8/12/2019 Journal of Refugee Studies 1996 Nauphal 443 4

1/2

Book Reviews 443and socio-cultural identity, and in particular from the point ofvi wof women who arethe custodians of the householdthe domain of Muslim identity.On another level, as Bringa has followed events in her village of Dolina, as well asthose of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a whole, during the momentous years of dramaticchange, this book is about the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It gives a profound insightinto the effect that military and political developments have had on the Bosnian peopleand their way of thinking about themselves and about their neighbours: those withwhom they have shared their communal life throughout Bosnian history.

Bringa elucidates almost all significant concepts in the original language spoken byBosniansas she calls it, Bosnian , or as it was called prior to the war, Serbo-Croat .Apart from typographical errors of the diacritical marks and a couple ofmisinterpretations or rather verbatim translations, the author s grasp of the languageis comm endable. The book is a welcome addition to the literature on the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the ethnographic narrative makes it a delightful read.Leila Somun Centre forRegionalResearch, iddle EastTechnical University, AnkaraReconstructing Lives Recapturing M eaning Refugee Identity Gender andCulture Change. Edited by Linda A. Camino and Ruth M. Krulfeld. TheGeorge Washington Univers i ty , Washington, DC: Gordon and Breach,1994. xviii + 25 3pp. 26 ISB N 2 8849 109 0 (hb); 13 ISB N 2 8849 110 4 (pb).This book attempts to synthesize approaches to refugee, ethnic and gender studies. Itexplores the relationship between the dynamics of displacement and identity creation inresettled refugee populations. The authorsmainly anthropologistshave made along-needed theoretical and methodological contribution to the field of forcedmigration . Their investigations of refugees processes of adjustment as they arecaught between the pressures to assimilate and the need to maintain a separate identityhave led the authors to reflect on the interplay between cultural, ethnic, and genderconstructions.Each chapter tries to answer the following questions: What happens to identity in thecontext of accelerated change? How and why are old elements maintained or discardedand new ones created in the process of adaptation? And how is identity produced orreproduced on the level ofinteractionHowever, the absence of investigation into the processes of identity formation amonginternally displaced communities is a regrettable one. This silent space contributesfurther to the isolation of these refugees, not entitled to systematic internationalprotection and who now exceed in number those who have crossed borders. The lack ofinterest probably stems from the assumption that internal refugees do not undergo thesame identity crises while remaining in their own country. Ifth change is more subtle,or more imperceptible, these refugees often experience otherness in a permanentlyconflictual way. Confronted with ethnocide and other forms of identity destruction,they face sometimes worse challenges.

The authors unanimously chose to view resettlement as an experimental, creativeprocess, and refugees as innovators: their liminal status is conducive to generating newforms of thought and behaviour. The contributors refuse to dwell on the losses andhelplessness of refugees, who are usually portrayed, by the media and internationalorganizations, as being reactive, desperate people. There is an implicit and sometimesexplicit recognition of the implications that such labelling has had on policies and

atGoaUniversityonJu

ly16,2014

http://jrs.oxfordjou

rnals.org/

Downloadedfrom

http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/

8/12/2019 Journal of Refugee Studies 1996 Nauphal 443 4

2/2

444 Book Reviewsguidelines for intervention, and the need for researchers to be aware of their ownresponsibilities when dealing with refugees. There is also a unanimous perception thatgroup identity formation is a dynamic and strategic process, and that boundarymaintenance is essential to this process.The book shows how much the study of forced migration and ethnic studies haveeach contributed to the development ofth other. The scale of transnationa l populationmovements has forced scholars to rethink the conceptualization of ethnicity and ethnicidentity. A few decades ago, anthropologists viewed culture as a fixed entity and setthemselves the task of defining and describing the characteristics of groups theycomprehended as isolated, bounded communities. However, inquiry into populationshifts has forced reconsideration of this perspective. The question of what makes anethnic group in relation to another has become critical. The wide reference to FrederickBarth in the book reflects the position of the writers. They have adopted his theory,challenging previous assumptions of ethnicity as being an essence, a social given. WithBarth s work, the discussion on ethnicity and identity shifted from static descriptions ofcultural content to an emphasis on strategic and dynamic processes whereby boundarymaking and maintenance became the critical focus.

Recent studies on ethnicity and identity formation have been key to understandingthe dynamics of refugee communities, how they delineate their space and how it isdemarcated by others. They also contribute to a better insight into the process ofadaptation. This book incorporates this new understanding of ethnicity and adap tation,and refutes previous attempts at depicting adaptation as a linear development; rather, itis like a pendulum movement going back and forth between the present, the past and thefuture. Identity is situational, dependent on particular circumstances and socialinteraction, and ethnicity is relational and processual.Most chapters introduce the notion of suffering and fear not only to state a fact of therefugees experience, bu t mainly to underline their relationship to identity preservation.As compelling and creative factors, they force refugees to re-evaluate constantly therelevance of their ethnic and refugee identities and to reflect on their transformations. Inturn, the process of identity formation itself has a therapeutic function. It allows theintegration of suffering into the redefinition of the group s identity. Thus sufferingbecomes meaningful and acquires value. Suffering has also forced the authors to reflectupon the role and methods of researchers confronted with such tragedies, havingthemselves to cope with their own pain and hopelessness.The time dimension, generational tensions and gender relationships are all variablesin the dynamics of adaptation that are analysed, examined and illustrated with casestudies. Ten stories bring us to the same conclusion: self-definition, as opposed toexternally imposed identities, and autonomy, are essential to the successful adjustmentof refugees. It follows that acculturation models must be discarded in favour of moreflexible approaches, and that refugees should be given the latitude to reinforce theirgroup cohesiveness, rather than being pressured to assimilate rapidly.Well informed and well edited, this book is accessible to a wider public. It would,nevertheless, have benefited from more critical appraisal of modernist ethnic theory andperhaps a lesser focus on Barth to explore other theoretical avenues.Nafla Nauphal Wolfson College,UniversityofOxford

atGoaUniversityonJu

ly16,2014

http://jrs.oxfordjou

rnals.org/

Downloadedfrom

http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/http://jrs.oxfordjournals.org/