ABSTRACT
Until recently, there has been little dialogue between scholars who have been researching and theorizing about globalization and those working in the field of family studies. It is often said that globalization is affecting family patterns but the exact nature of that effect, is seldom fleshed out. Family diversity has also become a major theme in family sociology, but the link between it, and globalization is seldom discussed in any detail. The purpose of this paper is to make a modest attempt at bringing together discussions of globalization and family diversity.
In the first part, the author considers some of the reasons for this lack of dialogue between globalization and family researchers. In the second, she looks at how globalization has affected family patterns in Europe. Finally, family patterns in South Africa, are compared to those of one European country: Great Britain. One of the main arguments raised is that globalization has had a minimal impact on the family patterns found in individual European societies and that regional differences persist within the European context. However, it is unlikely that these differences are due to globalization. Another argument put forward is that family diversity pertains at the global level. This becomes apparent when the family patterns of an African and European society are compared.

Susan S. Ziehl is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Industrial Sociology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. She holds B.Econ; B.Econ (Honours) and M.Econ degrees from the University of Stellenbosch and a PhD from Rhodes University. Her research interests and publications include family and household structures, feminism and modern reproductive technology, family law and multiculturalism, single-parent families and affirmative action.

ABSTRACT
Until recently, there has been little dialogue between scholars who have been researching and theorizing about globalization and those working in the field of family studies. It is often said that globalization is affecting family patterns but the exact nature of that effect, is seldom fleshed out. Family diversity has also become a major theme in family sociology, but the link between it, and globalization is seldom discussed in any detail. The purpose of this paper is to make a modest attempt at bringing together discussions of globalization and family diversity.
In the first part, the author considers some of the reasons for this lack of dialogue between globalization and family researchers. In the second, she looks at how globalization has affected family patterns in Europe. Finally, family patterns in South Africa, are compared to those of one European country: Great Britain. One of the main arguments raised is that globalization has had a minimal impact on the family patterns found in individual European societies and that regional differences persist within the European context. However, it is unlikely that these differences are due to globalization. Another argument put forward is that family diversity pertains at the global level. This becomes apparent when the family patterns of an African and European society are compared.

Susan S. Ziehl is an Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology and Industrial Sociology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. She holds B.Econ; B.Econ (Honours) and M.Econ degrees from the University of Stellenbosch and a PhD from Rhodes University. Her research interests and publications include family and household structures, feminism and modern reproductive technology, family law and multiculturalism, single-parent families and affirmative action.

ABSTRACT
The post Cold War world order has enabled a new type of literary character to come into existence, one who combines the “cosmopolitan traveler” with the “local native” (James Clifford). The potential for conflict, which was the hallmark of this duality in so-called émigré writing, does not necessarily lead to the “immigrant crisis” anymore. This article deals with three novels written by writers who migrated from former socialist European countries to the USA and decided to deal with the process of migration by implementing this new literary character - the transmigrant. In their novels they introduce a new positive understanding of migration and of the concept of multiple homelands. Aleksandar Hemon’s Nowhere Man, Gary Shteyngart’s The Russian Debutante’s Handbook and Iva Pekarkova’s Gimme the Money express a new positioning of the self in the world and thus redefine the concept of cosmopolitanism, traditionally associated with expatriate writing.
The term transmigrant has its origins in sociology. Social scientists like Nina Glick-Schiller, Linda Basch, Christina Blanc-Szanton, Ludger Pries and Ulrich Beck promote the awareness of a new type of migrant to go along with the traditional categories of the immigrant, the emigrant and the migrant in the field of migration studies – the transmigrant. She/he differs from former types of migrants by productively combining and making use of multiple countries – the country (or countries) of consent and the country of descent (Werner Sollors). By actively taking part in the social, cultural and political life of both countries they shed a positive light on the question of migration. The same kind of changes can be noted in contemporary literature. This article deals with the figure of the transmigrant dwelling within the former socialist countries in Eastern Europe and the USA. Major differences in the construction of a protagonist in contemporary migrant postsocialist literature compared to that of former immigrant and émigré literature (in particular that written during the Great Migration and the Cold War period) that led to the introduction of the transmigrant are:
1. connecting the ‘former identity’ with the ‘new identity’;
2. individualizing the immigrant subject;
3. introducing an ongoing sense of arrival which replaces the traditional concept of an initial and all encompassing arrival;
4. allowing fragmentary and illogical speech as a product of bilinguality;
5. acknowledgement of contradiction in various fields of immigrant life

These writers create an apparatus for future writers to use, since our “age of migration” (Stephen Castles/Mark Miller) will certainly bring more cross-cultural movements and inter-ethnic locations. The implementation of the term transmigrant in literary studies enables critics and academics to react to the changing migration landscape and to articulate this new awareness in their studies.

