Svetozar Stojanovi6Institute for Philosophy and Social TheoryBelgrade, Yugoslavia

uDK342.lOriginalni naudni rad

NATION, NATIONALISM AND CITIZENISM

Abstract: From among ,,family resemblance" -based groups called nations

it is ltossible to isolate two opposite ,,ideal types" . One is the statc-tcffitorial l)/re,

the ot her the crt ltural-ethnic r1,;;e.

The meaning of ,,ruttionalism" can best be seen in situation of conflici of

national claims . Thus I define nationalism as lavoring onc nation ovcr anothcr in

such a conflicl Depending on whether rftls favoring takes place ( I ) when both

nations are cqually cntitled to their claims or (2) when the former is lcss entitled rcr

its claim than the latter, two kintls of nationalism should he clearly distinguished. It

is only the second sense that oug,ht to be evaluated ncgativcly. It is typicalJbr

nationalists in the negative sense to apply doublc standards and thcrcby violate thc

ethical requircment of universalization.DistingtLishing behpeen two kinds of nationalism in a nation vis-i-vis othcr

nation(s) context should be extended within nations themselves. There, positive

nationalism becomes negative when co-national.t are required to subordinate all o|their identitie.s, interests, rights,vaLues, goals, ideals, and standards to those ofthenation, and in the extreme case are called upon to completely suhmerge themselvesinto the nation. Instead of being open, inclttsive, voluntary,flexible, dynam.ic, andcomplex, such a national identity is closed, exclusive, compulsive, rigitl, stutic, andsimple.

infte statc-tcrritorial concept oJ nation may also be termed citizenist (orcivic), since it encompasses all citizens oJ a country. Because massive cultural-othnicnationelisms acted as an important generator of the tragecly of SFRY and FRY,some critics mistakenly believe that a citizenist (or civic) attitude and practice isbydcllnition immune to the negative nationalist temptation. Such a naivetd promptedme some years ago to coin the term ,,citizenism" . A democratic state is obliged totreat all ofits citiz.en.s equally regardless of their cultural-ethnic nationality. Un-doubtedly, the citizenist (civic) principle of ,,one citiz.en-one vote" stands as animmense achievement of modern civiliiation-indeed, without it denocracy is not

ltossible. Yet realization of this principle is not in itselJ'a sfficient warrant againstthe dominution of one culturul-ethnic nution over other such nutions or its neglectancl even discrimination against it. When this lnppens, tlrc principle of citizenshipin the positive sense tltrns into its opltosite, citizcnist nationalism (nationalist cit-izenism).

Shallow cartography and cartoanalysis is most oJien motivated by the cit-izenist viewpoinl" the practice and imageology (my coinage definetl in the text) tfuttneglects, forgets, sL.ppresses, and conceals cultural-cthnic national divisions . I plead

for a netv, in-dcpth cartography and cartoanalysis. Multi-layered maps shoultl be

X

Fal(ro

-TL

N

Ju

I J

= .r)z-otsaE

NoFLU

a

made, reflecling linguistic' ethnic' religior'ts, cttltural' economic' military' genocid'

a\... .setJiments . Shallow cattography ctntl cartoanalysis is one of the reasons politics

tentls to be rettctive ruthcr than prevenltve '

Key words: Nation, nationalism, citizen, citizenism' religi'tn' imugeology'

Yttsosl(lvia, Tito, tlSA' Germany, NATO '

l .What is nat ion?

Persistent attempts to establish necessary and sfficient iden-

tffiers (,differentia specifica") for large social groups (,,genus prox-

imum") callecl nations have failed. Most often it was argued that

nations are distinguished from each other by language, religion,

ethnic descent, state, territory, history, tradition, custom, values'symbols.... It is easy to come up with examples that discredit suchattempts. Serbs, Croats and Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims, forexample, are three separate nations despite shared language andcommon Slavic descent. Russians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Romanians,Armenians. Serbs, Macedonians... are Eastern Orthodox Christians(except for the atheists and reiigious agnostics), yet they are un-doubtedly different nations. For centuries, Jews had no state oftheir own, yet hardly anyone disputed their national distinctness.After all, even today, an overwhelming majority of national groups

do not have their own state. Finally, nations thatrcoincide withcitizenship, such as the U.S., are to be found orily in a smallerportion of the world.

I believe that in the category ,,nation" we can include onlysuch large social groups that share, to borrow a Wittgensteinianterm, ,,family resemblance" rather than those that share "necessaryand sufficient identifiers" . Self identification as members of thegroup-through the feeling of belonging and attachment to that hls-

torically continuous groupwith its own name and experience as a

separate community-is the only necessary (but not sufficient) iden-tifier.

From among these ,,family resemblance"-based groups it ispossible to isolate two opposite ,,ideal types". One would be theitete-territoriat type, the other the cultural-ethnic type . Reality, ofcourse, does not coincide wholly with these types. Thus, for example,even two very different notions of nation, American (state-

tenitorial) and German (cultural-ethnic), overlap to some degree.

l 4

Language as a typical identifier of the cultural-ethnic nationserves an important function in the state-territorial one too. In orderfor immigrants to become United States citizens, and thus Amer-icans, they must demonstrate at least elementary knowledge of theEnglish language. In addition to language, similar national-integrative function is performed by socialization and educationbased on U.S. history, its traditions, customs, values, symbols.Another similarity with the cultural-ethnic type of nation is thegrowing tendency of Americans to stress their specificities asAfrican-American, Mexican-American, Polish-American, Japane-se-American, Italian-American, etc.

Germans (and the nations of Central, East and South-EastEurope under their considerable influence) developed a cultural-'ethnic concept of nation. This does not mean, however, that theydo not recognize that the territorial state has a great, sometimeseven decisive, role in constituting and preserving national identityand continuity.

I say c u ltur a/- ethnic nation rather th an e t hni c - clltural n ationbecause common ethnic descent is much more of a fiction than isshared culture. Indeed, what is the likelihood that a nation (unlessit has long existed in complete, uninterrupted isolation from othernations) is actually descended from the same ancestors even adozen generations back, let alone longer? How much ,,shared blood,,do ordinary Germans have with their former monarchs and nobles?Isn't this skepticism regarding common ethnic genealogy justifiedalso in the case of the Serbs and their dynasties? (After all, petar IIKaradjordjevic and his two brothers were born of a Romanianmother.)

Both described concepts of nation, the state-territorial andthe cultural-ethnic ones, are sociogenetic, historical and realistic.The purely ethnic concept of natiogenesis, on the contrary, has abiogenetic, ahistorical and mythical character (this illusion of thenation as a,,community of blood and soil" has often led to genocide).

So, is nation a construct or is it a Riven? At one end arethose who deconstruct nation, claiming it is merely an ,,imagined,,or even ,,artificial" community. Others deterministically proclaimit to be a community fully given by nature, fate, history (and some-times even God). My position is somewhat closer to constructivism.Fortunately, this is a false dilemma, for nations are historicallyconstructed and built, not in an entirely arbitrarv manner. and cer-

X

F*tl(Io

u-N

Lr

l 5

= .r)z-otsaE

NoFLU

a

made, reflecling linguistic' ethnic' religior'ts, cttltural' economic' military' genocid'

a\... .setJiments . Shallow cattography ctntl cartoanalysis is one of the reasons politics

tentls to be rettctive ruthcr than prevenltve '

Key words: Nation, nationalism, citizen, citizenism' religi'tn' imugeology'

Yttsosl(lvia, Tito, tlSA' Germany, NATO '

l .What is nat ion?

Persistent attempts to establish necessary and sfficient iden-

tffiers (,differentia specifica") for large social groups (,,genus prox-

imum") callecl nations have failed. Most often it was argued that

nations are distinguished from each other by language, religion,

ethnic descent, state, territory, history, tradition, custom, values'symbols.... It is easy to come up with examples that discredit suchattempts. Serbs, Croats and Bosnia and Herzegovina Muslims, forexample, are three separate nations despite shared language andcommon Slavic descent. Russians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Romanians,Armenians. Serbs, Macedonians... are Eastern Orthodox Christians(except for the atheists and reiigious agnostics), yet they are un-doubtedly different nations. For centuries, Jews had no state oftheir own, yet hardly anyone disputed their national distinctness.After all, even today, an overwhelming majority of national groups

do not have their own state. Finally, nations thatrcoincide withcitizenship, such as the U.S., are to be found orily in a smallerportion of the world.

I believe that in the category ,,nation" we can include onlysuch large social groups that share, to borrow a Wittgensteinianterm, ,,family resemblance" rather than those that share "necessaryand sufficient identifiers" . Self identification as members of thegroup-through the feeling of belonging and attachment to that hls-

torically continuous groupwith its own name and experience as a

separate community-is the only necessary (but not sufficient) iden-tifier.

From among these ,,family resemblance"-based groups it ispossible to isolate two opposite ,,ideal types". One would be theitete-territoriat type, the other the cultural-ethnic type . Reality, ofcourse, does not coincide wholly with these types. Thus, for example,even two very different notions of nation, American (state-

tenitorial) and German (cultural-ethnic), overlap to some degree.

l 4

Language as a typical identifier of the cultural-ethnic nationserves an important function in the state-territorial one too. In orderfor immigrants to become United States citizens, and thus Amer-icans, they must demonstrate at least elementary knowledge of theEnglish language. In addition to language, similar national-integrative function is performed by socialization and educationbased on U.S. history, its traditions, customs, values, symbols.Another similarity with the cultural-ethnic type of nation is thegrowing tendency of Americans to stress their specificities asAfrican-American, Mexican-American, Polish-American, Japane-se-American, Italian-American, etc.

Germans (and the nations of Central, East and South-EastEurope under their considerable influence) developed a cultural-'ethnic concept of nation. This does not mean, however, that theydo not recognize that the territorial state has a great, sometimeseven decisive, role in constituting and preserving national identityand continuity.

I say c u ltur a/- ethnic nation rather th an e t hni c - clltural n ationbecause common ethnic descent is much more of a fiction than isshared culture. Indeed, what is the likelihood that a nation (unlessit has long existed in complete, uninterrupted isolation from othernations) is actually descended from the same ancestors even adozen generations back, let alone longer? How much ,,shared blood,,do ordinary Germans have with their former monarchs and nobles?Isn't this skepticism regarding common ethnic genealogy justifiedalso in the case of the Serbs and their dynasties? (After all, petar IIKaradjordjevic and his two brothers were born of a Romanianmother.)

Both described concepts of nation, the state-territorial andthe cultural-ethnic ones, are sociogenetic, historical and realistic.The purely ethnic concept of natiogenesis, on the contrary, has abiogenetic, ahistorical and mythical character (this illusion of thenation as a,,community of blood and soil" has often led to genocide).

So, is nation a construct or is it a Riven? At one end arethose who deconstruct nation, claiming it is merely an ,,imagined,,or even ,,artificial" community. Others deterministically proclaimit to be a community fully given by nature, fate, history (and some-times even God). My position is somewhat closer to constructivism.Fortunately, this is a false dilemma, for nations are historicallyconstructed and built, not in an entirely arbitrarv manner. and cer-

X

F*tl(Io

u-N

Lr

l 5

il

z-oa(E

Notll

a

tainly notex nihitobat rather from given materials that have grown

overtime into their specific features. To use, mutatis mt'fiandis,

Marx's insight about history from the l8' Brumaire of Louis

Bonaparte'. People make their own nation, but not after their own

will and not in the circumstances of their own choosing, but rather

in the immediate circumstances they happen to find that are given

and inherited. From the fact that somebody was accidentally born

to his/her particular family and not some other-and consequentlyinto a particular national milieu-in no way follows that he/she

will relate to it casually. School and the wider social environmentwill still further socialize, educate and culturate him/her into his

nation. Only as an adult will a person perhaps be in a position

critically to evaluate (or re-evaluate) and define (or redefine) his/hergiven national framework.

