War Violence, Victimhood and Reconciliation: in Stories of Bosnian War Survivors (original) (raw)
Related papers
Victimhood, Forgiveness and Reconciliation: in Stories of Bosnian War Survivors
2015
In this analysis of the retold experiences of 27 survivors of the war in northwestern Bosnia, the aim is to describe the informants’ portrayal of “victimhood”, “forgiveness” and “reconciliation” as a social phenomenon as well as analyzing the discursive patterns that contribute to constructing the category “victim” and “perpetrator”. When, after the war, different categories claim a “victim” status, it sparks a competition for victimhood. All informants are eager to present themselves as victims while at the same time the other categories’ victim status are downplayed. In this reproduction of competition for the victim role, all demarcations that were played out so successfully during the war live on. The stories of forgiveness and reconciliation are connected to the past; the interactive consequences of war-time violence are intimately linked to the narrator’s war experiences. The interviewees distance themselves from some individuals or described situations. It is common that the ...
Linking Theory and Practice: The Conduct of Sociology. 87th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, Pacific Sociological Association, Oakland, USA (20160330-20160402). ”War Violence, Sexual War Violence and Victimhood in Reconciliation Narratives of Survivors from the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina” (Panel with Presenters). In this analysis of the retold experiences of 27 survivors of the war in northwestern Bosnia, the aim is to describe the informants’ portrayal of “war violence”, “sexual war violence”, “victimhood”, and “reconciliation” as a social phenomenon as well as analyzing the discursive patterns that contribute to constructing the category “victim” and “perpetrator”. The violence practice during the war is portrayed as organized and ritualized and this creates a picture that the violence practice became a norm in the society, rather than the exception. When, after the war, different categories claim a “victim” status, it sparks a competition for victimhood. All informants are eager to present themselves as victims while at the same time the other categories’ victim status are downplayed. The stories of reconciliation are connected to the past; the interactive consequences of war-time violence are intimately linked to the narrator’s war experiences. The interviewees distance themselves from some individuals or described situations. It is common that the portrayal of possible reconciliation is transformed into a depicted implacable attitude, thus the interviewees negotiate their stances: they articulate between reconciliation and implacability statements. This study shows that after the war in Bosnia, the interpretations of biographical consequences of violence are intimately connected to previous war experiences. Narratives on the phenomenon “war violence” and “sexual war violence” depict a decay of pre-war social order. The use of violence during the war is described as organized and ritualized, which implies that the use of violence became a norm in society, rather than the exception. The narratives on the phenomenon “war violence” produce and reproduce the image of human suffering and slaughter. Those subjected to violence are portrayed in a de-humanized fashion and branded as suitable to be exposed to it. In these stories, morally correct actions are constructed as a contrast to the narratives on war violence. In these descriptions, the perpetrator is depicted as a dangerous, evil, and ideal enemy. He is portrayed as a real and powerful yet alien criminal who is said to pose a clear threat to the social order existing before the war. The narratives on wartime violence, war perpetrators, and those subjected to violence during war are enhanced with symbolicism of ritualized ethnic violence (“cockade,” “chetnik,” “Serb,” “Muslim,” “warlord”). On one hand, the narrators make an ethnic generalization based on the differences between the ethnic categorizations; on the other hand, they present their own physical existence and ethnic identity and that of those subjected to violence as being threatened by the violent situation. The disintegration of the existing, pre-war social order produces and reproduces a norm resolution that enables the ritualized war-time use of violence. This development allows the normalization of war violence in this time period even though the result, as this study shows, means human suffering and the slaughter of humans. This study presents this development in society ambivalently, as both allowed and normatively correct (during the war) and as prohibited and condemned (primarily in retrospect, in post-war narratives). It seems as if the category “war violence” and “sexual war violence” means different things depending on whether it happened during war or not, whether it is retold or observed, and who is telling the story. For some persons, violence targeting civilians during the war is an act of heroism. The Holocaust during World War Two was in many cases highly efficient and industrialized; the typical goal was to kill from a distance, impersonally. Researchers have noted that those who climbed the ranks to leadership positions or were in charge at concentration camps seemed to have engaged in very personal, sadistic acts in Germany during WWII. Is there an interaction of rank/power in wartime and level of motivation/energy input required for violence (ie, those in charge require less energy input because of the factors that put them in charge in the first place)? The stories and phrasing in this paper emphasize a distant, evil, and/or powerful leader who motivates the crowd (perhaps in part by symbolically reducing an ethnic target