An Anthropological Conceptualisation of Identity

PreliminaryCommunicationUDC130.2:316.61316.61:321.7(4)

ReceivedNovember7th,2010

ZagorkaGolubovićUčiteljaMilošaJankovića12/I,RS–11000Beograd

[email protected]

An Anthropological Conceptualisation of Identity

AbstractThe anthropological approach to the concept of identity is needed because “identity” (ei-ther personal or collective) is not naturally “given”, but it is culturally defined and consti-tuted, for human beings live in cultural settings as “a second nature of man”; so they are humanly conditioned and conceptualised in different “ways of peoples’ lives”. Being that culture makes an essential context of social life and of the personality foundation, it pro-vides the pattern of the common way of living and thinking of the communal experiences as a value-referential framework upon which definitions and interpretations of identities rely. Thereby, cultural paradigm enables researches to understand what identity (collective and personal) expresses in different socio-historical conditions and ideological connotations, assuming that this concept is dynamic vs. the other one, e.g. national pattern of identity which is narrow as well as exclusive; and as a static category, it does not suppose possibil-ity of change. In the paper a traditionally oriented conceptualisation of identity in Serbia will be also treated, together with its influence upon the slow changes within a democratic transition during the new millennium.

Key wordsanthropologicalconceptualisationofidentity,identification,individuation,culturalpatternofidentity,nationalpatternofidentity

Introduction

Conceptofidentityisverydifficulttoexplainbecauseofthecomplexityofitsmeaning.Thatiswhythereisoftenone-dimensional(incomplete)inter-pretationofthisconcept,oraconfusionofdifferenttermsusedtoexplainthemeaningof identity. It is alsousedwithinanahistoricalbackground (non-contextualone)inwhichitisdifficulttobeexplained.However, thebasicmeaningof identity refers towhereone (apersonoragroup)belongs,andwhatisexpressedas“self-image”or/and“common-im-age”,whatintegratetheminsideselforagroupexistence,andwhatdifferenti-atethemvis-à-vis“others”.E.Eriksonhaswrittenaboutthedevelopmentofidentityinthecourseoftime,becausechildrendonotpossessidentities,andadolescentsstrivetoattainit.Therefore, identitycrisisappears intheprocessof identityformation.1Thesameauthoralsowritesaboutpossibilityofanindividualtopossessseveral

1

See:“Identity”inA.Kuper&J.Kuper,The Social Science Encyclopedia,Routledge,Lon-don 2004. All quotations are from Serbian

translation, Enciklopedija društvenih nauka,Službeni Glasnik, Beograd 2009, here p.474.

SYNTHESISPHILOSOPHICA51(1/2011)pp.(25–43)

Z.Golubović,AnAnthropologicalConcep-tualisationofIdentity26

identities,aboutwhichisusuallyspokenintermsof“socialroles”differenti-atingthatindividualfromtheothers.AnthonyGiddenshaswarnedtothefactthatsocialidentitiesaredifferentindifferenthistoricalprojects:whiletraditionalidentityconveysfromgenera-tiontogeneration,inmodernsocietiesidentityisconceivedas“amatterofrationalactionandbeingdynamic”.Giddens thinks thatonemayspeakofidentityas“asymbolicconstruction”,whichhelpspeopletofindtheirownplaceintimeandpreservecontinuity.2

ThequestionputforthbyC.Taylorisinteresting,namely,“howcomputers,televisionandothermeansforaconstructionofthevirtualreality…”formandadoptidentityofmodernpeople,regardingalsothephenomenaof“iden-titytheft”andmanipulationofthecontrolledidentity.3

However, the concept of identity has beenused in different terms: a) as a“primordialidentity”beingconceivedasanaturallygivenandunchangeableentity–belongingtotheethniccategory;andb)asasocio-cultural,politicalorideologicallyconstructedcollectivesenseofcommunalorpersonaliden-tity.That is to say, one may speak about “national identity” and “culturalidentity”,thelattermayincludenational-culturaltraditioncapableofbeingchanged in a socio-historical process, or simply by cultural diffusion (e.g.adopting certain elements of another culture); while ethnic identity is tiedwithanation-stateandethnicity,representingapremodernsocietywhichisresistanttochange.Thedifferencebetweennational/ethnicidentityandidentitybasedonculturalpatternconsistsinthefollowing:thelatterisopentoreconceptualisationandmayappearinpluralforms,whiletheformerreliesonanoveridentificationwithone/ethnictraditionasanexclusivemodelofcollectivelife,beingclosedinitselfdisregardingnewsocialprocesses.Theyaredifferentiatedalsointhefactthatculturallyconditionedidentityrecognisestheexistenceofindividual/uniqueidentityandcollective/communalidentity,whilenational/ethniciden-tityhasonlyitscollectiveexpressionaccordingtowhichallindividualshavetosubmit.Inanthropological theory4cultural paradigm isapplied inorder toexplainthegenesisof identityand thecomplexityof itsmeaning.Therefore, thereis an agreement that identity is specifically “anthropological category”, intermsofidentificationwithone’sowncultureandself-reflectionofthewayoneistoliveinagivensocio-culturalenvironment,becauseitisamatterofconviction,orapossibilityofchoiceduetoitsmultidimensionalexpressions:asclass,status,profession,stylingorsymbolicconnotation.AlainTouraine5paidattentiontotheconfusionofthenotionofidentitywhenitgetsanegativecharacterandmaybecomedangerousifitstickstoanationorreligionwiththeemphasesoncollectivity,becauseitsuffocatesindividu-alityandalternative formsof identity.Whenbeingclosed toonenationorcommunity,which aredefined in termsof identity, the conceptof identitybecomesanideologicalconstructionhavingtendencytobedeterminedasa“naturalcommunity”.But theneedofbelongingmayhaveadestructivenature: ithappenswhencertainindividualswhoarefrustrated(withinthefamilyorsocialcommunity)longfortheidentificationwithamilitantgroupwhichisaggressive,andinor-dertohideone’sownhelplessnesstheythemselvesexpressviolencetowardstheothers.



Therefore,thefollowingthesesandissuesshouldbedebated,althoughallofthemcannotbeconsideredinthispaper:6

1) identityisnotaneutralcategory,noritisinborn(congenital)trait;2) whatthequestionstowhichtheconceptofidentityrepliesare–asfaras

speakingofpersonal identity,orcollective identity;3) onwhichbasis(background)identityformationtakesplace;4) whichconditionsandmechanismsleadtotheconstitutionofidentity;5) throughwhichphases is identityconstituted,andwhat is thedifference

betweenphaseI(identification)fromphaseII(individuation);6) what socio-cultural conditions protect the particular forms of identity

(class,nation,race);7) why it isnecessary to recognise twopatternsof identity–nationaland

culturalone?

Thefirststepistocomprehendbothanabstractconceptofidentity,andrecog-nitionofoneselfaspersonality,duetothefactthatindividualsdonotpossesidentity upon birth, although they often adopt “identity image” created bytheirparentswhichdoesnotexpresstheirindividualdispositions.However,inordertoattainself-identificationindividualshavetoovercomemanyob-stacles(e.g.thetraditionallyestablishedhabits,parents’authorities),andalsotosurmounttheirlackofself-knowledgeandfindoutwhotheyreallyare.Inatraditionalsociety,itisnoteasyatasktoachieve.LetmeremindyouofErichFromm’ssaying:“Manyindividualsdiebeforetheyhavebeenborn”;thatistosay,theyhavenotbecomeawareofwhotheyareaspersons,butlivedwiththeidentityprescribedtothem–eitherbypar-ents,socialgroups,orauthorities.7

Unlessthosequestionsdonotbecomesubjectofseriousdebate,thecontro-versiesregardingtheconceptofidentitywillcontinue,andwillmakedifficul-tiesininterpersonalandinterculturalrelations.Theclashbetweenindividualself-identificationandinheritedcollectiveidentificationappears,inparticu-lar,whenculturalpatternschangeandproduceconflictingnormsandvalues,thusmakingconfusioninindividuals’thinkingonwhichpatterntoacceptinattempttodefinetheirpersonalidentity.Thisismoreacutewhenuniversalvaluesandmoralprinciplesbecomerelativised,givingrisetomanipulationsfromdifferentexternalfactors(political,ideological,ortheinfluenceofau-thoritarianmechanisms).Oneoftheargumentsmaybefoundintherecenthistoryofex-Yugoslavia,wherein the confusion with ethnic/national pattern of identity, which pre-vailedastheonly“authentic”formofidentificationinsuchamulticultural

2

Ibid,p.475.

3

Ibid.,p.476.

4

E. Erikson, J. Piaget,A. Giddens, J. Haber-mas,Z.Bauman,etc.

5

A. Touraine, Un nouveau paradigme, Pour comprehendre le monde d’aujourd’hui, Fa-yard,Paris2005,p.287.

6

Forfurtherresearch,seemyotherwritingsinthequotedliterature.

7

Suchformofidentification,whichisusuallycategorizedasconformityorientation,isverywellanalysedbyD.RiesmaninhisbookThe Lonely Crowd, Yale University Press, NewHaven 1950, and E. Fromm, The Fear of Freedom, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Lon-don1942.



society,hasrejectedthecultural paradigmthathasgivenapeacefullifeforallofitspeoplefordecadesbeforedisintegrationofthecountryinthe1990s.The crisis of identities (individual and collective) profoundly manifests asanindicator(andresult)ofeconomic,socialandcivilisationcrisis,thatpro-motesconfusionaboutindividuals’andgroups’relationsandtheirpositioninpostmoderncivilisation.Thesehaveproduceduncertainty,fearsofbeingleftalone,hesitationindecisionwhethertosticktoindividualrightsortocon-formtothemainstreamideology.Suchproblemsaremoredifficulttosolveinanauthoritariansocietythanindemocraticone;althoughevendemocracyhasnotyetresolvedthoseproblems,becauseeverygovernmentwishestoexpressitspowerovertheconstitutionoftheirpopulation’simages.Butitisalsotruethatcitizensfinditeasiertofollowprescribedrulesthantomakeeffortsofsearchingfortheirownprinciples.Therefore, it isnecessarytoclearlydifferentiate twoformsof identity:na-tional identityfromcivic identity,whicharelegitimatecollectiveformsofex-pressingpeoples’belonging;bothexpressionsimplyingthegivenculturallyinterpretedformofhumanexistence,butwithindifferentculturalfoundation(inlinguisticexpressions,communicationnorms,viewsofthegivensociety,moralpatterns,etc.).I am presenting the anthropological approach to this topic by consideringidentity as a socio-culturally conditioned phenomenon, whatever forms ittakesindifferenthistoricalconditionsinalongrunofhistoricalprocess.Thatrefersboth to collective identificationand self-identification of individuals(thelatterbeingnamedas:ego,self,ormoi).Anotherdifferenceshouldbealsomentioned:betweentraditionalandmod-ernunderstandingofthetypeofbelonging:a)groupidentitymaybeexperi-encedwithinaclosegroupwiththeexclusionof“others”,ofthosewhoaredifferent(eitherethnically,bysocialstatusorothergroupcharacteristics);orb)aliberalcomprehensionofidentitywhichisopentothedifferencesandtolerates“otherness”,intermsofacloseinterconnectionbetween“self”and“others”(asalter-egooftheformer).That is tosay, identityconceptdoesnotbelong toanatural/biologicalcat-egory,but it is socio-culturally impregnatedexpressionofboth individual/personalandcollectivewayofexistenceandrecognition.Thismeansthatitisalwaysamatterofchoice,unlikeitsinterpretationasnaturallygivenandbiologicallyinheritedwaysofunderstandingandexplainingoneselfandcol-lectiveexistence.

Constitution of identity/ies

Intheformationofaperson,thefirststepistoadoptagroupidentity,soastosatisfyhis/herneedforbelongingsomewhereasamemberofacommunity(ofafamily,ora largercommunity, tothegivensociety/state, toagenera-tion,etc.).Apersonrecognisesoneselfthroughtheadaptationtotheconceptof“we”asaprimaryformofanunderstandingwhereonebelongs. In thisphaseapersonacceptsnorms,believesandexperiencesofhis/hergroupasa“properplaceofliving”,becauseinacollectivesecurityoneescapesfromlonelinessandfromathreatoftheunknownworldhe/sheisunabletocopewithuponbirth.Ittakesalongwayandtimeforapersontogrowandbecomecapableoftran-scendingthecollectiveformofidentitythatkeepsonebeingtiedwithintheprescribedauthority’sview,withoutlivingspaceforexploringtheownrecog-



nitionas“oneself”,aspersonalitywithdifferent traitsandneeds/interests.8Althoughbothcollectiveandindividualidentitiesareculturallyconditioned,thereareratherdifferentelementsandmethodsregardingtheirformation.Collective identity comes from identification of a person with, first of all,the“primarygroup”(throughthe“primarysocialisation”withinthefamily);thenitgoesonthesamewaythroughthe“secondarysocialisation”(throughclassroom,factoryline,partylineandstatepolicynorms,aswellasthroughtheimpactofdifferentideologiesormythologies).However,personal identitycanbedevelopedonlybyfreedetermination,rep-resentingakindofdissociationfromaninheritedcollectiveform,i.e.intermsoflookingtooneselfthroughhis/herowneyes,whenself-consciousnessisdeveloping–itisthephasewhenpersonalfreechoicetakesadecisiveroleintheprocessofindividuation.9Inthisstateindividualsarecapableofbeingdifferentiatedfromoneanother.ThusGordonAllporthasdeclaredthatnosinglepersonalityisidenticalwithanother,foreachonebecomes“idiom”withitsowncharacterstructure,com-plexofneeds,self-estimatedviewsandrespectforrightstoautonomy.Collectiveidentityprovidesafeelingofbeingapartofthegivencommunity(group,people,state),whilepersonal identitymeansastepforward,outofaninherited(prescribed)“socialcharacterstructure”(accordingtoFromm’sdefinition),seekingtofindoutwho“Iam”withone’sowntraits,characteris-ticsandneeds,asadistinctperson.AsEriksonmentioned:thisisthephaseinwhichanindividualcreates“self-notion”throughwhichhe/shebecomesdif-ferentfromthegroupandrecognisablebytheothersasauniquepersonality.Thiscanbeattainedbycriticaloppositiontothosewhowillbeconsideredasdependantcreatures.Butifthefirststagehasnotbeentranscended,apersonwouldsufferfromfrustration.10

Transformationfromthephaseofidentificationtoindividuationisacrucialprocessduringperson’smaturationintermsofemancipationfrom“ascribed,inheritedandinborndeterminationofsocialcharacter…transformingiden-tityfromsomethingas‘beinggiven’intoa‘task’whichshouldbefulfilledwithrecognitionofconsequences”.11

Intheprocessofself-determinationapersonisconfrontedwiththequestion:whatidentitytochoose;andsoveryoftenmayexperience“theidentitycri-sis”.Whichistosay,thatcreationofpersonalidentity(“l’expressiondesoi”–asitisdefinedbyMucchielli12)isadifficulttask,becausetheindividualhastobreakoffwiththeumbilical cordbywhichhe/shehasbeenboundwithhis

8

The first phase of identity George HerbertMeadcharacterisedasa“glass-lookingself”inhisbookMind, Self and Society,UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago1934.

9

Inthechapter“MoralDevelopmentandEgoIdentity”inHabermas’bookCommunication and the Evolution of Society, Beacon Press,Toronto 1979 (p. 85), the author points outthe links between moral development andego’smaturation,explainingitasfollows:intheprocessofmoraldevelopmentegocom-prehends the difference between norms andprinciples(values),thusdevelopinganabilitytojudgeaccordingtotheprinciplesandmake

the choice among alternatives regarding be-lievesandideas.

10

E. Erikson, Childhood and Society, Norton,NewYork1968,pp.244,263.

11

Z.Bauman,“IdentityintheglobalisingWorld”,Social Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 2, 2001, p.124.

12

A.Mucchielli,L’identité,PUF,Paris1986,p.5.



collective“ethos”providingsocialsecurityandpeacefullife.Thatistherea-sonwhyalotofindividualsdonotsucceedinattainingthesecondphase.13

Bothcollectiveandself-identityconsistoforiginalfiliationsandaccultura-tion(education).However,inthefirstcasethemainroleisplayedbyhistori-calfactorslike:fate,habits,norms,culturalcodes,ideologicalorientations.But,besidethem,elementsofmentalityhavealsoimportantinfluence:col-lectiveopinions,stereotypes,collectivesentiments.Whenpersonalidentityisinquestion,self-consciousandpersonaleducationaremoreimportant.AndasHabermaswrote:transferfromhabitsandcollectivenormstovaluesandmoralprinciplesimpliespersonaldevelopmentandabilityofonetochoosespecific tasksandfulfilone’sowngoals inorder tosatisfyasetofchosenneeds.Inoneword,self-identityisfoundedonperson’sfreedomtochooseautonomyofhis/herlife-prospectsandmentaldevelopment.Whenspeakingaboutcollectiveidentityofaperson,whatmattersasthemostimportanttask,inordertobecomethememberofagroup,isaccommodationtothegivensocio-culturalcircumstancesandrequirementswhicharecollec-tivelyshared.Andforthesakeofgroup’sintegrationitisoftennotallowedforitsmemberstomakeasecondstepandbecomeautonomouspersonalitieshavingcourage to rejecta simpleaccommodation to thegivenorders, andsearchfortheirownneeds,traitsandabilities.Theformationofpersonalitymaybeattainedonlyduringtheprocessofare-flexiveinternalisationofculturalachievements,andself-estimationofsocialnorms,meaningsandclaimsthathavebeenimposedbyhistoricaltraditions.Thatimplies,ontheoneside,breakingoffwithacollectivetraditionaldeter-mination,and“separation”from“we”concepttowhomonehastobesub-jected;butontheotherside,tracingawayto“selfhood”,i.e.tobeexpressedastherecognisable“Self”,whosedifferencefromthemassrepresentshis/herpersonalcharacterstructure.Onlythen,whenapersonemergesasauniquefigure,onemayspeakofindividualidentityasemancipationintheprocessofego’sdevelopment.PaulRicœur,inhisbookSoi-même comme un autre,describessuchastateasaknowledgeonehasaboutoneselfbutinaconnectionwiththe“other”;orinAristotelianterminology,whichtheauthormentions,itisexplainedasaphasewhenphronesisoriginatesaspracticalwisdomintermsofa“planforliving”inethical-culturalsense.Thatmarkspersonalcharacterasasystemofpermanentdispositionsaccordingtowhichapersonbecomespersonality.14

Developmentofpersonalidentity(intermsofself-identification)inademo-craticsocietyhastopassfromthe“collectiveethos”toone’sownself-imageandself-esteeminordertobecomeafreecitizen.Otherwise,ifthepersonfailstogothroughthenecessaryevolutionarypassage–fromcollectiveethostoselfunderstandingofone’sownneedsandgoals–onemayspeakofconform-ismasawayofbehaviourcharacteristictothe“authoritarianpersonality”.Whichpathofdevelopmentindividuals’growthwilltakedepends,inthefirstplace,on the typeofsocialisation andeducation;whichare,however,de-pendentonthecharacterofsocialorder(beitauthoritarianordemocratic),andculturalnormsaswellasthesystemofvalues(beitanopenculturalmi-lieu,ortraditionallyclosed/patriarchalculture,basedonhabitsandinheritedsystemofnorms15).Whenregarding typesof identity,Mucchielliwritesmoreconcretelyabouttheinfluenceofsocialconditions,andnumeratesthefollowing:levelofpros-perity,religiousandculturalactivities,typesofpopulation’sparticipation,cir-culationofinformation,cooperationorsocio-culturalconflicts.16Theauthor



alsoexplainswhatculturedoeswithintheprocessofidentitydevelopmentbysaying:“Lacultureintérioriséc’estl’ensembleacquisdesprincipesculturels(croyances,normsetvaleurs)desreprésentationscollectivesetdesmodèlesetcodederéférences.”17Thatistosay,cultureoffers,firstly,adaptationforreducinganxietyandproviding thesystemofsecurity.Butculturealso in-fluencesindividuals’mentalitysystem,providinganinterpretationofculturethrough“lesavoirsurl’universequirapportéasoi-même”.18ForMucchielliit is important to have inmind two formsof identification: “identificationwiththeother”and“identificationintheother”,whichmakesapassagefromcollectiveidentificationtoindividualidentitypossible–fromempiricalegototheSelfasaconscioussubject(“Je”and“soi”19),whichhasdevelopedthesentimentfordifferencesandautonomy.Summarising,onemaysay thatcultureprovidespatternsof“waysof life”(forbothcollectiveandindividualexistence);aswellasways/typesofthink-ing and believing besides common experiences and frames of value-refer-ences.Nevertheless,beingthatcultureispluralistic,identityitselfmayhaveplural forms not only in different cultures, but within the individual’s andcollective’sexpressions,andalso in thecontextof theirexperiencesof thegivenwaysoflife.Lookingtotheinnersideofpeople’slifeexperiencesandemotionsthatareinfluencedbytheletter,DominiqueMoïsi20explainsthatdifferentimpactofemotions,whichprevailindifferentcultures,formdifferentlifeorientations.Accordingly,peoplewilldifferentlyexperiencetheiridentification,opposingtheopinionoftheauthorswhotakeintoaccountonlyrationalcomprehension.“Todayquestforidentitybypeoplesuncertainofwhotheyare,oftheirplaceintheworldandtheirprospectsforameaningfulfuture,havereplacedideol-ogyasthemotorofhistory…”.21Thusheconcludes:cultureobtainsmuchmoreconcreteinfluencetothegroups’/individuals’experienceofreality:a)“cultureofhope”promotesconfidencebasedontheconvictionthattomor-rowwillbebetterthantoday(implyinganoptimisticview,andthusapositiveidentity);b)“cultureoffear”representstheabsenceofconfidence,beingap-prehensiveaboutthepresent,expectingthefuturetobecomemoredangerous(provokingsuspiciousviewandunstableorconfusedidentity);c)“cultureof

13

InEnglishthesameterm,i.e.subjectisusedboth for those who accept collectively im-posed identification (while in Serbian lan-guageit iscalled‘podanik’,withameaningcloser to ‘vassal’), and for individuals whoattainself-identificationas freepersonalities(for whom in Serbian the term ‘subjekt’ isused).

14

QuotedfromSerbiantranslation:Sopstvo kao drugi,BibliotekaAletheia,Beograd2004,p.180.

15

This was very well explained by PierreBourdieubyusingthetermhabituswhichisanexpressionofthestabletraitsoflifestyles,underlining the traditional cultures, whichemphasisescollective“ethos”.

16

Mucchielli,L’identité,pp.13–15.

17

Ibid.,p.15.

18

Ibid.,p.25.

19

Mucchielliexplainsthat“leJecorespondàceqi’ilyadepersonneldanslaconduite,ilcon-stitue le facteur de spontanéité… Le soi estunepossibilité de conscience car il est con-stituéparl’interactiondialectiqueduJeetdeMoi…”(ibid.,p.44).

20

D.Moïsi,The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Cultures of Fear, Humiliation and Hope are Reshaping the World,Doubleday,NewYork2009.