2. Some thoughts on the relation between nationand mono the is tic r e li gions

Oftentimes Judaism, Christianity and Islam are major com-ponents of national identities. As such, they offer not only adirect

iranscendent guqrentee of individual immortality but also strength-en that guaranteefor those who belong to national communities'

The conversion (real or self-styled) of qqitq a number of

communist atheists and agnostics into self-declared religious be-

lievers, and communist internationalists into ardent adherents of

their particular nations is intriguing.Many commentators have compared the communism of the

revolutionary stage with early Christianity, even classified it as a

form of religiosity. The role of God, of course, was supplanted by

a perfect Future, for which many lives were sacrificed. The early

communists had no illusion that they themselves would live to see

the classless society, but they believed they would still be part of it

in some moral and spiritual fashion. The similarity with christianfaith in this regard is unmistakable. Unlike Christianity, however,

communism did not have a genuine metaphysical-transcendent ref-

erence point, therefore it could not be transmitted to more than one

or two successive generations. The efforts to sustain communismas a sort of quasi-religion by sanctifying the embalmed bodies of

communist leaders in mausoleums did not carry over to new gener-

ations.

1 6

Some metamorphoses in the life of Josip Broz Tito are alsoinstructive. As he aged and was intimately faced with the inev-itability of death, some ,,undesirable" religious and national layersprotruded from the depths of his youth. In 1953, after the burial ofBoris Kidric, one of their Politbureau comrades, Milovan Diilascomplained to Tito that ,,After death there is nothing... Tito snappedback: ,,How do you know there is nothing!" Wasn't this an agnos-dc-even a believer-suddenly breaking through and speaking fromthe mouth of a pronounced atheist? Was this the reason why Titoordered that his gravestone not be adorned with the usual communist-atheist symbols? Could this possibly had something to do withTito's national self-identification as a croat in 1964, after callinehimself a Yugoslav for at least the previous twenty years? Drawin!close to the end of his life he publicly boasted that he never sisneda single death sentence. The real truth, of course, was the oppo"site:not only did he order individual death sentences, he broueht intobeing an entire system of mass executions during WWII uid

"u"nmore after taking power. True, he made others sign the death war_rants, as if he wanted to deceive God!

3. What is nationalism?

The meaning of ,,nationalism.. can best be seen in situationof conflict of national claims. Thus I define nationalism asfavoring'ne nation over enother in such a conflict. Depending onwtretheithis.fa.voring takes place (1) when both nations are equalry entitredto their claims or (2) when the former is less entitlecl or not entitledat all to its claim than the ratter, two kinds of nationalism shouldbe clearly distinguished.

I believe it is only the second sense that ought to be evaluatedrtegatively. Nationalism in the first sense is almoit universal, com-mon. sense, benign group partiality from which, presumably, anyrealistic social practice and conception-even one that is moraland ethical-must start. After all, what would self-iclentfficatirm,bektnging, attachment anel loyaltyto a nation mean at all if not thisminimum predilection? No one can persuasively disqualify suchbias as ,,national egotism.,,

1, Those people who even in the position of equally vctlicl enti_

Itemenrc are not concerned with the interests of their own nation

X

F{t

t

o

a

oN

J

TL

l t

il

z-oa(E

Notll

a

tainly notex nihitobat rather from given materials that have grown

overtime into their specific features. To use, mutatis mt'fiandis,

Marx's insight about history from the l8' Brumaire of Louis

Bonaparte'. People make their own nation, but not after their own

will and not in the circumstances of their own choosing, but rather

in the immediate circumstances they happen to find that are given

and inherited. From the fact that somebody was accidentally born

to his/her particular family and not some other-and consequentlyinto a particular national milieu-in no way follows that he/she

will relate to it casually. School and the wider social environmentwill still further socialize, educate and culturate him/her into his

nation. Only as an adult will a person perhaps be in a position

critically to evaluate (or re-evaluate) and define (or redefine) his/hergiven national framework.

2. Some thoughts on the relation between nationand mono the is tic r e li gions

Oftentimes Judaism, Christianity and Islam are major com-ponents of national identities. As such, they offer not only adirect

iranscendent guqrentee of individual immortality but also strength-en that guaranteefor those who belong to national communities'

The conversion (real or self-styled) of qqitq a number of

communist atheists and agnostics into self-declared religious be-

lievers, and communist internationalists into ardent adherents of

their particular nations is intriguing.Many commentators have compared the communism of the

revolutionary stage with early Christianity, even classified it as a

form of religiosity. The role of God, of course, was supplanted by

a perfect Future, for which many lives were sacrificed. The early

communists had no illusion that they themselves would live to see

the classless society, but they believed they would still be part of it

in some moral and spiritual fashion. The similarity with christianfaith in this regard is unmistakable. Unlike Christianity, however,

communism did not have a genuine metaphysical-transcendent ref-

erence point, therefore it could not be transmitted to more than one

or two successive generations. The efforts to sustain communismas a sort of quasi-religion by sanctifying the embalmed bodies of

communist leaders in mausoleums did not carry over to new gener-

ations.

1 6

Some metamorphoses in the life of Josip Broz Tito are alsoinstructive. As he aged and was intimately faced with the inev-itability of death, some ,,undesirable" religious and national layersprotruded from the depths of his youth. In 1953, after the burial ofBoris Kidric, one of their Politbureau comrades, Milovan Diilascomplained to Tito that ,,After death there is nothing... Tito snappedback: ,,How do you know there is nothing!" Wasn't this an agnos-dc-even a believer-suddenly breaking through and speaking fromthe mouth of a pronounced atheist? Was this the reason why Titoordered that his gravestone not be adorned with the usual communist-atheist symbols? Could this possibly had something to do withTito's national self-identification as a croat in 1964, after callinehimself a Yugoslav for at least the previous twenty years? Drawin!close to the end of his life he publicly boasted that he never sisneda single death sentence. The real truth, of course, was the oppo"site:not only did he order individual death sentences, he broueht intobeing an entire system of mass executions during WWII uid

"u"nmore after taking power. True, he made others sign the death war_rants, as if he wanted to deceive God!

3. What is nationalism?

The meaning of ,,nationalism.. can best be seen in situationof conflict of national claims. Thus I define nationalism asfavoring'ne nation over enother in such a conflict. Depending onwtretheithis.fa.voring takes place (1) when both nations are equalry entitredto their claims or (2) when the former is less entitlecl or not entitledat all to its claim than the ratter, two kinds of nationalism shouldbe clearly distinguished.

