Post by tito on Apr 22, 2009 8:51:41 GMT -5
Ivan Lovrenovic responds to Muhamed Filipovic:
The assertion that there are no Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina is by no means Filipovic's invention. On the contrary, that assertion can be heard almost daily in all sorts of occasions - from taxi drivers, from passer bys on the street, from high school and university students, politicians, clerks... It is an expression of what I at one point described as political mentality of majority nation that is thoroughly saturated by nationalism. But it is, if we can say that, innocent (although its consequences are unavoidably bad), since it has obviously been induced; those people without questioning picked up that "knowledge" from somewhere (!?) and are now only recycling it as a simplistic and welcome explanation of the complicated (and, indeed, hardly bearable) national polymorphism of Bosnia-Hercegovina. However, under the roof of the state Academy of Sciences and Arts, asserted by the academician who is normally described in Bosniak national media as "the greatest living Bosniak intellectual" and "inimitable and imposing Filipovic", the man who proclaims himself as the embodiment of Bosniaks and Bosnia, such assertion has a completely different meaning. Broadcast, in turn, via TV stations and high circulation newspapers targeting a particular ethnic group, such as Dnevni Avaz, this assertion quickly becomes an efficient and unquestionable ideology for mass application, and all interested taxi drivers, passers by, high school and university students, politicians, clerks... obtain a strong confirmation and simple resolution of all of their doubts from the highest, inimitable and imposing authority. Talking about Sarajevo, whose famous multi-ethnic character is by now only to be found in obituaries and funerals, and is swiftly disappearing from birth certificates and school rolls - it is not difficult to imagine the effect of such education, via schools and mass media.
I have been writing about Bosnia-Hercegovina, the identity of Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina and their culture for more than thirty years. My work has now grown to include several books of essays and papers, including a book dedicated to Bosnian Croats and their identity (Bosnian Croats - essay about agony of a European-Oriental micro-culture), and I very well understand all the ambivalence of that identity and dead ends of that history, precisely because I was never interested in apologetic and ideological writing about "my nation"; on the contrary, I was interested in digging through problems and critically researching a small and obscure, somewhat bizarre but still living history, as a part of the Bosnian-Hercegovinian, South Slavic and Balkan cultural and historical spectrum. In large and complicated, sometimes tragicomic, more often only sad story about fluctuating identities and their (self)definition, Catholics in Bosnia-Hercegovina are not a unique or unusual example of changes in the name they chose to refer to themselves through tumultuous history of this region. Perhaps most similar to them are precisely - the Bosniak Muslims. Yes, up to the 1850s Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina mostly refer to themselves as Bosniaks, perhaps with somewhat more jealousy than Bosnian Muslims, which have another, much more powerful element of identity - political identification with the Ottoman Empire. Instead of unworthy and scientifically baseless nonsense that "Croats did not exist in Bosnia", it would make much more scientific sense to wonder, research, or initiate (why not in the Academy, which is at least in its name still all-Bosnian, a "state" institution?) projects looking into why, under what historical circumstances and social and political processes it was impossible to form in Bosnia-Hercegovinian in the 19th century a common Bosnian-Hercegovinian identity; instead the development on the base of pre-modern ethnic and religious groups took the direction of development of three separate national identities. It is not true that cultural rebirth and national libration influences from Serbia and Croatia were the only and primary factors influencing such an outcome, as is usually dismissively said (and also taught in schools). In it impossible and illogical from the spectrum of those causes and reasons to exclude internal Bosnian-Hercegovinian factors - social and economic structure, and the unwillingness of the ruling Bosnian Muslim political class to effectively and truly accept the civic and social equality of unbelieving serfs(today "Croats" and "Serbs").
Therefore, Bosnian Croats(Bosniak Catholics) did not show up in Bosnia-Hercegovina out of nowhere in the 19th century as Filipovic's extremely arrogant assertion suggests. They have been living here for centuries, bearing their Bosnian and Croat identity the best they can, referring to it in one hundred and one way - Slovinski, Ilirski, Slavobosnian, Bosnian, Croatian - because that wandering and searching and that periodical lack of self-knowledge is natural and characteristic of all small nations that were not nurtured by history, but nevertheless managed to survive on the historical stage.
And what about literature? Developing since the 16th century as a part, even if of marginal importance, of huge anti-reformation European literature, the Franciscan writing in Bosnia played the crucial role in the history of Bosnian literature, while at the same time being a living and integral part of the older Croatian literature, playing, actually, the key role in the linking and integration of the Croatian(Bosnian) language and literature - from Dubrovnik and Dalmatia to Slavonia and present day Vojvodina. When we talk about Croatian literature in Bosnia-Hercegovina, then we talk about something that has existed very much, typologically and historically, and which implies and affirms precisely that parallelism and mutual inclusiveness of Croatian and Bosnian-Hercegovinian literary-historical identity. Only hard-line centralists, fierce opponents of plurality and pluralism can be shocked by that cultural fact.
