If the Chapter 2 was somewhat confusing, we would do good to repeat the major points contained in it. This is even more important, when we know (from the Introductory Chapter) that our discussion is about to take a radical turn. The text's argument is that to understand the Bosnian conflict we need to go beyond apparent iconography of the same, i.e. we need to leave behind the entire signification process that is often put in play and that, as such, has no future regarding a peaceful 'living together' within the borders of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In previous chapter the text's aim has been to address the issue of 'nationality' or / and 'ethnic group' with a purpose of trying to define the nature of the conflict we are dealing here with. For that matter, three ways of national consciousness have been presented. Or to put this differently, we have seen how a national identity has been constructed in the former Yugoslavia and that this model, almost certainly does apply to Bosnia and Herzegovina as well. The three ways have been defined as a pre-modern (or blood-line), a modern (or state sponsored) and a post-modern (or a matter of individual's choice). However, the reality of Bosnian conflict has seen the presence of three major national, or ethnic identities, each one with different Religion and each one with different interests. Question of all questions, when discussing the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been: how do we define the nature of that war? In other words, the task has been to decide whether the Bosnian war had been a civil war, or an expansionist or separatist war, or a religious war. This seems to be very significant point in most discussions about this war. Contrary to common assumptions, we have presented points that both, affirm and negate each of the three options with an intent to create plausible ground for the notion of 'stranger', which we will discuss at length in this chapter. This text's proposition has been further strengthened by a suggestion that derives from Hegel's statement according to which, "what is, is not and what is not, it is". Following this statement, we have proposed that if something were 'all of the above (civil -, religious -, or separatist / expansionist war)' it could well be that it is none of the above. Further on, we have suggested that if one type of explanation is always linked with one side involved in conflict, and is as such unacceptable for other sides, then such an explanation is either incorrect or one-sided.
As already said, in this chapter we will try to address the issue of Bosnian conflict in a very new way, via the notion of 'stranger'. But what do we do with Bosnians (Muslims and others who see themselves as Bosnians), Croats and Serbs, since they form the kernel of Bosnian war? These ethnic or national signifiers are a reality of Bosnia and Herzegovina and no one can change this. What could be done, and what needs to be done is to put these signifiers into a social perspective, i.e. to address their positive and their negative nature and to analyze the same within a context that is often referred to as "socialization process". Once we have done this, we can strip off the masks of national or ethnic identity (or any other socially constructed identity). This is important for us in order to reach a bare or 'naked' individual and then build up a theory (applicable to Bosnian conflict and possibly even beyond it) where we will encounter an indwelling stranger and an oncoming stranger - both of which, are notions of highest significance for this text's approach to the BLOODY nature of Bosnian war, that took place towards the close of Twentieth Century in the middle of 'civilized' Europe and at the doorsteps of a rapidly unifying Europe (European Union).
-Bosnian realities
Ethnic structure of Bosnia and Herzegovina is far richer then the three major ethnic groups. Not all of Bosnian population belongs to Croats, Muslims (Bosnians) or Serbs. Profile of Religions present in Bosnia and Herzegovina exceeds the number three - this number referring to three major religious communities, i.e. to Catholics, to followers of Islam and to Orthodox. However these two threes, in ethnic and in religious sense are major protagonists of the Bosnian conflict. These two threes also refer to a coalition of political parties that had defeated Communists or that had won the first democratic elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These two threes, Croats, Bosnians and Serbs, and Catholics, Muslims and Orthodox form a constitutive national structure of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. More or less, one is able, particularly now, to draw lines across the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that could depict one nationality as being predominant within one region, another nationality within another etc. But it also needs to be noted, that only some fifteen years before the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, in ethnic sense, most of Bosnian population were unconcerned with their ethnic background (in a sense that they would make an issue out of it). Also, some fifteen years before the collapse of the former Yugoslavia most of population would have counted as Atheists. All that mattered in religious sense, had been religious festivals for the sake of good food and good drinking and hardly anyone restricted him- / herself to attend only one's own religious festivals. It needs also to be noted, this had been a situation probably more applicable to Bosnian cities than to country side, and in particular to Sarajevo - Bosnian capital renown for a very rich 'night life', and as such highly desired as winter holiday destination in Zagreb (capital of Croatia) as well as in Belgrade (capital of Serbia). This had been further stressed by a very rich entertainment offer of Sarajevo, coupled with the city being a home town to the most popular rock-bend of the former Yugoslavia (Bijelo Dugme). No one in his or her right mind would have expected that only ten years of post Tito* time will be enough to destroy a fairly cosmopolitan spirit of Bosnian cities, of Sarajevo in particular. Whether the situation in Bosnian rural areas had been any or much different is unknown to me. *(Josip Broz Tito, the one and only president of the former Yugoslavia, often incorrectly, in my humble opinion, referred to in Occidental world as a "dictator").
