Peter Loizos

A struggle for meaning: reactions to disaster amongst cypriot refugees*.

ing what is fundamentally important in the relationship and rehabilitating it. A widow has to give up her husband without giving up all that he meant t o her”. The refugee’s relationship to the homes and communities and the pattern of life that they have lost is roughly analagous to the deprivation and reaction caused by the death of a loved person. Marris argues that in many situations of change people may be seen to have a strong ambivalence towards new circumstances and policies, even when these are explicitly designed with their welfare in mind. He discusses what he calls a “conservative mpulse” to cling to features of the previous situation, however unrealistically, and he explains that this should be understood as a refusal to deny the meaning and Importance of the lost relationships. I t IS an important part of Marris’ argument that such an impulse and such ambivalence are to be observed even where the bereaved person was seriously dissatisfied with aspects of the past relationship. For example, he says that widows continue to miss their husbands for a long period after the death, even when the marriage was unhappy. Such ideas have already been used to interpret reactions to slum clearance and the creation of new towns and development areas3. I t seems likely that Marris’ insights could have practical applications for numerous people in welfare rBles, including persons involved in the reception and follow-up of certain kinds of immigrants, refugees and disaster victims. Some of the ”irrational” behaviour of homeless people in reception centres, or persons who seem to cling to a particular status or place, or who remain dependent on welfare agencies, may be more readily understood with this approach. I t has helped the author make sense of the experiences of Cypriot refugees during the first year after their flight from their homes. 1 . Campbell J . K., Honour, Fnmily nnd Pntronage. n Study of Institutions nnd Mom1 Vnlues in n Greek Mountnin Community. (Clarenden Press, Oxford. 1964). 2. Constantinides G., The Sock1 Orgnniurtion of’n Refugee Cnmp. A Cnse Study. Department o f Town Planning, Nicosia, mimeo (1975). 3 . Cans H., The Urban Villagers: Croup nnd Clnss of the Life ofltalian Americnns. (lie Free Press of Glencoe. New York, 1962). 4. Hirchon Renee B. The social institutions ofnn urban locnlity ofrefugee origin in Piraeus. D. F’h. Thesis (Social Anthropology). Oxford University, 1976. 5. Loizos P.. Changes in property transfer among Greek Cypriot villagers MnnlO, 503-523 (1975). 6 . Loizos P.. The Greek Gift: Politics in a Cypriot Villnge. (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1975). 7 . Marris P., Loss and Chnnge. (Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1974).

NOTES ON FUTURE ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH ON CYPRUS

There is every reason to support the study of regions, of social categories, and of processes not bounded by small rural communities,’ but in the case of Cyprus, there have been only a few anthropological studies of villages: and none of the towns. Although a great deal of valuable survey work has been done by the Statistics and other Departments of the Cyprus Government, as well as by visiting geographers, sociologists, political scientists, and social administrators, the anthropological work available does not yet allow us t o make the most elementary comparisons of the structural similarities and differences between villages; we d o not have even outline ethnographic accounts of a sample village in each of the five main administrative/geographical regions of the island, let alone a useful anthropological account of the differences arising from the wide range of ecological variations and cropping patterns. In any case, a particular local argicultural system will be combined with a pattern either of commuter labor or long-term migration, t o towns or abroad. These matters have only been examined by head-counting methods-their implications for local social structures are still unknown. T o give one example of our ignorance: it has been noticed by many observers that the six main towns of the island each dominate an area of satellite villages, in the sense that the villages focus their bus services and their daily or weekly labor commuting, aswell as the markets for produce, on particular towns. However, we have little idea of what happens t o villages which are roughly at the same distance from two major towns, and may from the road system enter into easy relations with both. It is possible that the administrative position of the village t o one of the two towns will be decisive. But it is equally probable that matters will no t be decided so simply, and there may be a playing off by villagers of opportunities presented by having a situation of choice. The dominance of a main town over a satellite village will strike the fieldworker forcefully; but the web of relations that a village has with the other five nondominant towns may reveal unexpected patterns, for the flow of social relations need not always follow the lines of geography or administration. Yet until further research is done, this remains pure speculation. There is the question of whether those villages and small towns that are within the Nicosia district are administratively privileged in any way, formally or informally, as a result of having easy access t o the capital. My impression is that in Nicosia district, village committees find it useful t o bypass intermediate local government officials, and address themselves directly t o senior civil. servants and ministers in the capital; in contrast, villages in the remote Paphos and Karpasia3 domains are “screened” from this direct access first by simple