{"title":"虚拟试验","authors":"M. Oprel","doi":"10.1515/soeu-2016-0022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"civil society in post-confl ict societies, they evaluate the power-sharing in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia that has resulted from the Dayton (1995) and Ohrid (2001) agreements. The authors reach the grim if predictable conclusion that both political systems and civil societies are weak and that support is needed from international actors, but they recognize that at the same time that would undermine ‘the very principles of local ownership’ (210). The contributions of Stefano Bianchini, Wladimir Fischer and Ian D. Armour are off -topic, but well writt en and interesting in their own right. Bianchini discusses the resurgence of nationalism in times of crisis and can deploy particular expertise on the economic crisis of the 1980s in Yugoslavia. He claims that for EU too there looms a similar retreat to nationalism as occurred in Yugoslavia during the 1980s, at least if further austerity policies are imposed. From his work based on the analysis of a selection of Croat and Serb magazines from the 1980s, Fischer argues that ‘from the 1950s onwards, nationalist traditions were catered to in the framework of Yugoslavism, which was itself nationalist in a new, multi-nationalist way’ (71). Hence, when nationalist discourse became dominant in Yugoslavia during the 1980s, it was within a framework that already provided for national categories. Armour meanwhile presents a historical account of Austro-Hungary-Serbia relations in the second half of the 19th century, with its focus on the work of the Serbian Historian Vasilije Krestić. Armour argues that Krestić’s ‘portrayal of anyone but the Serbs as manipulators and hegemonists’ implies that Serbs are ‘blameless victims’ (107) and shows how Krestić’s work serves the diplomatic interests of Serbia in the region and that it was matched by the policies of the Croats and other forces within the Dual Monarchy, thereby Armour places Serbian victimhood in perspective. It could be argued that all thee authors have addressed the underlying problems of the wars of the 1990s and are therefore dealing with issues that are subject to post-confl ict reconciliation, but that would be a stretch. The fi nal contribution comes from Lenard J. Cohen and draws on his book written with John R. Lampe Embracing Democracy in the Western Balkans (2011). Here, the argument is that democratisation is a key ingredient in the process of reconciliation, and Cohen describes political developments in the region and their relation to the spread of the liberal democratic values adopted by the urban middle classes. He remains optimistic from his birds-eye view of politics in the Western Balkans; rather a contrast to certain of the contributors who are perhaps more sensitised to the political problems in the region. A bright ensemble of chapters of high quality, this volume does however read somewhat like a scholarly journal and so runs the risk of seeming att ractive only to scholars of post-confl ict reconciliation, whereas some of the less specifi c individual articles are just as worthwhile. Overall, then, although individual chapters are all interesting in their own right, the book does rather lack cohesion.","PeriodicalId":51954,"journal":{"name":"Sudosteuropa","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/soeu-2016-0022","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Imaginary Trials\",\"authors\":\"M. Oprel\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/soeu-2016-0022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"civil society in post-confl ict societies, they evaluate the power-sharing in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia that has resulted from the Dayton (1995) and Ohrid (2001) agreements. The authors reach the grim if predictable conclusion that both political systems and civil societies are weak and that support is needed from international actors, but they recognize that at the same time that would undermine ‘the very principles of local ownership’ (210). The contributions of Stefano Bianchini, Wladimir Fischer and Ian D. Armour are off -topic, but well writt en and interesting in their own right. Bianchini discusses the resurgence of nationalism in times of crisis and can deploy particular expertise on the economic crisis of the 1980s in Yugoslavia. He claims that for EU too there looms a similar retreat to nationalism as occurred in Yugoslavia during the 1980s, at least if further austerity policies are imposed. From his work based on the analysis of a selection of Croat and Serb magazines from the 1980s, Fischer argues that ‘from the 1950s onwards, nationalist traditions were catered to in the framework of Yugoslavism, which was itself nationalist in a new, multi-nationalist way’ (71). Hence, when nationalist discourse became dominant in Yugoslavia during the 1980s, it was within a framework that already provided for national categories. Armour meanwhile presents a historical account of Austro-Hungary-Serbia relations in the second half of the 19th century, with its focus on the work of the Serbian Historian Vasilije Krestić. Armour argues that Krestić’s ‘portrayal of anyone but the Serbs as manipulators and hegemonists’ implies that Serbs are ‘blameless victims’ (107) and shows how Krestić’s work serves the diplomatic interests of Serbia in the region and that it was matched by the policies of the Croats and other forces within the Dual Monarchy, thereby Armour places Serbian victimhood in perspective. It could be argued that all thee authors have addressed the underlying problems of the wars of the 1990s and are therefore dealing with issues that are subject to post-confl ict reconciliation, but that would be a stretch. The fi nal contribution comes from Lenard J. Cohen and draws on his book written with John R. Lampe Embracing Democracy in the Western Balkans (2011). Here, the argument is that democratisation is a key ingredient in the process of reconciliation, and Cohen describes political developments in the region and their relation to the spread of the liberal democratic values adopted by the urban middle classes. He remains optimistic from his birds-eye view of politics in the Western Balkans; rather a contrast to certain of the contributors who are perhaps more sensitised to the political problems in the region. A bright ensemble of chapters of high quality, this volume does however read somewhat like a scholarly journal and so runs the risk of seeming att ractive only to scholars of post-confl ict reconciliation, whereas some of the less specifi c individual articles are just as worthwhile. Overall, then, although individual chapters are all interesting in their own right, the book does rather lack cohesion.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sudosteuropa\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/soeu-2016-0022\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sudosteuropa\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/soeu-2016-0022\",\"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-2016-0022","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: 2
摘要
冲突后社会的公民社会,他们评估了代顿(1995年)和奥赫里德(2001年)协议导致的波斯尼亚-黑塞哥维那和马其顿的权力分享。这两位作者得出了一个严峻但可以预见的结论,即政治制度和公民社会都很薄弱,需要国际行动者的支持,但他们同时认识到,这将破坏“地方所有权的基本原则”(210)。斯特凡诺·比安奇尼、弗拉基米尔·菲舍尔和伊恩·d·阿穆尔的贡献离题了,但写得很好,而且他们自己也很有趣。Bianchini讨论了危机时期民族主义的复苏,并可以在20世纪80年代南斯拉夫的经济危机中运用特别的专业知识。他声称,至少在进一步实施紧缩政策的情况下,欧盟也会出现类似于上世纪80年代南斯拉夫那样的民族主义倒退。根据他对20世纪80年代克罗地亚和塞尔维亚杂志的分析,费舍尔认为“从20世纪50年代开始,民族主义传统在南斯拉夫主义的框架内得到了迎合,而南斯拉夫主义本身就是一种新的、多元民族主义的民族主义”(71)。因此,当民族主义话语在1980年代在南斯拉夫占主导地位时,它是在一个已经提供民族类别的框架内。同时,armor呈现了19世纪下半叶奥匈帝国与塞尔维亚关系的历史记录,其重点是塞尔维亚历史学家Vasilije krestiki的工作。阿玛尔认为,克雷斯蒂奇“把除了塞尔维亚人以外的任何人都描绘成操纵者和霸权主义者”,这意味着塞尔维亚人是“无可指责的受害者”(107),并表明克雷斯蒂奇的工作是如何为塞尔维亚在该地区的外交利益服务的,而且这与克罗地亚人和双重君主制下的其他势力的政策相匹配,因此阿玛尔正确地看待了塞尔维亚人的受害者身份。有人可能会说,三位作者都论述了上世纪90年代战争的根本问题,因此都在处理冲突后和解所涉及的问题,但这是一种延伸。最后的贡献来自Lenard J. Cohen,并借鉴了他与John R. Lampe合著的《西巴尔干拥抱民主》(2011)一书。这里的论点是,民主化是和解过程中的一个关键因素,科恩描述了该地区的政治发展及其与城市中产阶级所采用的自由民主价值观传播的关系。从他对西巴尔干政治的鸟瞰来看,他仍然保持乐观;这与某些可能对该地区的政治问题更为敏感的撰稿人形成了鲜明对比。高质量的章节组成了一个明亮的整体,然而,这本书读起来有点像一本学术期刊,因此有可能只对冲突后和解的学者有吸引力,而一些不太具体的个别文章同样值得一看。总的来说,尽管个别章节本身都很有趣,但这本书确实缺乏凝聚力。
civil society in post-confl ict societies, they evaluate the power-sharing in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia that has resulted from the Dayton (1995) and Ohrid (2001) agreements. The authors reach the grim if predictable conclusion that both political systems and civil societies are weak and that support is needed from international actors, but they recognize that at the same time that would undermine ‘the very principles of local ownership’ (210). The contributions of Stefano Bianchini, Wladimir Fischer and Ian D. Armour are off -topic, but well writt en and interesting in their own right. Bianchini discusses the resurgence of nationalism in times of crisis and can deploy particular expertise on the economic crisis of the 1980s in Yugoslavia. He claims that for EU too there looms a similar retreat to nationalism as occurred in Yugoslavia during the 1980s, at least if further austerity policies are imposed. From his work based on the analysis of a selection of Croat and Serb magazines from the 1980s, Fischer argues that ‘from the 1950s onwards, nationalist traditions were catered to in the framework of Yugoslavism, which was itself nationalist in a new, multi-nationalist way’ (71). Hence, when nationalist discourse became dominant in Yugoslavia during the 1980s, it was within a framework that already provided for national categories. Armour meanwhile presents a historical account of Austro-Hungary-Serbia relations in the second half of the 19th century, with its focus on the work of the Serbian Historian Vasilije Krestić. Armour argues that Krestić’s ‘portrayal of anyone but the Serbs as manipulators and hegemonists’ implies that Serbs are ‘blameless victims’ (107) and shows how Krestić’s work serves the diplomatic interests of Serbia in the region and that it was matched by the policies of the Croats and other forces within the Dual Monarchy, thereby Armour places Serbian victimhood in perspective. It could be argued that all thee authors have addressed the underlying problems of the wars of the 1990s and are therefore dealing with issues that are subject to post-confl ict reconciliation, but that would be a stretch. The fi nal contribution comes from Lenard J. Cohen and draws on his book written with John R. Lampe Embracing Democracy in the Western Balkans (2011). Here, the argument is that democratisation is a key ingredient in the process of reconciliation, and Cohen describes political developments in the region and their relation to the spread of the liberal democratic values adopted by the urban middle classes. He remains optimistic from his birds-eye view of politics in the Western Balkans; rather a contrast to certain of the contributors who are perhaps more sensitised to the political problems in the region. A bright ensemble of chapters of high quality, this volume does however read somewhat like a scholarly journal and so runs the risk of seeming att ractive only to scholars of post-confl ict reconciliation, whereas some of the less specifi c individual articles are just as worthwhile. Overall, then, although individual chapters are all interesting in their own right, the book does rather lack cohesion.