Dimitar Bechev, Constructing South East Europe: the Politics of Regional Identity in the Balkans (pdf), (original) (raw)
Related papers
2008
The aim of this article is to interrogate the current mainstream interpretation of the relations between the Balkans and the West by exploring the agencies of the transmission of knowledge through which the Balkans became familiar with the West. Interest is focused on how concepts about 'us' and the 'other', cultural and social self-definitions were historically mediated by concepts of Europe. Issues of cultural transfer form a point of departure, in this sense suggesting that Balkan visions of Europe cannot be understood as simply mirroring the representations of the Western hegemonic discourse about the Balkans. In order to understand these visions, more attention needs to be paid to local and regional dynamics in the production of ideologies and self-narrations.
Shared Histories, Personalities, Traditions. European Examples
Годишен зборник на Филозофскиот факултет/The Annual of the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje
The purpose of this paper is to show the role of the common past in the emergence and development of some smaller European nations. Shared past in the Balkans is seen solely through the prism of nationalism. When someone talks about a shared history, he does it in order to show that the others in that history have no past. There are several examples of shared history worldwide and it is normally not a problem, except in our region. Also, the role of a person in the past of two or more nations is very common and it should not be a ground for misunderstanding and conflict. Fluidity of ethnic identity is not associated only with the Balkans; it is also present in some other European countries. Such is the case, for example, with Lithuania. In addition, when it comes to the role of reformers and intellectuals who had different ethnic backgrounds in the emergence and development of some modern European nations, we may observe that there are such examples, for instance, in Finland and Estonia. Unlike the Balkans, shared histories, common personalities and intellectuals who had different ethnic backgrounds in terms of nations where they contributed greatly, in some European countries it does not mean denial of the right to self-determination and existence.
The `Other` or `Cultural Half`? Understanding Cultural Differentiation in the Balkans
One of the basic failures of West on the Balkans is the expectation that the formation of cultural identities is following the same path as it was in the West. There are two notions defining the term “identity”: Absolute sameness, and distinctiveness. Cultural identities are formed by the existence of cultural similarities on the one side, and existence of cultural differences on the other. The problematic issue in that sense is the question on how the “differences” are formed and cultural differentiation is shaped. The aim of this paper is to examine the formation of identity in the Balkans from a theoretical point of view, discussing the issues of concepts “other” and “cultural half”. The concept of the “other” may lead the transformation of the “other” into the “enemy other” which is very often after the establishment of i.e. nation states. Although the notion of “cultural half” stresses the differences between cultural identities, on the other side it implies the sense that the identities are “half”s for each other and can live together, and even this may be recognized as a natural process. Looking beyond a historical perspective, it can be argued that the practice of living together with other cultures in West is not so rich. During the Colonization era, the image of the “other” was constructed as barbaric, uncivilized, or savage. During the era of the construction of modern nation-states by transforming cultural identities into political identities, the cultural differences were constructed as “other” and this construction was clearly defined by drawing borders. Especially, in a region like the Balkans, where different cultures used to live side by side, the same process was implemented which resulted in bloody conflicts. The term “Balkanization” was regarded as a negative term to imply the negative aggressive, barbaric, uncivilized character of tribal cultural groups in the Balkans. However, this pejorative term disregards the effect of outer interventions as one of the reasons behind the conflicts occurred by inner dynamics. In that sense, a Eurocentric effort of construction of the “other” is usually ignored The bloody conflicts which occurred in the Middle East, Caucasus and the Balkans at the end of 20th century was examined within this perspective by defining those cultures as aggressive, backward, etc. instead of examining those conflicts by looking at the social, economical and political structure of those regions. The “peaceful” solution to those conflicts in the West has been to define and draw clearly determined borders, ignoring the experience of those ethnic/cultural groups of living together with high intercultural relation.
The Balkans, Europe's Distant Back Yard: Identity - Alterity, Necessity - Arbitrariness1
European Quarterly of Political Attitudes and Mentalities, 2013
In this paper we are trying to reexamine the importance of role of the Balkans in the imagery of (Western) Europe. We want to shed light on three points. Necessity of Europe's through the Otherness, peculiarities of Europe's perception of the Balkans and influence of this allegedly unitary outside identity construction of the Balkans on self-perception of peoples from the peninsula. In the paper an effort is made, to point out how internal complexity of the European identity directly and inevitably affected of other, not only Balkanic cultural Others, and how specificity of the Balkans is that they are not recognized as sufficiently different Otherness.