Filipovic delivered his philippic about Croats in the Academy within the presentation of his new book - Bosnian spirit hovers above Bosnia. In his most recent hagiography Filipovic (also) takes aim at yours truly from two sides. First because of proposing consociational solutions for the state organization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and secondly because of my work at the Publishing Association.
These topics have already been addressed on the pages of this magazine. Discussion of consociational models of organization and arrangements are one of intellectually and theoretically legitimate ways of contemplating a possible way out from the total political blockade in which Bosnia-Hercegovina has been stuck ever since the signing of the Dayton Agreement. It is also an attempt to openly, without taboos, face the nature and degree of the divisiveness in the Bosnian-Hercegovinian society and seek the most adequate constitutional and political solution that would finally, possibly open the process of healing and consolidation of that society and state. All that, on the other hand, in the form of public presentation of individual views, which, besides their own argumentation cannot oblige, let alone force, anyone to accept them. However, it is very interesting that a part of Sarajevo public (or perhaps - semi-public!) attacks even the very mention of consociational democracy as a solution for Bosnia-Hercegovina as an anti-state and anti-patriotic activity, while the very term consociational democracy has become some sort of an ideological scarecrow. Filipovic has gone the furthest in his abovementioned book, in which he seems to be bothered the most precisely by the public, that is the fact that Dani organized and published the transcript of the discussion about consociational democracy as a way forward for Bosnia-Hercegovina. Filipovic reserves the worst possible condemnations for consociational democracy and all individuals who dare write about it (it seems, I'm not sure why, that among them, yours truly is especially dangerous according to Filipovic). Like a Stalinist commissar, he produces all sorts of crazy constructs and malicious ideological curses: "civilized version of Herceg-Bosnian secession and final end of Bosnia-Hercegovina", "model (...) imposed by Karadzic and Boban", "model which Chetniks and Ustashe wanted to impose"...
Now what? Should I defend myself from these savagely untrue ideological denunciations? After everything I have been consistently witnessing and advocating all my life through my writing, public actions and the way of life! With due respect, you can stuff it, Mr. Academician! I don't need and have never needed anybody's permission to freely contemplate the past and future of Bosnia-Hercegovina - my country, despite all fanatical intolerance of Muhamed Filipovic and Filipovics, least of all his.
In his ridiculously pretentious stance "Bosnia-Hercegovina c'est moi!" Muhamed Filipovic sees himself as the last defense of the country and the people, and offers as alternative to evil consociational democracy all sorts of pseudo-historical idealized myths and empty phrases. Therefore, what is according to Filipovic the right solution for Bosnia? Here it comes: "Return to the truth of its real historical essence, the truth of its history and its authentic multiculturalism", "the reestablishment of the order of things that for centuries secured normal life and passage through history, without big disturbances and disharmony among its different inhabitants". Even if we were to ignore the lack of realism in this proposal to base the political organization of the country, after everything that had happened here, on mythical return to anything and reestablishment of anything (this can hardly be ignored, but let us proceed for now), we cannot but ask ourselves: what is the "true historical essence" of Bosnia? What is the "truth of its history"? What is its "authentic multiculturalism"? And especially, what is "the order of things that for centuries secured normal life and passage through history, without big disturbances and disharmony among its different inhabitants"? (I especially like those "different inhabitants"! No comment.) And how about asking how and with what means are we to bring about that return? What degree of agreement of "its different inhabitants" would be required? Or is that issue irrelevant as far as Filipovic is concerned? Is it really so difficult to summon at least a crumble of social imagination, moral sensitivity, consideration of historical facts, in order to take into account the existence of other, different views, from which the fairy tale about "normal life" and "order of things" looks very different and far less enticing? Whether Filipovic wanted that or not, whether he was able to see that or not, the capability to accept the existence of multiple points of view, both with respect to history and the more recent issue of political organization, is the lasting test of the survival of Bosnia-Hercegovina as a country and as a society.
What is the appropriate way to conclude this discussion? Let me try this: if consociational democracy is not the most ideal type of democracy (I admit that much, and this has been pointed out in all public debates that bother our academician so much), Filipovic himself and his vision of "normal Bosnia" become the strongest arguments in its favor! By the way, it has become a custom that alarms about "division of Bosnia" are usually raised by those who, due to their tendency to ignore the views of others, clearly demonstrate that they do not know Bosnia and do not want to share it with others.