21

Ibid.,p.4.



humiliation”representsinjuredconfidenceofthosewhohavelosthopeinthefuture,“thefeelingthatyouarenolongerincontrolofyourlife…”,produc-inghopelessness.22

Plurality of identities

Duetothefactthatidentitytakespluralformsinthemodernera,itisoftendifficult to attainharmonyof identities, both individually and collectively.AsAnthonySmithwrote:multidimensionalidentityshouldbetakenintoac-count,accordingtogender,territory/homeland,statusandethnicity,aswellasideologyandconvictions.23

Therefore,itisalmostimpossibletoavoididentityconflicts,atleastcertainuncertainties.Theconflictmayarisewhenthemaincurrentof individuals’identitydoesnotcorrespondtothemainstreamdefinitionofcollectiveiden-tity (particularly if hierarchical relationships are established between indi-vidualmembers and society); or in the casewhena “closed society” is inquestioninwhichafixed,inheritedtypeofidentityfunctionsasarule;aswellaswhenidentityisreducedtoparticularformsofbelonging(asclass,race,nation/ethnicgroup).Individualsarethusblockedinsearchinganddefiningtheirownself-identification,becauseaone-sidedcollectiveidentificationde-mandsa strict adaptation to thehabits/customs, symbolsandvaluesof theparticulartradition.Thereby,itisimportanttoanalyse:a)themodelofsociety’ssystemandcul-ture;b)theofficialparadigmfortheconstructionofidentities,bothindividualandcollectiveone;c)mainstreamsystemofvalueswhichinfluencesdetermi-nationandchoiceofthegivenpopulations’identities.Twoconflictingmodelsofidentityaremostlyevidentintheso-calledpost-modern societies: traditional national pattern (whichprevailson theEast-ernpartofthecontinent),andWestern cultural pattern.Whatmodelwillbeadopteddependsonthetypeofsocialpolicywhichwillbecomedominant:nationallydeterminedorculturallyarticulated.Identitycrisiscomesintobe-ingwhenthosetwomodelspenetrateoneanother,producingconfusion,un-certaintyandanomie.Smithoffersanexplanationwhynationalandculturalpatternofidentitycan-notbereconciled:becausenationalidentity,beingbasedonethnicbelonging,promotesnationalmythologies,createscollectivesentimentsaboutcommonancestorsandterritoriesandcommonfates,thatareboundwithnationalsym-bolsassignsofanidealised“goldenage”oftheheroicpast.24Suchapatternoftraditionalidentitycannotjustbeinscribedinthemodernwayoflife;andifitstillpersists,amodernculturalparadigmcannotbefunctional.Thesameauthorexplainswhynationalidentityisstillsuperiorbysuggest-ing that its functions are even today important for a stable people’s lives,because“…itsatisfies theanswerconcerningtheproblemof‘personalob-livion’,identificationwith‘nation’whichisinasecularerathemostreliablewaytoovercomefinalityofdeath…byofferingastrongandgloriousfuture,likeone’sheroicpast.”25

Thosetwoidentitypatternsarecontradictoryandcannotbemixedupbecauseof:nationalpatternwhichpromotescollectiveidentity,thatis,“determinationofsocialstandingwithacompulsiveandobligatory self-determination…”;26imposinghomogenisationofpeopleasthemainprincipleofthenation-state’spolicy.Meanwhile,culturalpatternaspirestoemancipationofindividualsand



collectives from the“ascribed, inheritedand inborndetermination…trans-forminghuman‘identity’froma‘given’intoa‘task’”.27

Habermashaswrittenthatthedifferencebetweentraditionalsocietyandmod-ernsocietyconsistsinthebasicdifferenceoftherules:theformerisruledbyhabitualnorms,whilethelattercreatestheirnormsbasedonprinciples;andthat iswhythemodernmanhasapluralityofidentitiesthatmaybefreelychosenondisposal.28

Thecrisisofidentityisintensified“withepisodiclifeconditions”ofinstabil-ity of all aspects of social existence and altered standards of morality, ac-cordingtoBauman.29Therefore, it isbecomingmoredifficult torecogniseone’sownidentity,forinamassconsumersocietyitisalmostimpossibletodifferentiate“whoiswho”;because“individualsasconsumers,whosemainobjectistocollectthings,becomeindivisiblepartsofthegroupsinthemarketcentres.”ThisisindicatedbyDjuroŠušnjić(esteemedSerbiansocialscien-tist),whenhewrites:“IamtherewhereIdonothidebehindagroupwhereinIbecomeitsdepersonalisedrepresentative”.30AndaccordingtoLipovetsky,31the“ethosofconsumerismreconstructsallthespheresoflife…producinganabsenceoflife-esteem”.Baumanexplainswhytheconceptofidentityhasbecometheproblemnumberoneinthescientificresearchtoday;andanswersthatitispreciselyduetotheemergingcrisis of identity.Heoffersthefollowingexplanation:inthepost-modernworldoneneedstochangeoneselfandtheexistingconditionsasanactiveparticipant(i.e.asasubject),todevelopnewformsofself-identifica-tion inorder to create autonomy;however, the “NewWorldOrder” ratherpromotesconformityasapreferabletypeofbehaviour,preventingmaturityofindividualsasself-consciousbeings.Thatiswhyconflictofidentitiesacceleratesinthe“NewWorldOrder”.Thisway,afeeling,bothofindividualsandcollectives,oflosingtheiridentitiesarises,whichbecomesthemainreasonoffrustrationintheeraofglobalisa-tion.WithglobalisationoftheWorldOrdertheproblembecomesmoreacute,notonlyintheoretical/philosophicalsense,butalsoinactuallifeofcommu-nitiesandtheirmembers.Thisisduetothefactthatthemainstreammodelofglobalisation,createdbythesuperpowers,demandsunificationandshowsignorance regarding theexistingdifferences (geographical,cultural, indivi-

22

Ibid.,pp.5–6.

23

A.Smith,National Identity,PenguinBooks,London 1991. All the quotations are takenfrom Serbian translation: Nacionalni identi-tet, XXvek,Beograd1998,herepp.15–18.

24

Ibid.,pp.120,145.

25

Ibid.,pp.248–249.

26

Bauman,“IdentityintheglobalisingWorld”,p.124.

27

Ibid.

28

Habermas,Communication and the Evolution of Society,p.87.

29

Z. Bauman, Life in Fragments. Essays in Postmodern Morality,Blackwell,Cambridge1998,p.43.

30

Dj.Šušnjić,Dijalog i tolerancija,Čigoja,Beo-grad1997,pp.421–422.

31

G.Lipovetsky,Le bonheur paradoxal. Essai sur la société d’hyperconsommation, Galli-mard,Paris2006.QuotationstakenfromSer-biantranslation:Ž.Lipovecki,Paradoksalna sreća. Ogled o hiperpotrošačkom društvu,Izdavačka knjižarnica Zorana Stojanovića,NoviSad2008,pp.153,169.



dual),whichisinthesharpcontrastwiththemodernneedsforpluralexpres-sionsandself-determinationofindividualsandsocieties/cultures.32

