Page 124 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 124
from walter benjamin to the end of cinema
Nationalism and Ethnicity
Numerous studies on nationalism and ethnicity (notably by Ernest Gell-
ner, Benedict Anderson, Yael Tamir, and many others) generally find that
the meanings of these terms differ, as do their impacts within specific state
constructions that encompass different cultural identities as well as self-re-
flections of them. This also means that translating the meanings of these
terms and notions from one linguistic space to another is problematic. In
order to explain briefly the usage of these complex terms in this chapter I
suggest taking into account that in most cases the term “nation” as used
by (post‑) Yugoslav scholars refers to “ethnic group” and more or less cor-
responds with the federal republics based on the country’s ethnic struc-
ture. The reason for this is the historical fact that the linguistic and ethnic
groups that formed their identities under Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman
empires perceived themselves as “nations” despite lacking their own states
throughout the nineteenth century, at which time the custodians of culture
(“national” intellectuals: poets, scholars, scientists, and artists) in the Bal-
kans also appropriated typical romantic ideas about the “national” (eth-
nic) roots and identities of their peoples. Yugoslavia was a specific case, in
which these historical investments in the meanings of identity acquired
some special traits during the course of history. One can understand this
specificity better if one considers the fact that “Yugoslav nationalism” was
unthinkable, and that the Yugoslav federation was not perceived as a “na-
tion” from within, but rather as “only” a state. Political, cultural, and other
meanings of the notion of nationalism within Yugoslavia were attached to
some political and cultural attitudes of members of ethnic groups in a va-
riety of articulations, from “acceptable” concern for one’s own identity to
adverse or vicious viewpoints on the superiority of one’s own “nation” over
others. As much as I can try to avoid confusion by marking the meaning of
nation, national, and so on, as “ethnic” in some cases, other readers (Eng-
lish and American ones in particular) may still have some difficulty grasp-
ing the various nuances due to the specific genealogy of this terminology in
the Balkans. I prefer not to just simply use the term “ethnic” in order not to
lose sight of the political content of the phenomena in question. Moreover,
as we know, the political content of these meanings contributed to deadly
consequences in 1990s. Still, I hope that with this explanation internation-
al readers will come closer to understanding the splits within social forma-
tions in the cultural space under discussion.
122
Nationalism and Ethnicity
Numerous studies on nationalism and ethnicity (notably by Ernest Gell-
ner, Benedict Anderson, Yael Tamir, and many others) generally find that
the meanings of these terms differ, as do their impacts within specific state
constructions that encompass different cultural identities as well as self-re-
flections of them. This also means that translating the meanings of these
terms and notions from one linguistic space to another is problematic. In
order to explain briefly the usage of these complex terms in this chapter I
suggest taking into account that in most cases the term “nation” as used
by (post‑) Yugoslav scholars refers to “ethnic group” and more or less cor-
responds with the federal republics based on the country’s ethnic struc-
ture. The reason for this is the historical fact that the linguistic and ethnic
groups that formed their identities under Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman
empires perceived themselves as “nations” despite lacking their own states
throughout the nineteenth century, at which time the custodians of culture
(“national” intellectuals: poets, scholars, scientists, and artists) in the Bal-
kans also appropriated typical romantic ideas about the “national” (eth-
nic) roots and identities of their peoples. Yugoslavia was a specific case, in
which these historical investments in the meanings of identity acquired
some special traits during the course of history. One can understand this
specificity better if one considers the fact that “Yugoslav nationalism” was
unthinkable, and that the Yugoslav federation was not perceived as a “na-
tion” from within, but rather as “only” a state. Political, cultural, and other
meanings of the notion of nationalism within Yugoslavia were attached to
some political and cultural attitudes of members of ethnic groups in a va-
riety of articulations, from “acceptable” concern for one’s own identity to
adverse or vicious viewpoints on the superiority of one’s own “nation” over
others. As much as I can try to avoid confusion by marking the meaning of
nation, national, and so on, as “ethnic” in some cases, other readers (Eng-
lish and American ones in particular) may still have some difficulty grasp-
ing the various nuances due to the specific genealogy of this terminology in
the Balkans. I prefer not to just simply use the term “ethnic” in order not to
lose sight of the political content of the phenomena in question. Moreover,
as we know, the political content of these meanings contributed to deadly
consequences in 1990s. Still, I hope that with this explanation internation-
al readers will come closer to understanding the splits within social forma-
tions in the cultural space under discussion.
122
