Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2014 Neither Peasant nor Farmer: Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000 Diković, Jovana Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-102960 Journal Article Originally published at: Diković, Jovana (2014). Neither Peasant nor Farmer: Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000. Martor:149-163. Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer. Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000 Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000 Jovana Dikovic Ph.D. Candidate at the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology University of Zurich AbstrAct Keywords 'is paper tries to point to the current problems of Serbian peasantry. Even Peasant, farmer, transformations, though the title indicates that the paper deals predominantly with identity Serbia, Vojvodina, Gaj issues of Serbian peasants, yet it rather depicts and explains a deeper, complex and layered process that has been influencing their identity vagueness. It reveals the historical, political and social background of the process through the entire 20th century and their repercussions on peasant identity. Special attention, though, is devoted to the period a%er 2000, when Serbian agriculture was promised new paths of professional development within the new democratic governments. Questioning and re-examination of officially-proclaimed profes- sionalization of agriculture and its progress make, therefore, the main focus of this paper. erbian villages have remained beyond Yugoslavia. However, the village remained broader anthropological interests in neglected because of the primacy of studies Sthe second half of the 20th century. of nationalism and the investigation of the During the 1960s and at the beginning of social and political consequences of the war. the 1970s, there was partially increased in- However, as Dorondel and Şerban no- terest of foreign anthropologists in this re- tice in the introduction to this volume, the gion. A few social anthropologists - mostly general problem not only with Serbian, but from the United States of America - Joel M. also with South-Eastern European peasant- Halpern, Eugene A. Hammel and Chris- ry, is that its social and political history is topher C. Gaffney conducted a fieldwork widely neglected by peasant studies, despite research in Yugoslavia and among other the fact that it still does make a significant fellow countries in Serbia. Halpern (1963, percentage of population in these countries. 1972) mostly published articles on peas- Even the attempts of the communist regime’ antry and a monograph about a Serbian vil- to modernize the countryside in this area, lage in Šumadija (central Serbia). Gaffney mainly through collectivization, expropria- (1979) published an article on a former Ger- tion and forced industrialization, have not man village in the Bačka region (Vojvodina lead to the disappearance of the peasantry province). Hammel (1969 a, b, c,) wrote sev- from any of these countries’ (Dorondel and eral articles on kinship and traditional fam- Şerban, 3). Many factors might be in play: ily relationships in urban and rural areas. economic – permanent national or recent A%er this period, almost total anthropolog- global economic crises which were induced ical silence had arisen which lasted until the by unstable and corrupt governments; po- 1990s when Serbia again became the “top- litical factors – wars, civil rebellions, au- ic” due to the civil war and dissolution of thoritarian governments; institutional ones 149 Jovana Diković – underdeveloped institutions of democra- to the historical overview of the main as- cy and the rule of the law. Yet all of them did pects of the agrarian reforms conducted have tremendous impact on current demo- in the 20th century. 'e second section graphic trends in rural areas (see Bryceson presents an introduction into local setting et al. 2000; Spoor 2012; 2009, 26-28). of Gaj village in the South-Eastern Banat In Serbia, for instance, rural dwellers region in Vojvodina province, where field- make 43,6%, while in Vojvodina province - work research has been conducted. 'e vil- which will be of special concern here - they lage of Gaj is taken as an example of a rela- make 43,33% of the overall population (RS tively prosperous Serbian village where all Ministarstvo poljoprivrede 2009, 8). 'is pa- controversy of the latest agricultural trans- per, therefore, represents an attempt to gain formation is obvious and deeply rooted in a closer insight into the current state of the society2. 'e first part of the third section Serbian countryside and its population, and is devoted to the theoretical overview of the to emphasize the main trajectories of the lat- notion of “peasantry” from the perspective est rural transformation and development. of the urban-rural continuum. 'is sheds 'e paper has two tasks. 'e first is to light on the whole complexity of the notion highlight and summarize the main aspects of peasantry and its burden. Since one of of agrarian reforms in 20th century-Serbia, the transition aims of Serbian society from since there are limited national and interna- 2000 onwards was modernization and trans- tional anthropological sources on this top- formation of peasants into farmers with the 1) I am using agricultural producer ic. 'e second task is to present the general support of the state, this section in the sec- as value-neutral term, and as a ‘third transformation of Serbian agriculture a%er ond part also discusses why the process itself way’ between the 2000. Within the second task, special atten- is highly superficial and contradictory. 'e terms “peasant” and “farmer”, which have tion will be devoted to problematizing the last section tries to demonstrate how cooper- strong symbolic connotations. imperatives of progress and modernization ation, i.e. ‘partnership’, between agricultural that have been imposed by state agricultural producers and the state functions on a daily 2) This paper partly reflects the topic of politics and strategy a%er 2000. basis. A few clustered examples of everyday my ongoing Ph.D. re- search that analyses 'e main argument of this paper is fairly strategies of people from Gaj aim to give the impact of official simple. Due to the lack of political and eco- more insight into the nature of this coopera- agricultural policy on everyday life, as nomic continuity since the first agrarian tion, i.e. ‘partnership’, which is based - as I well as discrepan- cies between the reform in 1919, Serbian agricultural devel- will argue further - on manipulative strate- official policy of rural opment has been first and foremost a po- gies from both sides. 'ese examples are also development and its actual accomplish- litical (ideological) project than the aim in chosen to bring closer the complex relation- ments since 2001. and of itself. Due to this fact, agricultural ship between the ‘patronising’ state and the The fieldwork in Gaj lasted from February producers1 mostly suffer from professional ‘demanding’ agricultural producers, and the until September 2013 and was based and identity disorientation, which has been ‘neglectful’ state and the ‘uncontrolled’ agri- on extensive par- blatantly obvious since 2000. I argue that cultural producers. Finally, the paper tries to ticipant observation and semi-structured this has had an effect on the perception of contribute to a better understanding of very interviews. semi-independency among village popu- vague professional and identity designation lations. More importantly, this has influ- of agricultural producers, bearing in mind enced the emergence of paired paradoxical their constant juggling with the state on one and very complex relationships between the side, and their identity on the other. state and agricultural producers. 'e first represents the relationship between the ‘pa- tronising’ state and the ‘demanding’ agri- A look back: Agrarian reforms cultural producers. 'e second presents the and Politics in 20th century-serbia relationship of the ‘neglectful’ state and the ‘uncontrolled’ agricultural producers. 'e agrarian question in the Kingdom of 'e first section of the paper is devoted the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1918-1941) 150 Neither Peasant, Nor Farmer. Transformations of Agriculture in Serbia after 2000 and, later on, in Socialist Yugoslavia (1945- ers. As for the beneficiaries of the agrarian 1991), was one of the most important issues reform, the following categories had prior- that was sometimes acquiring even ‘sacred’ ity: war veterans and army volunteers, colo- character (Milošević 2008). As every re- nists, landless people and poor domiciles. form, these were also ideologically-inspired According to Gaćeša (1995), this reform and driven within two completely different undoubtedly had a civil character, particu- political contexts. 'e First Agrarian Re- larly because it eliminated remains of feu- form was conducted in the interwar period dal ownership structure on the one side, from 1919 to 1941. 'e Second Agrarian Re- and, on the other side, it enabled continu- form was conducted from 1945 to 1953, but ing capitalist production relationships in it was officially in force until the adoption agriculture (238)4. 'is process changed the of the 1991 Republic Law that marked the ownership structure in Vojvodina province, 3) At the beginning end of existing regulation in agriculture im- as well as in other parts