Be it as it may, 1992 had seen the three ethnic political parties engaged in a bitter dispute over the future of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Croats and Bosnians were interested in an independent state, Serbs wanted to remain within some modified Yugoslav state. The former two organized a referendum on the issue and the latter organized its referendum on the issue. The outcomes of both referendums had been pretty much predictable. It all suited only to further bolster ethnic sense in citizens. It all also suited to neutralize a voice of an indifferent observer. And it all had been generously helped from Croatia and even more so form Serbia. The rest is a bloody war history raging from 1992 to 1996.
Post war Bosnia and Herzegovina still bears all the hallmarks of the pre war Bosnia and Herzegovina. The war is over, reconstruction and rebuilding are progressing fairly good. In political sense, each ethnic group has got more or less its own area of jurisdiction. Croats and Bosnians merged into a federation and Serbs semi-autonomous (there still exists and functions federal government) in their ethnic territory. What is missing are tens of thousands of dead persons and tens of thousands of persons dispersed across the globe. What is missing is a clear cut picture of recognized responsibility for the four years of chaos. What is missing is a view of a brighter future in which one will see a person and not ethnically colored individual backed or acting on behalf of his or her ethnicity. No ethnic group can claim a victory but the whole population has ended up being losers. This is further reiterated by international community taking away centuries old emblems of Bosnian state, that existed in a time when there was only a Bosnia as a state (kingdom), its people as Bosnians and its church as the Bosnian Church...
'Strangers' don't like foreign symbols...
-Bosnian realities and "socialization process"
Previous section of this chapter has attempted to show that major protagonists of the Bosnian war have been the 'problem makers' and the 'problem solvers', albeit due to a considerable pressure imposed by international community. Now, if Croats, Bosnians and Serbs were the problem makers and then again the problem solvers, one wonders why did war happen in the first place. The Bosnian war has not produced any winners as is often case in a war. Losers on the other hand are many, although we do not intend to discuss their position. The Bosnian reality refers to those who still live in Bosnia and Herzegovina and among those, many 'losers' have to reinvent their existence. So, and as we have concluded the previous section, it is still a matter for Croats, Bosnians and Serbs to find a way for a good and prosperous state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Our attention now shifts in a direction that deals with socialization process. This is very important as we need to both, define and identify the wheels of socialization process in order to make a categorization based on another set of terms, which will help us, or help them, living in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to make a clear distinction between what is essential and what is inessential - in this case, the "inessential" refers to artificial construction that entails certain purpose but that at the same time categorizes that purpose as not essential. Only after this has been done, can we embark on a journey that uncovers problem of the Bosnian war as being a problem that stems from a human being and where all other descriptiveness is only part of signification process that reduces a human being to a set of symbols.
By definition, socialization process denotes a way, through which an individual from its earliest stage on is being brought into society. Instances that carry out socialization process are present already in a society. Of course, we always start with family, then move on to a community until we get to the point, when an individual becomes a member of society in its own right. Louis Altusser calls these various instances of socialization process "ideological state apparatus". The economy deployed during significant part of socialization process is, according to Habermas' appropriation of Freud, based on tenets of "substitute gratification". In other words, an individual 'learns' how to become a member of a society via rewards for achievements and punishments for failures. An infant is being, courtesy of substitute gratification, instructed as to 'what goes and what doesn't go'. The serious question remains, to what extent are those things that 'doesn't go', removed from individual's mind? Or to what extent are these 'doesn't go-s' postponed for a later period, when an individual will be on its own. The whole matter of this game has as its purpose taming of an individual via channeling and directing that individual to become an acceptable member of society. Another question is, what happens if socially approved behavioral pattern is changed due to a social change? In other words, and as has been the case in Bosnia (and not only there), what happens with 'appropriate behavior' if the society undergoes a change from communist ideology to some new, but essentially 'private property' ideology? Or we may even formulate this question in another way: what happens when a spirit of cosmopolitanism is substituted with a spirit of tribalism, or with that of nation state - to use less loaded terminology? The experience of Bosnia and Herzegovina developed exactly along these lines. Common property of a cosmopolitan communism has been substituted by a private property with the scent of national particularism further flavored by religious affiliation. These all present a shock for any individual that has been learned in one way and then has come to face a total reversal of his / her learned behavior. And if I may remark, we are dealing here with a reversal that is characterized by a step backward and not by a step forward in relation to the content of an ideology. We may argue endlessly, to what extent is a resurrection of private property a move forward and not also a move backward but let us assume that it is. What is most important for as at this stage, is a moment that allows, and that has actually taken place in Bosnian reality, a significant shift in values belonging to one type of socialization process, due to a social change.
