US AND THEM Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies Edited by Ivana Spasić Predrag Cvetičanin Centre for Empirical Cultural Studies of South-East Europe The Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory of the University of Belgrade All rights reserved Published in 2013. Reviewers Jessica R. Greenberg, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana Mirko Petrić, Department of Sociology, University of Zadar Slobodan Naumović, Department of Ethnology and Anthropology, University of Belgrade Graphic design Ivan Stojić Printed in Serbia by Sven, Niš June 2013. Prepared within the framework of the Regional Research Promotion Programme in the Western Balkans (RRPP), which is run by the University of Fribourg upon a mandate of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, SDC, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. The views expressed in the papers are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent opinions of the SDC and the University of Fribourg. Contents Editors’ Introduction . 5 EXCLUDING THE OTHER IN THE BALKANS: FROM THE OTTOMAN TURK TO LGBTIQ . 17 Aleksandar Pavlović Naming/Taming the Enemy: Balkan Oral Tradition and the Formation of “the Turk” as the Political Enemy ................ 19 Réka Krizmanics Nation-Characterology of Dinko Tomašić ............................ 37 Irena Šentevska “Anything but Turban-folk”: the ‘Oriental Controversy’ and Identity Makeovers in the Balkans ...............................51 Anja Tedeško The Invisibility of LGBTIQ [People] between Legislative and Social Aspects in BIH .................................71 THE GEOGRAPHY OF SYMBOLIC DIFFERENCES: VILLAGE, TOWN, REGION . 85 Ana Ranitović Why do they call it Raška when they mean Sandžak? A Case Study of Regionalism in South-West Serbia .................... 87 Ana Aceska “Us” and “Them” in Post-War Mostar, Bosnia-Herzegovina ............. 105 Gábor Basch Settlers, Natives, and Refugees: Classificatory Systems and the Construction of Autochthony in Vojvodina .................. 119 THE VAGARIES OF ETHNICITY, RELIGION AND LANGUAGE . 133 Tamara Pavasović-Trošt The Complexity of Ethnic Stereotypes: A Study of Ethnic Distance among Serbian Youth. 135 Vladan Pavlović Miloš Jovanović “Language Nationalism” vs. “Language Cosmopolitanism”: Divisions in the Attitudes towards the Relation between Language and National Identity .................................... 165 Davor Marko Power Constellation(s), Symbolic Divisions and Media: Perception of Islam as a Personalized, “Minorized” and Subordinated Part of Serbian Society ............................... 179 IMAGINING POLITICAL COMMUNITY . 197 Ana Omaljev Constructing the Other/s: Discourses on Europe and Identity in the ‘First’ and the ‘Other’ Serbia ...................... 199 Ivana Spasić Tamara Petrović Varieties of “Third Serbia” ........................................ 219 Zoran Stojiljković Political Capital and Identities of Serbian Citizens .................... 245 Notes on Authors . 263 Editors’ Introduction Editors’ introduction This book issues from the project “Social and Cultural Capital in Serbia”, imple- mented between 2010 and 2012 by the Centre for Empirical Cultural Studies of South-East Europe. This project was carried out within the Regional Research Promotion Programme in the Western Balkans (RRPP), run by the University of Fribourg upon a mandate of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. While in the first year of the project our research was focused on the multi- dimensional social structure in Serbia, the resources (or capitals) social groups rely on, and strategies people pursue in their daily life, in the second year the primary goal was to identify the basic symbolic divisions in the Serbian society and discursive strategies used to construct, maintain, legitimize or contest these divisions. Using content analysis and discourse analysis we analyzed texts in three groups of media in Serbia: daily newspapers (the dailies Politika, Kurir and Danas), magazines (Vreme and NIN), and (semi)professional journals (Nova srpska politička misao and Peščanik) along with their websites, in the seven-year period from 2006 to 2012. We looked at how in these different types of media, aimed at different audiences, various kinds of symbolic divisions are instantiated – distinctions on the basis of wealth, morality, political orientation, gender and sexuality, ethnicity, religion, manners and taste, education, urbanity, or degree of “Orientalism”. Our primary interest lay in how these cleavages were constructed, represented and legitimized.1 Since our research interests are predominantly regional in scope, we were interested in exchanging experiences with colleagues from other Western Balkan societies. To this purpose, the conference “Us and