REFLECTION ON THE (NEW) GORIŠKA AREA

My first fieldwork in Nova Gorica. I am immersed in a lesser-known environment, equipped with a diploma from the Faculty of Arts of the University of Ljubljana, with a view to my doctoral thesis, which is outlined in the title: “Two Goricas – One City? The Construction of the Urban”, and with the intention of understanding the space of research over a four-year period.

My first impulse was to get to know both cities first by wandering through their streets with a map in hand. I walked through the flat streets of Nova Gorica, deciphering the names of the Ledine (e.g. Grčna, Blanče, Palude, Vetrišče), learning about the folklorized names of buildings (e.g. Russian blocks, Beehive, Kremlin), on the other side the medieval winding streets of Goriška (e.g. Korzo, Raštel, Travnik Square), Slovenian inscriptions in the city, Slovenian institutions. But the sight and the footstep always stopped at the line that marked the state line.

What next? It is true that the researcher is at first taken over by “this charm of studying modernity, this uncertainty that historians cannot experience because they operate with the past” (Augé 1995: 14), and yet in every space traces of history are inevitable. The fact is that if we really want to understand the (new) mountain area, we need to disassemble it into the smallest possible elements and then reassemble it with the help of theoretical scientific findings.

It was necessary to observe how Gorizia, which was first written with a Slovenian name in 1210, united Slovenian, Friulian, Italian, German and many other communities until the beginning of the turbulent 20th century, when the world wars cruelly affected all segments of Gorizia’s life and began to tear apart the centuries-old pattern of relative style. Those who were different in nationality, religion, beliefs found themselves on the tnal. And this once-close-knit environment was interfered with by the Paris Peace Conference’s decision to draw a border from there.

The hope that the border would be corrected and delineated in a more “life-like” way was only given by Article 5 of the Paris Peace Treaty, which stipulated that the members of the Italian-Yugoslav Commission would be able to outline the course of the border on the ground itself. The management of the 1947/1948 Grammar School in Šempeter near Gorizia, which was founded in the school year, therefore repeatedly directed students to the border in front of the railway station, where they had to “shout slogans, long live Tito, long live Yugoslavia, sing partisan songs and insult Italians and their politicians”, as an informant born in 1925 told me. On the other hand, Italian schools also drove students who, in the words of a student at the time, “had to shout, even though it was not clear to anyone what it was all about. But the worst thing is because you saw someone familiar in between. You fell silent a little then.”

Despite such interventions, demarcation became a reality after the Paris Peace Conference, the pain of both sides intensified. Due to strong propaganda and uncertainty caused by the demarcation of the border in the second half of September 1947, some Slovenian families living in Gorizia moved to Nova Gorica, while some families on Slovenian territory took the opposite path and emigrated to Italy.

The population in the Slovenian part soon began to be occupied by an additional theme, namely “Nova Gorica will grow, in the midst of olive trees and vines” (Javor, Song of the Builders of Nova Gorica). Frnaža, the abandoned Goriška cemetery, rare houses, fields and vineyards began to get a new neighborhood. The confused and desperate locals, who were helplessly looking towards Gorizia, to their relatives, jobs, schools, shops, were also affected by the rapid processes of nationalization. They received decisions written in Slovenian bureaucratic language, which they, Slovenian, Italian and Friulian speakers, did not understand. In their meadows and gardens, the brigadier-generals of the Youth Labour Brigades lined up, and they themselves watched silently from the Chapel as the Root was drying up, the roads were being built, the first blocks were being built, because “we are going to build a new city and new factories – this is our answer to all the slanderers!” (Primorski dnevnik, 17.9.1949: 3). The newly established city, which at first spelled the adjective “new” with a lowercase letter, began to flicker in a different spirit. From all the beginnings, Nova Gorica has been marked as a city that will be “a flourishing garden of new buildings, the new Belgrade in a small … The city will be like the brotherhood and unity of the Yugoslav peoples!” (Nova Gorica, 11.6.1948: 1), although it did not meet either demographic or infrastructural criteria, boasted only a modernly designed plan by architect Ed Ravnikar, who understood the new city in terms of a functionalist urban premise. Initially, in search of better life opportunities, employment, progress and independence, the inhabitants of the Nova Gorica hinterland came to the city, then residents from other parts of Slovenia settled, who largely occupied administrative positions in the city, and with the opening of industry, the city began to be inhabited mainly by lower-skilled workers from various parts of the then Yugoslavia. The construction of Nova Gorica relied heavily on the young economy of Nova Gorica, but this stalled, resulting in it “ultimately leaving the fate of the city, a premature baby, to a region that was in dire need of it, but was unable to build it” (Vuga T. 1984: 296); The Ravnikar’s plan was bypassed.