I believe it is only the second sense that ought to be evaluatedrtegatively. Nationalism in the first sense is almoit universal, com-mon. sense, benign group partiality from which, presumably, anyrealistic social practice and conception-even one that is moraland ethical-must start. After all, what would self-iclentfficatirm,bektnging, attachment anel loyaltyto a nation mean at all if not thisminimum predilection? No one can persuasively disqualify suchbias as ,,national egotism.,,

1, Those people who even in the position of equally vctlicl enti_

Itemenrc are not concerned with the interests of their own nation

X

F{t

t

o

a

oN

J

TL

l t

X

Fal

;-l-L

N

=r

one's giving in to the negative nationalistic temptation is incompa-rably greater when his/her own nation is at issue.

It is typical for nationalists in the negative sense to applycktuble stundartls urtd therelry violute the ethical requirement ofunive rsal iz.atiort. For example, Croatian nationalists support a dis_tinct ,,political-territorial entity" of Croats in Bosnia and Herzesov-ina (Herzeg-Bosnia) or even their full secession, and at the Jametime derry that right to the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, letalone in Croatia (Krajina). Serbian nationalists, on the other hand,support those rights of Serbs, but they deny it to Albanians inKosovo. As for Albanian nationalists, they support Albanian rightsto secession in Kosovo, but deny it to Serbs in Croatia and Bosniaand Herzegovina. Nationalists (meta-nationalists) in the U.S. sup_port such Albanian position. on the other hand, secessionist aspiri-tions of the Kurds in Turkey receive no support from those sameU,S. circles, although Kurds have no state of their own, whereasAlbanians do (Albania). As a justification for the application ofopposite c:riteria to two essentially identical cases U.S. nationalistsusually say that Turkey is, as a member of NATO, of vital imDortancefor u.s. national interests. This is (meta-)nationalism of doublestandards par excellence.

The dictum ,,Put your own house in ordery'rsf, is oftenmisinterpreted and misused. It does not imply a moral duty to becritical exclusively toward the nationalism of one's own nation.Indeed, those who display indifference (or even scorn) toward theirown,,national house" have no right to appeal to this dictum. Whatis more, they should explain in which senie it istheir house at all!

Unfortunately,,,Yugoslavism,. turned out to be an incompa_rably weaker construct than that of cultural-ethnic nations witiinYugoslavia. Anti-Serbian nationalists have invariably disqualifiedit as a covert form of Serbian hegemonism and unitarianism. Bethat as it may, those who continueidentifying nationally as ,,yugo-slavs" have to try as much as possible to put in order all nationalhouses of the former Yugoslavia, and not only the Serbian. Ofcourse, those who identify as ,,a-national cosmopolitans,,, shouldconsider all nations of the world as their own house to be put inorder.

Distinguishing between two kinds of nationaris m in a natirnv.ts-(l-vis ,ther nation(s) context should be extended within nationsthemselves. There, positive nationalism becomes negative when

1 9

12

z-oF

ft

N

Ft.lJ

o

more than those of other nations usually play into the hands of bad

nationalists in their midst. (After all, the world is nowadays con-

cerned even with the survival of endangered animal and plant spe-

cies.) If they do it exclusively to their personal detriment rather

than to the detriment of their nation they should be callednationalaltruists. National masochists are very different: they favor other

nations at both personal and national expense. And yet quite different

from both are anti-natittnctl egoists, let alone national profiteers

who derive personal gains from their ,,national generosity"' Behind

their rejection of nationalism there lies utter selfishness that takes

personal interests as the measuring-rod of all things.Naturally, there is no moral duty to live a life of an extreme

altruist. Even less can we expect for such an attitude to govern the

conduct of nations. Genuine internationalist principle does not re-

quire national self-denial , whether altruistic or masochistic. Rather,

ii only demands that nations do not favor themselves over those

who are more entitled to their claims.Many Serbs obsessively,,fight" Serbian nationalism. Some

of them used to do it already under communism, while others

began imitating them in post-communism.' As if nationalism were

noi a specific response to challenges and conflicts, and as if it

could be limited and controlled effectively by denunciation, instead

of realistic responses and solutions'Nationalism in the positive sense degeneralOs into national-

ism in the negative sense when self-identification and loyalty to

one's own nation becomes more important than considerations ofjustice and morality. Nationalism can assume quite malign forms

such as chauvinism and nazism when the principle thatn%tio nationi

Iupus est starts to reign supreme'In order for one's attitude to be rightly criticized as nationalist

one does not necessarily have to belong to the nation in question.

It would hardly be a reliable definition of an important concept, if

a person's attitude could not be judged as ,,nationalistic" until one

learned about his/her nationaliry. Of course, the likelihood of some-

1 In the 1980s. the remains oI the Scrbs thrown alive into karst sinkholcs

by the ustashi-Nazis during world war II wcre disintcrred and givcn a propcr

Eastern orthodox rcligious burial. In somc Serbian circlcs, howcvcr, this practicc

was indiscriminately and insensibly attackcd as nationalisticmanipulation, thercby

offcnding the descendants of those victims had ccrtainly fclt remorsc tbr not having

paid due respect to their relativcs much carlicr'

1 8

X

Fal

;-l-L

N

=r

one's giving in to the negative nationalistic temptation is incompa-rably greater when his/her own nation is at issue.

It is typical for nationalists in the negative sense to applycktuble stundartls urtd therelry violute the ethical requirement ofunive rsal iz.atiort. For example, Croatian nationalists support a dis_tinct ,,political-territorial entity" of Croats in Bosnia and Herzesov-ina (Herzeg-Bosnia) or even their full secession, and at the Jametime derry that right to the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, letalone in Croatia (Krajina). Serbian nationalists, on the other hand,support those rights of Serbs, but they deny it to Albanians inKosovo. As for Albanian nationalists, they support Albanian rightsto secession in Kosovo, but deny it to Serbs in Croatia and Bosniaand Herzegovina. Nationalists (meta-nationalists) in the U.S. sup_port such Albanian position. on the other hand, secessionist aspiri-tions of the Kurds in Turkey receive no support from those sameU,S. circles, although Kurds have no state of their own, whereasAlbanians do (Albania). As a justification for the application ofopposite c:riteria to two essentially identical cases U.S. nationalistsusually say that Turkey is, as a member of NATO, of vital imDortancefor u.s. national interests. This is (meta-)nationalism of doublestandards par excellence.