to something like a dog or rat) or gives orders, with the distinction from Holocaust violence that the leaders in these stories were neighbors, etc., of those they were harming and killing. In general contrast, the war violence in Bosnia was more broadly characterized by the individualized use of violence, in which the perpetrators often knew those subjected to violence. The stories reveal that firearms were seldom used; instead, the weapons were baseball bats or knives. These features can be compared to examples of violence in Rwanda, where the violence was more similar (and even more “savage”) to that in my material than the typical examples of industrialized extermination violence of World War Two. The perpetrators in this study are often portrayed as people who enjoyed humiliating, battering, murdering, and inflicting pain in different ways. This characterization is a contrast to Collins (2008), who suggests that soldiers are not good in acting out close violence and that individuals are mostly inclined to consensus and solidarity. An explanation, in my study, of the soldiers’ actions can be that soldiers in a war are pressured into being brave in close combat, the aim being to reign over the Others, the enemy. During war, enemies are targets of violence, to be subjected to it and neutralized. Soldiers and police in northwestern Bosnia were not close to any battlefield, and civilians thus were framed in the enemy role. By exposing civilians to violence, soldiers proved their supremacy over the enemy even when the enemy was an abstract type, unarmed and harmless. Another explanation might be found in the degree of mobilization and emotional charge that occurred before the war, through the demonization of the enemy. People were probably brutalized through this process. Those interpersonal interactions that caused the violence continue even after the violent situation is over. Recollections from perpetrators and those subjected to violence of the war do not exist only as verbal constructions in Bosnia of today. Stories about violent situations live their own lives after the war and continue being important to individuals and social life. Individuals who were expelled from northwestern Bosnia during the war in the 1990s are, in a legal sense, in a recognized violence-afflicted victim category. They suffered crimes against humanity, including most types of violent crimes. Several perpetrators were sentenced by the Hague Tribunal and the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on War Crime. The crimes committed in northwestern Bosnia are qualified as genocide according to indictments against former Serbian leaders Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić. All of the interviewees in this study experienced and survived the war in northwestern Bosnia. These individuals have a present, ongoing relation with these communities: Some live there permanently, and some spend their summers in northwestern Bosnia. An analysis of the processing of experienced or described violent situations in a society that exists as a product of a series of violent acts during the war must be conducted in parallel both at the institutional and individual levels. Institutions in the administrative entity Republika Srpska deny genocide, and this approach to war-time events becomes a central theme in future, post-war analysis of the phenomena “war violence,” “sexual war violence”, “victimhood,” and “reconciliation”. The existence of Republika Srpska is based on genocide committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, it is very important to analyze the political elite’s denial of the systematic acts of violence during the war that have been conveyed by the Hague Tribunal, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on War Crime, and Bosnian media. The narratives in my empirical material seem to be influenced by (or coherent with) the rhetoric mediated in these fora. When informants emphasize extermination and the systematization of violence during the war, they produce and reproduce the image of a mutual struggle on a collective level. The aim of this struggle seems to be that the described acts of violence be recognized as genocide.
Reconciliation and Implacability: Narratives of Survivors from the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Criminal Justice and Security in Central and Eastern Europe, Understanding Professionalism, Trust, and Legitimacy, The Tenth Biennial International Conference, University of Maribor, Ljubljana, Slovenia (20140915-20140917). ”Reconciliation and Implacability: Narratives of Survivors from the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, pp. 201-204. Previous research on post-war society emphasized structural violence with subsequent reconciliation processes. Researchers have focused on the importance of narratives, but they have neither highlighted narratives about reconciliation nor analyzed conditions for reconciliation in post-war interviews. This article tries to fill this gap by analyzing the stories told by survivors of the Bosnian war during the 1990s. The aim of analyzing the retold experiences of 27 survivors of the 1990s war in north-western Bosnia is to evaluate markers of reconciliation and implacability, as well as those of reconciliation being actualized in the narratives. Stories on implacability, reconciliation, and conditions for reconciliation are not shaped only in relation to the war as a whole, but also in with regard to an individual‘s wartime actions and those of others. In these stories, implacability is the predominant feature, but reconciliation is said to be possible if certain conditions are met. Examples of these conditions are justice for war victims, recognition of perpetrators of crimes, and emotional commitment from the perpetrator (by showing remorse and shame, for example).
