Maria Todorova. Imagining the Balkans. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. xi + 257 pp. $49.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-19-508750-5.
Reviewed by Gale Stokes
Published on HABSBURG (September, 1997)
It is difcult to imagine a person more quali‐ Orient" is vague and intangible; 2) Orientalism is fed to write a book on how terms related to the a refuge from the alienation of industrialization, a concept "Balkan" have entered common usage metaphor for the forbidden--feminine, sensual, and achieved a certain meaning than Maria even sexual. Balkanism, on the other hand, is not Todorova. Professor Todorova was born and forbidden or sensual. It is male, primitive, crude, brought up in Bulgaria, received a Ph.D. from and disheveled; 3) Balkanism is a transitional con‐ Sofa University, lived in Greece, studied exten‐ cept, something not quite non-European, not a f‐ sively in Moscow, Leningrad, Paris, and Oxford, nal dichotomy; 4) the self-perception of Balkan speaks fuent German, and presently lives in the peoples is not colonial; 5) Orientalism posits Islam United States, where she works in English. In her as the other, whereas Balkanism deals with Chris‐ book she cites sources in English, German, tian peoples; 6) Orientalism is fundamentally French, Bulgarian, Greek, Serbo-Croatian, Turk‐ racist, categorizing non-white people, whereas ish, and Russian, and perhaps some I missed. In Balkanism deals with whites; and 7) Balkan self- other words, here is a person who has not only a identity is itself created against an oriental other. good fnger-tip feel for her native Balkans, but the Having solidly made this point, Todorova goes training, linguistic ability, and intellectual fre‐ on to chronicle the emergence of the idea of power to provide a systematic and enlightening Balkan, both as a concept of outsiders and as a study of how the Balkans are imagined. self-perception of insiders. Her chapters progress Contrary to what someone who had not read in a logical and orderly fashion from the discov‐ her previous work on the subject might initially ery of the Balkans in the early modern period, expect, Todorova argues that Balkanism is not an‐ through varied patterns of perception in the nine‐ other form of Orientalism, as Milica Bakic-Hayden teenth century, to the twentieth century invention has proposed.[1] Her reasons are that 1) the of "Balkan" and "Balkanization" as negative cate‐ Balkans are concrete, whereas the notion of "the gories, schimpfwoerter, as she calls them. Along H-Net Reviews the way she provides numerous insights into the During the Cold War era, Balkanism moderat‐ construction of categories. For example, she pro‐ ed as the terms Eastern Europe and Southeastern poses that the discovery of the Balkan Slavs as an Europe came into vogue. Todorova argues that the oppressed people in the mid to late nineteenth German form of the latter term was discredited century by British travelers was related to the Vic‐ during World War II, but she does not mention torian discovery of the poor. This suggestive ob‐ that in the postwar era it returned to respectabili‐ servation is related to two broad patterns of per‐ ty both in German (Suedost Forschungen, Suedost ception she observes during the nineteenth centu‐ Institut) and in English (the journal Southeastern ry, the aristocratic and the bourgeois. The former, Europe, for example). During the 1980s, a second held early in the nineteenth century, particularly formerly discredited term, Central Europe, by British travelers, sympathized with the Ot‐ reemerged as a discursive competitor. Todorova toman ruling class and the power they represent‐ understands "Central Europe" as a political phrase ed. The bourgeois view tended to sympathize with invented by certain intellectuals seeking a coun‐ the Balkan peoples, who were understood to be terweight to the term Eastern Europe. They con‐ perhaps backwards, but having the potential, at sidered the latter designation pejorative because least, of entering onto the linear highway of they considered "eastern" to refer to Russia and progress. the Soviet Union, which they claimed had its own, Todorova identifes several milestones in the unique historical trajectory that had little to do invention of the Balkans. The most important is with their past. Obviously, this analysis grew, in the early years of the twentieth century, when the signifcant measure, out of frustration with the term became associated with violence and politi‐ Soviet domination of their countries. Todorova's cal unrest. Events such as the confusing Macedo‐ objection to the term is that whereas it may have nian situation, the assassination of Alexander and been emancipatory for certain countries from Draga, the Bosnian crisis, assassinations in the Russia, it was not emancipatory for the Balkans, Balkans, the Balkan Wars, and Gavrilo Princip which were left entirely out of the discussion. For provided the raw material for a perception of the her "Central Europe" becomes an insidious con‐ Balkans as turbulent. Less clearly stated is the cept propagated by "secular zealots" who "have enormous role played in this perception by the ar‐ excellently internalized the cultural code of politi‐ rogant and condescending temper of the imperial‐ cally correct liberalism" (p. 152), but in the ist times. Just at the time of these Balkan events, process have posited the Balkans yet again as a the imperial powers were at the height of their peripheral other. feeling of superiority to the colonial peoples. In Todorova also argues, incorrectly I think, that this way there does seem to be a generic relation‐ the concept of Central Europe was not a region- ship between Balkanism and Orientalism, the cre‐ building notion, and that "concrete cooperation ation of a stereotypical other. Todorova knows failed to materialize" (p. 154). I think what she is well that Orientalism and Balkanism are not sim‐ referring to is the difculty of getting intellectuals ply "banal ethnocentrisms," as she puts it, but in various capital cities to interact with one anoth‐ structural elements of expansionist capitalism as er in a fruitful way, which may well be true. But it exploded through the world. Nevertheless, she the creation of the Central European Free Trade misses an opportunity to reinforce that point just Association, the Central European University, and at this crucial milestone in the development of the many bi- and multilateral organizations show that Balkan idea. more cooperation is going on now at the political and economic levels in Central Europe than ever before. This is not to say that Todorova is wrong
2 H-Net Reviews about the dichotomizing function of the idea of disorder, not a desirable richness of tradition and Central Europe. The success of Slovenia's strategy cultures. of redefning itself as Central European rather In the end, the prevalence of essentializing than Balkan demonstrates the community build‐ concepts like Balkanism come down to a question ing power of the idea of Central Europe, but at the of power. People living in strong states sneer, as same time it validates Todorova's point that the Todorova puts it, at those living in weak ones. At idea has formed itself in part against a Balkan the same time, however, I think Todorova over‐ other. does it when she argues that the "very existence One of Todorova's most powerful points con‐ of the diferent Balkan states was almost exclu‐ cerns the Wars of Yugoslav Succession. These sively regulated by great power considerations" wars brought back Balkanism with a vengeance. (p. 109). No one would deny the fundamental im‐ Even though it was only the Yugoslavs who were portance of the great powers both in regulating involved in the war, journalists called them the international position of the small Balkan Balkan wars and restored the term "Balkaniza‐ states, nor in the enormous impact their political, tion" to its unfortunate preeminence. But Todoro‐ cultural, and intellectual lives had on the region. va persuasively argues that these wars, rather But to completely deny any agency to these states than invoking processes that are unique to the is almost surely wrong. They came into existence Balkans--"these people have been fghting each by the exertions, sacrifces, and follies of many other for hundreds of years"--constitute instead people who believed that they were doing some‐ the ultimate Europeanization of the peninsula. thing grand and important, and who in many Homogenization has been a basic theme of Euro‐ ways were, whatever the disabilities under which pean history, not just in post-French Revolution‐ they operated and the disappointments one might ary times, but from the crusades, the reconquista, feel at some of the outcomes. the expulsion of Jews from England, and so forth. Actually, I doubt Todorova would disagree In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the with that point, but the question illuminates one turning of peasants into Frenchmen, the unifca‐ of the problems with her otherwise quite magnif‐ tion of Germany and Italy, the Holocaust, the cent book--its tendency to overstate, especially repositioning of Poland, and the recent hostility to when she disagrees with an analysis. Todorova is immigrants suggest that the drive to create ethni‐ harshly critical of Samuel Huntington, for exam‐ cally homogeneous states is not exclusively a ple, and his division of the world into competing Balkan phenomenon. Furthermore, as Todorova cultural elements. For Todorova, the diference points out, consolidation and homogenization between a general Western Christianity and a pu‐ took place in Europe before democratization. The tative Eastern Orthodoxy is not long-standing or notion of a multi-cultural state, such as the Day‐ theological but a recent construct of political sci‐ ton accords are attempting to restore to Bosnia, is ence. This will surprise scholars who have dealt a very new idea, emblematic of American domi‐ with the flioque question or the Council of Flo‐ nation of the international arena and of tenden‐ rence. If Todorova is suggesting that there is no cies of the past generation or so. Until recently, such thing as a general Western Christianity or a one of the most negative connotations of Balka‐ homogeneous Eastern Orthodoxy, one can only nism was precisely the ethnic variety of the re‐ agree, as can one with the indisputable fact that gion, what Joseph Roucek called "the handicap of Orthodoxy is Christian, not Islamic. But to suggest heterogeneity."