ABSTRACT
Multicultural communication between heterogeneous ethnic groups functions in a culturally variegated environment and is based on simplified ethnic symbols. Ethnic symbols are generally being built through mass media in the conscience of members of ethnic groups as well as in the majority, mainstream society. The Australian multiethnic space with its multiculturalism policy and with the opening of the space to public representation of ethnic groups, is building a fragmented ethnic environment. In it, we can follow on the one side progressive and increasing integration of some initial immigrant groups (and of their descendants) into Australian environment, and on the other, a growing marginalisation of some other, recently immigrated ethnic groups (and of their descendants). Ethnic environment with its symbolic representation of individual ethnicities is still functioning similarly as it did in the past, that is based on assimilatory logics, which distinguishes between “us”, and those that are “foreign and different”.
In the Australian multicultural space, communication between ethnic groups and the mainstream is frequently a one-way process; the media as well often aim their look only from the minority towards the majority and thus do not succeed in reaching the entire multicultural spectrum. Evident is the duality of media representations, which provoke stereotype ethnic images on two levels: one is good, the other bad, one more positive, the other more negative. Duality in media mediation of ethnic representations can be perceived even with representations of a single ethnicity. We are witnessing this phenomenon in modern Australian society especially with some ethnic groups from Asian ethnic space.
Slovenian culture has in the Australian environment always been (at least to a large extent) in the positive value scope of European immigration although individuals were able due to their relative “invisibility” and numerical smallness, to move, willingly or not, between individual ethnic groups as well as between ethnic groups and the mainstream society. Despite the fact that we can on the one hand speak of heterogeneity of ethnic representations in multicultural space, we can on the other hand follow gradual homogenisation of some ethnic groups. Thus, despite ethnic diversification in an ethnically mixed and global space, ethnic representations are being created, which are multicultural and are because of their multiculturalism and multi-significance becoming more and more connected and homogeneous.

ABSTRACT
Multicultural communication between heterogeneous ethnic groups functions in a culturally variegated environment and is based on simplified ethnic symbols. Ethnic symbols are generally being built through mass media in the conscience of members of ethnic groups as well as in the majority, mainstream society. The Australian multiethnic space with its multiculturalism policy and with the opening of the space to public representation of ethnic groups, is building a fragmented ethnic environment. In it, we can follow on the one side progressive and increasing integration of some initial immigrant groups (and of their descendants) into Australian environment, and on the other, a growing marginalisation of some other, recently immigrated ethnic groups (and of their descendants). Ethnic environment with its symbolic representation of individual ethnicities is still functioning similarly as it did in the past, that is based on assimilatory logics, which distinguishes between “us”, and those that are “foreign and different”.
In the Australian multicultural space, communication between ethnic groups and the mainstream is frequently a one-way process; the media as well often aim their look only from the minority towards the majority and thus do not succeed in reaching the entire multicultural spectrum. Evident is the duality of media representations, which provoke stereotype ethnic images on two levels: one is good, the other bad, one more positive, the other more negative. Duality in media mediation of ethnic representations can be perceived even with representations of a single ethnicity. We are witnessing this phenomenon in modern Australian society especially with some ethnic groups from Asian ethnic space.
Slovenian culture has in the Australian environment always been (at least to a large extent) in the positive value scope of European immigration although individuals were able due to their relative “invisibility” and numerical smallness, to move, willingly or not, between individual ethnic groups as well as between ethnic groups and the mainstream society. Despite the fact that we can on the one hand speak of heterogeneity of ethnic representations in multicultural space, we can on the other hand follow gradual homogenisation of some ethnic groups. Thus, despite ethnic diversification in an ethnically mixed and global space, ethnic representations are being created, which are multicultural and are because of their multiculturalism and multi-significance becoming more and more connected and homogeneous.

ABSTRACT
In the contribution, I am attempting to answer these questions: how was the course of the process of forming a common (compromise) policy on the EU level developing? Which fields of migration policy (in a broader sense) does the EU policy set as mandatory for member states, and which as recommendable only? What are the similarities and differences between selected national migration policies after World War II? Were conformations of separate national policies needed because of agreements on the EU level? Of which, and what were those changes? In my study, I focus on a comparison between Germany, France and Sweden, which were after World War II managing their migration situations by different methods; today they are because of agreements on the EU level, drawing near in certain aspects while the broader migration situation remains in the competence of national policies. In those fields, member states are on the EU level merely conferring on outlines and preferred standpoints that are to be carried into effect in individual (national) migration policies.
Treaties and agreements between EU member states that are adopted and binding on the interstate level are linked above all to the regulation of recent immigration and migration of the population living within individual members states, in the entire EU space. Rights and obligations resulting from those agreements can be divided into three groups: rights of citizens of member states, agreements on inflow of new labour force from non-member states, and (non)rights of the rest of the inhabitants non-citizens. The latter are immigrants who live and work in the EU member states and have not yet acquired citizenship of one of EU member states; thus, they are citizens of non-members of the EU and have permit for staying and for work. The foundations of the Schengen legal order were shaped as early as in the mid eighties. The Maastricht treaty, later supplemented with the Amsterdam one, introduces the right to vote and a number of social rights deriving from labour. The Amsterdam treaty and the European Council in Tampere have given agreements, which demanded from EU member states adjustments in the fields connected with civil rights and national sovereignty. In the EU, there is from the middle of the 90s on, a strong emphasis on the establishing of a common space and thus on a redefinition of borders, and on defining the difference between the so-called internal and external borders. The concept of European citizenship additionally emphasised those differences. Despite uniformity of viewpoints and state strategies of the EU member states in the (im)migration field, key questions on the conditions of the life of immigrants remain on the level of national policies. Historically conditioned differences between member states are still large, although on the other hand we should not overlook changes in individual states that were realised because of the pressures of collective agreements on the EU level.