Different Categories of Victims and Competition for Victimhood in the Stories after the Bosnian War
Victims' protection: International law, national legislations and practice, The Fifth Annual Conference of the Victimology Society of Serbia, Victimology Society of Serbia, Beograd, Serbia (20141127-20141128). “Different Categories of Victims and Competition for Victimhood in the Stories after the Bosnian War” (”Različite kategorije žrtava i nadmetanje za dobijanje statusa žrtve u pričama preživjelih rata u Bosni i Hercegovini”), p. 15. My goal with this article is to analyse the retold experiences of 27 survivors of the 1990s war in north-western Bosnia. I focus on describing the informants' portrayal of “victimhood” as a social phenomenon as well as analysing those discursive patterns which contributed in constructing the category “victim” and ”perpetrator”. When, after the war, different actors claim this “victim” status, it sparks a competition for victimhood. All informants are eager to present themselves as victims while at the same time the other categories' victim status is downplayed. Different categories appear and they are: ”the remainders” those who lived in north-western Bosnia before, during and after the war; “the fugitives” those who driven into north-western Bosnia during the war; “the returnees” those who returned after the war and “the diaspora” those who were driven out from north-western Bosnia and remained in their new country. The competition between these categories seems to take place on a symbolic level. All interviewees want to portray themselves as ”ideal victims” but they are all about to lose that status. The returnees and the diaspora are losing status by receiving recognition from the surrounding community and because they have a higher economic status, the remainders are losing status since they are constantly being haunted by war events and the refugees are losing status by being presented as strangers and thus fitting the role of ideal perpetrators. In this reproduction of competition for the victim role, all demarcations that were played out so successfully during the war live on.
Constructing “Ideal Victim” Stories of Bosnian War Survivors
Social Inclusion, 2015
Basic, Goran (2015) ”Constructing 'Ideal Victim' Stories of Bosnian War Survivors”. Social Inclusion, 3(4): 25-37. Previous research on victimhood during and after the Bosnian war has emphasized the importance of narratives but has not focused on narratives about victimhood or analyzed post-war interviews as a competition for victimhood. This article tries to fill this gap using stories told by survivors of the Bosnian war during the 1990s. In this analysis of the retold experiences of 27 survivors of the war in northwestern Bosnia, the aim is to describe the informants’ portrayal of “victimhood” as a social phenomenon as well as analyzing the discursive patterns that contribute to constructing the category “victim”. When, after the war, different categories claim a “victim” status, it sparks a competition for victimhood. All informants are eager to present themselves as victims while at the same time the other categories’ victim status are downplayed. In this reproduction of competition for the victim role, all demarcations that were played out so successfully during the war live on.
Crisis, Critique and Change, the 11th European Sociological Association Conference, Turin University, Turin, Italien, (20130828-20130831). ”Forgiveness, reconciliation and implacability in narratives of survivors after the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, pp. 1146-1147. In this article I analyze verbally portrayed experiences of 27 survivors from the 90’s war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. One aim of the article is to analyze markers for reconciliation and implacability, the second is to describe the terms for reconciliation which are actualized in those stories. The interactive dynamics, which occurred during the war, make the post-war reconciliation wartime associated. Narratives about reconciliation, implacability and terms for reconciliation, are not only formed in relation to the war as a whole but also in relation to one’s own and others’ persons wartime actions. The narratives about reconciliation become an arena in which we and them are played against each other in different ways – not least by rejecting the others acts during the war. In the interviewees stories implacability is predominant but reconciliation is presented as a possibility if certain conditions are met. These conditions are, for instance, justice for war victims,perpetrators’ recognition of crime and perpetrators’ emotional commitment (for example the display of remorse and shame).
Definitions of Violence: Narratives of Survivors From the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Journal of interpersonal violence, 2016
Basic, Goran (2018) ”Definitions of Violence: Narratives of Survivors from the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina”. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(13): 2073-2097, DOI: 10.1177/0886260515622300. Previous research on violence during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina has resulted in a one-sided presentation of the phenomenon of “war violence.” Researchers have emphasized the importance of narratives in general but have not analyzed stories on war violence that were the product of interpersonal interaction and meaning-making activity. The aim of this article is to fill this knowledge gap by analyzing survivor narratives of the 1990s war in northwestern Bosnia. The focus is on analyzing interviewees’ descriptions of wartime violence and the discursive patterns that contribute to constructing the phenomenon of “war violence.” My analysis reveals an intimate relationship between how an interviewee interprets the biographical consequences of war violence and the individual’s own war experiences. All interviewees described war violence as something that is morally reprehensible. These narratives, from both perpetrators of violence and those subjected to violence, recount violent situations that not only exist as mental constructions but also live on even after the war; thus, they have real consequences for the individuals and their society.