[2] Middle class notions of order, that the theological diference between eastern regularity, and decorum saw ethnic confusion and and western versions of Christianity is somehow
3 H-Net Reviews merely an invention of Toynbee and Huntington, of an author's realization that these terms contain presumably in the service of privileging a homo‐ multitudes? Sometimes, although not often in this geneous notion of the West, fies in the face of book, accusations of "privileging" or "totalizing" centuries of diference. The real divide between or "essentialzing" are simply cliches expressing Orthodoxy and western Christianity, Todorova ar‐ the critic's disapproval of this or that interpretive gues, is not between cultures, but between rich stance, ofered without argument or proof, as if and poor.[3] Rather than dealing with the prob‐ the accusation in itself is sufcient. But we have lem of why, then, relatively undeveloped coun‐ to take the chance and do the best we can, not tries like Hungary, Croatia, and Slovakia are in‐ succumbing to either the despair of meaningless‐ cluded within the western cultural camp, she ness or the cliches of self defense. reaches the "inescapable conclusion" that Hunt‐ Oxford University Press published Todorova's ington's efort is only a mask to protect a rich book not only because of its erudition, the timely man's club. It is true that many have reached this nature of the questions it raises, and the skills of conclusion, but in my view it does not square with the author in presenting her views, but because the evidence nor with Huntington's argument. they believed it might prove useful in the class‐ The fnal question Todorova's book implicitly room. I think they were right. The book is full of poses is very difcult: how might it be possible to challenging ideas, forcefully presented opinions, write about diference? The linguistic turn of the references for further reading, and enlightening past ffteen years, if pursued to its fnal conclu‐ observations. It should make for an exciting class‐ sion, is a philosophy of despair. To totally accept room experience. the contingent and constructed quality of reality Notes: is to paralyze the writing of history. Todorova [1]. Milica Bakic-Hayden, Nesting Orien‐ does not pursue this tack. She argues that con‐ talisms: The Case of Former Yugoslavia, Slavic Re‐ trasting interpretations can be argued "in moder‐ view 54, 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 917-31; Internet: ate and convincing fashion" (p. 165). "It is, of http://ragnar.econ.uiuc.edu/~slavrev/upenn/win‐ course, not the existence of diference and its de‐ ter95/milica. html. piction that is objectionable," she writes further, "but how it is interpreted and harnessed in ideo‐ [2]. Joseph S. Roucek, Balkan Politics: Interna‐ logical models" (p. 173). But how is one to avoid tional Relations in No Man's Land (Westport, an ideological model, or, in plainer English, a Conn.: Greenwood, 1948), pp. 3, 7, as cited by point of view? Is anything written without one? At Todorova. the very least, if one is to speak at all, one must [3]. If we go back to 1054, the traditional date use generalizations. We don't quibble over the use given for the break between the Orthodox and of the term "table," even though we are aware of Catholic churches, the rich/poor divide would ac‐ the vast varieties of objects that go under that tually be in the opposite direction! name. But in today's atmosphere, in which every Copyright (c) 1997 by H-Net, all rights re‐ ethnic, national, and regional term is sufused served. This work may be copied for non-proft with an emotional charge, the stakes are much educational use if proper credit is given to the re‐ higher. Is there any way to use terms like "The viewer and to HABSBURG. For other permission, West," "Balkan," "Central Europe," or "Southeast please contact
4 H-Net Reviews
If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/habsburg
Citation: Gale Stokes. Review of Todorova, Maria. Imagining the Balkans. HABSBURG, H-Net Reviews. September, 1997.
URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=1320
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
5