Very quickly, it turned out that the post-war enthusiasm in the manner of the slogan “We are building socialism!” was dying down. It became increasingly clear that the border had fatally encroached on the space and how “a senseless operation was required by the ”national line’ – and the heart was sacrificed – Gorizia, to a large extent severed head – Trieste” (Slovenski Primorec, 13.2.1947: 1). The border was impassable for the majority of the population, with the exception of property owners on the other side of the border. The inhabitants of the Slovenian part, who understood Gorizia as the only centre of all their interests, were not enthusiastic about such a regime, although they did not emphasise it loudly. Or as an informant born in 1931 told me: “We knew we had to be quiet. Those were the kind of times, no one dared to criticize because you could end up in forced labor, in prison or on the Naked Island.” On the other hand, the economy and supply of Gorica have stagnated due to the lack of goods from the Slovenian side. Given the general shortage on both sides, it soon became clear that the two cities would have to work together.

After the entry into force of the Udine Agreements (1955) and its amendments and the issuance of the so-called passes, there was a noticeable increase in the movement of people and goods across the state border. In this phenomenon, we can also see the desire to reconnect the Goriška area and search for the lost economic centre, to restore broken infrastructural connections and, above all, to alleviate the emotional damage of the inhabitants on both sides. Despite regulated and strictly controlled border crossings, they are sometimes more permeable than state (national) actors would expect, so illegal border crossings often occurred, and there was also a lively informal cross-border exchange of goods. Holders of passes obtained in Italy came to Yugoslavia “in search of rest and delicious food” (Primorski dnevnik, 27.9.1955: 4), mainly prosciutto, Cuban rum and caviar, while Yugoslav citizens smuggled mainly meat and brandy into Italy, sold cigarettes and secretly brought nylon tights, chocolate, coffee, razors, cloth, clothes and washing powder to Yugoslavia.

As early as the 1960s, both local authorities were aware of the need to deepen cooperation, especially at the official level, since, as the two mayors stressed at the 1966 meeting, “it is crucial that the two cities, otherwise separated by a border, work together for the welfare of the population” (Coexistence along our border – a model for Europe, 1967: 46). Already at that time, a motto was indicated, which later gained more than publicistic power, as Marjan Drobež concluded the conversation with the mayor of Goriška with the sentence: “The conversation on a hot June morning continued, and from the square in front of the municipal palace came the pulse of the city, the inhabitants of both Gorizia, two cities breathing with the same lungs” (Drobež 1966: 8).

This was followed by numerous recreational, sports, cultural and social events (e.g. the Friendship March), which connected the population of the (new) Goriška area in a very unencumbered way. The signing of the Osimo Agreements (1975) set the conditions for more institutionalized cooperation between the two cities. For the first time, the intention of local decision-makers to physically connect the cities began to manifest itself. In 1980, a small border crossing was opened on Erjavčeva cesta/via San Gabriele, personal traffic flowed through it, but only for owners of small border passes, local public transport followed only in 2002. It was during this time that for the first time it was perceived that the previously strictly guarded area along the state border, which had acted as an extremely deterrent for thirty-three years, took on a different role, thus becoming the closest and most frequented connecting route between the two cities.

The next major focus on connecting the (new) Goriška area was in the 90s. With Slovenia’s independence and the termination of cooperation with some of the former Yugoslav republics, Nova Gorica’s need for contacts with the neighbouring city deepened. The slogan “Two Gorices – One City” appeared. Its author, the then mayor of Nova Gorica, Sergij Pelhan, emphasized that “it is not a matter of political and administrative unification of the two cities, nor of doing business with Italian Gorizia or Italianizing Slovenian Nova Gorica”, but presented the idea as a longer-term project with the aim “to be able to outline a new development more courageously, jointly and without distrust, without the fears of the past « (Pelhan 1990: 4). Already at that time, the idea was formed that the municipal administration would jointly achieve the enforcement of the special status of the two Gorizia as European cities, which would break the repeatedly stated paradigm of Nova Gorica as a substitute for the lost Gorizia. Both the Slovenian and Italian public were quite divided on this idea. Although they mostly supported the integration projects, they did not fully understand its applied work, as they understood the state border, which was otherwise passable through international and small border crossings, as an obstacle element and therefore mostly labeled the project as utopian.

