• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

The Balkans' battle with space Simona Śkrabec Simona Śkrabec - translator and essayist. Since 1992 she has been living in Barcelona where she obtained her PhD for a dissertation on Central European issues. She is the author of L’estirp de la solitud and L’atzar de la lluita. Together with Arnau Pons, she coordinated innovative research into the cultural relations between Germany and Catalonia in the last century entitled Carrers de frontera (Grenzen sind Straßen, 2007-2008, 2 volumes.) She has translated 20 publications, including an anthology of Slovenian short stories into Spanish, novels of Danilo Kiś, Drago Jancar and Boris Pahor into Catalan, and the most important Catalan authors (Moncada, Cabré, Ferra- ter, Marçal, etc.) into Slovenian. The Balkans' battle with space Simona Śkrabec In his essay Gothic Woods, Mitja Ćander,1 one of the most prominent Slo­ venian editors, confessed publicly that he is almost blind. I would like to use his personal "battle with space” as the point of departure for a wider reflection on our place in the world. Ćander has had to learn where the obstacles are - how to cross a street, how to find his way through the maze of an airport terminal - but in the end, his most important conclusion is that he simply can t live with­ out trusting in others. A blind person simply cannot survive without it. He has to trust that a taxi driver or shop assistant will give him the right change, and that there will always be someone willing to show him to the correct door in an of­ fice building. Mitja Cander’s case is remarkable because of his attitude towards people who are unknown to him: being almost blind, he must have faith in others to survive. This case illustrates the most valuable condition reQuired to change old stereotypes of how to understand and deal with our neighbours: we have to change fear for trust. France Preśeren, the 19th-century Slovenian national poet, wrote one of the most celebrated verses of Slovenian poetry: behind the fron­ tier there is a neighbour, not the devil”. Today, the poem containing this Quote, called "The Toast”, has become the national anthem of my country. However, a rather paranoiac view of our neighbours is still present in Eu­ rope. We haven’t succeeded in changing our attitudes from fear towards foreigners to love as the romantic poet, Preseren, suggested. For many 1 Mitja Ćander, Kuvertirana poteza, Ljubljana 2008, pp. 77-83· The 1st Heritage Forum of Central Europe | 21 centuries, the relationship between the people of Europe was based on the suspicious attitude towards anyone coming from the outside, as if they were willing to take away our treasured goods and identity. We are used to thinking of our identity as if it were under constant threat. We must defend it, we must protect it, to preserve its authenticity. The Slovenian philosopher, Slavoj Żiźek, who has succeeded in delivering his thesis to a global audience, says that our fears towards others make us feel greater than we actually are: if someone is willing to take our possessions from us, then our identity seems to be a more valuable asset. And this is Quite true. This paranoiac vision has continued to thrive with the construction of the European Union's symbols. It is not unusual to think of Europe as a privileged island, the entrance to which reQuires an assessment of merits. Feeling European, and the desire to be European, is not a sufficient condition of being European. A European can only be someone who “deserves” it. The pressure of North African immigrants willing to make their Euro­ pean dream come true is confronted with the reality of European govern­ ments enhancing the impenetrability of our outer borders. And the more they are protected, the more fragile the ships which plague the strait of Gi­ braltar or head towards Lampedusa are. Dead bodies appear on the beach­ es from time to time. And when finally some of these youngsters make their way to Spain, France or Italy, they bitterly discover that their new life has little to do with the dreams they imagined they would achieve on the other side of the Mediterranean. This situation may sound familiar to those who are old enough to re­ member the world before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Western Europe also looked like a mythical paradise - but in most cases just turned out to be a disappointment. Drago Janćar, another Slovenian writer, wrote his novel, Katarina, the turkey and the Jesuit,2 shortly before the accession of Slovenia to the e u in which he depicted the pilgrimage of Slovenian peasants to Cologne to adore the golden coffer of its cathedral. Let’s look at Janćar’s irony! The golden coffer of Cologne is the imaginary centre of the world, which in fact doesn’t exist and to which one can never arrive. The centre of Europe does not exist. The characters of Jancar’s novel are not more or less mature because they find treasure or fail to find it, but because 2 Drago Jancar, Katarina, pav injezuit, Ljubljana 2000. 