The dictum ,,Put your own house in ordery'rsf, is oftenmisinterpreted and misused. It does not imply a moral duty to becritical exclusively toward the nationalism of one's own nation.Indeed, those who display indifference (or even scorn) toward theirown,,national house" have no right to appeal to this dictum. Whatis more, they should explain in which senie it istheir house at all!

Unfortunately,,,Yugoslavism,. turned out to be an incompa_rably weaker construct than that of cultural-ethnic nations witiinYugoslavia. Anti-Serbian nationalists have invariably disqualifiedit as a covert form of Serbian hegemonism and unitarianism. Bethat as it may, those who continueidentifying nationally as ,,yugo-slavs" have to try as much as possible to put in order all nationalhouses of the former Yugoslavia, and not only the Serbian. Ofcourse, those who identify as ,,a-national cosmopolitans,,, shouldconsider all nations of the world as their own house to be put inorder.

Distinguishing between two kinds of nationaris m in a natirnv.ts-(l-vis ,ther nation(s) context should be extended within nationsthemselves. There, positive nationalism becomes negative when

1 9

12

z-oF

ft

N

Ft.lJ

o

more than those of other nations usually play into the hands of bad

nationalists in their midst. (After all, the world is nowadays con-

cerned even with the survival of endangered animal and plant spe-

cies.) If they do it exclusively to their personal detriment rather

than to the detriment of their nation they should be callednationalaltruists. National masochists are very different: they favor other

nations at both personal and national expense. And yet quite different

from both are anti-natittnctl egoists, let alone national profiteers

who derive personal gains from their ,,national generosity"' Behind

their rejection of nationalism there lies utter selfishness that takes

personal interests as the measuring-rod of all things.Naturally, there is no moral duty to live a life of an extreme

altruist. Even less can we expect for such an attitude to govern the

conduct of nations. Genuine internationalist principle does not re-

quire national self-denial , whether altruistic or masochistic. Rather,

ii only demands that nations do not favor themselves over those

who are more entitled to their claims.Many Serbs obsessively,,fight" Serbian nationalism. Some

of them used to do it already under communism, while others

began imitating them in post-communism.' As if nationalism were

noi a specific response to challenges and conflicts, and as if it

could be limited and controlled effectively by denunciation, instead

of realistic responses and solutions'Nationalism in the positive sense degeneralOs into national-

ism in the negative sense when self-identification and loyalty to

one's own nation becomes more important than considerations ofjustice and morality. Nationalism can assume quite malign forms

such as chauvinism and nazism when the principle thatn%tio nationi

Iupus est starts to reign supreme'In order for one's attitude to be rightly criticized as nationalist

one does not necessarily have to belong to the nation in question.

It would hardly be a reliable definition of an important concept, if

a person's attitude could not be judged as ,,nationalistic" until one

learned about his/her nationaliry. Of course, the likelihood of some-

1 In the 1980s. the remains oI the Scrbs thrown alive into karst sinkholcs

by the ustashi-Nazis during world war II wcre disintcrred and givcn a propcr

Eastern orthodox rcligious burial. In somc Serbian circlcs, howcvcr, this practicc

was indiscriminately and insensibly attackcd as nationalisticmanipulation, thercby

offcnding the descendants of those victims had ccrtainly fclt remorsc tbr not having

paid due respect to their relativcs much carlicr'

1 8

!l

z-o<t)E.

N

tlJ

(t)

co-nationals are required to subordinate all of their identities, inter-ests, rights, values, goals, ideals, and standards to those of thenation, and in the extreme case are called upon to completely sub-merge themselves into the nation. Such a nationalist collectivismsuppresses and conceals individual, group, class and other cleavag-es, Instead of being open, inclusive, voluntary, flexible, dynamic,and complex, such a national identity is closed, exclusive, compul-sive, rigid, static, and simple.

4. What is citizenism?

The state-territorial concept of nation may also be termedcitizenist (civic), since it encompasses all citizens of a country.Because massive culturel-ethnic nationalisms acted as an importantgenerator of the tragedy of SFRY and FRY, some critics mistakenlybelieve that a citizenist (civic) attitude rs by definition immune tothe negative nationalist temptation. In reality, however, the lattermay just as easily slide into negative nationalism as the former.

Such a naivet6 prompted me some years ago to coin theterm ,,citizenism". A democratic state is obliged to treat all of itscitizens equally regardless of their cultural-ethnic nationality. Un-doubtedly, the citizenist (civic) principle of ,,one citizen-one vote"stands as an immense achievement of modern ciyilization-indeed,without it democracy is not possible. Yet realization of this principleis not in itself a sufficient warrant against the domination of onecultural-ethnic nation over other such nations or its neglect andeven discrimination against it. When this happens, the principle ofcitizenship in the positive sense turns into its opposite, citizenistnationalism (nationalist citizenism). CuLturel-ethnlc interests,rights, values, institutions . . . other than those of the cktminant groupare instead of determining state organization and legitimation rele-gated to civil socieQ only. A Marxist analysis and critique of theabstract citizen (citoyen) could be, mutatis mutandis, applied here,with the difference that now the abstractness hides a cultural-ethnicinstead of bourgeois dominance.

Of the two most advanced historical precedents of states-natiorts,France and the U.S., the latter has become so multi-culturaland multi-ethnic that it has been referred to as ..microcosm ofhumanity". It indeed comes as close to the ideal case of the citizenist

(civic) conception of nation and state as one comes across in theworld today. U.S. imageological' and other domination of the worldjustify focussing critique primarily on it.

Many Americans see their (state-tenitorial) concept of nationas much more valid compared to the cultural-ethnic one. What ismore, they tend,by definition, to reduce the concept of nationalismto the cultural-ethnic one. This is one of the reasons they tend toreject offhand any possibility of U.S. nationalism.

As violence often plays a major role in the emergence ofstates and nations, U.S. cit izenism was to a great degree born outof suppression and repression. U.S. state-nation was indeed forgeclon the foundation of genocide and ethnocide against the indigenouspeoples. In addition, African slave labor was built into its originaleconomic foundations. And until very recently the descendants ofthose Africans were deprived of civil rights, and were thus virtuallyexcluded from U.S. cit izenship. The hidden dimension of the U.S.is the historic dominance of the Anglo-saxon protestant cultural-ethnic core (by now greatly diminished). put another way, thecurrertr s t at e - nat i o n has conceal e d the nat io n- s rat e .

For many U.S. citizenists, stressing cultural-ethnic identitiesin their country is a form of nationalist blasphemy. They are willingto tolerate to some extent discourse on the multicultural but not onthe multinational character of the United States. For them, it is apriori unacceptable that cuitural-ethnic specificities could be takenout of the framework of the ,,civil society,, and potentially be usedto call into question the existing system. The principle of ,,onecitizen-one vote" may not be supplemented by the principle ,,onenation-one vote." Under no circumstances would they asient to aredesign of the U.s. constituent states and states' l ines basecl oncultural-ethnic criteria.

- I definc imageology as a sct o[ images that social groups usc at t/ze

4tpense ol truth, to justify thcir own actions and to cliscrcdit those til thcir rivals,opponents, and cnemics. This <:riticarc<'tnccpt is modclccl al'tcr my clcfinition oft t l eobg tasasc to f i dcas tha t soc ia l g roups L t sca t t heexpenseo f t r u t t t , t o . j us t i f ythci r own act ions and t . d iscrcdi t thosc of thci r r ivals, opponcnts, anrr cncmics.[{owevcr, I havc noticcr] that phirosophcrs, social thcorists ancl gcncrally intcllcctualstcnd to continuc .ver-cmphasizing thc rolc <tl itleus in image ,r"utio,, and cven

::1:.: i, to thcm. Norhing can bc furrhcr lrom rhc rrurh in our rimcs dominarccl by

: : l i , t i - - mcdia. My . . imagcology, , (anr l , , imagcology cr i t iquc, , ) is a concci t

:J:,i.o.t than ..idcology" land .,idcology cririquc.,), rhc larrcr bcing bur onc kinct of

trrs Iorrncr, morcovcr onc cvcr morc loosing in imporlancc.

><oF

{J)l(to

ftL

No=L

2 0 2 1

!l

z-o<t)E.

N

tlJ

(t)

co-nationals are required to subordinate all of their identities, inter-ests, rights, values, goals, ideals, and standards to those of thenation, and in the extreme case are called upon to completely sub-merge themselves into the nation. Such a nationalist collectivismsuppresses and conceals individual, group, class and other cleavag-es, Instead of being open, inclusive, voluntary, flexible, dynamic,and complex, such a national identity is closed, exclusive, compul-sive, rigid, static, and simple.

4. What is citizenism?

The state-territorial concept of nation may also be termedcitizenist (civic), since it encompasses all citizens of a country.Because massive culturel-ethnic nationalisms acted as an importantgenerator of the tragedy of SFRY and FRY, some critics mistakenlybelieve that a citizenist (civic) attitude rs by definition immune tothe negative nationalist temptation. In reality, however, the lattermay just as easily slide into negative nationalism as the former.

Such a naivet6 prompted me some years ago to coin theterm ,,citizenism". A democratic state is obliged to treat all of itscitizens equally regardless of their cultural-ethnic nationality. Un-doubtedly, the citizenist (civic) principle of ,,one citizen-one vote"stands as an immense achievement of modern ciyilization-indeed,without it democracy is not possible. Yet realization of this principleis not in itself a sufficient warrant against the domination of onecultural-ethnic nation over other such nations or its neglect andeven discrimination against it. When this happens, the principle ofcitizenship in the positive sense turns into its opposite, citizenistnationalism (nationalist citizenism). CuLturel-ethnlc interests,rights, values, institutions . . . other than those of the cktminant groupare instead of determining state organization and legitimation rele-gated to civil socieQ only. A Marxist analysis and critique of theabstract citizen (citoyen) could be, mutatis mutandis, applied here,with the difference that now the abstractness hides a cultural-ethnicinstead of bourgeois dominance.

Of the two most advanced historical precedents of states-natiorts,France and the U.S., the latter has become so multi-culturaland multi-ethnic that it has been referred to as ..microcosm ofhumanity". It indeed comes as close to the ideal case of the citizenist

(civic) conception of nation and state as one comes across in theworld today. U.S. imageological' and other domination of the worldjustify focussing critique primarily on it.

Many Americans see their (state-tenitorial) concept of nationas much more valid compared to the cultural-ethnic one. What ismore, they tend,by definition, to reduce the concept of nationalismto the cultural-ethnic one. This is one of the reasons they tend toreject offhand any possibility of U.S. nationalism.

As violence often plays a major role in the emergence ofstates and nations, U.S. cit izenism was to a great degree born outof suppression and repression. U.S. state-nation was indeed forgeclon the foundation of genocide and ethnocide against the indigenouspeoples. In addition, African slave labor was built into its originaleconomic foundations. And until very recently the descendants ofthose Africans were deprived of civil rights, and were thus virtuallyexcluded from U.S. cit izenship. The hidden dimension of the U.S.is the historic dominance of the Anglo-saxon protestant cultural-ethnic core (by now greatly diminished). put another way, thecurrertr s t at e - nat i o n has conceal e d the nat io n- s rat e .

For many U.S. citizenists, stressing cultural-ethnic identitiesin their country is a form of nationalist blasphemy. They are willingto tolerate to some extent discourse on the multicultural but not onthe multinational character of the United States. For them, it is apriori unacceptable that cuitural-ethnic specificities could be takenout of the framework of the ,,civil society,, and potentially be usedto call into question the existing system. The principle of ,,onecitizen-one vote" may not be supplemented by the principle ,,onenation-one vote." Under no circumstances would they asient to aredesign of the U.s. constituent states and states' l ines basecl oncultural-ethnic criteria.

- I definc imageology as a sct o[ images that social groups usc at t/ze

4tpense ol truth, to justify thcir own actions and to cliscrcdit those til thcir rivals,opponents, and cnemics. This <:riticarc<'tnccpt is modclccl al'tcr my clcfinition oft t l eobg tasasc to f i dcas tha t soc ia l g roups L t sca t t heexpenseo f t r u t t t , t o . j us t i f ythci r own act ions and t . d iscrcdi t thosc of thci r r ivals, opponcnts, anrr cncmics.[{owevcr, I havc noticcr] that phirosophcrs, social thcorists ancl gcncrally intcllcctualstcnd to continuc .ver-cmphasizing thc rolc <tl itleus in image ,r"utio,, and cven

::1:.: i, to thcm. Norhing can bc furrhcr lrom rhc rrurh in our rimcs dominarccl by

: : l i , t i - - mcdia. My . . imagcology, , (anr l , , imagcology cr i t iquc, , ) is a concci t

:J:,i.o.t than ..idcology" land .,idcology cririquc.,), rhc larrcr bcing bur onc kinct of

trrs Iorrncr, morcovcr onc cvcr morc loosing in imporlancc.

