Archiv

Klaus Buchenau: Südosteuropa und Lateinamerika – fern und nah

Klaus Buchenau
Südosteuropa und Lateinamerika – fern und nah. Unterschiedliche Wege zur Staatsbildung und ihre Folgen
(als pdf-Datei herunterladen)

Abstract
This article explores different patterns of interpreting reality in Southeastern Europe and Latin America. It claims that in Latin America, a principal mode of viewing society, politics and international relations is the social paradigm – i.e. a cognitive stress on the contrast between the rich and the poor, the empowered and the powerless. Southeastern Europe, in opposition to that, has developed a dominant national paradigm, which tends to underline national differences rather than social ones. This contrast is rooted in different imperial legacies – while the Spanish colonial empire left behind societies with vast social cleavages, the Ottoman Empire produced a certain degree of social equality among its Christian citizens. Other factors are historical memory and geography – national liberation in Southeastern Europe proceeded from competing historical projects rooted in the middle ages, which often pretended to the same lands on a rather small peninsula. The resulting wars deepened national identities and produced societies used to interpreting danger in terms of national foes. In Latin America, the national states developed out of the colonial provinces, so that border disputes as well as wars between neighboring states were rare. Here, economic exploitation and domination – both within society but also on the international level – advanced as main themes of discourse, a fact that rather helped to develop a common Latin American identity than national identities. Both paths have deep consequences for contemporary integration projects, since Latin American states (or civil societies) tend to form coalitions vis-à-vis neoliberal US policies. Meanwhile, Southeast European States rarely articulate common interests but go their way to Europe in a rather isolated manner, displaying distrust rather of ethnic others than of the European Union.

Zitation
Buchenau, Klaus (2015): Südosteuropa und Lateinamerika – fern und nah. Unterschiedliche Wege zur Staatsbildung und ihre Folgen. In: Südosteuropäische Hefte 4 (2), S. 49–61.

Persistent Identifier (PID): http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-454931

Marko Zajc: Slovenian Intellectuals and Yugoslavism in the 1980s. Propositions, Theses, Questions

Marko Zajc
Slovenian Intellectuals and Yugoslavism in the 1980s. Propositions, Theses, Questions
(als pdf-Datei herunterladen)

Zitation
Zajc, Marko (2015): Slovenian Intellectuals and Yugoslavism in the 1980s. Propositions, Theses, Questions. In: Südosteuropäische Hefte 4 (1), S. 46–65.

Abstract
The predominant “story” about the Slovenian nationalism before the collapse of the SFRY is simple: The Slovenian nationalism (negative perception) or “the Slovenian spring” (positive perception) “appeared” in the 1980s, it identified itself as “anti-Yugoslavism” and reached the climax in 1991 with the Slovenian independence. Yet, historical sources – both archival and publicist – expose different story: the relation between Slovenian nationalism and Yugoslavism is much more ambiguous and complicated. Why is the Slovenian Yugoslavism of the 1980s a relevant topic for international com-parative historiography of the second Yugoslavia and its successor states? I would point out two reasons. First, I claim that Yugoslavism of any kind could not exist without Slovenianism, especially since the creation of the first Yugoslavia in 1918. The history of Slovenian Yugoslavism (or Slovenian nationalism in general) is not just relevant for “the Slovenian national historiography”, without “the Slovenian component” we cannot understand Yugoslavia or Yugoslavism in general, which could be understood only in historical context. Although almost all authors recognize the significance of the Slovenian-Serbian conflict for the Yugoslav collapse: they assign surprisingly little attention to Slovenian intellectual circles. They are almost always mentioned, but rarely properly analyzed. Secondly, most of historical analysis is preoccupied with the reasons for the collapse of the Yugoslavia. As H. Grandits and H. Sundhaussen have pointed out, if we research the history of a state that does not exist anymore, we unintentionally “search for” elements of the past, which explain why the state had failed. This is also the reason why Slovenian historians – those who consider the methodology of the academic historiography – are mainly focused on the “processes of independence” or the “processes of democratization”. Slovenian Yugoslavism is not in the spotlight of attention, furthermore, it is mostly seen as an insignificant side-effect of the official Yugoslav ideology of “brotherhood and unity”, not as something genuinely Slovenian.

Persistent Identifier (PID): http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-428352