Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
When those bronze age invaders and the people they absorbed emerged into history in the Scottish highlands, they weren't serfs that were forced to farm as a group, as was the case in England and some parts of the Scottish lowlands, as well as other parts of Europe. The highland clans were kinsmen who chose to live partly collectively, with each family farming their own little croft and sharing pasture land with other members of their clan. It was a very extended view of family ties that was very old and tribal but survived for a very long time, and I think that may have been the case in other parts of Europe where people had choices, and I suspect it was also the case back in the Neolithic. Those who stuck together survived better.
The extent of collectivism varied, of course. My ancestors came from an area where livestock were collectively moved to higher ground for better grazing in the summer, which encouraged a strong group spirit. However, some Scottish clans in the lowlands operated a less collective farming economy, partly because the soil was richer and they had less need to pool their resources, so even though clan ties were still strong in the lowlands, there was apparently more individuality on an economic level. Plus, the Gaelic influence wasn't as strong in the lowlands. And in some places feudal practices were introduced to the lowlands, so the degree of collectivization was dependent on the wishes of the landlord. So I think it was partly a practical thing and partly a cultural thing. I think it's difficult to generalize other than to say that a fairly collectivist approach, often based on family or clan ties, was common in many places until recently. And I think cities encourage more individuality, which may be why change in ideas and technology generally came from the cities. I think that in rural areas where everyone is related to everyone else, there's a fair bit of pressure to conform and a fair bit of resistance to change even when change may be beneficial.
Again, I would agree with that, and the later that industrialization occurred, the more one can see the traces and sometimes more than the traces of the "old" ways. That certainly would apply to Italy, which industrialized much later than a country like Great Britain for example.
I do also think, however, that certain cultures are more resistant to change of this kind. For whatever reason, Italian culture has been very resistant to any kind of change to the family structure. And while many millions were forced by utmost necessity to immigrate far away to North and South America for example, the ones who remained have in some cases managed to use the very infrastructure of an industrialized world to try to hold on to some of those "old" ways.
Just as an example, there is a great reluctance among Italians to relocate for work in the way that is undoubtedly necessary in a modern, capitalistic society. Obviously, many do even today, moving to London or Australia or wherever. They will go to great lengths not to move, however, even if they have to engage in horrendous commutes. It's always made perfect sense to me. It was only when I saw the situation mocked in a book by an English expat named Tim Parks that I realized it would seem odd to other people. He wanted to live in England...that was a non starter for his Italian wife. Leave her mother if not forced by absolute necessity? Never. So, they move to Italy. However, his teaching work is in Milano. while her family is in the Veneto. Move to Milano and see her family on the week-ends? Even I was willing to do that when I moved to New York. Absolutely not; it wasn't even a consideration. So, the man commuted two hours each way to work and back every day and then with more seniority, arranged his schedule so he worked 14 hours a day three days a week so they could live in her town near her family. One reason that the Italian railways keep fares so artificially low is precisely to facilitate these kinds of commutes. And Fiat built huge dormitories for its male workers precisely because the men never moved their families there. They leave to go "home" every Friday night.
The same thing happens with university. Not one of my cousins or their children lived at university. Most don't even have student housing. They were bought cars or motorbikes and went back and forth to university in Parma, or Firenze, or Genova. In my area, the mezzadri and even the peasants who owned their own land abandoned farming en masse in the 1950's. During most of the year, the little towns are pitiful shadows of themselves. (There are more British ex-pats in some of them than Italians...well, that's an exaggeration.) Yet, the people who actually did have to emigrate to Milano or Torino or Genova or Switzerland or Germany or Belgium have faithfully refurbished many of these old places and in August they all come back. They pay the people who remained to look after some vines and olive trees, and if at all possible they return for the harvest. And those harvests are processed by the grape and olive "collectives" which dot the countryside.
As to El Horsto's question about whether things aren't different in the cities, Italy doesn't really have large cities. Rome is the largest, with about 3 million, Milano is about 1.2 million, Torino about 900,000. I don't know precisely what it's like in those cities. I have family in Genova, however, with a population of about 600,000, and it's not quite like when they lived in our home town, but despite all their complaints it's nothing like living in an American city of the same size. As I said, I don't know about the big housing blocks in Torino or Milano, but from what I've heard, certain buildings became virtual recreations of villages in Calabria or Sicily, and they still empty out in the summer so everyone can go "home".
Yes, it's more anonymous nowadays, and getting more so as time passes, but you really can't get away from other people in Italy, not that they want to...Trust me on this one...I've always had a desire for some solitude, to read or play the piano or just think. (My mother always said it was my father's mountain genes. The real Italian word sort of has the connotation of hillbilly genes. )That's certainly been fostered by all my time in the U.S. So, I will occasionally pull out a book while sitting at a cafe alone. It's impossible. Anyone I've ever met even for five minutes, and often perfect strangers, feel sorry for me that I'm all alone and pull up chairs or drag me to their table. It's no good saying that I really would like to be alone. They would consider it perverse. It's perfectly ok to read my book in the middle of a din of talking people, but not to be 'actually' alone. And as for eating alone, they'd be shedding tears for you. :grin:Just going to the movies is an ordeal; if you don't ask everyone you know they'll be mortally offended not to be included, and then nobody can agree on what to see or the day or the time, so you miss the show. Oh, and you can't meet at the sagra or festival that is held in one town or another every week-end during the summer, you have to all go together, preferably in one car even if you fill it to bursting, and if not in a damned caravan of cars. And for the big holidays, as people marry and have children, the group gets larger and larger, because you all have to spend it together, but where on earth can you find a venue that will fit everyone?
So, maybe there is a genetic component, at least in terms of the family and close relationships. But then... the very fact that these things cause me a twinge of annoyance nowadays is proof this is not all genetic.
I suppose the culture could be said to resemble the Corsican or Genovese polyphonic groups like the ones I posted in the Mediterranean music thread. You're allowed, even encouraged, to sing in your own individual way, and even to improvise, but you have to sing in harmony and very close together.
Last edited: