A Time to Re-examine the Common A Time to Re-examine the Common NarrativeNarrative

A Critical Analysis of the Scholarship A Critical Analysis of the Scholarship on the War-related Feminist Activism on the War-related Feminist Activism in Belgrade and Zagreb in the 1990in Belgrade and Zagreb in the 1990’’ss

Ana MiAna Mišškovska Kajevska, PhDkovska Kajevska, PhD

European Conference on Politics and GenderEuropean Conference on Politics and Gender Uppsala, 11 June Uppsala, 11 June 20152015

ResearchResearch

Sociohistorical comparison of the war-related positionings, ie discourses and activities, of the Belgrade and Zagreb feminists in the 1990s (wars in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia)

- Which ethnic group can be a (sexual) perpetrator?

- Which ethnic group can be a (sexual) victim?

In-depth semi-structured interviews with 48 activists + organisational documents and articles from printed media

Questions, scholarship-Questions, scholarship-basedbased

Were the positionings in Belgrade the same as those in Zagreb? Were the positionings in 1991-1995 (Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina) the same as those in 1998-1999 (NATO and Kosovo)?

Did the Belgrade feminists split on antinationalist and nationalist at the same time and in the same way as the Zagreb ones?

What did those terms actually refer to? Did they mean the same in Belgrade and Zagreb?

Findings 1Findings 1

The situation in the first half of the 1990s differed from that in the second half of the 1990s.

Some similarities between the intra-feminist dynamics in Belgrade and those in Zagreb, but also significant differences

In both cities a split among the feminists, but not at the same time and in the same way

Findings 2Findings 2

The most commonly used terms in the scholarship, 'antinationalist' and 'nationalist', were employed only by the antinationalist feminists. The nationalist ones used a different terminology.

In both cities: 'antinationalist' self-ascribed, 'nationalist' ascribed-to term power difference in naming.

'Antinationalist' and 'nationalist' did not mean the same in Belgrade and Zagreb.

Scholarship 1Scholarship 1Presence of recurring information, uncritically

referenced from the same few older works, without being checked against information from additional, new research

Such evaluative efforts needed: - Many silent places and (partially) incorrect and imprecise formulations and claims

- Many of the oft-quoted works written in the war-period or very soon afterwards: no time distance and based on limited information

Scholarship 2Scholarship 2

The intra-feminist split only somewhat described, but not theorised

Using Bourdieu feminists, besides advocating an end to the wars and war rapes, offering assistance to the victims and demanding persecution of the perpetrators, also aimed at securing legitimacy for their own war-related positionings.

Terms treated as neutral, objective descriptions of the war-related positionings. Instead, an essential part of the struggle for legitimacy among the feminists

Scholarship 3Scholarship 3

Scholars usually took sides, but only implicitly: some feminists mentioned, others ignored, or some only praised, others only criticised

Scholarship politically biased, not impartial; the (foreign and local) authors and their works part of the struggle for legitimacy

Very limited presence – close to absence – of the voices of the nationalist feminists and the terms which they used

In conclusionIn conclusionContext, ie time and place, matters. Much

caution is needed when drawing analogies between the (feminism-related) developments in the post-Yugoslav republics in the 1990s.

Critical approach necessary even

- regarding the recurring claims possible existence of partial and partially true information

- when the used claims and classifications seem at first glance value-free possible concealed power differences and struggles for legitimacy