ABSTRACT
In the contribution, I am attempting to answer these questions: how was the course of the process of forming a common (compromise) policy on the EU level developing? Which fields of migration policy (in a broader sense) does the EU policy set as mandatory for member states, and which as recommendable only? What are the similarities and differences between selected national migration policies after World War II? Were conformations of separate national policies needed because of agreements on the EU level? Of which, and what were those changes? In my study, I focus on a comparison between Germany, France and Sweden, which were after World War II managing their migration situations by different methods; today they are because of agreements on the EU level, drawing near in certain aspects while the broader migration situation remains in the competence of national policies. In those fields, member states are on the EU level merely conferring on outlines and preferred standpoints that are to be carried into effect in individual (national) migration policies.
Treaties and agreements between EU member states that are adopted and binding on the interstate level are linked above all to the regulation of recent immigration and migration of the population living within individual members states, in the entire EU space. Rights and obligations resulting from those agreements can be divided into three groups: rights of citizens of member states, agreements on inflow of new labour force from non-member states, and (non)rights of the rest of the inhabitants non-citizens. The latter are immigrants who live and work in the EU member states and have not yet acquired citizenship of one of EU member states; thus, they are citizens of non-members of the EU and have permit for staying and for work. The foundations of the Schengen legal order were shaped as early as in the mid eighties. The Maastricht treaty, later supplemented with the Amsterdam one, introduces the right to vote and a number of social rights deriving from labour. The Amsterdam treaty and the European Council in Tampere have given agreements, which demanded from EU member states adjustments in the fields connected with civil rights and national sovereignty. In the EU, there is from the middle of the 90s on, a strong emphasis on the establishing of a common space and thus on a redefinition of borders, and on defining the difference between the so-called internal and external borders. The concept of European citizenship additionally emphasised those differences. Despite uniformity of viewpoints and state strategies of the EU member states in the (im)migration field, key questions on the conditions of the life of immigrants remain on the level of national policies. Historically conditioned differences between member states are still large, although on the other hand we should not overlook changes in individual states that were realised because of the pressures of collective agreements on the EU level.

ABSTRACT
The contribution is a study of the connection between two complex phenomena – creativity and migrations; an empiric case for the paper was Slovenes in Germany. So far, mainly psychologists were interested in creativity. Among them, only Jan Makarovič surpassed the narrow frames of the psychological profession and proceeded with creativity from the aspect of anthropology as the most complex science on human, which attempts to comprise the human being in all their manifestations. Creativity is not something mystical, it does not originate from nothing and is not endless; it is not something that descends from human inwardness and that cannot be satisfactory explained. It is about a sum of personal, environmental, sociological and cultural factors that influence the individuals’ capability of creativity. Migrations can be the external stimulating or hindering factors.
We distinguish various forms of creativity; the author excepted artistic creativity and linked it with migrations. The emphasis is on some influences on artistic creativity in the context of the after-war immigration of Slovenes to Germany where from the end of 50s to the beginning of the 70s of the 20th century and in comparison to other European states, the most Slovenes settled. Yet there were few artistic creators among them and later too, few sprung up among that population.
In the centre of migrations and creativity are above all the individual and the environment. The author linked the both phenomena through freedom, cultural contacts, and mental diseases. In the second part of the contribution, the theory of creativity is dealt with in detail, the so-called theory of the six Ps developed by Makarovič. It comprises Opportunities (Prilike) for creativity, the Individual (Posameznik), the Process (Proces), the Product (Produkt), Acknowledgment (Priznanje) and Motion (Premik) or social changes being the consequences of creativity. This theory is partly applied on the concrete migration situation of Slovenes in Germany. Emphasised are the so-called external influences of migrations on creativity, which exhibit in possibilities and incentives a creator receives from the environment. Possibly even more important in this connection is the so-called internal influence of migrations that demonstrates through the individual and their mental qualities and characteristics on which the process of migrations influences as well. As this is only the beginning of the research, many questions remained unanswered, and even more sprung up. In the future, more attention should be devoted to the individual, being a factor or actor in the migration process.