Sladja Blazan, M.A., Ph.D. fellow at the Department of English and American Studies at the Humboldt University Berlin, Germany, currently completing her dissertation on “American Migrant Writing in a Post-socialist Context”. Lecturer at the Humboldt University Berlin, Germany; DAAD research fellow at the New York University, USA. Publications: „Revision of Exile in Contemporary Slavic Writing in the USA.“ In: Cultural Exchanges Between Central/Eastern Europe and America. Frankfurt am Main: ZENAF, 2003.

ABSTRACT
The post Cold War world order has enabled a new type of literary character to come into existence, one who combines the “cosmopolitan traveler” with the “local native” (James Clifford). The potential for conflict, which was the hallmark of this duality in so-called émigré writing, does not necessarily lead to the “immigrant crisis” anymore. This article deals with three novels written by writers who migrated from former socialist European countries to the USA and decided to deal with the process of migration by implementing this new literary character - the transmigrant. In their novels they introduce a new positive understanding of migration and of the concept of multiple homelands. Aleksandar Hemon’s Nowhere Man, Gary Shteyngart’s The Russian Debutante’s Handbook and Iva Pekarkova’s Gimme the Money express a new positioning of the self in the world and thus redefine the concept of cosmopolitanism, traditionally associated with expatriate writing.
The term transmigrant has its origins in sociology. Social scientists like Nina Glick-Schiller, Linda Basch, Christina Blanc-Szanton, Ludger Pries and Ulrich Beck promote the awareness of a new type of migrant to go along with the traditional categories of the immigrant, the emigrant and the migrant in the field of migration studies – the transmigrant. She/he differs from former types of migrants by productively combining and making use of multiple countries – the country (or countries) of consent and the country of descent (Werner Sollors). By actively taking part in the social, cultural and political life of both countries they shed a positive light on the question of migration. The same kind of changes can be noted in contemporary literature. This article deals with the figure of the transmigrant dwelling within the former socialist countries in Eastern Europe and the USA. Major differences in the construction of a protagonist in contemporary migrant postsocialist literature compared to that of former immigrant and émigré literature (in particular that written during the Great Migration and the Cold War period) that led to the introduction of the transmigrant are:
1. connecting the ‘former identity’ with the ‘new identity’;
2. individualizing the immigrant subject;
3. introducing an ongoing sense of arrival which replaces the traditional concept of an initial and all encompassing arrival;
4. allowing fragmentary and illogical speech as a product of bilinguality;
5. acknowledgement of contradiction in various fields of immigrant life

These writers create an apparatus for future writers to use, since our “age of migration” (Stephen Castles/Mark Miller) will certainly bring more cross-cultural movements and inter-ethnic locations. The implementation of the term transmigrant in literary studies enables critics and academics to react to the changing migration landscape and to articulate this new awareness in their studies.

Sladja Blazan, M.A., Ph.D. fellow at the Department of English and American Studies at the Humboldt University Berlin, Germany, currently completing her dissertation on “American Migrant Writing in a Post-socialist Context”. Lecturer at the Humboldt University Berlin, Germany; DAAD research fellow at the New York University, USA. Publications: „Revision of Exile in Contemporary Slavic Writing in the USA.“ In: Cultural Exchanges Between Central/Eastern Europe and America. Frankfurt am Main: ZENAF, 2003.