><oF

{J)l(to

ftL

No=L

2 0 2 1

o

z)Fa(I

N

ula

In the case of Yugoslavia, those individuals and politicalparties that insisted on citizenship as the onl1, principle of stateorganization and iegitimacy in the new independent states-.Croatia,Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia-would have to have insisted(but didn't) that the Kosovo Albanians accept the unitariun organi-zatton of Serbia (,,one citizen--one vote")! That, however, wouldbe a repressive citizenist-nationaiist concept and practice.

It is not true that parties with a purely citizenist (civic) orien-tation occupy the center of the political spectrum of typically multi-national states, such as SFRY used to be, ancl as FRy, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia continue to be. In such circumstances,the centrist position in the political constellation is kept by thoseparties that combine the citizenist and the cultural-ethnic approachto the organization and legitimation of the state.

5. Shallow or deep political cartography?

Fissures, rifts, erosions, underground streams, eruptions,earthquakes - I think geological metaphors are quite appropriatein analyzing the break-up and disintegration of SFRY. In my previ-ously published criticism of the prevailing geo-political cartography,I pointed out that it overlooks the layers of division that are hiddenbelow the official maps of political divisions in fhb;worl d. Shaltowcartography and cartoanalysis is most often motivated by the cil-izenist viewpoint,the practice and imageology that neglects, forgets,suppresses, and conceals cultural-ethnic national divisions. I pleadfor a new, in-depth cartogrctphy and crtrtoanalysis. Multi-layeredmaps should be made, reflecting linguistic, ethnic, religious, cultur-al, economic, military, genocidal... sediments. Shallow cartographyand cartoanalysis is one of the reasons politics tends to be reactiverather than preventive.

The tendency towards the dissolutton of multi-national statesis gaining momentum. During his tenure as Secretary General ofthe U.N", B. B. Ghalli expressed his anxiety that in a couple ofdecades, if the current trend continues, there will be about 500independent states in the world.

Some philosophers and social scientists have expressed skep-ticism regarding the survival chances of multi-national stales asdemocracies" They see dictatorships as the only obstacles preventing

22

the dissolution of such states along national lines. The collapse ofUSSR, SFRY, CSSR, and even FRY is taken as a further proof ofthe thesis, By the way: as far back as the early ,60s,I advocated asradual introduction ofparty pluralism into SFRY because I fearedt'hut un abrupt, unchecked introduction of it would precipitate thecountry's violent disintegration along national lines.

My own view is, of course, that no ,,iron law" of disintegrationexists, but only a strong tendency toward it. Such a tendency ispresent not because of the multi-nationul composition of stcttes per.re, but because of the territori(tl concentraticttt of nations withinthose states.The capitalist market in U.S., for example, successfullyuprooted immigrants and descendants of recent immigrants fromareas where their cultural-ethnic compatriots tended to concentrateand dispersed them throughout the country. On the other hand, incountries iike Canada, Belgium or Great Britain this has not hap-pened.

Svetozar Stojanovi6

NACIJA, NACIONALIZAM I GRADANIZAM

Rezime

Iz ,,srodnidki slidnih" grupa kojc zovemo nacijama mogudc.je izclvo.jiti clvasuprotna ,,idealna tipa". Jedan bi biodrZavno-teritori.jalni adr,,:,gi kulturno-etniiki.

Zna(en.jc,,nacionalizma" moZcmo na.jboljc videti u sukobu nacionalnihpretenzija.Zato Ea i dcllniSem kao davanje prednosti jedno.i naci.ii nad drugom utakvom sukobu. Pritom valjajasno razlikovati dvc vrstc nacionalizma. prvi: kad seprcdnost daic icdnoj naciji nad drugom iako obc imajt podiednako pravo na ttpretcnziju. I drugi: kad se prcdnost daje naciji koja ima m.anje pravo ili tutpJtenema pravo na nju. Smatram da iskljudivo nacionalizam u ovom drugom smislutrcba vrcdnovari negativno. Tipidno je za nacionalistc u negativnom smislu daptimenjuiu dvostrukn merila i time krie etiiki z.ahtev tmiverzalizaci.ie

Razlikovali smo dve vrstc nacionalizma u odnosu naci.je prema drugimnaciiama. Mcdutim, njih moZemo razlikovati i untftar nacije . Tu sc nacionalizam upozltlvnom smislu dcformisc u nacionalizam u ncgativnom smislu oncla kad se odpripadnika nacijc zahtcva cla svc svo.jc iclcntitctc, intcrcsc, prava, vrcclnosti, ciljcvc,ideale, mcrila potdinc nacionalnim, a u ckstremnom sludaju i sasvim utope u naciju.umesto da bude otvoren, inkluzivan, clobrovol.jan, fleksibilan, clinamidan i sloZen,

xoFaf(r:=l!

N

J

LL

L J

o

z)Fa(I

N

ula

In the case of Yugoslavia, those individuals and politicalparties that insisted on citizenship as the onl1, principle of stateorganization and iegitimacy in the new independent states-.Croatia,Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia-would have to have insisted(but didn't) that the Kosovo Albanians accept the unitariun organi-zatton of Serbia (,,one citizen--one vote")! That, however, wouldbe a repressive citizenist-nationaiist concept and practice.

It is not true that parties with a purely citizenist (civic) orien-tation occupy the center of the political spectrum of typically multi-national states, such as SFRY used to be, ancl as FRy, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia continue to be. In such circumstances,the centrist position in the political constellation is kept by thoseparties that combine the citizenist and the cultural-ethnic approachto the organization and legitimation of the state.

5. Shallow or deep political cartography?

Fissures, rifts, erosions, underground streams, eruptions,earthquakes - I think geological metaphors are quite appropriatein analyzing the break-up and disintegration of SFRY. In my previ-ously published criticism of the prevailing geo-political cartography,I pointed out that it overlooks the layers of division that are hiddenbelow the official maps of political divisions in fhb;worl d. Shaltowcartography and cartoanalysis is most often motivated by the cil-izenist viewpoint,the practice and imageology that neglects, forgets,suppresses, and conceals cultural-ethnic national divisions. I pleadfor a new, in-depth cartogrctphy and crtrtoanalysis. Multi-layeredmaps should be made, reflecting linguistic, ethnic, religious, cultur-al, economic, military, genocidal... sediments. Shallow cartographyand cartoanalysis is one of the reasons politics tends to be reactiverather than preventive.

The tendency towards the dissolutton of multi-national statesis gaining momentum. During his tenure as Secretary General ofthe U.N", B. B. Ghalli expressed his anxiety that in a couple ofdecades, if the current trend continues, there will be about 500independent states in the world.

Some philosophers and social scientists have expressed skep-ticism regarding the survival chances of multi-national stales asdemocracies" They see dictatorships as the only obstacles preventing

22

the dissolution of such states along national lines. The collapse ofUSSR, SFRY, CSSR, and even FRY is taken as a further proof ofthe thesis, By the way: as far back as the early ,60s,I advocated asradual introduction ofparty pluralism into SFRY because I fearedt'hut un abrupt, unchecked introduction of it would precipitate thecountry's violent disintegration along national lines.

My own view is, of course, that no ,,iron law" of disintegrationexists, but only a strong tendency toward it. Such a tendency ispresent not because of the multi-nationul composition of stcttes per.re, but because of the territori(tl concentraticttt of nations withinthose states.The capitalist market in U.S., for example, successfullyuprooted immigrants and descendants of recent immigrants fromareas where their cultural-ethnic compatriots tended to concentrateand dispersed them throughout the country. On the other hand, incountries iike Canada, Belgium or Great Britain this has not hap-pened.

Svetozar Stojanovi6

NACIJA, NACIONALIZAM I GRADANIZAM

Rezime

Iz ,,srodnidki slidnih" grupa kojc zovemo nacijama mogudc.je izclvo.jiti clvasuprotna ,,idealna tipa". Jedan bi biodrZavno-teritori.jalni adr,,:,gi kulturno-etniiki.

Zna(en.jc,,nacionalizma" moZcmo na.jboljc videti u sukobu nacionalnihpretenzija.Zato Ea i dcllniSem kao davanje prednosti jedno.i naci.ii nad drugom utakvom sukobu. Pritom valjajasno razlikovati dvc vrstc nacionalizma. prvi: kad seprcdnost daic icdnoj naciji nad drugom iako obc imajt podiednako pravo na ttpretcnziju. I drugi: kad se prcdnost daje naciji koja ima m.anje pravo ili tutpJtenema pravo na nju. Smatram da iskljudivo nacionalizam u ovom drugom smislutrcba vrcdnovari negativno. Tipidno je za nacionalistc u negativnom smislu daptimenjuiu dvostrukn merila i time krie etiiki z.ahtev tmiverzalizaci.ie

Razlikovali smo dve vrstc nacionalizma u odnosu naci.je prema drugimnaciiama. Mcdutim, njih moZemo razlikovati i untftar nacije . Tu sc nacionalizam upozltlvnom smislu dcformisc u nacionalizam u ncgativnom smislu oncla kad se odpripadnika nacijc zahtcva cla svc svo.jc iclcntitctc, intcrcsc, prava, vrcclnosti, ciljcvc,ideale, mcrila potdinc nacionalnim, a u ckstremnom sludaju i sasvim utope u naciju.umesto da bude otvoren, inkluzivan, clobrovol.jan, fleksibilan, clinamidan i sloZen,

xoFaf(r:=l!

N

J

LL

L J

takav nacionalni idcntitct je .zatvoren, ckskluzivan, prinudan, rigidnan, statidan,upro56en.

DrZavno-tcritori.lalni pdam naci.jc moTemo nazvati i gradianistitkim(civilnim.).jer obuhvata sve grari.janc, odnosno drZavljancjcdnc zeml je. Zbog mas-ovnog kulturno-etniikog nacionalizma kao gcncratora tragcdijc SFRJ i SRJ, nckikritidari su pogre5no poverovali da.ic gradianistiiki (civilni) stav per deJinitionemimun na negativno nacionalistidko iskulcnjc. Rcaguiuii na tu naivnost, prc nckolikogodina skovao sam po.jam,,gradanizam". Dcmokratska driavajc duZna da podjcd-nako tretira sve svoje graclanc nezavisno od njihovc kulturno-ctnidkc nacionalnosti.Ncma sumnje da je graclanistiiko (civilno) nadelo ,,Jedan graclanin - jcdan glas"ogromno dostignuie modcrne civilizacijc i da bcz njcga uop5tc nijc moguiadcmokratija. Pa ipak, sprovodenje tog principa ne prcdstavlja samo po scbi dovoljnojemstvo protiv dominacije jcdne kultumo-ctnidkc nacije nad drugim takvim naci jama,ali ni protiv njenog zapostavlianja ili dak obespravljivania. Kad do toga dodc,princip gradanstva u pozitivnom smislu preokcic sc u svoju suprotnost, gradjanis-tidki nacionalizam (nacionalistiiki gradjanizam).

Plitka kartografija i kartoanaliz.a najie56e su motivisane gradanistiikimstavom, praksom i imidZologijom (moja kovanica dcfinisana u tckstu) koja zanc-maruje, zaboravlja, potiskuje i skriv a kult ur no - e t ni i ke n ac i o n aln e p o de I e. ZalaLcmse zanovu,dubinsku kartografi.iu i kartoanaliza. Trcbalo bi praviti viScslojne kartckoje bi odslikavale ieziike, etniikc, vcrske, kulturne, privrcdnc, ralnc, genocidnc...sedimentc. Politikaje po pravilu sklona reaktivnosti a nc prcvcntivnosti i zbog toga5to polazi od plitkc kartogralije i plitkc kartoanalize.

Kljuine reii.'Nacija, nacionalizam, gradjanin, gradjanizam, rcligiia, imi-dZologi.la, Jugoslavija, Tito, SAD, Ncmadka, NATO.

KRIZA DEMOKRATIJE U SRB IJII POLITTCru ANGAZMAN

!2

zaoat

NotU

a

2 4