Postmodern man has lost his right and stopped striving to become an au-tonomousandactivepartoftheprocessofself-determinationandaparticularidentificationwithone’sowncommunity.Thatiswhythemessage“workonyourself”hasbeenthemostimportantphilosophicaltasknowadaysaswellasitwasintheAntiquity–sentasacrucialmessagebySocratesinhisfamouswords:“knowthyself”inordertobecapableofrecognisingothers.Suchamessagebecomesevenmoreacutetodaywhenpeopleaspersonalitieshavebeenlostwithinmobsofnon-recognisable individualsandundifferentiatedmultitudeofcrowds.Asareactiontosuchaconceptionofglobalidentity,RichardRortydeclaredanexpectationthatEuropeanUnionwouldbecapableofcomposinganalter-nativeconceptoftheworldorder.33AndasimilarconsiderationKopićfoundinJacquesDerrida’ssayingthatitisEuropewhichcouldsowtheseedsofanew altermodern policy free from any eurocentrism.34 In both expressionsEuropeisimaginedasanopenspaceforculturalcreationsoftheentireworld.AndIbelievethatthisistheonlyrightinspirationasfarastheconstitutionofEuropeanidentityisconcerned.However,thepracticalpolicyofEuropeanintegrationdoesnotfollowsuchsuggestions.Onthecontrary,“Europeanidentity”isunderstoodandplannedin terms of unification, i.e. standardisation according to one undisputablemodelimposedbytheEUadministration,becausewhatpostmodernsocietiesshould“like”andaretodoisdecidedbythebureaucraticadministrationinBrussels,whichbelievesthatthe“NewWorldOrder”wouldbemuchbetterifallitsmembersweremuchalikeoneanother,withwhomtheworld’sor-ganisationcouldeasilyrule.However,nobodywhocreatessuchanOrderhasinmindthefatalresults,thatis,howmuchofhumanpotentialscouldbelostifimaginationandcreativityofindividualsandcollectiveswereimperilled,withoutanyoneresponsibleforthatunreasonablepolicy.Thatisthereasonwhyonemayspeaknowadaysaboutconstructionofquasi-identitiesasaresultoftheabsenceoffreeimaginationofdifferentsocietiesandcultures;becausesuchanidentityhasbeencreatedonanillusionofindi-vidual’sandcollective’scontinuityinaglobalspace,whileinfact,worldisrapidlymoving–andthatproducesanomie.Thesituationbecomesworseduetotheexistingclashoftwocontradictorypoliticaldemands:fromliberalindividualismwithrecognitionofdifferences,toneo-liberalprincipleofunificationwhichisbeingdictatedbythemarketmechanismsandeconomicrationalityplusproceduralrationality,whichdonotcareaboutindividualautonomyandnational/socialsovereignty,thosebe-longingtothefundamentalhumanrightsproclaimedbydemocraticconstitu-tions.What is needed instead is a redefinition of the mainstream model of glo-balisedidentityintermsofreconciliationofindividualandcommunalfactorsintheconceptof“globalcommunity”.Wemaysaythatthemainshortcom-ingofthe“globalpolicy”is,firstofall,neglectofthepluralityprincipleofcontemporarycivilisations,whichdemandstakingcareofpluralityofidenti-tiesinharmonywithculturaldifferencesallovertheworld.Meanwhile,theconceptionwhichprevailsconcerningthe“NewGlobalOrder”followsthepolicywhichreducestheentireglobetotheWestern(orevenmorerestrictedAmerican)civilisation.Andwhensuchapolicydoesnotcareaboutimportantdifferencesamongstindividualsandcommunities,whichmarktheirunique-



ness,“NewWorldOrder”becomesverymuchalikeOrwell’s“BigBrother”imagination.35

Whenall ideasarestandardisedundertheumbrellaofmarketing/consumercompetition,andallvaluesexpressedwithintheutilitarianprinciples(outofmorality),forthebenefitsofprofit-makingandgrowthofeconomiccapital;36and when the whole development has been reduced to only one/economicmodelofrationality,individualsandcommunitiesaredeprivedofnewvisionsandalternatives.IfonecompareswhatMarkAmstutzwritesinhisimpressivebookInterna-tional Ethics: Concepts, Theories and Cases in Global Politics,37aboutwhatinternationalethicsassumesinthecaseofagoodglobalgovernment,withtheactualpractice,oneshouldbeawarethatthelatterisfarfromtheimaginedconception.Itisbecauseinthelatterthesubstantiveprincipleshavenotbeensatisfied,suchas:justiceoftheinternationalorder;searchforthepossibleal-ternativesthroughtheapplicationofmoralprinciples;justglobalinstitutions;andthelastbutnottheleast,estimationofmoralvaluesoftheinternationalregimes.38Therefore,theauthorconcludes:“Thereisnocompetentconcep-tionofpoliticaljustice”,thus“asearchfortheinternationalordermightbeinconsistentwithsearchforjustice.”39

ButGianniVattimoismoreoptimistictowardsanalternative“Europeaniden-tity”because:“Europeisasaprojectofpoliticalconstruction…baseduponfreebelongingsofcitizensandstateswithequalrights…asoneofpoliticalidealswhichiscapableofpromotingfreewillandstirringupafireofsouls“.40However,morewritersdisagreewiththiswayofthinking,believingthatsuchidealsarestillwishfulthinkingintheactualEUgovernment,becausetherearesignsofinnerconflictswhichthreatentosplittheUnion.Thatistosay,thenewparadigmofEUidentityhasnotbeencreatedyet,becausethepolicy,whichisorientedtowardstheUSAmodel,strivesmoretotheunificationthanrespectingdiversitiesof socio-cultural conditionsof thegivenmembersoftheUnion.EventhoughallEuropeansocietieswhichjoinedtheUnionmadethat decisionby their freewill, yet,when theybecame themembers, they

32

SeeSmith,National Identity,pp.244–245.

33

This is taken from the book by M. Kopić,Sekstant. Skice o duhovnim temeljima svije-ta, Službeni glasnik, Beograd 2010, p. 70.The author quoted the above sentence fromRorty’sbookHumiliation or Solidarity?.

34

Ibid.,p.71.

35

Itwasnotbyaccident that the shownamed“Big Brother” became popular in mass me-diaallovertheworld,becausemodernpeoplerecognize themselves through such a play,andreproducetheirowneverydaylife.

36

PostmoderntheorydoesnotpayattentiontoPierreBourdieu’smorecomplexunderstand-ingof humanwaysof life,whohaswrittenaboutdifferentkindsof“capital”,besideeco-nomicone,thatinfluenceexistenceofpeople,e.g.: “cultural capital”, “symbolic capital”,

etc.They should be taken as important ele-ments in investigating the quality of life intermsofdifferentiatedhumanconditions.

37

M.Amstutz,International Ethics: Concepts, Theories and Cases in Global Politics,Row-man & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD32008.All quotationshere are fromSerbiantranslation: Međunarodna etika i globalna politika: pojmovi, teorije i slučajevi,SlužbeniGlasnik,Beograd2008.

38

Ibid.,p.24.

39

Ibid.,p.348.

40

Gianni Vattimo, Nichilismo ed emancipazi-one. Etica, politica, diritto, Garzanti libri,Milano 2003. Here the quotations are takenfrom Serbian translation, Nihilizam i eman-cipacija: etika, politika, pravo,Adresa,NoviSad2008,p.150.



wereobligedtofollowstandardiseddemandsfromabove(dictatedbytheEUadministration),regardlessoftheirrealneeds/interestsandtraditions.That iswhysomeauthorswrite,when themodelof the“GlobalWorld” isconcerned,aboutanewcolonisation pattern,becauseitisquiteobviouswhoisincommandwhenthecreationofthatmodelisinquestion,andwhoisinpossessionofpower todefinecriteriawhowillbecomethememberof theUnion.Sotosay,thenewmembersoftheUnionlosetheirculturalidentitiesand freedom,becoming incapableof rationally estimatingwhether theEUpolicy is ready to satisfy their needs, because a standardised schedule hasbeenformulatedbytheEUadministrationinoneformforall,whileparticularsocietiesareinthepositionto“takeitorleaveit”.IrrationalityofsuchaunifiedconceptionofEUintegrationbreaksoutparticu-larlyinlastfewdecades,whichcertainauthorscomparewiththeconceptionofglobalisation,identitypatternofwhichhasbeenestimatedasinadequate.Forbothconcepts (ofglobalisationandEU integration) suffer fromalmostthesamedefects:inconsistencyofdemocraticallyguaranteeduniversalhumanrightsandtheexpressionofdiversitiesandneedsforself-determination.Thismeans that the European Union has not become a desired configuration ofmulticolourdesignsunitedbyuniversalhumanrightsandvalues,butallmem-berseitherpreservetheirtraditionalculturalidentities,orassimilatetheirwayoflifetotheunifiedmodel.Therefore,onemaysaythatdissatisfactionwithglobalisationandEUintegrationresultsfromabureaucraticconstructionoftwoabstractgiantcommunities,towhichallmembersarecompelledtosubmitaccordingtoaready-mademodelprescribedbythesuper-power’sdemands.Thereby,Europeshouldbeinsearchforanewparadigm,becausetheconceptofEuropeanidentityhasnotbeenclearlydefined,asNoëlleBurgipointedoutbyputtingforwardthequestion:“DoespoliticsofEUidentitydenyorinten-sifydifferencesandpluralformsofidentification?”41Shementionsthefol-lowingcriticalremarkstothemodelofEUpolicy:1)thatitstrictlyimposesWestern standards,orprecisely,Americanvaluesystemanddesignforlife,whichcannotbeeasilyreconciledwithmoreculturallydifferentiatedEurope;2)theimposedAmericanisationoftheEuropeanpatternoflifedeprivestheEuropeanUnionofauniqueparadigmonthegroundsofgreaterculturaldi-versificationthanonepresentintheUSA;3)hierarchicalstructureoftheEUadministrationaffirmsmorebureaucraticthandemocraticgovernment.Withinthegivencircumstancesbothindividualsanddifferentcountriesandcommunitieslosetheiridentities.Therearemanysignsofsuchanassumption:– membersoftheEUareobligedtouseEnglishinofficialcommunication

andevenintheirprogrammes’documents,whichmakesatremendousim-pactonthechangeofthenativelanguage,inwhichoriginalwordsbecomespoiledwhenmixedbyborrowedEnglishwords,andalsomuchimpover-ished;