ABSTRACT
Slovenian ethnic territory has suffered a very high level of emigration during the last two centuries. Slovenians emigrated as economic emigrants mostly to the USA, in the first half of the 19th century also to Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Belgium and some other developed European countries. In the mid 1920's a large number of Slovenians escaped (mostly to Argentina) from the growing fascist pressure in the region which at that time was under the Italian government. After World War Two, there was an important flow of political refugees from communism who escaped mostly to Argentina, the USA, Canada and Australia, and in different periods from the 1960's to 1980's a large number of typically economic emigrants left for Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Belgium and some other countries. It has been estimated that close to 500,000 Slovenians have emigrated from the Slovenian ethnic territory in the recent past, and this number is a “fifth quarter” of today's 2 million Slovenians living in Slovenia.
In their efforts to preserve their original ethnic identity, Slovenian emigrants established hundreds of ethnic societies and associations. In the course of time, the first generations of immigrants passed away, and the second, third and already the fourth generations are doing their best to cultivate close ties with their roots and keep in touch with the homeland of their ancestors.
The level of the preservation of their ethnic roots has depended on different multicultural policies in individual countries, and also on the attitude of the Slovenian (Yugoslav) political order towards them. After the independence and international recognition of the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovenian identity in the Diaspora raised significantly. Many of those who had always found it difficult to identify with Yugoslavia (which was a centralist multiethnic state), began to identify with Slovenia at that time. Suddenly a significant number of new emigrant societies appeared, the number of emigrants’ visits to Slovenia increased, etc. On the other hand, the Republic of Slovenia also introduced a new policy towards Slovenians abroad. A ministry – later changed into an office – for Slovenians abroad was established, and new systematic models of financial and other support to Slovenians in the Diaspora came into practice.
Globalization itself is not a threat to the ethnic identity of Slovenians abroad. As a process of an advanced technology it has brought many benefits to the relations between Slovenia and its countrymen living abroad, and this is becoming increasingly evident in recent years. Slovenian associations, societies and individuals abroad are using the Internet as the most convenient means of overcoming two major factors of their separation from their motherland: the distance, and – for younger generations – the language. The speed and the global access of modern communication seem to provide a sufficient substitute for a physical contact. The lingual assimilation and consequently the language barrier between the emigrants and their relatives in Slovenia are becoming less and less problematic, and the era of globalization is bringing similar values and codes of communication to all youngsters around the world.

Zvone Žigon is doctor of political sciences, employed as government advisor at the Office for Slovenes Abroad, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia. His supplementary post is that of a research fellow at the Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana.

ABSTRACT
Slovenian ethnic territory has suffered a very high level of emigration during the last two centuries. Slovenians emigrated as economic emigrants mostly to the USA, in the first half of the 19th century also to Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Belgium and some other developed European countries. In the mid 1920's a large number of Slovenians escaped (mostly to Argentina) from the growing fascist pressure in the region which at that time was under the Italian government. After World War Two, there was an important flow of political refugees from communism who escaped mostly to Argentina, the USA, Canada and Australia, and in different periods from the 1960's to 1980's a large number of typically economic emigrants left for Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, France, Belgium and some other countries. It has been estimated that close to 500,000 Slovenians have emigrated from the Slovenian ethnic territory in the recent past, and this number is a “fifth quarter” of today's 2 million Slovenians living in Slovenia.
In their efforts to preserve their original ethnic identity, Slovenian emigrants established hundreds of ethnic societies and associations. In the course of time, the first generations of immigrants passed away, and the second, third and already the fourth generations are doing their best to cultivate close ties with their roots and keep in touch with the homeland of their ancestors.
The level of the preservation of their ethnic roots has depended on different multicultural policies in individual countries, and also on the attitude of the Slovenian (Yugoslav) political order towards them. After the independence and international recognition of the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovenian identity in the Diaspora raised significantly. Many of those who had always found it difficult to identify with Yugoslavia (which was a centralist multiethnic state), began to identify with Slovenia at that time. Suddenly a significant number of new emigrant societies appeared, the number of emigrants’ visits to Slovenia increased, etc. On the other hand, the Republic of Slovenia also introduced a new policy towards Slovenians abroad. A ministry – later changed into an office – for Slovenians abroad was established, and new systematic models of financial and other support to Slovenians in the Diaspora came into practice.
Globalization itself is not a threat to the ethnic identity of Slovenians abroad. As a process of an advanced technology it has brought many benefits to the relations between Slovenia and its countrymen living abroad, and this is becoming increasingly evident in recent years. Slovenian associations, societies and individuals abroad are using the Internet as the most convenient means of overcoming two major factors of their separation from their motherland: the distance, and – for younger generations – the language. The speed and the global access of modern communication seem to provide a sufficient substitute for a physical contact. The lingual assimilation and consequently the language barrier between the emigrants and their relatives in Slovenia are becoming less and less problematic, and the era of globalization is bringing similar values and codes of communication to all youngsters around the world.

Zvone Žigon is doctor of political sciences, employed as government advisor at the Office for Slovenes Abroad, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Slovenia. His supplementary post is that of a research fellow at the Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Ljubljana.

ABSTRACT
My starting point is a description of changes of the 'language map' which we have to consider in Europe, in the last decades particularly in Germany, and an analysis of these on the language level as well as on the socio-cultural level.
The language map in European countries has been changed by different processes of migration, not only in a temporary sense but also in a fundamental and long-term sense. Immigrant minorities brought new languages with them and imported a cultural diversity on the largest scale ever known in Europe. The majority has to accept that the position of its language as the national means of communication has to adopt a new relation toward minority languages. With modern migration, new social, political and cultural relations have been established. As these changes have generated several misunderstandings within the common cultural contact and political life, the present intercultural relations are not free of tensions.
In the second part of my paper I analyze (in view of learning processes on different levels) the new relations generated by migration:
– Migration and language cognition: consequences for language learning and language education of children, not only the minority children but also the majority children.
– Migration and the change of language relations by the process of building the European Union with about 15 official languages within their space (the new position of national languages will be weaker in the future).
– Cross-cultural conflicts as language-relation conflicts: the process of internationalization invites different groups to underline their own identity by their first language. Any attitude of language superiority as usual until now in national societies excludes other groups and generates intercultural communication problems.
In the third part of my contribution I examine the perspectives of protecting cultural diversity by means of a constructivistic concept of language cognition and language education. Within this context, examples of multilingual education in German schools are presented; these schools intend to co-educate pupils coming from different language groups as Europeans of tomorrow.

Peter Graf, D.Sc., is professor in the Department of Cultural Sciences, University of Osnabrueck, Germany, and senior researcher at the Institute of Migration Research and Intercultural Studies at the same university.

ABSTRACT
My starting point is a description of changes of the 'language map' which we have to consider in Europe, in the last decades particularly in Germany, and an analysis of these on the language level as well as on the socio-cultural level.
The language map in European countries has been changed by different processes of migration, not only in a temporary sense but also in a fundamental and long-term sense. Immigrant minorities brought new languages with them and imported a cultural diversity on the largest scale ever known in Europe. The majority has to accept that the position of its language as the national means of communication has to adopt a new relation toward minority languages. With modern migration, new social, political and cultural relations have been established. As these changes have generated several misunderstandings within the common cultural contact and political life, the present intercultural relations are not free of tensions.
In the second part of my paper I analyze (in view of learning processes on different levels) the new relations generated by migration:
– Migration and language cognition: consequences for language learning and language education of children, not only the minority children but also the majority children.
– Migration and the change of language relations by the process of building the European Union with about 15 official languages within their space (the new position of national languages will be weaker in the future).
– Cross-cultural conflicts as language-relation conflicts: the process of internationalization invites different groups to underline their own identity by their first language. Any attitude of language superiority as usual until now in national societies excludes other groups and generates intercultural communication problems.
In the third part of my contribution I examine the perspectives of protecting cultural diversity by means of a constructivistic concept of language cognition and language education. Within this context, examples of multilingual education in German schools are presented; these schools intend to co-educate pupils coming from different language groups as Europeans of tomorrow.

Peter Graf, D.Sc., is professor in the Department of Cultural Sciences, University of Osnabrueck, Germany, and senior researcher at the Institute of Migration Research and Intercultural Studies at the same university.

ABSTRACT
Eleven returnees from the Slovene Primorska present only a small share of people who emigrated from Slovenia after the war and later returned. Despite the fact that the presented stories differ from one another, a mutual fate of life in “two homelands” unites them.

Of the emigrated Slovenes, mainly elder people return to the homeland that wish to spend the Autumn of their lives in their native places and among local people. Reintegration into Slovene society is not easy. The people who after emigrating from their homeland did not preserve contacts with it, sense after returning home alienation, as they do not find what they have left. In such cases, the returnees must start a new life, but many are no more capable of doing so. Not so few people and even families returned to their homeland and soon went back disappointed, as they were not up to changes and new circumstances. Few persisted and re-established a new life in Slovenia.

