ABSTRACT
The contribution deals with poorly researched but massive phenomena of emigrating and employing of young women from Julian Slovenia in households of Italian towns (mainly in the period after World War II). Emigration of women because of work, employment in the household sector was mostly understood as a “push” factor resulting from poverty at home. Women that emigrated and accepted such work have mostly been presented as victims. Suchlike a view in a larger number of cases denoted and still does, as the contribution shows with a presentation of some newspapers articles, the emigrating and employing of women from Julian Slovenia in households of Italian towns. A detailed reading of personal evidences of onetime “dikle” (servant girls) confirms the “weight” of such a view, and on the other hand reveals the phenomena in a much more complex, variegated image. Young women who were “forced to go”, as speaks this dominant narration, “for a better bread” to Italian towns, not necessarily considered themselves victims. Some, as personal evidences reveal, sought “adventure”, at least partly financial independence, they wished to rid (at least to some degree) of the ties of patriarchal society, swap the hard peasant work with a more attractive work in households, or merely make a change in their lives. Not to neglect is the “attractiveness” of the city, which not only was offering the “unreachable and fanciful splendour” but as well opening new life perspectives. “To be a servant girl” in most cases meant just the initial step in the social and/or professional mobility of young women.
In a complex understanding of migrations, it is necessary to take into consideration the influences of wider social structures as the intentions, decisions of individuals, or as sociologists would say with a swift stroke, “the structure and functioning”. In addition, if we limit to just one, we can succeed at the utmost to catch only part of a much more interesting, multi-significant and complex story.
The contribution also stresses that personal evidence, upon which a lot of dust sat in (approximately) fifty years, should be read most attentively, cautiously and with a certain distance. It is not only about the “consequences” of time remoteness of the phenomena. Namely, it is extremely difficult to view unburdened or “neutral” upon the phenomena of emigration and employment of young women in households as it hardly ever unconcernedly refers to discrimination and exclusion that race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion, education etc. bring.

Jernej Mlekuž, Geographer, Ethnologist and Cultural Anthropologist at the Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies of Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana, Slovenia.

ABSTRACT
The contribution deals with poorly researched but massive phenomena of emigrating and employing of young women from Julian Slovenia in households of Italian towns (mainly in the period after World War II). Emigration of women because of work, employment in the household sector was mostly understood as a “push” factor resulting from poverty at home. Women that emigrated and accepted such work have mostly been presented as victims. Suchlike a view in a larger number of cases denoted and still does, as the contribution shows with a presentation of some newspapers articles, the emigrating and employing of women from Julian Slovenia in households of Italian towns. A detailed reading of personal evidences of onetime “dikle” (servant girls) confirms the “weight” of such a view, and on the other hand reveals the phenomena in a much more complex, variegated image. Young women who were “forced to go”, as speaks this dominant narration, “for a better bread” to Italian towns, not necessarily considered themselves victims. Some, as personal evidences reveal, sought “adventure”, at least partly financial independence, they wished to rid (at least to some degree) of the ties of patriarchal society, swap the hard peasant work with a more attractive work in households, or merely make a change in their lives. Not to neglect is the “attractiveness” of the city, which not only was offering the “unreachable and fanciful splendour” but as well opening new life perspectives. “To be a servant girl” in most cases meant just the initial step in the social and/or professional mobility of young women.
In a complex understanding of migrations, it is necessary to take into consideration the influences of wider social structures as the intentions, decisions of individuals, or as sociologists would say with a swift stroke, “the structure and functioning”. In addition, if we limit to just one, we can succeed at the utmost to catch only part of a much more interesting, multi-significant and complex story.
The contribution also stresses that personal evidence, upon which a lot of dust sat in (approximately) fifty years, should be read most attentively, cautiously and with a certain distance. It is not only about the “consequences” of time remoteness of the phenomena. Namely, it is extremely difficult to view unburdened or “neutral” upon the phenomena of emigration and employment of young women in households as it hardly ever unconcernedly refers to discrimination and exclusion that race, ethnicity, class, gender, religion, education etc. bring.

Jernej Mlekuž, Geographer, Ethnologist and Cultural Anthropologist at the Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies of Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana, Slovenia.