– manybodiesoftheEUadministrationanditscommissionsareveryoftencomposedofpersonsfromtheCentralEuropeancountries,whompeoplefromtherestoftheUniondonotconsiderastheirrepresentatives,com-plaining thus that theEUadministrationdoesnotunderstand theirprob-lems;

– theresultofwhichisthefactthatrichcolourfulnationalcultureshavebeendyingundertheumbrellaoftheEuropeanUnionontheexpenseofturbo-cultural mass production as a poor copy of original diversified nationalcultures.42



Identity and the request for accommodation

However,whenspeakingaboutaccommodationtothe“NewGlobalWorld”,amoretragicphenomenon,whichgivesevidenceaboutthelostidentityoftheoriginalcommunalwaysoflife,isdescribedbytheanthropologistWadeDav-isinhisbookLight at the Edge of the World.43TheauthorgivesverytouchingevidenceondisappearanceofcertaintribalsocietiescolonisedbyMalaysia,whilepretendingtofreethemfromtheirbackwardness,but,infact,brutallydeprivingthemoftheirstyleoflifeandculturalidentities,andalsooflivesitself(manypeoplediedwhentheyhadbeenremovedfromtheirnativesur-roundings–lands,greenfields,forests–andbeenforciblyalteredintohiredlabourers,towhatmajoritycouldnotaccommodate).Thecolonisersclearedtheforests,whichhadbeenthenaturaldomicileofthesepeopleforages,anddisplacedthepopulationtothesmallagleytownsalthoughtheywerenomads.Theauthorremarksthatpeople,whohavelivedalwaysinpeace,havinglosttheiraboriginalidentity,havebecomeviolent,committingcriminalactsandintertribal fights.The evidence showed as well mass death due to hunger,whichhappenedbecausetheycouldnotadoptthenewcuisine(withcookedproducts),whiletheyhadbeenaccustomedtonaturalfood(leaves,wildfruitsandwildanimals).ThatiswhytheauthorwritesonethnocidethathadbeenspreadamongsttheAfricantribes,demystifyingthe“emancipatorymissions”ofWesterncolonisers.44

This is an impressive exampleofhowdestructive can aviolent changeofpeoples’culturalidentitiesbe,whentheyareforciblydeprivedoftheirtradi-tionalwaysoflife.Butthisisnotanisolatedfact–ithasbeengoingoninallcolonised(orsemi-colonised)countries,whichisstillacustomarypracticeofthe“missions”byWesternpowerfulstates.Very important questions were put forth at the international conference attheUniversityofCopenhagenonthetopic“NewGlobalWorld”.45Asacon-sequenceoftheabsence,orinadequatepatternofthe“NewGlobalWorld”conception,theimposedmodelofglobalisationhaspromotedtherevivalofnationalism“asadefenceagainstapossible lossof identity”,according toPeterDuelund’sspeech.Considering thesocialandpolitical importanceofinvestigationsdealingwiththerelationsofidentitywithnationalismandcul-turalpolicy,theauthorrisesthequestion:“Whattypeofidentityandnation

41

N.Burgi,professorof social sciencesat theUniversityofSorbonne,Paris, inherspeechattheInternationalconferenceinBelgradeinMarch,2010.

42

E.g.thevulgarrealityshowslike“BigBrother“,“TheFarm”,“Survivor”areimposedandbe-camepopular inmajority of cultures inEu-rope.

43

W.Davis,Light at the Edge of the World: A Journey through the Realm of Vanishing Cul-tures,Douglas&McIntyre,Vancouver2007.Serbiantranslationusedforquotations:Svet-lost na kraju sveta. Putovanje kroz svet kul-tura koje nestaju,Prometej,NoviSad2008.

44

Ibid.,p.189.

45

TheconferencewasorganizedbyPeterDu-elund, the Dean ofAnthropological Depart-mentattheUniversityofCopenhageninMay2009,whoopenedthedebatewiththepaper“Identity,NationalismandCulturalPolicyinEurope”.Interestingtopicswhichhavebeenconsidered at this conference were, amongothers:“Multiculturalism–aSubversivePa-radigm to Nationalism” (Nils Holtug, Uni-versity of Copenhagen); “Ideas, Trends andParadoxesinEUCulturalPolicies”(UffeOs-tergaard, University of Copenhagen); “Pos-sible IdentityScenario for theFuture of theEU”(JohnErikFossum,UniversityofOslo).My presentation was dedicated to “SerbianPatterns inSearch for aModernExpressionofIdentities”.



couldserveasafoundationforafuturedevelopmentofculturesandsocie-tieswithintheglobalcommunity?”Accordingtohisanswer,perceptionsofnationalidentityaretobereconstructedandchangedbyculturalpolicies,i.e.“Nationalidentitiesmaybesubjecttoreinterpretation”;whichistosay,that‘nationalidentity’asareconstructedconceptisnotsynonymouswith‘nation-alism’(whichisusuallytakenforgrantedwithinthemajorityoftheSerbianpeople).46

Europeanisation and a new politics of identity

Contrastingtotheconceptofa“primordialidentity”,whichisconceivedasanaturallygivenandunchangeableentity,Itreatidentityproblemasaproductofchangewithindifferentsocio-culturalconstellations;e.g.whenspeakingaboutwhathappenedwiththepatternofidentityaftertherecentinter-ethnicwarsand thebreak-upof theex-Yugoslaviaat theendof thepastcentury.However,contrarytotheethnic paradigm ratherpopularamongstanumberofsocialscientistsinSerbia,whocontinuewiththepromotionof“nationalidentity”,Iusecultural paradigminordertoaffirmanewunderstandingofnation’sbelonging,andconceptualiseamodernidentityfeelinginSerbiaintheprocessofitsdemocratictransformation.IstartfromtheassumptionthatamodernconceptionofSerbianidentitycannotrelyuponnationalmytholo-giesandrevivalofclericalstate,butshouldbecreatedwithinanew politics of identity.Itimpliestakingintoaccountamodernvalue-referentialframeworkandsocio-culturaldevelopment,whichalsochangetheconceptof‘nation’,havingbeenuptothistimetoonarrowandexclusive.When speakingabout a “newpoliticsof identity”, it is necessary to intro-duce theconceptofcivil society,whichhasprofoundlyaltered thepictureofmoderncommunitylifeand,accordingly,theexplanationofthenotionofbelonging.Insuchenlargedspaceofsociallifetherearemorepossibilitiesforchoosingpersonalandgroupidentity,whichareopentore-conceptualisa-tions;whileethnicidentityisanexclusivemodelimposedbythetraditionalwayof life,being resistant tochange,because inheritedcollective identityprevailstherewithoutsupportingdevelopmentoftheuniquenessofpersonalidentities.Thetraditionalmodelofidentitycannotbeincludedintotheconceptofdemo-craticchange,becauseitignoresenormousprocessesduringthe20thcenturyandatthebeginningofthenewmillennium.Andinparticular,whenfacingaglobalmultidimensionalcrisis,inwhichcultural crisishasbeenpushedtothebackgroundofthemodernlife’scontentwithintheneoliberalideologywithits one-dimensional conception of economism and over-identification withthepragmatic/utilitariannormsofa“postmodern”wayoflife.However,whencultureisreducedeithertoanexclusiveroleofpoliticalide-ologyor religion, theoriginal functionof culture is lost (which iseo ipsomultidimensionalandpluralistic).Thenitbecomesfertilefortheexpressionofvariousfundamentalisms(“marketfundamentalism”,religiousfundamen-talism,nationalistfundamentalism,etc.),whichiswhybothindividualsandcommunitiesarecompelledtoconstitutetheiridentitiesontheloyaltiestooneortheotherkindoffundamentalistideologies,withoutbeingabletomakeanindependentchoiceconcerningtheirownpersonalorcollectiveidentities.Withintheso-calledpostmodernsociety,itisnecessarytoreconsideracon-viction that nation, as an important milieu of identities, is disappearing intheglobalworld,whilenothingelseasaconcreteformofnewidentitycon-