The returnees have decided for returning to their homeland on the basis of previous information, which their relatives from the homeland or acquaintances from abroad mediated to them; the majority visited the homeland before final decision. The changes and progress in the development of Slovenia have additionally persuaded them to return. Despite the mentioned, many a surprise was waiting form them after the return; everyday life revealed the differences between the social systems they were familiar with abroad, and the one they had to confront at home.

Are Slovene emigrants returning to the homeland today? The situation has not essentially changed in comparison with the period before 1991. Life conditions in Slovenia have improved but the potential returnees need be offered more than just satisfactory living conditions, which they in the majority of cases already have in the country of their momentary residence. It is absurd to expect they would return to the homeland because of mere nostalgia. I could agree with Marina Lukšič-Hacin who claims that the fact “that in all these years no active state policy can be sensed, which would actually encourage returning home. That is valid for all varieties of emigration and returning home, including the brain drain” (2002, p. 189), contributes to such a small share of Slovene returnees.

Because of the economic crisis in Argentina, recently many descendants of Argentinean Slovenes are returning to the homeland. Yet we cannot speak of returnees in those cases of “returning” but of merely immigrating. Those people are predominantly descendants of Slovene emigrants who have preserved in the frame of the Argentinean community the perception of belonging to the Slovene nation.

For a conclusion, I would add an interesting thought by Marina Lukšič-Hacin (2002, pp. 189-190) who is asking herself whether the contemplation on encouraging returning is of any sense at all in regard of directions of global development of the present world. According to her, “the old fashion of consideration on returnees is obsolete”; thus it would be more appropriate to consider about including Slovenes abroad in important sociological, humanistic, naturalistic and economic projects with the help of modern technology.

Ksenija Batič, student of ethnology at the Faculty of Arts (University of Ljubljana).

ABSTRACT
Eleven returnees from the Slovene Primorska present only a small share of people who emigrated from Slovenia after the war and later returned. Despite the fact that the presented stories differ from one another, a mutual fate of life in “two homelands” unites them.

Of the emigrated Slovenes, mainly elder people return to the homeland that wish to spend the Autumn of their lives in their native places and among local people. Reintegration into Slovene society is not easy. The people who after emigrating from their homeland did not preserve contacts with it, sense after returning home alienation, as they do not find what they have left. In such cases, the returnees must start a new life, but many are no more capable of doing so. Not so few people and even families returned to their homeland and soon went back disappointed, as they were not up to changes and new circumstances. Few persisted and re-established a new life in Slovenia.

The returnees have decided for returning to their homeland on the basis of previous information, which their relatives from the homeland or acquaintances from abroad mediated to them; the majority visited the homeland before final decision. The changes and progress in the development of Slovenia have additionally persuaded them to return. Despite the mentioned, many a surprise was waiting form them after the return; everyday life revealed the differences between the social systems they were familiar with abroad, and the one they had to confront at home.

Are Slovene emigrants returning to the homeland today? The situation has not essentially changed in comparison with the period before 1991. Life conditions in Slovenia have improved but the potential returnees need be offered more than just satisfactory living conditions, which they in the majority of cases already have in the country of their momentary residence. It is absurd to expect they would return to the homeland because of mere nostalgia. I could agree with Marina Lukšič-Hacin who claims that the fact “that in all these years no active state policy can be sensed, which would actually encourage returning home. That is valid for all varieties of emigration and returning home, including the brain drain” (2002, p. 189), contributes to such a small share of Slovene returnees.

Because of the economic crisis in Argentina, recently many descendants of Argentinean Slovenes are returning to the homeland. Yet we cannot speak of returnees in those cases of “returning” but of merely immigrating. Those people are predominantly descendants of Slovene emigrants who have preserved in the frame of the Argentinean community the perception of belonging to the Slovene nation.

For a conclusion, I would add an interesting thought by Marina Lukšič-Hacin (2002, pp. 189-190) who is asking herself whether the contemplation on encouraging returning is of any sense at all in regard of directions of global development of the present world. According to her, “the old fashion of consideration on returnees is obsolete”; thus it would be more appropriate to consider about including Slovenes abroad in important sociological, humanistic, naturalistic and economic projects with the help of modern technology.

Ksenija Batič, student of ethnology at the Faculty of Arts (University of Ljubljana).