Page 40 - Igor Ž. Žagar in Ana Mlekuž, ur. Raziskovanje v vzgoji in izobraževanju: mednarodni vidiki vzgoje in izobraževanja. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut, 2020. Digitalna knjižnica, Dissertationes 38
P. 40
r aziskovanje v vzgoji in izobr aževanju: mednarodni vidki vzgoje in izobr aževanja
uct for example, the gap narrowed, at least in the decade for which I was
able to find figures.
Of course, as Suvin reminds us, any understanding of education and
social mobility in socialist Yugoslavia has to address the extremely complex
and rapidly changing class composition of the society and the fact that of-
ficial statistics and survey data tend to obfuscate rather than clarify. In any
case, the topic of social mobility was hardly central to Yugoslav sociology
although some important work, primarily through large-scale internation-
al co-operation, was done in the 1980s (Sekulić, 1991). Ironically, many of
the same problems arise when we look at education and social mobility in
the post-socialist period.
Education, mobility and the Post-Yugoslav space
Moving on to education in the post-Yugoslav space, many of the same is-
sues emerge, not least the problem of a lack, until relatively recently, of use-
ful work on social class. Indeed, it is fair to say that, almost thirty years on
from the moment of ‘transition’, we are still trapped within a ‘transitolo-
gy’ paradigm that does not quite know how to conceptualise the societies
that emerged from the ashes of Yugoslavia. I was struck, in particular, by
Belgrade sociologist Ivana Spasić on the difficulty of capturing the ‘chaot-
ic’ nature of post-Yugoslav societies marked by »a polarized collision be-
tween different dimensions of social stratification, which exist in parallel
and struggle for (legitimate) domination, with a highly uncertain result«
(Spasić, 2006). Mladen Lazić and Slobodan Cvejić (2007) have also charted
contemporary Serbia, in particular, in similar terms, as a place where so-
cialist, agrarian and capitalist market norms all co-exist leading to a peri-
od of ‘manifest value confusion’, described in one text as the co-existence
of traditionalism, authoritarianism, nationalism and liberalism. Predrag
Cvetičanin and his colleagues, albeit in a footnote, go further and argue:
In Western Balkan societies there are four major mechanisms
which individuals and groups rely on in field struggles: mecha-
nisms of social closure on the basis of belonging to party organ-
izations and/or informal clan groupings; mechanisms of social
closure on the basis of educational credentials; market mecha-
nisms and, finally, crime. (Cvetičanin et al, 2015).
It is the concept of ‘social closure’ that is of most importance, I would
suggest, and through an overview of some of the relevant literature, it is
40
uct for example, the gap narrowed, at least in the decade for which I was
able to find figures.
Of course, as Suvin reminds us, any understanding of education and
social mobility in socialist Yugoslavia has to address the extremely complex
and rapidly changing class composition of the society and the fact that of-
ficial statistics and survey data tend to obfuscate rather than clarify. In any
case, the topic of social mobility was hardly central to Yugoslav sociology
although some important work, primarily through large-scale internation-
al co-operation, was done in the 1980s (Sekulić, 1991). Ironically, many of
the same problems arise when we look at education and social mobility in
the post-socialist period.
Education, mobility and the Post-Yugoslav space
Moving on to education in the post-Yugoslav space, many of the same is-
sues emerge, not least the problem of a lack, until relatively recently, of use-
ful work on social class. Indeed, it is fair to say that, almost thirty years on
from the moment of ‘transition’, we are still trapped within a ‘transitolo-
gy’ paradigm that does not quite know how to conceptualise the societies
that emerged from the ashes of Yugoslavia. I was struck, in particular, by
Belgrade sociologist Ivana Spasić on the difficulty of capturing the ‘chaot-
ic’ nature of post-Yugoslav societies marked by »a polarized collision be-
tween different dimensions of social stratification, which exist in parallel
and struggle for (legitimate) domination, with a highly uncertain result«
(Spasić, 2006). Mladen Lazić and Slobodan Cvejić (2007) have also charted
contemporary Serbia, in particular, in similar terms, as a place where so-
cialist, agrarian and capitalist market norms all co-exist leading to a peri-
od of ‘manifest value confusion’, described in one text as the co-existence
of traditionalism, authoritarianism, nationalism and liberalism. Predrag
Cvetičanin and his colleagues, albeit in a footnote, go further and argue:
In Western Balkan societies there are four major mechanisms
which individuals and groups rely on in field struggles: mecha-
nisms of social closure on the basis of belonging to party organ-
izations and/or informal clan groupings; mechanisms of social
closure on the basis of educational credentials; market mecha-
nisms and, finally, crime. (Cvetičanin et al, 2015).
It is the concept of ‘social closure’ that is of most importance, I would
suggest, and through an overview of some of the relevant literature, it is
40