So, here is our question: if there are values that vary depending on ideological content prevalent in a given society, how are we to characterize these values? In other words, do values that depend on ideological content count as essential or as inessential? All those who have gone through the experience of raising a child or children, may start being very suspicious about this whole discussion, since they will remark, one has to bring a child up in a certain way that will conform to demands of any given society. And we also agree with this, but what we cannot and should not agree with is an equal treatment of essential and of inessential values. In other words, there are values that count as essential in any society and within any socialization process but there are values that are inessential and that belong to particularization aspect with intent of creating or maintaining social cohesion. We may need to explain these distinctions in 'plain terms'. Moments of socialization process that teach an individual to act justly, to promote goodness, love, peace, tolerance etc. can be found in any society and these we characterize as essential moments since they all promote life. From time to time (if not all the time), we encounter various forms of attributive additions to these essentials. And not all of these attributive additions are exactly in service of further promoting the essentials in question. So, whenever an attributive addition comes to hold a sway over an essential moment, the same (the essential moment) becomes inessential. What do we mean by attributive addition? What is the concrete content of this attributive addition in relation to our study? We all know, that the USA has been built upon precepts of protection and prosperity of an individual that both encompass what we call "freedom of an individual". There is nothing wrong about it. But, the moment we start talking about the "American way of life" we have introduced an attributive addition to something that is essential. This attributive addition tells or sends out a message that the freedom of an individual, in terms of its protection and prosperity, belongs to the "American way of life". Further more, as such both, protection and prosperity as components of an essential moment called freedom of an individual, come to be viewed as inessential since they have acquired that attributive addition of "the American way of life". Some may object that this is either harsh or way out place, but it is exactly that through language 'things' are colored with all possible colors to the point of being unrecognizable as such. Therefore and in this concrete example via the attributive addition "American" as an inessential moment, the essential moment called freedom of an individual has become inessential.
Hopefully, we can already anticipate similar differentiation on inessential and essential within the context of Bosnian reality. "Serbs have always loved freedom", "Islam promotes justice", "Our Catholic faith", "We will not allow to be dominated by others" etc. You be the judge and try to decompose these statements and then go on to identify their essential and inessential references. Their object lesson is that Serbs', Croatian or Bosnian, or that Orthodox, Catholic or Islamic all belong to inessential moments. They have a purpose of social maintenance and cohesion on one side but result in reducing an already finite spirit to its tribal boundaries, as opposed to the development evident globally that attempts to remove all boundaries (the attempt is evident but the boundaries are still well present in particular along certain geographical and cultural lines). Simply said, there is nothing essentially 'ours' that cannot be found in others. The language we speak, the way we write, the places of worship, the cultural practices and similar, they are all circumstantial. All these may well be nurtured and cultivated but not to the point, when these will be used at the expense of others.
Now, if we are able to identify various moments of a socialization process, we will do good to make clear distinctions between what is essential and inessential, between what matters and what doesn't. Of course, problem is that social cohesion organized around any given state is reluctant to give up on iconographic symbols of signification process. But it is even greater problem when these start to dictate or dominate behavior of individual or a group of individuals. What needs to be remembered is that various inessentials are being used without regard that the same could perhaps backfire - that is what has happened not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina but across Balkan Peninsula. That we all tend to look for a refuge or a place of flight is doubtless, but an awareness is required that someone's refuge may be some else's deluge. Yes, we all tend to wave with our Serb, Croatian, or Bosnian banners, we all tend to hold our Catholic, Orthodox or Islamic relics but we need to realize that behind Serb, Croatian or Bosnian banners is nothing else but a human being, we need to acknowledge that behind Orthodox, Catholic or Islamic relics is nothing else but a finite human being longing for an infinite. Whether along the ethnic lines or those of religion, it is a human being we are dealing here with, albeit a human being lost in coldness, looking for a belonging to something else, to something bigger than itself.
However unique, this human being is often if not all of the time, divided within itself. Or as we have remarked, we often encounter a tamed human being. But what is tamed could go wild as well. All that is needed is right (wrong of course) buttons to be pushed and there you have in front of yourself an unknown strange creature starting immediately to organize itself in a monster, wreaking havoc and bringing disaster upon other fellow human being, because it is only a stranger and not me. When it gets really scary is when a stranger within me, encounters a stranger within my enemy. Why? Strangers do not go against each other, they go against us.
So who are those strangers that are so violent, so ruthless in their dealings, so unscrupulous towards others? What or who is behind those ghostly figures that do not hesitate to shoot at what ever moves? Who is that phantom, who throws bombs on unsuspecting civilians, from his secure hiding place? I name all these 'evildoers' with one simple name and that name is "Stranger". By definition, "stranger" is someone we don't know. Questions to be asked are: do we really don't know this stranger, is this stranger so strange that we cannot recognize him / her (but its mostly him), and finally what forms does this stranger may take on, in order to remain as such, a stranger? Let us simplify the whole stranger thing and narrow it down to its two most commonly encountered forms. Once we do that, we can discuss that stranger in more detail. Firstly, a stranger is an oncoming object. Some may immediately protest against this term "oncoming object" as we know that a stranger essentially refers to human being, and we need not treat others as mere objects but as we will see, reality posits the oncoming stranger as nothing else but an oncoming object. Secondly, we encounter this stranger as an "indwelling stranger"; someone with in us yet someone totally unknown to us. Or to use more technical term, its none other than the repressed self. This constitutes the kernel of this study's argument: Bosnian war had been a war between strangers, between an 'indwelling' stranger and an 'oncoming' stranger
-"indwelling stranger"
There shouldn't be too much confusion as to what or to whom the term "indwelling stranger" may refer. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt, however, to give some substance to this term, as many may be reluctant to accept such a proposition. And the proposition of an "indwelling stranger" sounds pretty much like a beast within, a monster unleashed, a savage let loose due to outside circumstances. Outside circumstances do not diminish the "indwelling stranger's" responsibility by any means. They just present coming into place of parameters that may make an "indwelling stranger" embark on his murderous mission. Further on, we also can affirm that fortunately, not every single individual in Bosnia and Herzegowina has had his "indwelling stranger" unleashed. "Indwelling stranger" is in all of us. It is just that the means of control over this beast vary in their degree. Something like a pain thresh hold - some people, on a scale 1 - 10 scream already at 3, others remain silent. Now, why is it that some are able to keep in check their own indwelling stranger and others not is a different question and we better not venture to attempt any explanation on this matter. But what we can and need to do here is to give plausible substance to the notion of "indwelling stranger". And for this matter, we will use propositions forwarded by some 'big guns' from the field of Social Theory. We hope to be able to give some well founded ground to "indwelling stranger" idea.
