Paper short abstract

On the basis of my material from Latvia I argue that the seemingly cooperative care for re-emigration and re-population of the countryside in fact is an attempt of the successful power-holders to draw the escaping underdogs back into subordination and exploitation

Paper long abstract

Thousands upon thousands of Latvians have used their freedom of movement leaving the whole country, but in particular countryside, half-empty. Villagers who have not gone to Ireland go to Riga. One response to this is a publicly vocal view about the process as a tragedy that requires immediate effort to bring back the migrants to where they supposedly belong - to Latvia and in many cases - to their native villages. To achieve that goal, governments work on policies and civil society dreams visions of revived countryside. But whose tragedy is it and why? In this presentation I will argue that the seemingly cooperative and caring ethos of bringing back people to Latvia and repopulating countryside is the discourse of the former winners who are nearly defeated by a successful application of the weapons of the weak. Those who chose emigration did so because they could not (or would not) be successful in the local power-struggle. However, cooperation with the underdogs is an essential element of winning. Without underdogs there is no success. Therefore calls for re-emigration programs are so actively supported but mainly by those who have not migrated themselves; calls for re-population of the countryside are not designed by those who have left the villages. The resulting policies try to lure migrants back into their subordinate positions which would thus re-build the dominating positions of the power-holders. This presentation draws on analysis of public discussions, ethnographic observations, interviews and official policies.