among the individual Volhynian Bohemians. The aforementioned underpopulation serves to reinforce the region’s original genius loci, thereby perpetuating the pervasive sentiment of uprootedness among the re-migrants. This is compounded by the fact that the region is still grappling with the consequences of the displacement of the original German population following the conclusion of the Second World War.
The lack of cohesion among the Volhynian Czechs in the border region of Sušice is undoubtedly attributable, at least in part, to the war and the post-war political events associated with the forced collectivisation that the Volhynian re-migrants underwent on two occasions: initially in Volhynia and subsequently, following 1948, in Czechoslovakia. The significant negative experiences of the Second World War, the great poverty, and the subsequent period of communism under the Soviet Union all serve to reinforce the Volhyn re-migrants‘ overall negative memories of life in Ukrainian Volhynia. The construction of the lived world, as experienced by the Volhynian Czechs, was subsequently transported to the borderlands. For this reason, they attempted to adapt as expeditiously as possible to their novel environment, which frequently proved challenging for them.
The concept of a Volhynian Czech is not as widely espoused in this region as in other areas along the border. There are no collective gatherings of these individuals, and the overall sense of group cohesion is almost non-existent. This is evidenced by the fact that many of the narrators were previously unaware of each other’s Volhynian origins and those of their neighbours. Consequently, through the process of gradual assimilation into the dominant Czech society, the Volhynian Czechs ceased to maintain the distinctive characteristics of their own cultural heritage, including their traditions, customs, and religious practices. This resulted in the severing of the intergenerational transmission of knowledge.
The limited transmission of elements of the collective identity of the Volhynian Czechs in the study area can be attributed, to a certain extent, to the generally low number of Volhynian families that settled the area after World War II as part of the re-migration campaign. This situation is replicated across the entire south-western border area, where the numbers of this group of re-migrants are among the absolute lowest.
[1] In the post-war discourse, terms and phrases were employed to justify and advance the concept of resettlement of the Czechoslovak borderlands as a „patriotic duty“. The term „our borderland“ was employed by the contemporary press and the general nationalist rhetoric to signify that the borderland already belonged to the Czechs and Slovaks (Slavs and Slavic people) and was once again part of the Czechoslovak Republic, free from German influence. This was a highly effective rhetorical device that appealed to the Czechoslovak population to establish a Czech border region free of German influence, which had played a role in the dissolution of Czechoslovakia. In summary, the so-called „ideology of patriotism“ and the justifiable defeat of Nazi Germany served to justify the settlement of the borderlands after the war. ZICH, F. Regionální identita obyvatel českého západního pohraničí. In Otisky historie v regionálních identitách obyvatel pohraničí: Sebedefinice a vzájemné vnímání Čechů a Němců v přímém sousedství. Praha: Sociologický ústav Akademie věd ČR, 2007, s. 62.
[2] The quarterly ethnographic magazine Český lid (Czech People) also addresses the topic of borderland settlement in its contributions from various authors. In this periodical, the first references to the new socio-cultural organisation of the post-war Czechoslovak borderlands emerged. It is also noteworthy that the work of the Czech ethnologist Iva Heroldová, who frequently contributed articles to this periodical, encompassed not only the subject of the settlement of border areas after the Second World War, but also the question of ‚Volhynian Czechness‘ itself. This topic is also addressed in Jaroslav Vaculík’s comprehensive three-volume monograph Dějiny volyňských Čechů (History of the Volhynian Bohemians), which comprises volumes I, II and III. The initial two sections of the work examine the genesis and evolution of this Czech minority between the years 1868 and 1945. The third volume chronicles a pivotal moment in the history of the Volhynian Czechs: their return to their ancestral homeland, marking the conclusion of their eighty-year sojourn abroad. VACULÍK, J. Dějiny volyňských Čechů I. díl 1868–1914. 1. vydání. Praha. SČVP, 1997.; VACULÍK, J. Dějiny volyňských Čechů II. díl 1914–1945. 1. vydání. Praha: SČVP, 1998. VACULÍK, J. Dějiny volyňských Čechů III. díl 1945–1948. 1. vydání. Brno. Masarykova univerzita, 2001.
The collective monograph, entitled The New Settlement of the Czech Borderlands after the Second World War, represents a comprehensive examination of the resettlement of the entire borderlands of the former Czechoslovak Republic. It is therefore a crucial text in the context of the wider issue of the settlement of borderlands. The authors address a range of aspects related to the changes in the borderlands, including demographic, political, social, and economic factors. Additionally, the book addresses the phenomenon of re-emigration to Czechoslovakia. ČAPKA, F.; SLEZÁK, L.; VACULÍK, J. Nové osídlení pohraničí českých zemí po druhé světové válce. 1. vydání. Brno: Akademické nakladatelství CERM, 2005.