22 I Simona Śkrabec they made a strenuous journey, and overcame the demanding proof of crossing the Alps, the mighty mountains that separated them from their neighbours. If someone asked me what Central Europe is today, I would feel in­ clined to reply that it is a long Quest to nowhere, because in fact, it is to learn how to live without having to escape, how to build relations based on trust and confidence, it is the difficult search of enduring relationships and how to avoid situations that can put those relationships at stake or even destroy them. The Balkan Peninsula is nowadays still present in our minds as a maze of prejudice and topics. The war in the 1990s produced a real Gordian knot and the time has come to try to untangle it. It is not only necessary to know the historical facts well, but also to know and understand the reasons why so many aspects of those wars were a reflection of ideological discourses in the Balkans, as well as in Europe in general. The Balkans is an uncomfortable reality because what happened on that peninsula could happen in many other corners of Europe: we all know this, but we refuse to acknowledge it. This is why we feel reassured by repeating that the situation in the Balkans is so peculiar that it is incom­ prehensible to outsiders, because the Balkan people are sort of barbar­ ians with ancestral reciprocal hatreds that explain their bloody wars. But these arguments are nothing but false. What caused the Yugoslav wars in the 1990s is a very European concept. Industrialisation brought with it the dream of a homogeneous society. Ernst Gellner3 has asserted that advanced societies need to be homoge­ neous. Only with a larger market made of eQual citizens can more progress be expected. The motto would be, therefore, “to homogenise to progress . The problem is, however, that Yugoslav people, especially the Serbs as well as the Croats, took this motto too literally and tried to eradicate their differences with all their might and with extreme violence: first they confronted their neighbours, and then tried to root out and destroy their differences from within their own communities. No opposition could be tolerated.4 Everything became simplified: Ours is good, theirs is bad. With such a mentality of continued confrontation it is impossible to build 3 Ernst Gellner, ‘‘Nationalism and the two forms of cohesion in complex societies , in: Cul­ ture, Identity and Politics, Cambridge 1987, pp. 6-30. 4 Senadin Musabegovid, Rat. Konstrukcija totalitarnog tijela. Sarajevo 2008. The 1st Heritage Forum of Central Europe | 23 any kind of common future. When paranoia takes hold of a community, the results are devastating. Tito’s Yugoslavia was a continued celebration of "the Victory”. The lead­ ers never stopped recalling that we had won and how lucky we were to live in such a free, prosperous and happy country, bound by destiny to “brotherhood and unity”. But the rhetoric of victory had disastrous conseQuences. All that be­ longed to the past could be used superficially, without having to pay any regard to the real seQuence of causes and effects. The past’s only use was to demonstrate the origins of the victors. All that looked contradictory with this narrative had to be forgotten, pushed aside, hidden and forbid­ den.5 Anything which could threaten the status quo was not even allowed to exist. Historical characters, facts and symbols can be pulled out of their context and turned into legends and myths. If communism struggled to re-write history so that all apparent causes and effects would converge in the inevitable victory of the revolution, the nationalism of Yugosla­ via in the 1990s used the same mechanism but changed the heroes: only that which is “ours” is worth existing, all other pasts had to be destroyed. Literally destroyed!6 What, if not the aim of destruction, fuelled the ter­ rible fury employed to wipe out Vukovar from the map, or to keep Sara­ jevo under the inhuman siege of bombs and snipers for many months? What was the use of shelling the old city of Dubrovnik or knocking down the Ottoman bridge in Mostar? What else but the literal destruction of memory could have been the premeditated purpose of the destruction of those cities? Those soldiers fought against culture. Culture is always a hybrid, a mix­ ture of influences, traditions and innovation. Culture cannot be built on the purity of blood: it is just not possible.

Load more

  7

Copy Link