27
Fig. 18: The map by the caricaturist Marko Kočevar, ironically stressed this feeling by
showing Slovenia as the centre of the world.
This demonstrates that the processes experienced in this state during the last
decade are superficial and that the permanent features did not change in their
essence after attaining independence.
An evaluation of the historical consequences of the disintegration of
Yugoslavia for Slovene society, the formation and the 10-year existence of the
Slovene state, as well as the democratic processes within it, are for the moment
only transitional, as were the estimates of past situations. A more objective
evaluation can be established once Slovene society is integrated in the
European Union; what the integration process contributed and how Slovenia
will be able to handle the loss of a national state, while it is in fact still
enduring its puberty, shall only then be clarified. Doubtless, the Slovene state
was a tremendous and necessary historical achievement, especially as regards the
circumstances in Yugoslavia during the 1980s. Nevertheless, the fact remains
that independence was achieved at a time when the classic national state, based
on 19th century patterns of national economy, the defense system, foreign policy,
proper currency and other attributes ranging to a legitimate aviation company,
is in decline in Europe. It is also a time when the (national) state, at least in the
West, no longer represents the determining factor in protecting democratic
rights, since these are, of course, becoming universal.
28
Fig. 19: It is not possible to say that in Slovenia there is no such awareness
and self-irony. In this cartoon, titled »Famous« (Franco Juri, Slavna naša
zgodovina [Our famous history], Ljubljana 1992), Slovenia and Croatia
are exposed at the time when they were (together with Bosnia) accepted in
the United Nations. It says: »Go on, numbers 176 and 177! Oh, good boys«.
The cartoon also stresses the different psychosocial approach between
Slovenia and Croatia - president Kučan with a small bench and president
Tuñman with a royal armchair.
New solutions are needed for these new challenges, although it seems that
this type of realization has hardly affected Slovene social sciences. History is
to a large extent still evaluated from the viewpoint of a national state, arising
from the belief that the Slovene state should be the ultimate goal of
successive Slovene generations, even though historiography does not offer
empirical proofs for such claims.
Historians critical of this sort of approach are labeled as "anational".
12
This sort of claim is of course logical in a political sense, since it
offers the possibility of appropriating the so-called "independence
capital", be that in a historical sense (demonstrating the "far-
sightedness" of particular political forces or individuals in various
historical periods) or in view of the current political situation.
Scientifically speaking it is also very convenient as it limits
research to finding the earliest possible "proofs" justifying a
12
The evaluation that there is "an extremely loud and influential anational movement" present in Slovene
science, was noted by Stane Granda. In: Zgodovinski časopis 53 (1999) 4, 612.
29
Slovene state-forming mentality. There is no need to take much
interest in the broader historical context; various sources can be
interpreted "in retrospect"; there is no need for comparisons with
other and similar nations, and it is possible to avoid confrontation with
the determinations of researchers concerned with the social sciences
of other nations. However, this, of course, only occasions putting
off a problem that will have to be faced sooner or later anyway.
Slovenes and Yugoslav Historiography after World War II
13
Institutional Connections of Yugoslav Historians and Common Projects
Yugoslav historiography as a whole actually never even existed. It was in fact a set of national
historiographies (historical societies in republics and provinces) with rather fragile
connections. Institutionally speaking, there existed Zveza zgodovinarjev Jugoslavije
[Yugoslav Historians' Association], which united the republican and provincial societies of
historians. Historians would meet at congresses that were held approximately every four
years. Thus, in the post-war years, there were nine congresses (the first in 1954 and the last in
1987). In 1981 the congress was to be held in Priština, however, due to national outbursts, it
was postponed and carried out two years later in Aranñelovac (Serbia). Between 1977 and
1981 the Association became practically inactive; the connections between republican and
provincial organizations had been severed, and the publication of the society's historical
newspaper, Jugoslovenski istorijski časopis (JIČ), ceased.14 Afterwards, the revival of the
Association and the direction of its program was also supported by politics.15 JIČ began to be
issued once more in 1986, but only for a short time, the last number (3-4) being issued in
13
Published in the Slovene language: Razpad historiografije, ki nikoli ni obstajala: institucionalne povezave
jugoslovanskih zgodovinarjev in skupni projekti, Zgodovina za vse, Celje, 1996, year 3, No. 1; Jugoslovanska
historiografija po drugi svetovni vojni, Tokovi istorije/Currents of history, Beograd, Journal of the Institute for
recent history Serbia, 1-4, 1999 and in the Slovak language Juhoslovanska historiografia do osemdesiatych
rokov 20. stotočia, Bratislava, Historický časopis, 2001, roč. 49, 2, pp. 294-306.
14 Miomir Dašić: Deveti kongres istoričara Jugoslavije, Jugoslovenski istorijski časopis (hence JIČ), year XXIII,
No.1/2, 1988, p. 205
15 On January 15, 1987 the presidency of Zvezna konferenca SZDL [Federal Conference of the Socialist
Alliance of the Working People] discussed the problems of historiography and supported the measures that had
been proposed by the Presidency of the Yugoslav Historians' Association in order to revive the work of the
Association.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |