{"title":"纪念、历史和正义。接受民主社会中的创伤膏","authors":"S. Scherpenisse","doi":"10.1515/soeu-2017-0027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The two chapters in the last section further unveil the inaccuracy of the institutional and ideological narratives on BiH. Nebojša Šavija-Valha’s chapter on one of the ‘native’ concepts of gathering and perceiving one’s place in society is especially important. As Svjetlana Nedimović notes in her commentary, ‘by the standards of mainstream politics, raja is a political subject aborted’ (195), but it is nevertheless an important survival and pleasure-producing strategy that largely predates socialist Yugoslavia. Moreover, by enabling social conjunctions in otherwise disjunctive social situations, it fits to a considerable extent to the former concept of ‘brotherhood and unity’ but also, ironically, to hegemonic projections of a desirable future for the BiH’s society alike. Commenting on the volume’s chapters, Armina Galijaš and Hrvoje Paić note, perhaps generalizing too abruptly, that most of them have in common ‘the (un)calculated critical pessimism as the cognitive starting point’ (75). On the other hand, a cultural anthropologist’s particular sensitivity, referred to also in the volume’s introduction (Jansen, Brković, and Čelebčić, 18, 22), is supposed to be able to detect research topics that are either typical of the society in question or are especially important. So, if ‘the analyses are tendentially focused on social actors often giving an impression of being locked in trauma, crisis and related social structures’ (Galijaš and Paić, 75), we should presume that this focus is justified. However, I do understand the concerns Galijaš and Paić put forward about ‘scientifically legitimising new negative stereotypes of “Balkan” societies’ and, consequently, reproducing ‘colonial knowledge with its power hierarchy between the “Balkans” and “Europe”’ (76). Although one should not confront such a possibility by inventing resistance where there is only resignation to be found, some chapters in this volume present actors with the capacity to bring forth alternative models of an ‘ordinary everydayness’, to challenge the prevailing ones.","PeriodicalId":51954,"journal":{"name":"Sudosteuropa","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/soeu-2017-0027","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remembrance, History, and Justice. Coming to Terms with Traumatic Pasts in Democratic Societies\",\"authors\":\"S. Scherpenisse\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/soeu-2017-0027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The two chapters in the last section further unveil the inaccuracy of the institutional and ideological narratives on BiH. Nebojša Šavija-Valha’s chapter on one of the ‘native’ concepts of gathering and perceiving one’s place in society is especially important. As Svjetlana Nedimović notes in her commentary, ‘by the standards of mainstream politics, raja is a political subject aborted’ (195), but it is nevertheless an important survival and pleasure-producing strategy that largely predates socialist Yugoslavia. Moreover, by enabling social conjunctions in otherwise disjunctive social situations, it fits to a considerable extent to the former concept of ‘brotherhood and unity’ but also, ironically, to hegemonic projections of a desirable future for the BiH’s society alike. Commenting on the volume’s chapters, Armina Galijaš and Hrvoje Paić note, perhaps generalizing too abruptly, that most of them have in common ‘the (un)calculated critical pessimism as the cognitive starting point’ (75). On the other hand, a cultural anthropologist’s particular sensitivity, referred to also in the volume’s introduction (Jansen, Brković, and Čelebčić, 18, 22), is supposed to be able to detect research topics that are either typical of the society in question or are especially important. So, if ‘the analyses are tendentially focused on social actors often giving an impression of being locked in trauma, crisis and related social structures’ (Galijaš and Paić, 75), we should presume that this focus is justified. However, I do understand the concerns Galijaš and Paić put forward about ‘scientifically legitimising new negative stereotypes of “Balkan” societies’ and, consequently, reproducing ‘colonial knowledge with its power hierarchy between the “Balkans” and “Europe”’ (76). Although one should not confront such a possibility by inventing resistance where there is only resignation to be found, some chapters in this volume present actors with the capacity to bring forth alternative models of an ‘ordinary everydayness’, to challenge the prevailing ones.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sudosteuropa\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/soeu-2017-0027\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sudosteuropa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/soeu-2017-0027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sudosteuropa","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/soeu-2017-0027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12
摘要
最后一节的两章进一步揭示了关于波黑的制度和意识形态叙述的不准确性。Nebojša Šavija-Valha关于聚集和感知一个人在社会中的位置的“本土”概念之一的章节尤为重要。正如Svjetlana nedimovovic在她的评论中所指出的,“按照主流政治的标准,raja是一个被废除的政治主题”(195),但它仍然是一种重要的生存和制造快乐的策略,在很大程度上早于社会主义南斯拉夫。此外,通过在其他分离的社会情况下实现社会连接,它在很大程度上符合以前的“兄弟情谊和团结”概念,但具有讽刺意味的是,它也符合波黑社会理想未来的霸权预测。在评论这本书的章节时,Armina galijasi和Hrvoje paiski注意到,他们中的大多数人都有一个共同点,即“(不)计算的批判性悲观主义作为认知的起点”(75)。另一方面,文化人类学家的特殊敏感性,也提到了在卷的介绍(Jansen, brkoviki,和Čelebčić, 18,22),应该能够检测研究课题,要么是典型的社会问题或特别重要。因此,如果“分析倾向于关注社会行为者,往往给人一种被困在创伤、危机和相关社会结构中的印象”(galijasi and paiki, 75),我们应该假设这种关注是合理的。然而,我确实理解galijasi和paiki提出的担忧,即“科学地使‘巴尔干’社会的新负面刻板印象合法化”,从而再现“‘巴尔干’和‘欧洲’之间的权力等级的殖民知识”(76)。尽管一个人不应该通过发明抵抗来面对这种可能性,在那里只能找到顺从,但本卷中的一些章节展示了行动者提出“普通日常生活”的替代模式的能力,以挑战主流模式。
Remembrance, History, and Justice. Coming to Terms with Traumatic Pasts in Democratic Societies
The two chapters in the last section further unveil the inaccuracy of the institutional and ideological narratives on BiH. Nebojša Šavija-Valha’s chapter on one of the ‘native’ concepts of gathering and perceiving one’s place in society is especially important. As Svjetlana Nedimović notes in her commentary, ‘by the standards of mainstream politics, raja is a political subject aborted’ (195), but it is nevertheless an important survival and pleasure-producing strategy that largely predates socialist Yugoslavia. Moreover, by enabling social conjunctions in otherwise disjunctive social situations, it fits to a considerable extent to the former concept of ‘brotherhood and unity’ but also, ironically, to hegemonic projections of a desirable future for the BiH’s society alike. Commenting on the volume’s chapters, Armina Galijaš and Hrvoje Paić note, perhaps generalizing too abruptly, that most of them have in common ‘the (un)calculated critical pessimism as the cognitive starting point’ (75). On the other hand, a cultural anthropologist’s particular sensitivity, referred to also in the volume’s introduction (Jansen, Brković, and Čelebčić, 18, 22), is supposed to be able to detect research topics that are either typical of the society in question or are especially important. So, if ‘the analyses are tendentially focused on social actors often giving an impression of being locked in trauma, crisis and related social structures’ (Galijaš and Paić, 75), we should presume that this focus is justified. However, I do understand the concerns Galijaš and Paić put forward about ‘scientifically legitimising new negative stereotypes of “Balkan” societies’ and, consequently, reproducing ‘colonial knowledge with its power hierarchy between the “Balkans” and “Europe”’ (76). Although one should not confront such a possibility by inventing resistance where there is only resignation to be found, some chapters in this volume present actors with the capacity to bring forth alternative models of an ‘ordinary everydayness’, to challenge the prevailing ones.