Everyone of us undergoes a certain process that in the end makes us capable of being members of society. This is usually what is called "socialization process". Socialization process describes a way via which, from an earliest age, individual is being directed in her / his behavior so that when the time comes, she or he can become integrated part of society. Louis Altusser describes this process as unfolding via the so called "Ideological State Apparatus". Ideological State Apparatus conveys to an individual what goes and what doesn't. This conveying takes place within family, school, work place and similar. These are only the most obvious 'institutions'
of the State Ideological Apparatus (other but no less important are Religious community, sporting society, social associations etc). All these show an individual the way society she/ he lives in works. Now, every individual on its way of introduction into society makes mistakes. More over, an effort has been put in place that will encourage appropriate behavior and at the same time discourage the inappropriate one. Jürgen Habermas terms this as "substitute gratification". Every good action is rewarded and every not so good action straighten up by appropriate punishment. Further on, following and acting as told results in rewards. Basic concept is, if an individual is inclined to do "a" which is not considered as appropriate, she/he will be encouraged to refrain from "a" with certain rewards and instead to do "b", which may well be appropriate - that is what is meant by "substitute gratification". Some may ask, if this is so and if everyone learns more or less how to behave, act and think in a socially appropriate way, why would things go wrong. Firstly, it needs to be stated, untamed, hidden, repressed or chained individual is still there, very much. That part of individuality does not appear to the surface but it is very much present, like a potent danger. Every story how we are all more or less good, rests on both, very strong repression forces acting upon the beast, and very poor knowledge of one self. All that it takes are different circumstances and those 'good' individuals may or will turn ugly. Therefore we need to go back to the pre-war existing circumstances.
We have mentioned earlier, that the dominant system of thought in former Yugoslavia had been that of Marx's Communism. We can also with utmost certainty say that that system of thought had had its up sides and its downsides. Let us first embark on its downsides. Communist Yugoslavia had not been able, despite all natural riches, favorable geographic position and beautiful and long Adriatic coast line, to provide sufficient material power for its individuals. How ironic of a system that rests on premises of Historical Materialism. Preferred mode of ownership was the one of 'collective' or 'state' ownership. Whilst private property had not been banned altogether, everything had been done to hamper its growth. Moreover, most of individuals whose source of income rested on private business, had been regarded as somewhat at odds with the state. In the 10 years period, between Tito's death and beginning of conflicts (in Slovenia at first) things have started to change regarding the private ownership but to what extent had that change been backed by appropriate legal regulations its unknown to me - and one may easily argue that legal regulations had not followed in step with ownership shift. So to sum up, and despite these mentioned developments, ideological state apparatus of Education had remained firmly entrenched along the lines of Communist Ideology.
In respect to 'spiritual' aspect, Religion had been regarded as old fashioned, out dated, and more of a thing for those of lesser intelligence. The way of Communist Ideologists was the way of Atheism. Some may say, there is nothing wrong with such disposition towards Religion but once we realize that this had been the only acceptable disposition, then there is everything wrong with such disposition. Every religious form that rests on claims of superiority over other religious forms and that will use all available resources in order to dampen and do away with all other religious forms is essentially wrong. Atheism is religious form and it rests on its own atheistic dogma coupled with atheistic rituals that result in an atheistic way of life. Its a belief system as any other belief system in the world. It is intolerant towards other Religions, as a form of Religion as had been Christianity throughout the Middle Ages - remember the Gulags of Soviet Union, remember the year 1949 in Yugoslavia. Communism does not tolerate any other Religion beside or along side it self. Membership in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had been regarded as the most important step in the life of an individual - hm, pretty much something like baptism in Christianity. In the years between Tito's death and beginning of conflict in Yugoslavia, this spiritual aspect had undergone slight change in relation to tolerance yet, Atheism had been preached as the only dogma from pulpits around all educational institutions.
