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.

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.