ABSTRACT
The text presents different ways of preserving ethnic identity and heritage among Slovenian immigrants and their descendants in the USA from the beginning of the 20th century till now. It presents them through the two intertwind perspectives. The first one describes the social and political circumstances in the USA in the three main periods, in which the Slovenians have immigrated: before the second world war, after it and after 1970. The second perspective is given by the narratives of the Slovenian women or their descendants, in which the practical aspects of the preserving of the ethnic identity or its denial are described. The women narratives were recorded as part of the oral history project, in which more then sixty women of different age, occupation and places participated. One of the most important theme in their stories is the slovenian language and the fact that it was not preserved. To understand, why this could happen so quickly and easily we need to look through the perspective of the social and political conditions in which these women have lived.

The outline of the social conditions in the three periods of Slovenian immigration to the USA first summarizes the ideological pressupositions of the pre-war official rasism. It explaines the nativists' arguments against immigration that started to build momentum at the end of the 19th century and made possible the »quota system bill« in 1924. The scientific rasism that followed was even more devastating and was slowed down only by the attrocities of the Nazis before and during the second world war. The next period, the revival of ethnicity, was born out of the civil right movement and brought a new pride to the ethnic background, culture, food, languages and institutions at the end of the 1960. The conservative counter-attack, which followed the decade later brought an end to the multicultural utopian dreams but it could not destroy the new feeling of the people of different ethnic origin, which made them feel special and good. The brief historical outline of these social changes gives the women's narratives the context, which is for the understanding and feeling of their stories of an utmost importance.

Mirjam Milharčič-Hladnik, PhD in Sociology, Research Fellow, Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana.

ABSTRACT
The text presents different ways of preserving ethnic identity and heritage among Slovenian immigrants and their descendants in the USA from the beginning of the 20th century till now. It presents them through the two intertwind perspectives. The first one describes the social and political circumstances in the USA in the three main periods, in which the Slovenians have immigrated: before the second world war, after it and after 1970. The second perspective is given by the narratives of the Slovenian women or their descendants, in which the practical aspects of the preserving of the ethnic identity or its denial are described. The women narratives were recorded as part of the oral history project, in which more then sixty women of different age, occupation and places participated. One of the most important theme in their stories is the slovenian language and the fact that it was not preserved. To understand, why this could happen so quickly and easily we need to look through the perspective of the social and political conditions in which these women have lived.

The outline of the social conditions in the three periods of Slovenian immigration to the USA first summarizes the ideological pressupositions of the pre-war official rasism. It explaines the nativists' arguments against immigration that started to build momentum at the end of the 19th century and made possible the »quota system bill« in 1924. The scientific rasism that followed was even more devastating and was slowed down only by the attrocities of the Nazis before and during the second world war. The next period, the revival of ethnicity, was born out of the civil right movement and brought a new pride to the ethnic background, culture, food, languages and institutions at the end of the 1960. The conservative counter-attack, which followed the decade later brought an end to the multicultural utopian dreams but it could not destroy the new feeling of the people of different ethnic origin, which made them feel special and good. The brief historical outline of these social changes gives the women's narratives the context, which is for the understanding and feeling of their stories of an utmost importance.

Mirjam Milharčič-Hladnik, PhD in Sociology, Research Fellow, Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana.

ABSTRACT
In treatises on multiculturalism and globalisation, we come across numerous conceptual dilemmas and divergences between individual authors. Differences can be linked to various definitions of the both mentioned categories; mostly they are rooted in different understandings of categories, which the concepts of multiculturalism and globalisation cover and comprise. The very notion of globalisation is heterogeneously understood. In treatises on multiculturalism H. Kurthen (1997, 259) defines it as global economic co-dependency, while theorists of the so-called urban sociology (Hočevar, 2000) understand those processes as more heterogeneous and complex. In parallel with the notion of globalisation, simultaneity of individuation is introduced. That standpoint, transferred to the filed of studying of civilisations, leads us to notions as global civilisation, localities, and selective incorporation (Robertson, Rudmetof, 1995; Wilkinson, 1995). For understanding the very notion of multiculturalism, it is in the first place important how notions as culture, society, civilisation, their borders and relations that occur between them (cultural contact vs. conflict) are understood. At the same time, treatises on multiculturalism hide in the background the author’s comprehension of the category of equity. Consequently, we meet with the so-called corporative, liberal and critical use of the term multiculturalism.
Some other notions are by meaning close to multiculturalism: cultural pluralism, interculturalism, and transculturalism. The latter is by its definition strongly approaching the notion selective incorporation of cultural elements, which we find in theories on civilisations.
Taking into consideration treatises on civilisations, we should therefore be speaking of influences of globalisation on civilisations and within them on individual cultures, and of the role of multiculturalism as a possibility that would prevent the growing cultural homogenisation of the world – were in process at all. Namely, some authors expose the dual, ambivalent dynamics of globalisation processes: the increasing uniforming on the one side should on the other open increasing possibilities for alternative forms and actions (individuation). Theories on global civilisation can definitely be included in this approach. Particularly in the last group, global civilisation is linked to economic political nets of power (without cultural elements), and culture is on the level of local. Of similar standpoint, that globalisation is a global economic co-dependency, is H. Kurten (1997). A question thus arises – what relation is established between politics and economy on the one side and culture on the other. How strong is the influence of global economic-political nets on cultural (local) events? In the forefront is above all the question whether those nets have the power to establish cultural homogeneity on a global level, as a detailed insight into history shows that culture is difficult to homogenise even on the level of a (national) state.

Marina Lukšič-Hacin id PhD of Sociology and Political Anthropology, Research Fellow, Head of the Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies of Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana, Slovenia.

ABSTRACT
In treatises on multiculturalism and globalisation, we come across numerous conceptual dilemmas and divergences between individual authors. Differences can be linked to various definitions of the both mentioned categories; mostly they are rooted in different understandings of categories, which the concepts of multiculturalism and globalisation cover and comprise. The very notion of globalisation is heterogeneously understood. In treatises on multiculturalism H. Kurthen (1997, 259) defines it as global economic co-dependency, while theorists of the so-called urban sociology (Hočevar, 2000) understand those processes as more heterogeneous and complex. In parallel with the notion of globalisation, simultaneity of individuation is introduced. That standpoint, transferred to the filed of studying of civilisations, leads us to notions as global civilisation, localities, and selective incorporation (Robertson, Rudmetof, 1995; Wilkinson, 1995). For understanding the very notion of multiculturalism, it is in the first place important how notions as culture, society, civilisation, their borders and relations that occur between them (cultural contact vs. conflict) are understood. At the same time, treatises on multiculturalism hide in the background the author’s comprehension of the category of equity. Consequently, we meet with the so-called corporative, liberal and critical use of the term multiculturalism.
Some other notions are by meaning close to multiculturalism: cultural pluralism, interculturalism, and transculturalism. The latter is by its definition strongly approaching the notion selective incorporation of cultural elements, which we find in theories on civilisations.
Taking into consideration treatises on civilisations, we should therefore be speaking of influences of globalisation on civilisations and within them on individual cultures, and of the role of multiculturalism as a possibility that would prevent the growing cultural homogenisation of the world – were in process at all. Namely, some authors expose the dual, ambivalent dynamics of globalisation processes: the increasing uniforming on the one side should on the other open increasing possibilities for alternative forms and actions (individuation). Theories on global civilisation can definitely be included in this approach. Particularly in the last group, global civilisation is linked to economic political nets of power (without cultural elements), and culture is on the level of local. Of similar standpoint, that globalisation is a global economic co-dependency, is H. Kurten (1997). A question thus arises – what relation is established between politics and economy on the one side and culture on the other. How strong is the influence of global economic-political nets on cultural (local) events? In the forefront is above all the question whether those nets have the power to establish cultural homogeneity on a global level, as a detailed insight into history shows that culture is difficult to homogenise even on the level of a (national) state.

Marina Lukšič-Hacin id PhD of Sociology and Political Anthropology, Research Fellow, Head of the Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies of Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana, Slovenia.

ABSTRACT
The global reach of capital, science, technology, information, ideas, political and social activism and other spheres of activity has brought about several global processes in the domain of culture as well: a globalization of dominant cultures and languages, an international break-through of various hitherto secluded minor cultures, and a globalization of concepts relating to cultural equality. The papers composing this section certainly show that when questions of multiculturalism are involved, we can learn from the past and we can learn from each other. The advanced communication technology has been removing the barriers of the time, the distance and the language, and it has been spreading the principles of cultural equality around the world. The effects of the resulting global intercultural permeability can be observed practically on all levels of private and public life, to a lesser extent – as we have learnt here – even on the level of the changing family patterns. The need of language transparency which is necessary to curb interethnic conflicts, and the need to protect language diversity have been discussed in considerable detail; and finally, the most practical ways of advancing a global multicultural peace culture have been suggested.
As valuable and useful as these proposals doubtlessly are, I cannot help realizing that an essential part may be missing. When human equality is the subject of discussion, be it in terms of social conditions, race and ethnicity, religion or culture, it seems that the harder we try to resolve the respective problems separately from investigating the manifold impact of the global concentration of capital – a concentration to the benefit of the few, the more complex and remote the solutions will appear. It is self-evident though that a culture with a weak economic basis does not have the same prospects as a culture with a firm economic basis. Furthermore, a multicultural coexistence and world peace are not in the interest of those 6 % of the world population who – under the protection of their own legislation – have taken possession of 59 % of the world’s property. Three richest individuals possess a wealth which is greater than the sum of the gross domestic product of 48 poorest countries together. The number of the most discriminated people, those who can spend less than a dollar a day, jumped in East Europe and Middle Asia from 1 million in 1987 to 24 million in 1998 (a result of the “democratization” of the former socialist countries). Their share in Central and South Africa and in South Asia has been slightly below half of these countries’ entire population; in some countries their share is more than 60 %. The ‘new economy’ which, in terms of the standard of living, has divided the countries of the world to a higher degree than any previous economic processes, needs economic inequality as well as international economic migrations because it needs inexpensive labor (i.e. both, immigrant workers and those who have stayed in their underdeveloped homelands) to sustain itself. If the countries of the world were more equal in economic respect, they would be more equal in social and cultural respects, there would be far less international economic migration, migrants would not constitute extreme social strata, and their national affiliation would not be such a controversial issue as it is now.
More and more young people realize that the doctrine which preaches competition, winning and success before everything else, and divides people, nations and countries into the successful and the unsuccessful, the advanced and the underdeveloped, the powerful and the powerless, the winners and the losers, is not the only option. With the genesis of global identity, factors such as nationality, culture or religion are becoming ever more inclusive, and ever less exclusive attributes of one’s identity. This means, in short, that I CAN identify with you because I AM conscious of my nationality, culture, religion or any other link of my manifold group identity, just as you ARE conscious of yours. Furthermore, one’s attitude towards the family, towards the distorted criteria of social equality, towards the environment and health, are already becoming more essential factors of one’s identity than those which have so far been used to disguise the actual background of the militarist ideology. The color of one’s skin can then soon turn out to be no more controversial than the color of one’s hair, and one’s mother tongue or religion no more irritant than the color of one’s voice.
With all the unprecedented socio-economic divide and intercultural conflicts which have been accelerated by the process we tend to call globalization, this very same process is simultaneously also bringing solutions, including potentially an essential reform of the self-image of mankind as well as perhaps a thorough redefinition of human rights and equality. With a redemptive help of our human nature which leads us, in critical moments, to give priority to our common survival and to get more actively involved in questions crucial for us to outlast the self-destructive turbulence of our prolonged social infancy, I believe the option indicated throughout the papers of this thematic section is bound to prevail.

Janja Žitnik, PhD (in literature), is a research advisor at the Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana. Her recent research efforts have been mainly focused on preparatory work for placing the literary creativity of Slovenian emigrants as well as that of immigrants in Slovenia, into a broader context of intercultural relations within the receiving country.