The assertion that there are no Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina is by no means Filipovic's invention. On the contrary, that assertion can be heard almost daily in all sorts of occasions - from taxi drivers, from passer bys on the street, from high school and university students, politicians, clerks... It is an expression of what I at one point described as political mentality of majority nation that is thoroughly saturated by nationalism. But it is, if we can say that, innocent (although its consequences are unavoidably bad), since it has obviously been induced; those people without questioning picked up that "knowledge" from somewhere (!?) and are now only recycling it as a simplistic and welcome explanation of the complicated (and, indeed, hardly bearable) national polymorphism of Bosnia-Hercegovina. However, under the roof of the state Academy of Sciences and Arts, asserted by the academician who is normally described in Bosniak national media as "the greatest living Bosniak intellectual" and "inimitable and imposing Filipovic", the man who proclaims himself as the embodiment of Bosniaks and Bosnia, such assertion has a completely different meaning. Broadcast, in turn, via TV stations and high circulation newspapers targeting a particular ethnic group, such as Dnevni Avaz, this assertion quickly becomes an efficient and unquestionable ideology for mass application, and all interested taxi drivers, passers by, high school and university students, politicians, clerks... obtain a strong confirmation and simple resolution of all of their doubts from the highest, inimitable and imposing authority. Talking about Sarajevo, whose famous multi-ethnic character is by now only to be found in obituaries and funerals, and is swiftly disappearing from birth certificates and school rolls - it is not difficult to imagine the effect of such education, via schools and mass media.
I have been writing about Bosnia-Hercegovina, the identity of Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina and their culture for more than thirty years. My work has now grown to include several books of essays and papers, including a book dedicated to Bosnian Croats and their identity (Bosnian Croats - essay about agony of a European-Oriental micro-culture), and I very well understand all the ambivalence of that identity and dead ends of that history, precisely because I was never interested in apologetic and ideological writing about "my nation"; on the contrary, I was interested in digging through problems and critically researching a small and obscure, somewhat bizarre but still living history, as a part of the Bosnian-Hercegovinian, South Slavic and Balkan cultural and historical spectrum. In large and complicated, sometimes tragicomic, more often only sad story about fluctuating identities and their (self)definition, Catholics in Bosnia-Hercegovina are not a unique or unusual example of changes in the name they chose to refer to themselves through tumultuous history of this region. Perhaps most similar to them are precisely - the Bosniak Muslims. Yes, up to the 1850s Croats in Bosnia-Hercegovina mostly refer to themselves as Bosniaks, perhaps with somewhat more jealousy than Bosnian Muslims, which have another, much more powerful element of identity - political identification with the Ottoman Empire. Instead of unworthy and scientifically baseless nonsense that "Croats did not exist in Bosnia", it would make much more scientific sense to wonder, research, or initiate (why not in the Academy, which is at least in its name still all-Bosnian, a "state" institution?) projects looking into why, under what historical circumstances and social and political processes it was impossible to form in Bosnia-Hercegovinian in the 19th century a common Bosnian-Hercegovinian identity; instead the development on the base of pre-modern ethnic and religious groups took the direction of development of three separate national identities. It is not true that cultural rebirth and national libration influences from Serbia and Croatia were the only and primary factors influencing such an outcome, as is usually dismissively said (and also taught in schools). In it impossible and illogical from the spectrum of those causes and reasons to exclude internal Bosnian-Hercegovinian factors - social and economic structure, and the unwillingness of the ruling Bosnian Muslim political class to effectively and truly accept the civic and social equality of unbelieving serfs(today "Croats" and "Serbs").
Therefore, Bosnian Croats(Bosniak Catholics) did not show up in Bosnia-Hercegovina out of nowhere in the 19th century as Filipovic's extremely arrogant assertion suggests. They have been living here for centuries, bearing their Bosnian and Croat identity the best they can, referring to it in one hundred and one way - Slovinski, Ilirski, Slavobosnian, Bosnian, Croatian - because that wandering and searching and that periodical lack of self-knowledge is natural and characteristic of all small nations that were not nurtured by history, but nevertheless managed to survive on the historical stage.
And what about literature? Developing since the 16th century as a part, even if of marginal importance, of huge anti-reformation European literature, the Franciscan writing in Bosnia played the crucial role in the history of Bosnian literature, while at the same time being a living and integral part of the older Croatian literature, playing, actually, the key role in the linking and integration of the Croatian(Bosnian) language and literature - from Dubrovnik and Dalmatia to Slavonia and present day Vojvodina. When we talk about Croatian literature in Bosnia-Hercegovina, then we talk about something that has existed very much, typologically and historically, and which implies and affirms precisely that parallelism and mutual inclusiveness of Croatian and Bosnian-Hercegovinian literary-historical identity. Only hard-line centralists, fierce opponents of plurality and pluralism can be shocked by that cultural fact.