Them – Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies” was held on 7 and 8 July 2012. The organizers were the Centre for Empirical Cultural Studies of South-East Europe and the Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory of the University of Belgrade. Nineteen papers were presented at the Conference, and a selection of these presentations make up the core of this volume. In addition, in the late 2012 a call for papers was issued which also brought us a number of interesting papers not previously presented at the Conference. In selecting the contributions to this volume, we have sought to encompass various theoretical approaches and a wide geographical distribution of the phenomena under study, in order to present the multifarious symbolic divisions, as well as certain sore spots, in the societies of the Western Balkans. The study of symbolic divisions has a long tradition in the social sciences. Among the founding fathers of sociology, Emile Durkheim and Max Weber took keen interest in classification systems and symbolic boundaries these sys- tems establish. While Durkheim focused on the relation of such boundaries to communal identity and the moral order in society [Durkheim et Mauss 1903; 1 The results of these inquiries will be published in another volume which is forthcoming. 5 Us and Them - Symbolic Divisions in Western Balkan Societies Durkheim 1995 (1912)], Weber was rather concerned with their influence on the emergence and reproduction of social inequality [Weber 1978 (1922)]. In Saussure’s wake, structuralism [Lévi-Strauss 1963 (1958)] developed a power- ful framework for identifying and interpreting fundamental cultural binaries. Mary Douglas [1966] famously redefined the notions of purity and pollution, while Fredrik Barth [1969] saw the boundary between self and other, Us and Them, as the crucial element in the constitution of ethnicity. In sociology, the problematique of symbolic divisions was revived by Pierre Bourdieu [1977, 1979, 1991, 1997] who with his conceptual innovations of symbolic capital, symbolic power, and symbolic violence, as well as with his strongly culturalized class theory, created a solid base for the sociological study of symbolism for decades to come. Symbolic interactionism contributed the indispensable concept of stigma [Goffman: 1963] and a set of research tools for examining in detail how symbolic differentiation is worked out at the micro level of everyday life [e.g. Becker: 1963]. Michèle Lamont, with her pioneering post-Bourdieuan Money, Morals, and Maners [1992; see also Lamont and Fournier /eds/ 1992] launched the “study of boundaries” as an explicit and specialized area of sociological endeavor [Lamont and Molnár 2002; Pachucki, Pendergrass and Lamont 2007]. Since then, she has been working on an increasingly broad research program, recently termed the “comparative sociology of valuation” [Lamont: 2012] or the study of “cultural repertoires” [Lamont and Thévenot eds. 2000]. In close proximity to Lamont’s position, a Paris-based group headed by Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot has been developing a pragmatic sociology of justification [Boltanski et Thévenot: 1991]. In the US, the neo-Durkheimian “strong program in cultural theory” of Jeffrey Alexander and his associates [Alexander 2003, 2006, Alexander, Giesen and Mast /eds/ 2006] seeks to provide an alternative to Bour- dieuan cultural analysis, assigning a much wider and more autonomous space for cultural structures and the creation of meaning in studying social realms such as inequality, politics, war, social change, or the social life of technology. These and other authors, in sociology, anthropology, social psychology, and philosophy (such as Andrew Abbot, Paul DiMaggio, Norbert Elias, Richard Jenkins, Charles Tilly, Eviatar Zerubavel, to name just a few), continue to study symbolic boundaries as a basis for establishing class, gender, and racial inequality, in constituting social groups, in distinguishing and hierarchizing cultural and other practices, and in the shaping of collective and individual identities – from national, ethnic, and religious to gender and sexual. Many of these approaches have been put to practice in the papers collected in this volume. In spite of all their variety in terms of ideas, concepts, methods, and substantive issues addressed, the papers also exhibit some unexpected but welcome similarities. To begin with, they are all interdisciplinary in character. Whether they combine cultural history and literary theory, discourse analysis 6 Editors’ Introduction and political philosophy, sociology and social psychology, or anthropology and media studies, none of them remains confined within the limits of a single disci- pline. This tells us something about the nature of symbolic divisions