On the positive or up side of Communist era, we must stress cosmopolitanism. Under cosmopolitanism we may understand here notions that do away with racial and ethnic barriers. Ethnicity as such was irrelevant. Most individuals would in that respect, declare themselves as Yugoslavs (this text's author included). Further more inter ethnic marriages and children from those marriages could find themselves only under the umbrella of "Yugoslavism". This had allowed 'us' to claim possession over the whole of former Yugoslavia, where as those who still saw themselves within one or another ethnic group, could only claim possession over the territory where their ethnic group was in majority.
We could go on to list more positives and negatives, related to the rule of Communists in former Yugoslavia. However the above mentioned positives and negatives, will help us the most, in my opinion, to understand exactly, what was about to happen, beginning with the year 1990 and in relation to "indwelling" stranger. We will focus our interpretation on Bosnia only, simply because Bosnia and Herzegowina is the concern of this study, and because Bosnia and Herzegovina still has to deal with the same problem (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and FYR Macedonia are more homogeneous regarding the Ethnic aspect). First democratic elections in Bosnia and Herzegowina took place in 1990. These elections and the campaign that preceded them mark frontal attack on individual and collective psyche in Bosnia and Herzegowina. They also mark the definite Social Change in B&H. Why is this so? According to Jürgen Habermas, conditions for social change a ripe, once the available social structures do not offer space for movement to emerging social-political-economic forces. Communism and collective or state ownership of property in 1990 were both, dead, and because still in power, also a major obstacle for emerging social-political-economic forces. The political campaign of new democratic parties had been fought along the lines of economic, social and political change. In Economic sense, private ownership was making big inroads into Bosnian reality. In social sense, to be a Muslim, Croat or a Serb, to confess Islam, Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox religion was showing an unstoppable trend. In Political sense, one party rule and membership in Yugoslavia (at least on part of Muslims and Croats) became something that needed to be abandoned altogether. The outcome of the first democratic elections in Bosnia and Herzegowina, showed that private ownership, ethnicity, and democracy and independence had been the winning points for three national parties (in a sense, even for Sebrs an independence from other ethnic groups with the so called Greater Serbia was a form of independence). The individual psyche, that was already shaken to a greater extent with events that had been unfolding in former Yugoslavia since 1980, after the elections of 1990 so to speak collapsed altogether. New Ideological State Apparatus was set in place with an immense amount of vacuum to be filled. Yet a concrete new content was missing. By the concrete new content I understand an in place put new ideological state apparatus that will provide individuals with 'new' guidelines and also shed some light over the new situation. In other words and in an ideal set of circumstances all that was needed to be done was to stress, that essentially nothing has change apart from some reconstructions that need to be done in respect to political situation of former Yugoslavia, and that the taboo of private ownership has been removed. Why this hasn't been done, can be discussed without an end but let me propose here one obvious reason for this failure. The same (this failure) was about to bring so much suffering, death, pain and destruction over the Bosnia for the next 6 years (in particular from 1992 to 1996). Newly elected democratic ideologists had never had in mind to realize what they had preached to the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. All their goals ended with rather narrow minded notions of entering into the history of their respective ethnic groups, and also some private economical aggrandizement. Should this be enough to classify those ideologists as proper cases for mental institutions is not up to me to decide? However, my decision on this is a positive and emphatic: "Yes";
As stated earlier, individual psyche in relation to the process of socialization had collapsed. Apart from sporadic acts of lunacy this still would not have been enough to amount for large scale atrocities. However, the"indwelling" stranger is released at this moment. His apparent inactivity is due to fear of legal consequences. Or to put this differently, "indwelling' stranger had been resurrected due to the fact, that all content that had been repressing 'him' throughout his life has been removed, proven wrong and defeated on elections. The 'stranger's' inactivity had been due to uncertainty weather his action would be punishable by the law or not. It will take collective psyche to collapse as well, in order to unleash the 'indwelling' stranger's fury. The dilemma had been: should I or shouldn't I; lets see if this works or not, and similar. These and similar questions were given legitimacy by collective psyche and slowly step by step, explorations into the 'beyond the law' had started taking place. This tit for tat will play itself out for about two years until finally the collective psyche is able to convince itself, that it will pay out to make a move. The war broke out in 1992. Further more, the 'indwelling' stranger had called for his best mate in order to make things worst. The 'oncoming' stranger was on his move. Between the two reigns a total ignorance of the other, and yet a total harmony in their evil paths; between the two there is nothing else but the battle for supremacy that will allow them to engage in a bloodthirsty battle. Each one thinks: who cares, I neither know the other nor will I ever know the other!!! Of course the other is unknown, because the other is none other than the self, the repressed self though!!! Why is the other unknown? Very simple, the repressed self has become self, the 'indwelling' stranger has taken the rule, and all up until that point existing restrictions are done away with. Now guess what? The other indwelling stranger has undergone the same process. All that differs between the two is Ethnicity and Religion. In other words, say newly emerged self, which is essentially 'indwelling' stranger considers his own Ethnicity and his own Religion as the dominant one and hence the other Ethnicity and Religion need to be kept in check or trampled down. Same principles unfold concomitantly in all three Ethnic groups and Religions. Let us turn now to the 'oncoming' stranger.
- Oncoming stranger/object
A human being cannot be considered as an object unless the situation distorts a human being into an object. Within crowd psychology or 'mob mentality' this is exactly what happens!!! Within the context of mob mentality, the outsider is reduced to the level of object in particular when we deal with situations that involve use of force. So who ever is not with us, is against us - sounds familiar? Who ever finds itself outside a particular group and within a situation that involves use of force, becomes mere object that needs to be done away with, one way or the other. This is however only one side of this 'oncoming stranger/object coin. We have stated that we are dealing with situations that do not border on normality, that is, with situations where use of force becomes predominant means of communication, or in plain language, we are dealing here with a situation that is called WAR. So, we have an oncoming stranger/object and interestingly enough, we find ourselves already within a group, a crowd, a mob. So an oncoming stranger views us as mere objects, because we are not part of his mob, but we also view him as a mere object because he is not part of our mob. This is the other side of our stranger/object coin. We have two sets of stranger/objects on a collision course with one another. For either of these groups, the other is nothing but an object meaning: something that can easily be done away with. Now in the case of Bosnian war (possibly in case of any other war as well), there is an additional strangeness to oncoming strangers. We don't know them, they don't know us and this makes the whole thing of doing away with, or of killing or murder much easier. And because we will most probably never meet them again, a green light is given, a further impetuous provided for murderous actions. And so the story goes on - another grenade, another bomb, another sniper shot, another massacre ... If I'm the one pulling the trigger in most of previously named situations, I don't even see my target (sniper is notable exception), In all of those situations I don't know my target. All I know about my target is, that he / she is located on another side and that her / his side is an obstacle to my side's goals and hence as such that obstacle is nothing more than an object. The sooner the object is destroyed the better. The sooner the object is done away, the sooner my side (mob) can revert to normal living. Problem gets its blood thirsty feature once an independent observer realizes: "the sentiment must be the same on both sides!"
So who are those strangers that are so violent, so ruthless in their dealings, so unscrupulous towards others? What or who is behind those ghostly figures that do not hesitate to shoot at what ever moves? Who is that phantom, who throws bombs on unsuspecting civilians, from his secure hiding place? I name all these 'evildoers' with one simple name and that name is "Stranger". By definition, "stranger" is someone we don't know. Questions to be asked are: do we really don't know this stranger, is this stranger so strange that we cannot recognize him / her (but its mostly him), and finally what forms does this stranger may take on, in order to remain as such, a stranger? Let us simplify the whole stranger thing and narrow it down to its two most commonly encountered forms. Once we do that, we can discuss that stranger in more detail. Firstly, a stranger is an oncoming object. Some may immediately protest against this term "oncoming object" as we know that a stranger essentially refers to human being, and we need not treat others as mere objects but as we will see, reality posits the oncoming stranger as nothing else but an oncoming object. Secondly, we encounter this stranger as an "indwelling stranger"; someone with in us yet someone totally unknown to us. Or to use more technical term, its none other than the repressed self. This constitutes the kernel of this study's argument: Bosnian war had been a war between strangers, between an 'indwelling' stranger and an 'oncoming' stranger
-"indwelling stranger"
There shouldn't be too much confusion as to what or to whom the term "indwelling stranger" may refer. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt, however, to give some substance to this term, as many may be reluctant to accept such a proposition. And the proposition of an "indwelling stranger" sounds pretty much like a beast within, a monster unleashed, a savage let loose due to outside circumstances. Outside circumstances do not diminish the "indwelling stranger's" responsibility by any means. They just present coming into place of parameters that may make an "indwelling stranger" embark on his murderous mission. Further on, we also can affirm that fortunately, not every single individual in Bosnia and Herzegowina has had his "indwelling stranger" unleashed. "Indwelling stranger" is in all of us. It is just that the means of control over this beast vary in their degree. Something like a pain thresh hold - some people, on a scale 1 - 10 scream already at 3, others remain silent. Now, why is it that some are able to keep in check their own indwelling stranger and others not is a different question and we better not venture to attempt any explanation on this matter. But what we can and need to do here is to give plausible substance to the notion of "indwelling stranger". And for this matter, we will use propositions forwarded by some 'big guns' from the field of Social Theory. We hope to be able to give some well founded ground to "indwelling stranger" idea.
Everyone of us undergoes a certain process that in the end makes us capable of being members of society. This is usually what is called "socialization process". Socialization process describes a way via which, from an earliest age, individual is being directed in her / his behavior so that when the time comes, she or he can become integrated part of society. Louis Altusser describes this process as unfolding via the so called "Ideological State Apparatus". Ideological State Apparatus conveys to an individual what goes and what doesn't. This conveying takes place within family, school, work place and similar. These are only the most obvious 'institutions'
of the State Ideological Apparatus (other but no less important are Religious community, sporting society, social associations etc). All these show an individual the way society she/ he lives in works. Now, every individual on its way of introduction into society makes mistakes. More over, an effort has been put in place that will encourage appropriate behavior and at the same time discourage the inappropriate one. Jürgen Habermas terms this as "substitute gratification". Every good action is rewarded and every not so good action straighten up by appropriate punishment. Further on, following and acting as told results in rewards. Basic concept is, if an individual is inclined to do "a" which is not considered as appropriate, she/he will be encouraged to refrain from "a" with certain rewards and instead to do "b", which may well be appropriate - that is what is meant by "substitute gratification". Some may ask, if this is so and if everyone learns more or less how to behave, act and think in a socially appropriate way, why would things go wrong. Firstly, it needs to be stated, untamed, hidden, repressed or chained individual is still there, very much. That part of individuality does not appear to the surface but it is very much present, like a potent danger. Every story how we are all more or less good, rests on both, very strong repression forces acting upon the beast, and very poor knowledge of one self. All that it takes are different circumstances and those 'good' individuals may or will turn ugly. Therefore we need to go back to the pre-war existing circumstances.