After Communism. East and West Under Scrutiny, Craiova University, Craiova, Romania (20150424-20150425). ”Definitions of War Violence and Genocide: Narratives of Survivors from the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, pp. 72-73. The aim of this study is analyzing the narratives of survivors of the war in northwestern Bosnia in the 1990s. The focus lies on analyzing interviewees’ description of war-time violence and also analyzing discursive patterns that contribute in constructing the phenomenon “war violence”. Analysis shows that the interpersonal interactions that caused the violence continue even after the violent situation is over. Recollections from perpetrators and those subjected to violence of the war do not exist only as verbal constructions in Bosnia of today. Stories about violent situations live their own lives after the war and continue being important to individuals and social life. The crimes committed in northwestern Bosnia are qualified as genocide according to indictments against former Serbian leaders Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić. All interviewees in this study experienced and survived the war in northwestern Bosnia. These individuals have a present, ongoing relation with these communities: Some live there permanently, and some spend their summers in northwestern Bosnia. Institutions in the administrative entity Republika Srpska (to which northwestern Bosnia now belong administratively) deny genocide, and this approach to war-time events becomes a central theme in future, post-war analysis of the phenomena “war violence”, and “reconciliation”. Therefore, it is very important to analyze the political elite’s denial of the systematic acts of violence during the war that have been conveyed by the Hague Tribunal, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina on War Crime, and Bosnian media. The narratives in my empirical material seem to be influenced by (or coherent with) the rhetoric mediated in these fora. When informants emphasize extermination and the systematization of violence during the war, they produce and reproduce the image of a mutual struggle on a collective level. The aim of this struggle seems to be that the described acts of violence be recognized as genocide.
Reconciliation Narratives of Survivors from War in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Basic, Goran (2015) ”Reconciliation Narratives of Survivors from War in Bosnia and Herzegovina”. In Venkat, Pulla and Bharath, Bhushan, Mamidi (Ed.). Some Aspects of Community Empowerment and Resilience (pp. 189-205). New Delhi: Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd. The aim of this article was to analyze the retold experiences of 27 survivors from the 1990s war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I have examined verbal markers of reconciliation and implacability and I have analyzed described terms for reconciliation that are being actualized in the narratives. In the narratives of those interviewed, implacability is the prominent them, but the possibility of reconciliation is mentioned, if some conditions are met. These conditions are for example justice for the victims of the war, a confession from the offender and his emotional involvement (for instance showing remorse and shame). The picture that emerges from the analyzed narratives is that it is easier to forgive someone imprisoned for his atrocities.
Extreme case of insecurity: violence narratives of survivors from war in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Researching Security: Approaches, Concepts and Policies, University St. Kliment Ohridski, Faculty of Security, Skopje, Ohrid, Macedonia (20150602-20150603). ”Extreme case of insecurity: violence narratives of survivors from war in Bosnia and Herzegovina”, pp. 216-233. The Bosnian war can be seen as a particularly illustrative case of war sociology, based on the ethnic mix of the population prior to the war. War antagonists often knew each other from before the war. Serbian soldiers and policemen carried out mass executions, forced flight, and systematic rape and set up concentration camps in their effort to drive away Bosniacs and Croats from northwestern Bosnia and Herzegovina. The warfare was directly targeted against civilians. The material for the study was gathered through qualitative interviews with 27 individuals who survived the war in north-western Bosnia and Herzegovina. This study joins those narrative traditions within sociology where oral presentations are seen as both discursive- and experience-based. An interactionally inspired perspective on human interaction, through symbols and an ethno-methodological perspective on human stories is a general starting point. In addition, I perceive the concept of war violence as an especially relevant component in those specific stories that I analyzed. Previous research on violence during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina presents a one-sided picture of the phenomenon ”war violence”. Researchers have emphasized the importance of narratives but they have not focused on narratives about war violence, nore have they analyzed the stories of war violence being a product of interpersonal interaction and meaning-making activity. This article tries to fill this knowledge gap by analyzing the narratives of survivors of the war in northwestern Bosnia in the 1990s. The aim is to analyze how the interviewees describe violence during the war, and also to analyze those discursive patterns that contribute in constructing the category ”war violence”. The analysis shows that the individual's interpretation of the biographical consequences of war violence are intimately related to the subjects own war experiences. All interviewees describing war violence as morally reprehensible. Narratives retelling violent situations, perpetrators of violence and subjected to violence does not only exist as a mental construction, stories live their lives after the war, and thus have real consequences for individuals and society.