ABSTRACT
The global reach of capital, science, technology, information, ideas, political and social activism and other spheres of activity has brought about several global processes in the domain of culture as well: a globalization of dominant cultures and languages, an international break-through of various hitherto secluded minor cultures, and a globalization of concepts relating to cultural equality. The papers composing this section certainly show that when questions of multiculturalism are involved, we can learn from the past and we can learn from each other. The advanced communication technology has been removing the barriers of the time, the distance and the language, and it has been spreading the principles of cultural equality around the world. The effects of the resulting global intercultural permeability can be observed practically on all levels of private and public life, to a lesser extent – as we have learnt here – even on the level of the changing family patterns. The need of language transparency which is necessary to curb interethnic conflicts, and the need to protect language diversity have been discussed in considerable detail; and finally, the most practical ways of advancing a global multicultural peace culture have been suggested.
As valuable and useful as these proposals doubtlessly are, I cannot help realizing that an essential part may be missing. When human equality is the subject of discussion, be it in terms of social conditions, race and ethnicity, religion or culture, it seems that the harder we try to resolve the respective problems separately from investigating the manifold impact of the global concentration of capital – a concentration to the benefit of the few, the more complex and remote the solutions will appear. It is self-evident though that a culture with a weak economic basis does not have the same prospects as a culture with a firm economic basis. Furthermore, a multicultural coexistence and world peace are not in the interest of those 6 % of the world population who – under the protection of their own legislation – have taken possession of 59 % of the world’s property. Three richest individuals possess a wealth which is greater than the sum of the gross domestic product of 48 poorest countries together. The number of the most discriminated people, those who can spend less than a dollar a day, jumped in East Europe and Middle Asia from 1 million in 1987 to 24 million in 1998 (a result of the “democratization” of the former socialist countries). Their share in Central and South Africa and in South Asia has been slightly below half of these countries’ entire population; in some countries their share is more than 60 %. The ‘new economy’ which, in terms of the standard of living, has divided the countries of the world to a higher degree than any previous economic processes, needs economic inequality as well as international economic migrations because it needs inexpensive labor (i.e. both, immigrant workers and those who have stayed in their underdeveloped homelands) to sustain itself. If the countries of the world were more equal in economic respect, they would be more equal in social and cultural respects, there would be far less international economic migration, migrants would not constitute extreme social strata, and their national affiliation would not be such a controversial issue as it is now.
More and more young people realize that the doctrine which preaches competition, winning and success before everything else, and divides people, nations and countries into the successful and the unsuccessful, the advanced and the underdeveloped, the powerful and the powerless, the winners and the losers, is not the only option. With the genesis of global identity, factors such as nationality, culture or religion are becoming ever more inclusive, and ever less exclusive attributes of one’s identity. This means, in short, that I CAN identify with you because I AM conscious of my nationality, culture, religion or any other link of my manifold group identity, just as you ARE conscious of yours. Furthermore, one’s attitude towards the family, towards the distorted criteria of social equality, towards the environment and health, are already becoming more essential factors of one’s identity than those which have so far been used to disguise the actual background of the militarist ideology. The color of one’s skin can then soon turn out to be no more controversial than the color of one’s hair, and one’s mother tongue or religion no more irritant than the color of one’s voice.
With all the unprecedented socio-economic divide and intercultural conflicts which have been accelerated by the process we tend to call globalization, this very same process is simultaneously also bringing solutions, including potentially an essential reform of the self-image of mankind as well as perhaps a thorough redefinition of human rights and equality. With a redemptive help of our human nature which leads us, in critical moments, to give priority to our common survival and to get more actively involved in questions crucial for us to outlast the self-destructive turbulence of our prolonged social infancy, I believe the option indicated throughout the papers of this thematic section is bound to prevail.

Janja Žitnik, PhD (in literature), is a research advisor at the Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana. Her recent research efforts have been mainly focused on preparatory work for placing the literary creativity of Slovenian emigrants as well as that of immigrants in Slovenia, into a broader context of intercultural relations within the receiving country.