We have mentioned earlier, that the dominant system of thought in former Yugoslavia had been that of Marx's Communism. We can also with utmost certainty say that that system of thought had had its up sides and its downsides. Let us first embark on its downsides. Communist Yugoslavia had not been able, despite all natural riches, favorable geographic position and beautiful and long Adriatic coast line, to provide sufficient material power for its individuals. How ironic of a system that rests on premises of Historical Materialism. Preferred mode of ownership was the one of 'collective' or 'state' ownership. Whilst private property had not been banned altogether, everything had been done to hamper its growth. Moreover, most of individuals whose source of income rested on private business, had been regarded as somewhat at odds with the state. In the 10 years period, between Tito's death and beginning of conflicts (in Slovenia at first) things have started to change regarding the private ownership but to what extent had that change been backed by appropriate legal regulations its unknown to me - and one may easily argue that legal regulations had not followed in step with ownership shift. So to sum up, and despite these mentioned developments, ideological state apparatus of Education had remained firmly entrenched along the lines of Communist Ideology.
In respect to 'spiritual' aspect, Religion had been regarded as old fashioned, out dated, and more of a thing for those of lesser intelligence. The way of Communist Ideologists was the way of Atheism. Some may say, there is nothing wrong with such disposition towards Religion but once we realize that this had been the only acceptable disposition, then there is everything wrong with such disposition. Every religious form that rests on claims of superiority over other religious forms and that will use all available resources in order to dampen and do away with all other religious forms is essentially wrong. Atheism is religious form and it rests on its own atheistic dogma coupled with atheistic rituals that result in an atheistic way of life. Its a belief system as any other belief system in the world. It is intolerant towards other Religions, as a form of Religion as had been Christianity throughout the Middle Ages - remember the Gulags of Soviet Union, remember the year 1949 in Yugoslavia. Communism does not tolerate any other Religion beside or along side it self. Membership in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia had been regarded as the most important step in the life of an individual - hm, pretty much something like baptism in Christianity. In the years between Tito's death and beginning of conflict in Yugoslavia, this spiritual aspect had undergone slight change in relation to tolerance yet, Atheism had been preached as the only dogma from pulpits around all educational institutions.
On the positive or up side of Communist era, we must stress cosmopolitanism. Under cosmopolitanism we may understand here notions that do away with racial and ethnic barriers. Ethnicity as such was irrelevant. Most individuals would in that respect, declare themselves as Yugoslavs (this text's author included). Further more inter ethnic marriages and children from those marriages could find themselves only under the umbrella of "Yugoslavism". This had allowed 'us' to claim possession over the whole of former Yugoslavia, where as those who still saw themselves within one or another ethnic group, could only claim possession over the territory where their ethnic group was in majority.
We could go on to list more positives and negatives, related to the rule of Communists in former Yugoslavia. However the above mentioned positives and negatives, will help us the most, in my opinion, to understand exactly, what was about to happen, beginning with the year 1990 and in relation to "indwelling" stranger. We will focus our interpretation on Bosnia only, simply because Bosnia and Herzegowina is the concern of this study, and because Bosnia and Herzegovina still has to deal with the same problem (Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro and FYR Macedonia are more homogeneous regarding the Ethnic aspect). First democratic elections in Bosnia and Herzegowina took place in 1990. These elections and the campaign that preceded them mark frontal attack on individual and collective psyche in Bosnia and Herzegowina. They also mark the definite Social Change in B&H. Why is this so? According to Jürgen Habermas, conditions for social change a ripe, once the available social structures do not offer space for movement to emerging social-political-economic forces. Communism and collective or state ownership of property in 1990 were both, dead, and because still in power, also a major obstacle for emerging social-political-economic forces. The political campaign of new democratic parties had been fought along the lines of economic, social and political change. In Economic sense, private ownership was making big inroads into Bosnian reality. In social sense, to be a Muslim, Croat or a Serb, to confess Islam, Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox religion was showing an unstoppable trend. In Political sense, one party rule and membership in Yugoslavia (at least on part of Muslims and Croats) became something that needed to be abandoned altogether. The outcome of the first democratic elections in Bosnia and Herzegowina, showed that private ownership, ethnicity, and democracy and independence had been the winning points for three national parties (in a sense, even for Sebrs an independence from other ethnic groups with the so called Greater Serbia was a form of independence). The individual psyche, that was already shaken to a greater extent with events that had been unfolding in former Yugoslavia since 1980, after the elections of 1990 so to speak collapsed altogether. New Ideological State Apparatus was set in place with an immense amount of vacuum to be filled. Yet a concrete new content was missing. By the concrete new content I understand an in place put new ideological state apparatus that will provide individuals with 'new' guidelines and