ABSTRACT
The contribution is a study of the connection between two complex phenomena – creativity and migrations; an empiric case for the paper was Slovenes in Germany. So far, mainly psychologists were interested in creativity. Among them, only Jan Makarovič surpassed the narrow frames of the psychological profession and proceeded with creativity from the aspect of anthropology as the most complex science on human, which attempts to comprise the human being in all their manifestations. Creativity is not something mystical, it does not originate from nothing and is not endless; it is not something that descends from human inwardness and that cannot be satisfactory explained. It is about a sum of personal, environmental, sociological and cultural factors that influence the individuals’ capability of creativity. Migrations can be the external stimulating or hindering factors.
We distinguish various forms of creativity; the author excepted artistic creativity and linked it with migrations. The emphasis is on some influences on artistic creativity in the context of the after-war immigration of Slovenes to Germany where from the end of 50s to the beginning of the 70s of the 20th century and in comparison to other European states, the most Slovenes settled. Yet there were few artistic creators among them and later too, few sprung up among that population.
In the centre of migrations and creativity are above all the individual and the environment. The author linked the both phenomena through freedom, cultural contacts, and mental diseases. In the second part of the contribution, the theory of creativity is dealt with in detail, the so-called theory of the six Ps developed by Makarovič. It comprises Opportunities (Prilike) for creativity, the Individual (Posameznik), the Process (Proces), the Product (Produkt), Acknowledgment (Priznanje) and Motion (Premik) or social changes being the consequences of creativity. This theory is partly applied on the concrete migration situation of Slovenes in Germany. Emphasised are the so-called external influences of migrations on creativity, which exhibit in possibilities and incentives a creator receives from the environment. Possibly even more important in this connection is the so-called internal influence of migrations that demonstrates through the individual and their mental qualities and characteristics on which the process of migrations influences as well. As this is only the beginning of the research, many questions remained unanswered, and even more sprung up. In the future, more attention should be devoted to the individual, being a factor or actor in the migration process.

ABSTRACT
In view of time, duration and grounds for migrations, Slovenians in Germany were referred to as emigrant, migrant worker, diaspora, Gastarbeiter. For Slovenians coming to Germany after 1962 temporarily for economic reasons, the term migrant worker was used. Despite initially different plans, the emigrants were not returning home for permanent; in recent reports, we frequently read about emigrants in Germany. Although the term migrant worker meant in the past “workers on temporary work abroad”, its use is righteous today as well. In the media, the expression denotes those Slovenians abroad that visit Slovenia on occasions of holidays and feasts by which they differ from “proper” emigrants.
The position and role of Slovenian language is due to permanently changing political and economic circumstances difficult to describe. An outline of the after- war migrations and life in Germany and in Yugoslavia indicates we must consider the present language knowledge and patterns of speech behaviour a non-concluded process marked in the past by political changes, economic crises, negative attitude towards bilingualism, fear of coercive departing Germany, integration into German society, and the attainment of independence of Slovenia. In the future, it will be designated by Slovenian membership in the European Union, by economic situation in the both states, and by abilities of taking advantage of the new circumstances.

ABSTRACT
In view of time, duration and grounds for migrations, Slovenians in Germany were referred to as emigrant, migrant worker, diaspora, Gastarbeiter. For Slovenians coming to Germany after 1962 temporarily for economic reasons, the term migrant worker was used. Despite initially different plans, the emigrants were not returning home for permanent; in recent reports, we frequently read about emigrants in Germany. Although the term migrant worker meant in the past “workers on temporary work abroad”, its use is righteous today as well. In the media, the expression denotes those Slovenians abroad that visit Slovenia on occasions of holidays and feasts by which they differ from “proper” emigrants.
The position and role of Slovenian language is due to permanently changing political and economic circumstances difficult to describe. An outline of the after- war migrations and life in Germany and in Yugoslavia indicates we must consider the present language knowledge and patterns of speech behaviour a non-concluded process marked in the past by political changes, economic crises, negative attitude towards bilingualism, fear of coercive departing Germany, integration into German society, and the attainment of independence of Slovenia. In the future, it will be designated by Slovenian membership in the European Union, by economic situation in the both states, and by abilities of taking advantage of the new circumstances.

ABSTRACT
The counts of the population after the Second World War prove that in Slovenia we can talk about ethnic plurality. The most immigrants came to Slovenia from other republics of former Yugoslavia. According to the 2002 Slovenian census the share of the persons who did not state Slovenian ethnicity was 17 %. The largest groups of immigrants living in Slovenia represent the Serbs, the Croats, the Boshniaks, the Muslims and the Bosnians. All other ethnicities together constitute less than 1 % of the population in Slovenia. Among immigrants living in Slovenia there are several ‘foreign’ writers (and other artists). The literary work by immigrant writers in Slovenia has not been often discussed, has not been object of scientific and critical debating and has not been treated as a (special) part of literary system. This is also connected with the question of the volume and the limits of national literature. Literary work by immigrant writers is part of two cultures – the source culture and the ‘new’ culture – irrespective of which language (Slovenian or ‘foreign’) it is written in. Immigrants of the first generation are mostly not bilingual and they create in their mother tongue(s). The integration of foreign language literature of the immigrant minorities – by translation and evaluation – has an important role in the process of establishing a complex joint culture in a modern multi-ethnic state. Literary work by immigrant writers on one hand indeed is part of two cultures, but on the other it often finds itself ‘somewhere in-between’, between two cultures and does not belong to any of them. One of the reasons for this position is undoubtedly the problem of non-translating. Literary translation is very often stated as the most important factor of interacting between national literatures and is also very important for the formation of cultural identity. Also it is no longer understood simply as a transfer between two languages, but wider as a transfer between two cultures. Literary work by immigrant writers as part of two cultures puts us in a paradoxical situation – by representing source and target culture in which it is actually translated. It is seen that literature by immigrant writers fulfils three roles – it represents ‘foreign’/other culture, home/autochthon culture and it represents itself as the third type of literature or culture.
The most immigrant authors living and writing in Slovenia come from other republics of former Yugoslavia. In my research I have found seventeen authors who wrote their literary works in their mother tongue and whose works were translated into Slovenian and published in Slovenia after the year 1990. The authors are Josip Osti, Sara Memić, Rade Vučkovac, Senada Smajić, Ismet Bekrić, Petra P. Aleksić, Jure Drljepan, Jordan Stavrov, Nebojša Ignjatović, Ana Ristovič, Jadranka Matić Zupančič, Vladimir Vekić, Ljuben Dimkaroski, Lidija Dimkovska, Metoda Postolski Košir and two women-writers who are not from former Yugoslavia – from USA Erica Johnson Debeljak and from Slovakia Stanislava Chrobáková Repar.

ABSTRACT
The counts of the population after the Second World War prove that in Slovenia we can talk about ethnic plurality. The most immigrants came to Slovenia from other republics of former Yugoslavia. According to the 2002 Slovenian census the share of the persons who did not state Slovenian ethnicity was 17 %. The largest groups of immigrants living in Slovenia represent the Serbs, the Croats, the Boshniaks, the Muslims and the Bosnians. All other ethnicities together constitute less than 1 % of the population in Slovenia. Among immigrants living in Slovenia there are several ‘foreign’ writers (and other artists). The literary work by immigrant writers in Slovenia has not been often discussed, has not been object of scientific and critical debating and has not been treated as a (special) part of literary system. This is also connected with the question of the volume and the limits of national literature. Literary work by immigrant writers is part of two cultures – the source culture and the ‘new’ culture – irrespective of which language (Slovenian or ‘foreign’) it is written in. Immigrants of the first generation are mostly not bilingual and they create in their mother tongue(s). The integration of foreign language literature of the immigrant minorities – by translation and evaluation – has an important role in the process of establishing a complex joint culture in a modern multi-ethnic state. Literary work by immigrant writers on one hand indeed is part of two cultures, but on the other it often finds itself ‘somewhere in-between’, between two cultures and does not belong to any of them. One of the reasons for this position is undoubtedly the problem of non-translating. Literary translation is very often stated as the most important factor of interacting between national literatures and is also very important for the formation of cultural identity. Also it is no longer understood simply as a transfer between two languages, but wider as a transfer between two cultures. Literary work by immigrant writers as part of two cultures puts us in a paradoxical situation – by representing source and target culture in which it is actually translated. It is seen that literature by immigrant writers fulfils three roles – it represents ‘foreign’/other culture, home/autochthon culture and it represents itself as the third type of literature or culture.
The most immigrant authors living and writing in Slovenia come from other republics of former Yugoslavia. In my research I have found seventeen authors who wrote their literary works in their mother tongue and whose works were translated into Slovenian and published in Slovenia after the year 1990. The authors are Josip Osti, Sara Memić, Rade Vučkovac, Senada Smajić, Ismet Bekrić, Petra P. Aleksić, Jure Drljepan, Jordan Stavrov, Nebojša Ignjatović, Ana Ristovič, Jadranka Matić Zupančič, Vladimir Vekić, Ljuben Dimkaroski, Lidija Dimkovska, Metoda Postolski Košir and two women-writers who are not from former Yugoslavia – from USA Erica Johnson Debeljak and from Slovakia Stanislava Chrobáková Repar.