Then we look at Yugoslav identity. Up to more than 6% [of the population] in 1981 in Montenegro identified as. Yugoslavs - similar in other Republics. And this ...
Transcript of Video Abstract for…
‘Situational Nationalism: Nation-building in the Balkans, Subversive Institutions and the Montenegrin Paradox’ by Erin K. Jenne and Florian Bieber Published in Ethnopolitics (RENO) Volume 13, Issue 5 (2014) Florian Bieber: “The article, ‘Situational Nationalism…’, which I, Florian Bieber, have written together with Erin Jenne , is a case study of Montenegro. Montenegro is a puzzling case of identity developments over the last decades, which we’re exploring in this article. Namely, that it seems to go against the usual case of institutional nation-building. As Montenegro began in 1948, as a Republic of Yugoslavia, it had a large majority of citizens, over 90%, who identified as Montenegrins. But in the following decades, the more, actually, Montenegro engaged in statebuilding or Republic and state-building within Yugoslavia, the more the number of Montenegrins actually declined. And the biggest gap, or the biggest drop, in fact, was after the dissolution of Yugoslavia and actually on the way to independent Montenegrin statehood. So, normally one would expect, if institutions are established, newspapers, media and the state propagates a nation and a state, the number of citizens who identify with it would go up. However, we discover, looking at census data over the last six decades that the contrary is the case in Montenegro. So, we’re trying to explain this and to develop an idea of situational nationalism through this case study, which argues that identities are fluid and are much more driven by both the supply side, which is not just offered by the state but by competing nation states in the area – in this case, in particular, Serbia – and by the demand side, i.e. what citizens are, in a certain way, able to identify with based on their background. So, we’ll look at three episodes. First, the rise of Muslim identity; how citizens of Montenegro cease to identify themselves as Montenegrins but rather as Muslims, as that category became available to them from the 1960s onwards in Yugoslavia. This is, in a certain way, an example of identity chosen because it was offered. Then we look at Yugoslav identity. Up to more than 6% [of the population] in 1981 in Montenegro identified as Yugoslavs - similar in other Republics. And this was not so much driven by the state but rather by citizens who did not want to identify with one of the dominant nations. And again, the number of Montenegrins subsequently declined. The biggest decline though has been since 1991 when many citizens stopped identifying as Montenegrins but rather as Serbs. So we look at that in great detail and we explore that, in fact the areas, which had historically seen the most Serbs, namely the coastal regions, did not see an as [sic] dramatic rise as others… which points to the fact that the strengthening of Serb identity is not following a pattern of, kind of, clear, previous locations of this identity but rather new types; in particular in the borderlands between Serbia and Montenegro, where one side the conflict with the dominant Bosniak or Muslim minority might have been the most poignant, as well as the area which was clearly most dependent on Serbia proper, so where Serbian identity-construction could most effectively penetrate Montenegro. So, by looking at detailed census data over the decades, as well as looking at research on public debates and the way in which identities are defined in Montenegro, we don’t just explore the ambiguity of this particular case but also propose that one has to move away from a very linear understanding that the more institutions exist automatically this will lead to a stronger dominance of one particular identity. In fact, it has been the ‘thickening’ of the identity, over those decades in Montenegro, which had [sic] led to [the] reducing of those who are able to subscribe to it. So I hope you enjoy reading this article and [we’re] looking forward also to hearing your debates and comments. Thank you”.