stellationhasbeenformulated,exceptanabstractconceptofglobalisation.Itmeansthataproclaimednew politics of identityistobecontested,asMichaelBilligdidbyanalysingasanexperimentalexamplethe“modernmatrix”ofidentityintheUSA.47Theauthorshowsthatidentityisstillnationalthere,becausenationalminoritiesarestillrespectingandpracticingnational/ethnichabits/customswithinethniccommunities,althoughwithoutthewishtosepa-ratefromtheglobalstate,whereinthe“meltingpot”policyprovidesco-exist-enceofdifferentnationalitieswithintheAmericanstate.Butitiswithouttheirinterculturalinfluence,fortheirtraditionalculturesareallowedintheirethnic“ghettos”(muchvisibleinthephenomenonof“Chinatowns”andalike),hav-ingnoimpacttothedominant“Americanculture”.InEuropeaswellaninterculturalcommunicationofthemembersoftheEu-ropeanUnionhasnotbeenachieved,butwhatispreservedisapeacefulco-existenceofethniccultureswithinthenewpolicyofEUintegration,andthethreatoflatentethnicconflictsisstillthere.Thatwasalsothereasonofdisintegrationoftheex-Yugoslavia;andsuchastoryischaracteristicfortheBalkancountriesaswell,wheresomeso-calledsmallwarsonethnicbasisappear fromtime to time,havingproducedoneof thecruellestwar in the1990sbetween the republicsof theex-Yugosla-via, because national/separatist movements prevailed over the unity of themulti-national/multi-culturalstate.However,therecentevidenceprovesthatvariousseparationmovementsstillcontinuenotonlyinthispartofEurope.Andasfarastheglobalworldisconcerned,oneshouldspeakaboutAsiatoo,wherenationalistseparatistmovementsshakethestabilityofmajorityofthestatesonthatcontinent.Billig,therefore,deniesthethesisthatatransnational culture hasbecomethenewfoundationforamodernconceptofidentity,arguingthat“nationalflagshavenotbeentakendown”,and“nationalanthems”stillhomogenisepeoplewithintheircloserethnicgroups.48

One should mention another type of the old-fashioned form of identity aswell:thatisthemodelof“authoritarianpersonality”(Adorno,Horkheimer,Fromm),whichiscloselylinkedwiththenational/ethnictypeaccordingtothenatureofidentityitpromotes.Andthistypeofidentity,bothindividualandcollectiveone,whichbelongstothe“closedsociety”,stillpersistseveninthedevelopeddemocraticstates.Becauseeventherecitizens existofficially,butnothavingfullrights tobehaveasdemocracydeclares;namely, tobeself-consciousandcritically-mindedbeingswhoshouldbeequalpartnersindeci-sion-makingprocess.Unlessmoreorlessstrictsubordinationofthecitizensto thewillofpowerfulstates’administration is transcended, theappeal for“newidentity”willnotbeproperlyformulatedandconstituted.In the situation of identity crisis (particularly within the global economicones)onemayexplainwhypeopletrytofindsecurityintheregressiveformsofcollectiveidentity(revivalofextremenationalism,neo-fascism,religious

46

However,AlainTouraineinhisbookUn nou-veau paradigme. Pour comprendre le monde d’aujourd’hui, writes about a potential dan-geroususeof identitywhen it is reduced toonecommunityalone,beitthenationorreli-gion,becauseitthusbecomesanideologicalconstruction that prevents individual identi-ties and alternative forms of identity (Tou-raine,Un nouveau paradigme,p.287).

47

SeeM.Billig,“PostmodernIdentity”,in:Ba-nal Nationalism, Sage Publications, London1995.

48

Billig’sthesishadbeendiscussedatthemen-tionedconferenceinCopenhagenwherenewargumentshadbeenaddedtotheideathatna-tionalculturesstillprevailinnation-states.



fundamentalism,etc.).Thisisalsothereasonwhythepropagatednewmodelofidentityaftertheyear2000inSerbia,intermsof“Europeanidentity”(itisnotclearwhat that reallymeans inpractice)stilldoesnotseemveryat-tractivetotheSerbianpopulation:becauseitisnotproperlydebatedhowtointegrateSerbianculturalandhistoricaltradition,whichhadbeenforalongtimeratherdifferentfromtheWesterncivilisation,intheEU,orrather,howtojumpfromastillpatriarchalcommunity,closedinitself,totheEuropeanstandards,whicharebyitselfconfusing,becausetheysupportopennessand,atthesametime,commandsubmissiontotheprescribedglobalvisionsandnorms,regardlessofthefactthattheEuropeancountrieshavepassedthroughdifferenthistoricaldevelopmentsbeforetheyjoinedtheEuropeanUnion.Inotherwords,thesolutionofconflictbetweenEuro-centrismandethno-cen-trismhasnotbeenyetdiscovered.Onemayalsoexplain thestoryofcollapseof theex-Yugoslaviaby itsap-plicationofaninadequateconceptualisationofdemocratictransitionafterthefall of “communism” in 1989, which had still been traditionally based onnationalidentity.Therefore,thepre-moderntraditionanddemocratictransi-tionarestillincollision,becausetheconceptofcitizenshiphasnotbeendeve-lopedasamodernmatrixforethnicity.At theend, thequestionarises:what typeof identitywouldbeappropriatefor the future advancementofdemocratic transition in the former socialistsocieties?Theexistingconceptof“Europeanidentity”doesnotanswerthequestion,foritisstillanabstractcategorywhichdoesnothelpreconciliationofunityanddiversificationoftheinvolvedcultures.Itis,therefore,necessarytosearchforanewpatternwhichcouldprovideintegrationwithinthefreechoiceof(individualandcollective)identification.Thatistosay,todefinea newglobalEuropeanworldbutwithout neglectingplurality of formsofculturalidentitiesandcitizens’self-identities.Therefore,onlyanarticulatedcultural paradigm promisestoopennewwaystoareallymodern“qualityoflife”,inwhichacloselinkwouldbeattainedbetweencertainuniversalvalueprinciplesofmoderncivilisationsandpluralityformsofindividualandcol-lectiveidentitiesofdifferentnations’cultures.

Literature

BaumanZ.1997.Postmodernity and Its Discontents,PolityPress.

BaumanZ.1998.Life in Fragments. Essays in Postmodern Morality,BasicBlackwell.

BaumanZ.1998.Globalization: The Human Consequences,ColumbiaUniversityPress.

BaumanZ.2006.Wasted Lives. Modernity and Its Outcasts,PolityPress.

BilligM.1995.Banal Nationalism,SAGEPublications.

BourdieuP.1984.Question de sociologie,EditionsduMinuit.

CallhounC.(ed.)1994.Social Theory and Political Identity,Blackwell.

CastoriadisC.1977–1986.Domaines de l’homme – Les Carrefours du labyrinth, EditionsduSeuil.

ConnellyW.E.1991.Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations and Political Para-dox, CornellUniversityPress.

CvijićJ.1965.“Dinarskitip”(“DinaricType”),in:Iz društvenih nauka (From Social Sci-ences),VukKaradžić,Beograd.

CvijićJ.1987.Balkansko poluostrvo (The Balkan Peninsula),Zavodzaizdavanjeudžbe-nika,Beograd.



DvornikovićV.1939.Karakterologija Jugoslovena (Characterology of the Yugoslavians),Kosmos,Beograd.

Featherston M. (ed.) 1990. Global Culture. Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity,SAGEPublications.

FriedmanJ.1994.Cultural Identity and Global Process,SAGE.

FrommE.1955.The Fear of Freedom, RoutledgeandKeganPaul.

GiddensA.1993.Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age,PolityPress.

GolubovićZ. 1993. “Antagonismand Identity inFormerYugoslavia”,Journal of Area Studies,no.3.

GolubovićZ.1999.Ja i Drugi(The Self and the Others),Republika.

GolubovićZ.&McLeanG.(eds.)1999.Models of Identities in Postcommunist Societies, CRV.

GolubovićZ.2006.“Krizaidentitetausvanućenovogmilenijuma”(“TheCrisisofIden-tityatDawnof theNewMillennium”), in:Pouke i dilema minulog veka (Lessons and Dilemmas of the Last Century),FilipVišnjić.

HabermasJ.1979.Communication and the Evolution of Society, Heinemann.

KonstatinovićR.1981.Filozofija palanke,Nolit,Beograd.

KopićM.2010.Sekstant. Skice o duhovnim temeljima svijeta (Sextant. Notes on the Spi-ritual Foundations of the World), Službeniglasnik.

KymlickaW.1995.Multicultural Citizenship,ClarendonPress.

LyotardF.1995/1996.“Pravadrugog”(“TheRightsoftheOther”),Beogradski krug,no.3–4/1–2.

MacLennanG.1995.Pluralism,OpenUniversityPress.

MarcuseH.1966.One-dimensional Man,BeaconPress.

MeadG.H.1952.Mind, Self and Society,UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

MelluciA.1995.“TheProcessofCollectiveIdentity”,in:JohnstonH.&KlandermansB.(eds.)Social Movements and Culture,UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

MittelmanH.J.1996.Globalization: Critical Reflections,LynneRiennerPublishers.

MoïsiD.2009.“Globalization,IdentityandEmotions”,in:The Geopolitics of Emotion,TheBodleyHead.

MucchielliA.1983.L’identité,PUF.

OffeC.1996.Modernity and the State: East, West,PolityPress.

PiagetJ.1970.L’épistemologie génétique,PUF.

PrestonP.1997.Political/Cultural Identity. Citizens and Nations in a Global Era,SAGE.

RiesmanD.1961.The Lonely Crowd, YaleUniversityPress.

SmithA.1991.National Identity,PenguinBooks.

ScottA.(ed.)1997.TheLimits of Globalisation. Cases and Arguments,Routledge.

TappP.(ed.)1986.Idéntité individuelle et personalisation, Sciencedel’homme.

TaylorCh.1992.Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition,PrincetonUniversityPress.

Touraine A. 2005. Un nouveau paradigme. Pour comprendre le monde aujourd’hui,Fayard.



VattimoG.2003.Nichilismo ed Emancipazione. Etica, politica, dritto,Garzantilibri.

VujadinovićD.etal.2005.Between Authoritarianism and Democracy. Civil Society and Political Culture,CEDET.

WrightMillsC.1959.Sociological Imagination,PenguinBooks.

ZakariaF.2003.The Future of Freedom,W.W.Norton.

ZagorkaGolubović

Antropološko poimanje identiteta

SažetakPotreba za antropološkim pristupom pojmu identiteta javlja se zbog prirode kako osobnog tako i kolektivnog identiteta, budući da nije riječ o fenomenima koji su »prirodno dani«, već o kul-turno definiranim i konstituiranim formama ljudskog života u kulturnoj sredini kao »drugoj prirodi«, koja na ljudski način uvjetuje i konceptualizira različite »načine života« pojedinaca i naroda. Budući da kultura predstavlja bitan kontekst ljudskog socijalnog i individualnog života, ona osigurava obrazac zajedničkog načina života i načina mišljenja kolektivnog iskustva, kao vrijednosno-referentni okvir na koji se oslanjaju definicije i interpretacije identiteta. Stoga kul-turna paradigma omogućuje istraživačima da razumiju što znači identitet (personalni i kolek-tivni) u različitim društveno-povijesnim uvjetima i ideološkim konotacijama, pretpostavljajući dinamičan koncept nasuprot nacionalnog obrasca identiteta koji se vezuje za etničke grupe i postaje ekskluzivan te isključuje mogućnost promjene. U tekstu će se razmatrati i tradicionalno orijentirana konceptualizacija identiteta u Srbiji i njen utjecaj na sporost promjena u demokrat-skoj tranziciji u novom tisućljeću i ukazati na probleme i dileme u tom kontekstu.

Ključneriječiantropološkainterpretacijaidentiteta,identitetkaobiološkakategorija,identifikacija,individualiza-cija,pluralnostidentiteta

ZagorkaGolubović

Anthropologische Auffassung der Identität

ZusammenfassungDer anthropologische Ansatz zum Identitätskonzept wird benötigt, da die „Identität“ (sei sie persönlich oder kollektiv) nicht von Natur aus „gegeben“ ist, sondern für Menschenwesen kul-turell definiert und konstituiert ist, die in dem kulturellen Rahmen als der „anderen Natur des Menschen“ leben; so existieren sie menschlich bedingt und konzeptualisiert in verschiedenerlei „menschlichen Lebensarten“. Diese Kultur zu durchleben bildet den essenziellen Kontext des Soziallebens wie auch der Persönlichkeitsgründung, es liefert die Muster der gemeinschaft-lichen Lebens- und Denkweise der kollektiven Erfahrung, und zwar als wertmäßig-referen-zielles Gerüst, woran sich die Definitionen und Interpretationen der Identitäten anlehnen. Aufgrund dessen befähigt das kulturelle Paradigma die Erforscher zum Verständnis, welche Identität (kollektive oder persönliche) sich in diversen sozialhistorischen Gegebenheiten sowie ideologischen Konnotationen offenbart, vorausgesetzt, dass dieses Konzept im Vergleich zum anderen dynamisch ist, wie zum nationalen Identitätsentwurf, welcher sowohl begrenzt als auch abschließend wirkt und als statische Kategorie keinerlei Änderungsmöglichkeiten duldet. In dem Artikel wird ebenso die traditionell ausgerichtete Identitätskonzeptualisierung in Serbien behandelt und ihre Einwirkung auf die Wandelträgheit innerhalb der demokratischen Transition im neuen Millennium.

SchlüsselwörteranthropologischeInterpretationderIdentität,IdentitätalsbiologischeKategorie,Identifikation,Indi-vidualisation,PluralitätderIdentitäten



ZagorkaGolubović

Une conceptualisation anthropologique de l’identité

RésuméLa nécessité d’une approche anthropologique du concept d’identité provient de la nature de l’identité, qu’elle soit personnelle ou collective, qui n’est pas un phénomène « donné naturelle-ment », mais une forme, culturellement définie et construite, de la vie humaine dans un milieu culturel en tant que « seconde nature » ; celle-ci conditionne et conceptualise humainement les différents « modes de vie » des individus et des peuples. Étant donné que la culture représente le contexte essentiel de la vie sociale et individuelle de l’homme, elle fournit un modèle pour un mode de vie et de pensée commun de l’expérience collective, comme cadre des valeurs de réfé-rence sur lequel s’appuient les définitions et les interprétations de l’identité. Ainsi, le paradigme culturel permet aux chercheurs de comprendre ce que signifie l’identité (personnelle et collec-tive) dans des conditions socio-historiques et des connotations idéologiques différentes, en as-sumant un concept dynamique inverse du modèle national d’identité, qui lui est lié aux groupes ethniques et exclut la possibilité du changement. Le texte traitera également de la conceptua-lisation, orientée traditionnellement, de l’identité en Serbie, ainsi que de son influence sur la lenteur des changements dans la transition démocratique en ce nouveau millénaire.

Mots-clésinterprétationanthropologiquedel’identité,identitéentantquecatégoriebiologique,identification,individualisation,pluralitédesidentités

Documents

An Anthropological Conceptualisation of Identity