also shed some light over the new situation. In other words and in an ideal set of circumstances all that was needed to be done was to stress, that essentially nothing has change apart from some reconstructions that need to be done in respect to political situation of former Yugoslavia, and that the taboo of private ownership has been removed. Why this hasn't been done, can be discussed without an end but let me propose here one obvious reason for this failure. The same (this failure) was about to bring so much suffering, death, pain and destruction over the Bosnia for the next 6 years (in particular from 1992 to 1996). Newly elected democratic ideologists had never had in mind to realize what they had preached to the population of Bosnia and Herzegovina. All their goals ended with rather narrow minded notions of entering into the history of their respective ethnic groups, and also some private economical aggrandizement. Should this be enough to classify those ideologists as proper cases for mental institutions is not up to me to decide? However, my decision on this is a positive and emphatic: "Yes";
As stated earlier, individual psyche in relation to the process of socialization had collapsed. Apart from sporadic acts of lunacy this still would not have been enough to amount for large scale atrocities. However, the"indwelling" stranger is released at this moment. His apparent inactivity is due to fear of legal consequences. Or to put this differently, "indwelling' stranger had been resurrected due to the fact, that all content that had been repressing 'him' throughout his life has been removed, proven wrong and defeated on elections. The 'stranger's' inactivity had been due to uncertainty weather his action would be punishable by the law or not. It will take collective psyche to collapse as well, in order to unleash the 'indwelling' stranger's fury. The dilemma had been: should I or shouldn't I; lets see if this works or not, and similar. These and similar questions were given legitimacy by collective psyche and slowly step by step, explorations into the 'beyond the law' had started taking place. This tit for tat will play itself out for about two years until finally the collective psyche is able to convince itself, that it will pay out to make a move. The war broke out in 1992. Further more, the 'indwelling' stranger had called for his best mate in order to make things worst. The 'oncoming' stranger was on his move. Between the two reigns a total ignorance of the other, and yet a total harmony in their evil paths; between the two there is nothing else but the battle for supremacy that will allow them to engage in a bloodthirsty battle. Each one thinks: who cares, I neither know the other nor will I ever know the other!!! Of course the other is unknown, because the other is none other than the self, the repressed self though!!! Why is the other unknown? Very simple, the repressed self has become self, the 'indwelling' stranger has taken the rule, and all up until that point existing restrictions are done away with. Now guess what? The other indwelling stranger has undergone the same process. All that differs between the two is Ethnicity and Religion. In other words, say newly emerged self, which is essentially 'indwelling' stranger considers his own Ethnicity and his own Religion as the dominant one and hence the other Ethnicity and Religion need to be kept in check or trampled down. Same principles unfold concomitantly in all three Ethnic groups and Religions. Let us turn now to the 'oncoming' stranger.
- Oncoming stranger/object
A human being cannot be considered as an object unless the situation distorts a human being into an object. Within crowd psychology or 'mob mentality' this is exactly what happens!!! Within the context of mob mentality, the outsider is reduced to the level of object in particular when we deal with situations that involve use of force. So who ever is not with us, is against us - sounds familiar? Who ever finds itself outside a particular group and within a situation that involves use of force, becomes mere object that needs to be done away with, one way or the other. This is however only one side of this 'oncoming stranger/object coin. We have stated that we are dealing with situations that do not border on normality, that is, with situations where use of force becomes predominant means of communication, or in plain language, we are dealing here with a situation that is called WAR. So, we have an oncoming stranger/object and interestingly enough, we find ourselves already within a group, a crowd, a mob. So an oncoming stranger views us as mere objects, because we are not part of his mob, but we also view him as a mere object because he is not part of our mob. This is the other side of our stranger/object coin. We have two sets of stranger/objects on a collision course with one another. For either of these groups, the other is nothing but an object meaning: something that can easily be done away with. Now in the case of Bosnian war (possibly in case of any other war as well), there is an additional strangeness to oncoming strangers. We don't know them, they don't know us and this makes the whole thing of doing away with, or of killing or murder much easier. And because we will most probably never meet them again, a green light is given, a further impetuous provided for murderous actions. And so the story goes on - another grenade, another bomb, another sniper shot, another massacre ... If I'm the one pulling the trigger in most of previously named situations, I don't even see my target (sniper is notable exception), In all of those situations I don't know my target. All I know about my target is, that he / she is located on another side and that her / his side is an obstacle to my side's goals and hence as such that obstacle is nothing more than an object. The sooner the object is destroyed the better. The sooner the object is done away, the sooner my side (mob) can revert to normal living. Problem gets its blood thirsty feature once an independent observer realizes: "the sentiment must be the same on both sides!"
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar