Is it appropriate to speak of a ‘loss of culture’, or should we instead speak of ‘cultural change’? Ivan Adnan explores this question in the context of the annexation of South Tyrol

“South Tyrol, a region in the heart of the Alps about half the size of Connecticut, brings into sharp focus an important part of twentieth-century history. Tyrol, a province that had been part of Austria for over 500 years and was almost totally German-speaking, was split in two after World War I and the southern part awarded to Italy as ‘spoils of war’.”

– Rolf Steininger

Did the forced Italianisation of the South Tyrolean population constitute a ‘cultural loss’ or a ‘cultural change’? This is an issue that continues to be debated by anthropologists, sociologists and academics. To answer this question, the cultural shift following the annexation of South Tyrol must be conceptualised through an appraisal of both perspectives.

In the 1930s, an agreement was reached between Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, which mandated the mass relocation of southern Italians into South Tyrol. Meanwhile, those of German heritage were given the option to relocate to Greater Germany. South Tyrol consisted of a 90 per cent ethnic, German-speaking population. Pradip Phanjoubam explains that those residents who declared themselves of German heritage were forced to relocate into the area of the Third Reich.

Mussolini’s Italianisation program had a significant impact on the ethnic German populace. A systematic homogenisation of the population by a ruthless system of Italianisation spread throughout the land, usually through very repressive methods. Laws were passed banning the use of the German language or any expression of the former German culture. German schools and German-speaking churches were prohibited. German place names and the German surnames of the ethnic German population were all Italianised.

As a result of the policy of making Italian the only language for all official transactions, institutional jobs became exclusively the domain of Italians. As Pradip Phanjoubam notes, the effect of this is evident in the current settlement pattern in the province. Whilst most townships are majority Italian, ethnic Germans overwhelmingly populate the rural hinterlands.

Professor Angelo Ara believes that the Germans secretly set up various catacomb schools so that they could teach children the German language and culture. Teachers in the mainstream, official Italian schools taught children an Italian-centric curriculum, especially with regard to history and politics. This has left many South Tyroleans with a torn identity.

Evidently, we can construct an argument for cultural loss. The ethnic German population was subjugated in terms of language and culture in the South Tyrol region for over 60 years. German surnames were Italianised and children in schools were forced to speak Italian: practices that contributed to the forced cultural repression of the South Tyroleans. Such subjugation undermines the basic human rights of an ethno-cultural group, violating linguistic and cultural rights, as identified in the European Convention on Human Rights. Denying a population these basic rights amounts to tyranny; hence, it can rightly be argued that this process was a cultural loss.

However, some sociologists contest this theory, instead privileging the use of ‘cultural change’ as the preferred framework. An undeniable feature of culture or nationhood is the dynamic of evolution that occurs through interactions with outsiders. With regard to South Tyrol, the annexation by Italy is indicative of an inevitable change in regime and governing power for the people of this region. Whilst the forced Italianisation was by no means justified, it was arguably a consequence of historical and geopolitical events.

Prior to the outbreak of World War II, Hitler and Mussolini arrived at a compromise and gave the South Tyrol Germans two options. The choice was clear. They could retain their language and culture by migrating to German-speaking North Tyrol, or stay in Italy and consequently rescind their ethnic identity. Although the two leaders were prepared to seal the fate of an entire population with their decision, they did acknowledge that a cultural and social change was to take place.

In response, a majority of South Tyroleans chose to migrate and preserve their ethnic identity at the cost of giving up their homeland. However, all who intended to partake in this mass relocation were unable to do so; only a small percentage of ethnic Germans were able to migrate to North Tyrol at that time. The reason for this delayed migration process was the outbreak of World War II. Only a fraction of the number that chose to migrate had actually managed to do so, and, of these, most returned to South Tyrol after the war.

The picture that emerges from this analysis is that the process in South Tyrol can be described as either ‘cultural loss’ or ‘cultural change.’ Ultimately, there are two sides to every coin. Although ‘loss of culture’ and ‘cultural change’ are distinct classifications within cultural studies, they exist under the one umbrella of ‘cultural and/or social shifts’. Therefore, ‘cultural shift’ is a term that is probably better suited to cover both phenomena. If we are to use the term ‘cultural shift’, we can apply it broadly across a variety of situations.

Ivan Adnan is in his penultimate year of a combined Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Arts at the University of Technology, Sydney.