ABSTRACT
In view of the fact that the conflict of cultures has become one of the most prominent risk factors for the sustainability and future development of human civilization, its dangerous implications are examined and ways to curb it and to replace it with an ethical and peaceful multicultural system are suggested. The new regional and global multicultural system would include ethical and peace values from various cultures, and it would be based on the best of peace heritage, cultures and literature from various civilizations. It could be spread and promoted by telecommunications and the media, to counteract the regional and global culture of terror and violence. The establishment of an open global multicultural system and media, can help to impart to humanity a new multicultural identity, in addition to national and ethnic cultures and identities, and it can guide humankind in making the world more secure. The development of multicultural peace satellites over conflicted areas, which would spread the best of what is available in neighboring cultures and civilizations at the regional and global levels, would help to promote a peace climate. It would create bridges of understanding between people and nations and would abate the fear of the "other". Peace Museums are suggested toward creating multiculturalism. Israeli and Palestinian multiculturalism in Haifa is examined, and a Case Study of IFLAC-The Bridge organization is described and analyzed, as a model of multicultural coexistence.
There is likewise a necessity for a new revolution of “objectivity” in the media. Communications and the media should be brought to regard “Multicultural News and Peace News” as “newsworthy,” and a balance should be achieved between the reporting of “good news”, and not mostly, as is now the case, the covering of sensational reporting of violence and crime. The disproportional amount of homicidal and crime films and news, inflate the negative aspects of society and are a deformation of reality and normalcy. An innovative multicultural educational and cultural system, built on the peace heritage, literature and art from the various nations of the earth, and promoted by the media and advanced technology communications, is required at all levels of education including that of teachers and parents, in order to inculcate new multicultural, pluralistic and ethical peace values at all socio-levels, and to usher the promotion of a global village beyond war. If an influential regional and global multicultural system begins to sprout, the seeds for true peace would be duly planted, and it would indeed give a fair chance for the many "Voices and Cultures of the Earth" and their great yearning for global sustainability and peace, to be heard.

Professor Ada Aharoni is a sociologist of culture at the Technion: Israel Institute of Technology, in Haifa, Israel, and president of IFLAC – The International Forum for the Literature and Culture of Peace. She is also a writer, poet and editor, and has published twenty-five books to date that have been translated into several languages. She studied at London University (England), where she earned an M.Phil on English Literature, and at the Hebrew University (Jerusalem), where she earned her Ph.D. degree on Literature and Sociology.

ABSTRACT
In view of the fact that the conflict of cultures has become one of the most prominent risk factors for the sustainability and future development of human civilization, its dangerous implications are examined and ways to curb it and to replace it with an ethical and peaceful multicultural system are suggested. The new regional and global multicultural system would include ethical and peace values from various cultures, and it would be based on the best of peace heritage, cultures and literature from various civilizations. It could be spread and promoted by telecommunications and the media, to counteract the regional and global culture of terror and violence. The establishment of an open global multicultural system and media, can help to impart to humanity a new multicultural identity, in addition to national and ethnic cultures and identities, and it can guide humankind in making the world more secure. The development of multicultural peace satellites over conflicted areas, which would spread the best of what is available in neighboring cultures and civilizations at the regional and global levels, would help to promote a peace climate. It would create bridges of understanding between people and nations and would abate the fear of the "other". Peace Museums are suggested toward creating multiculturalism. Israeli and Palestinian multiculturalism in Haifa is examined, and a Case Study of IFLAC-The Bridge organization is described and analyzed, as a model of multicultural coexistence.
There is likewise a necessity for a new revolution of “objectivity” in the media. Communications and the media should be brought to regard “Multicultural News and Peace News” as “newsworthy,” and a balance should be achieved between the reporting of “good news”, and not mostly, as is now the case, the covering of sensational reporting of violence and crime. The disproportional amount of homicidal and crime films and news, inflate the negative aspects of society and are a deformation of reality and normalcy. An innovative multicultural educational and cultural system, built on the peace heritage, literature and art from the various nations of the earth, and promoted by the media and advanced technology communications, is required at all levels of education including that of teachers and parents, in order to inculcate new multicultural, pluralistic and ethical peace values at all socio-levels, and to usher the promotion of a global village beyond war. If an influential regional and global multicultural system begins to sprout, the seeds for true peace would be duly planted, and it would indeed give a fair chance for the many "Voices and Cultures of the Earth" and their great yearning for global sustainability and peace, to be heard.

Professor Ada Aharoni is a sociologist of culture at the Technion: Israel Institute of Technology, in Haifa, Israel, and president of IFLAC – The International Forum for the Literature and Culture of Peace. She is also a writer, poet and editor, and has published twenty-five books to date that have been translated into several languages. She studied at London University (England), where she earned an M.Phil on English Literature, and at the Hebrew University (Jerusalem), where she earned her Ph.D. degree on Literature and Sociology.