During Slovenia’s accession process to the EU, however, the idea of “Two Gorices – One City” as a connecting element of the (new) Goriška area was revived. Once again, the physical contact of cities proved to be the most important, this time in areas outside the border crossings, so interest was directed to the Novi Gorica railway station. Although the area was strictly guarded and impassable after the establishment of the border due to the key railway infrastructure, it was also extremely valuable, as both countries carried out visible manifestations of their state organization and (over)power on it; Until the 1990s, a red star with the inscription “We are building socialism” was installed on the façade of the Nova Gorica railway station, which faces the Italian side, a mosaic with the Yugoslav coat of arms was placed on the ground, and numerous Italian flags were often hung on Via Guiseppe Caprin and its surroundings.

Despite these strong reminiscences of the period of impassability of the border and the separation of the population, it was precisely this meeting place that was chosen as the venue for the central event on the occasion of Slovenia’s accession to the EU. Then, on 12 February 2004, the boundary stone and the boundary fence were removed, and a mosaic by Franco Vecchieta was placed on the border line. A place that for many years had been a place of discouragement, even threats and lamentations, wanted to become a place of rapprochement and shared plans. The idea was also that the square would be named with a common name, but the result was only the common naming of the mosaic (Mosaic of New Europe), while the Italian side retained the name Transalpina, and the Novi Gorica part was recognized for the first time as the Square of Europe. Apparently, historical memory still evoked people’s emotions. While some saw the newly formed market as a powerful symbolic point with enormous potential, or, in the words of an informant, “as a membrane at the cell where the most is happening”, others were either indifferent to the changes along the border or were negative about the market. Nevertheless, everyone was unanimous that this is a space with untapped market potential, and on the other hand, it is strongly influenced by the fact that it is located on the outskirts of both cities, is more difficult to access and busy only during special events, and is less integrated into their everyday lives.

The slogan “Two Gorices – One City”, despite its extremely aesthetic materialization in the form of a new market, aroused divided opinions. On the Slovenian side, informants understood the intensely repeated slogan as “another political slogan”, as a statement only “for a TV smile”, and they did not linger on the market. The Italian interlocutors knew the term only in a descriptive translation and did not mention it in their speeches, they did not recognize the connection with Nova Gorica through the newly regulated market. Representatives of the autochthonous Slovenian national community in Italy understood this slogan to a greater extent in the context of the wider (new) Goriška area, i.e. both cities with a hinterland. On the Slovenian side, the idea of Goriška also appeared, but I did not see any Italian initiatives for a broader understanding of the area (except in the context of requests for a revision of the Rapallo border).

So how to understand the (new) Goriška space? The physical barrier that separated the space from 1947 until Slovenia’s accession to the Schengen Agreement in 2007 has taken its toll. Sixty years of separate development, different demographic flows and economic situations were also reflected in the search for other centers of gravity in both Italy and Slovenia. Physically, the two cities were additionally connected to the new square, numerous integration activities took place regularly, which were also largely encouraged by members of the Slovenian national community, but my informant wondered: “Are these neighbors still neighbors after so many years of separation?… And that these two cities will one day be one city? I don’t know… I feel more like we’re trying to forcibly create a city, but so far we haven’t…”

The common (new) Goriška space must therefore not be reflected only in physical contact points, but it is necessary to recognize and evaluate long-term forms of cooperation that may not always be exposed to the media. In the anthropological literature, forms of cities such as Nova Gorica and Gorizia have been called cross-border cities (Buursink 2001), whereby cities base their advantages on the awareness of the differences they tolerate and understand as the key to their own development. Therefore, it is necessary that any forms of integration between Gorice, which take place in any period and at any level, be understood as a potential for a wider space, which was already closely connected at the turn of the 20th century.