Filipovic delivered his philippic about Croats in the Academy within the presentation of his new book - Bosnian spirit hovers above Bosnia. In his most recent hagiography Filipovic (also) takes aim at yours truly from two sides. First because of proposing consociational solutions for the state organization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and secondly because of my work at the Publishing Association.
These topics have already been addressed on the pages of this magazine. Discussion of consociational models of organization and arrangements are one of intellectually and theoretically legitimate ways of contemplating a possible way out from the total political blockade in which Bosnia-Hercegovina has been stuck ever since the signing of the Dayton Agreement. It is also an attempt to openly, without taboos, face the nature and degree of the divisiveness in the Bosnian-Hercegovinian society and seek the most adequate constitutional and political solution that would finally, possibly open the process of healing and consolidation of that society and state. All that, on the other hand, in the form of public presentation of individual views, which, besides their own argumentation cannot oblige, let alone force, anyone to accept them. However, it is very interesting that a part of Sarajevo public (or perhaps - semi-public!) attacks even the very mention of consociational democracy as a solution for Bosnia-Hercegovina as an anti-state and anti-patriotic activity, while the very term consociational democracy has become some sort of an ideological scarecrow. Filipovic has gone the furthest in his abovementioned book, in which he seems to be bothered the most precisely by the public, that is the fact that Dani organized and published the transcript of the discussion about consociational democracy as a way forward for Bosnia-Hercegovina. Filipovic reserves the worst possible condemnations for consociational democracy and all individuals who dare write about it (it seems, I'm not sure why, that among them, yours truly is especially dangerous according to Filipovic). Like a Stalinist commissar, he produces all sorts of crazy constructs and malicious ideological curses: "civilized version of Herceg-Bosnian secession and final end of Bosnia-Hercegovina", "model (...) imposed by Karadzic and Boban", "model which Chetniks and Ustashe wanted to impose"...
Now what? Should I defend myself from these savagely untrue ideological denunciations? After everything I have been consistently witnessing and advocating all my life through my writing, public actions and the way of life! With due respect, you can stuff it, Mr. Academician! I don't need and have never needed anybody's permission to freely contemplate the past and future of Bosnia-Hercegovina - my country, despite all fanatical intolerance of Muhamed Filipovic and Filipovics, least of all his.
In his ridiculously pretentious stance "Bosnia-Hercegovina c'est moi!" Muhamed Filipovic sees himself as the last defense of the country and the people, and offers as alternative to evil consociational democracy all sorts of pseudo-historical idealized myths and empty phrases. Therefore, what is according to Filipovic the right solution for Bosnia? Here it comes: "Return to the truth of its real historical essence, the truth of its history and its authentic multiculturalism", "the reestablishment of the order of things that for centuries secured normal life and passage through history, without big disturbances and disharmony among its different inhabitants". Even if we were to ignore the lack of realism in this proposal to base the political organization of the country, after everything that had happened here, on mythical return to anything and reestablishment of anything (this can hardly be ignored, but let us proceed for now), we cannot but ask ourselves: what is the "true historical essence" of Bosnia? What is the "truth of its history"? What is its "authentic multiculturalism"? And especially, what is "the order of things that for centuries secured normal life and passage through history, without big disturbances and disharmony among its different inhabitants"? (I especially like those "different inhabitants"! No comment.) And how about asking how and with what means are we to bring about that return? What degree of agreement of "its different inhabitants" would be required? Or is that issue irrelevant as far as Filipovic is concerned? Is it really so difficult to summon at least a crumble of social imagination, moral sensitivity, consideration of historical facts, in order to take into account the existence of other, different views, from which the fairy tale about "normal life" and "order of things" looks very different and far less enticing? Whether Filipovic wanted that or not, whether he was able to see that or not, the capability to accept the existence of multiple points of view, both with respect to history and the more recent issue of political organization, is the lasting test of the survival of Bosnia-Hercegovina as a country and as a society.
What is the appropriate way to conclude this discussion? Let me try this: if consociational democracy is not the most ideal type of democracy (I admit that much, and this has been pointed out in all public debates that bother our academician so much), Filipovic himself and his vision of "normal Bosnia" become the strongest arguments in its favor! By the way, it has become a custom that alarms about "division of Bosnia" are usually raised by those who, due to their tendency to ignore the views of others, clearly demonstrate that they do not know Bosnia and do not want to share it with others.