Page 141 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 141
robar-dor in‘s mir ror: r ams and mammoths in the context of yugoslav history
By subversively revealing the ideology of national identity, Robar-Dor-
in‘s film – because it exposes the construction of national identity based
on differences from the Other (identity) – does not represent a mirror for
Slovenians to see themselves in as they would wish to. Instead, it is a film
in which they are compelled not to miss the gaze of the other. In other
words, the film moves from the problems of the Slovenian nation as equat-
ed with suffering subjectivity to the problem of an imaginary nationality in
the context of state, economic, and urban determinations of an individu-
al’s space of existence. Robar-Dorin’s manner of dealing with ethnic prob-
lems provides a clear ideologically subversive note because the ethnic prob-
lem in Rams and Mammoths is presented from a “view from afar”, in the
sense that was formulated by Claude Lévi-Strauss: “Ethnology… takes man
as its object of study but differs from the other sciences of man in striving
to understand that object in its most diverse manifestations” (Lévi-Strauss,
1992: p. 25).
Troubled History
Relatively soon after it was established, the Yugoslav system enabled the
consolidation of “national” cinematography in the constituent federal re-
publics. However, as it became apparent in the break-up of Yugoslavia and
the end of communism, the potential for conflict was lurking in forms of
nationalism, which were generally accepted or at least deemed relatively
benign. Nonetheless, “[n]ew resentment between the Balkan countries ap-
peared that evolved around the questions of their proximity to or suitabil-
ity for Europe” (Iordanova, 2001: p. 33). As the research of Silva Mežnar-
ić has demonstrated and Robar-Dorin‘s film highlighted, such resentments
were part of daily life in Slovenia long before the break-up of the federal
state. On the other hand, “[s]cholars have likewise recognised that it was
the Slovenians’ quarrels with Serbian and federal party leaders in the late
1980s that formed the sharp forward edge of the great wedge of divisive pol-
itics that split the federation to pieces” (Patterson, 2000: p. 413).
A specific element here is that Slovenian nationalism found its “threat-
ening” object within its own federal republic, the “beloved country”. Bos-
nians therefore stood for the Balkans; they represented otherness to Slo-
venians, which finally translated into Bosnians’ being “non-European”.
However, such perceptions would presumably have merely remained a bi-
zarre aspect of daily life if they had not acquired articulation in the official
politics that instituted itself after the demise of communist regime. “Since
139
By subversively revealing the ideology of national identity, Robar-Dor-
in‘s film – because it exposes the construction of national identity based
on differences from the Other (identity) – does not represent a mirror for
Slovenians to see themselves in as they would wish to. Instead, it is a film
in which they are compelled not to miss the gaze of the other. In other
words, the film moves from the problems of the Slovenian nation as equat-
ed with suffering subjectivity to the problem of an imaginary nationality in
the context of state, economic, and urban determinations of an individu-
al’s space of existence. Robar-Dorin’s manner of dealing with ethnic prob-
lems provides a clear ideologically subversive note because the ethnic prob-
lem in Rams and Mammoths is presented from a “view from afar”, in the
sense that was formulated by Claude Lévi-Strauss: “Ethnology… takes man
as its object of study but differs from the other sciences of man in striving
to understand that object in its most diverse manifestations” (Lévi-Strauss,
1992: p. 25).
Troubled History
Relatively soon after it was established, the Yugoslav system enabled the
consolidation of “national” cinematography in the constituent federal re-
publics. However, as it became apparent in the break-up of Yugoslavia and
the end of communism, the potential for conflict was lurking in forms of
nationalism, which were generally accepted or at least deemed relatively
benign. Nonetheless, “[n]ew resentment between the Balkan countries ap-
peared that evolved around the questions of their proximity to or suitabil-
ity for Europe” (Iordanova, 2001: p. 33). As the research of Silva Mežnar-
ić has demonstrated and Robar-Dorin‘s film highlighted, such resentments
were part of daily life in Slovenia long before the break-up of the federal
state. On the other hand, “[s]cholars have likewise recognised that it was
the Slovenians’ quarrels with Serbian and federal party leaders in the late
1980s that formed the sharp forward edge of the great wedge of divisive pol-
itics that split the federation to pieces” (Patterson, 2000: p. 413).
A specific element here is that Slovenian nationalism found its “threat-
ening” object within its own federal republic, the “beloved country”. Bos-
nians therefore stood for the Balkans; they represented otherness to Slo-
venians, which finally translated into Bosnians’ being “non-European”.
However, such perceptions would presumably have merely remained a bi-
zarre aspect of daily life if they had not acquired articulation in the official
politics that instituted itself after the demise of communist regime. “Since
139