If we focus only on the issue of the settlement of the borderland in the former Sušice district, we must mention the study by Věra Holá entitled Settlement of the Šumava Borderland in Sušice 1945-1948. Here the author directly addresses the question of the actual course of the re-migration in the area of the Susice border region, including the total number of individual re-migrants to this district, not excluding the Volhynian Czechs. HOLÁ, V. Osídlování šumavského pohraničí 1945–1948. In Minulostí Západočeského kraje. 17. ročník, Plzeň: Západočeské nakladatelství Plzeň, 1981.
[3] ŠATAVA, L. Jazyk a identita etnických menšin: Možnosti zachování a revitalizace. 2. vydání. Praha: Sociologické nakladatelství, 2009, s. 37.
[4] The fundamental conceptual apparatus of the present study is the concept of identity. Given the multiplicity of interpretations of this phenomenon, it is essential to define it for the purposes of the present research. In the social constructivist framework of American sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, which draws primarily on the phenomenologically oriented work of Alfred Schütz, identity is regarded as a pivotal aspect of subjective reality. There is a dialectical relationship between identity and society. Identity is shaped during individual social processes, and thus cannot be regarded as a static, innate quality. This challenges the view put forth by primordialism, which posits that identity is a fixed, primordial attribute. Conversely, identity is constituted, sustained, renewed and, on occasion, even reconstructed through social relations. Consequently, it is not a primordial essence. In contrast to primordialism, social constructivism emphasises the uncovering of the non-duality of everything social. BERGER, P.; LUCKMANN, T. Sociální konstrukce reality: Pojednání o sociologii vědění. 1. vydání. Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury, 1999. s. 170–171. Jan Assmann posits that identity is a matter of consciousness, namely a reflective grasp of one’s unconscious self-image. This perspective is applicable to both individual and collective life. Consequently, one can be considered a person only to the extent that one is aware of oneself. Consequently, a collective entity, such as a nation or a people, is only ascribed the status of a people or nation to the extent that it is able to comprehend and exemplify itself within the confines of these concepts. The concept of identity is inherently pluralistic, as it is predicated upon the existence of other identities. Without the recognition of difference, it is impossible to define uniqueness, and without multiplicity, there is no possibility of achieving unity. The primary source of human identity is social interaction, interpersonal relationships, and communication with the environment. In light of these considerations, the social construction of identity is a key focus of analysis. ASSMANN, Jan. Kultura a paměť: Písmo, vzpomínka a politická identita v rozvinutých kulturách starověku. 1. vydání. Praha: Prostor, 2001. s. 115.
[5] In this study, the terms „informant,“ „narrator,“ and „respondent“ are used synonymously.
[6] This study examines the transmission of collective identity attributes through intergenerational ties of individual members of several families of Volhynian Czechs in the Sušice region. A generational perspective, in this case, the first and second generations, allows for the observation of the transmission and reflection of experiences. In sociological terminology, the term „generation“ is defined as „a grouping of related age groups or year groups that have undergone a socialisation process in similar historical and cultural conditions.“ The typical duration of a generation is estimated to be between twenty-five and thirty years. However, in the contemporary era, this interval is becoming increasingly compressed. JANDOUREK, J. Sociologický slovník. 1. vydání. Praha: Portál, 2001. s. 91. The concept of generation is only meaningful in societies undergoing change and development. In his seminal work on the sociology of generations, Karl Mannheim posited that the concept of generation must be understood in the context of generational embeddedness, which extends beyond mere age proximity. Furthermore, individuals born within a specific generation tend to undergo similar experiences during their adolescent and mature years, which substantiates the notion of generational embeddedness. This distinguishes one generation from another as a discrete social entity. Members of a given generation are likely to exhibit certain shared characteristics as a result of their situatedness within the same historical process. The position within a given generation and socio-economic structure defines certain boundaries of possible experiences for its members, thereby contributing to their characteristic way of thinking. Such divergences can give rise to conflict between generations. The younger generation attempts to impose its views on the fundamental order of life in society, whereas the older generation demands that the status quo be maintained. Furthermore, the transition of generations necessitates the transmission of disparate traditions and cultural legacies. In addition to the conscious acquisition of knowledge, the younger generation also inherits the accumulated wisdom of their elders. From an early age, individuals begin to absorb the intellectual heritage unconsciously, before they have had sufficient opportunity to question the world and the events around them. MANNHEIM, K. The Problem of Generations. In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952. s. 27.
[7] NOSKOVÁ, J. Reemigrace a usídlování volyňských Čechů v interpretacích aktérů a odborné literatury. 1. vydání. Brno: Ústav evropské etnologie Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity v Brně, 2007. s. 20–21.
[8] HENDL, J. Kvalitativní výzkum: Základní metody a aplikace. 1. vydání. Praha: Portál, 2005. s. 130–131.
[9] FUCHS, W. Biographische Forschung: Eine Einführung in Praxis und Methoden. 3. Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 2005. s. 175–176.
[10] VANĚK, M.; MÜCKE, P.; PELIKÁNOVÁ, H. Naslouchat hlasům paměti: Teoretické a praktické aspekty orální historie. 1. vydání. Praha: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny Akademie věd ČR, 2007. s. 81.
[11] HENDL, J. Kvalitativní výzkum: Základní metody a aplikace. 1. vydání. Praha: Portál, 2005. s. 130.
[12] HOLÁ, V. Osídlování šumavského pohraničí 1945–1948. In Minulostí Západočeského kraje. 17. ročník, Plzeň: Západočeské nakladatelství Plzeň, 1981, s. 32.
[13] ZÁLOHA, J. Šumava od A do Z. 1. vydání, České Budějovice: nakladatelství Růže, 1972. s. 112.
[14] ZÁLOHA, J. Šumava od A do Z. 1. vydání, České Budějovice: nakladatelství Růže, 1972. s. 116–117.
[15] HOLÁ, V. O nynějším stavu osídlení. In Zpravodaj: Koordinované sítě vědeckých informací pro etnografii a folkloristiku: Materiály k problematice novoosídleneckého pohraničí, svazek 6: Obraz současné pohraniční vesnice. Praha: Oddělení etnických procesů, 1983. s. 48.
[16] SCHRÖDER, H., J. Die gestohlenen Jahre. Erzählgeschichte und Geschichtserzählung im Interview. Der Zweite Weltkrieg aus der Sicht ehemaliger Mannschaftssoldaten. Tübingen: Niemayer, 1992. s. 91–96.
References
ASSMANN, J. Kultura a paměť: Písmo, vzpomínka a politická identita v rozvinutých kulturách starověku. 1. vydání. Praha: Prostor, 2001. ISBN 80-7260-051-6.
BERGER, P.; LUCKMANN, T. Sociální konstrukce reality: Pojednání o sociologii vědění. 1. vydání. Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury, 1999. ISBN 80-85959-46-1.
ČAPKA, F.; SLEZÁK, L.; VACULÍK, J. Nové osídlení pohraničí českých zemí po druhé světové válce. 1. vydání. Brno: Akademické nakladatelství CERM, 2005. ISBN 80-7204-419- 2.
FUCHS, W. Biographische Forschung: Eine Einführung in Praxis und Methoden. 3. Auflage. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. 2005. ISBN 3-531-43127-7.
HENDL, J. Kvalitativní výzkum: Základní metody a aplikace. 1. vydání. Praha: Portál, 2005. ISBN 80-7367-040-2.
HOLÁ, V. Osídlování šumavského pohraničí 1945–1948. In Minulostí Západočeského kraje. 17. ročník, Plzeň: Západočeské nakladatelství Plzeň, 1981.
HOLÁ, V. O nynějším stavu osídlení. In Zpravodaj: Koordinované sítě vědeckých informací pro etnografii a folkloristiku: Materiály k problematice novoosídleneckého pohraničí, svazek 6: Obraz současné pohraniční vesnice. Praha: Oddělení etnických procesů, 1983.
MANNHEIM, K. The problem of Generations. In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952.
NOSKOVÁ, J. Reemigrace a usídlování volyňských Čechů v interpretacích aktérů a odborné literatury. 1. vydání. Brno: Ústav evropské etnologie Filozofické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity v Brně, 2007. ISBN 978-80-254-0095-1.
VACULÍK, J. Dějiny volyňských Čechů I. díl 1868–1914. 1. vydání. Praha. SČVP, 1997. ISBN 80-901878-5-4.
VACULÍK, J. Dějiny volyňských Čechů II. díl 1914–1945. 1. vydání. Praha: SČVP, 1998. ISBN 80-9018-8-9.
VACULÍK, J. Dějiny volyňských Čechů III. díl 1945–1948. 1. vydání. Brno. Masarykova univerzita, 2001. ISBN 80-210-2568-9.
VANĚK, M.; MÜCKE, P.; PELIKÁNOVÁ, H. Naslouchat hlasům paměti: Teoretické a praktické aspekty orální historie. 1. vydání. Praha: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny Akademie věd ČR, 2007. ISBN 978-80-7285-089-1.
VOLBRACHTOVÁ, L. Kulturní paměť, historické vědomí a kolektivní paměť v procesu interpretace vzpomínek. In Český lid. 1994: 81. s. 285–293.
ZÁLOHA, J. Šumava od A do Z. 1. vydání, České Budějovice: nakladatelství Růže, 1972.
ZICH, F. Regionální identita obyvatel českého západního pohraničí. In Otisky historie v regionálních identitách obyvatel pohraničí: Sebedefinice a vzájemné vnímání Čechů a Němců v přímém sousedství. 1. vydání. Praha: Sociologický ústav Akademie věd ČR, 2007. s. 49–64. ISBN 978-80-7330-109-5.