Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies

Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies
In Southeastern Europe, as a territory where new states have been created and
both majority and minority ethnic groups have been mobilized in search of identity
(Appadurai, 2006), issues relating to memories are of major concern. In humanities and
social sciences, the culture of memory (Kuljić, 2006) has been explored from different
perspectives, from forms of memorialization of social practices to forms of construction
of social, political and cultural identities. The proliferation of research within
contemporary social and cultural studies focused attention on the places of memories,
methods of remembrance (media construction of memories) and, to a far lesser extent,
policies of memory and oblivion as part of identity policies in transitional societies.
However, in societies traumatized by long-term politics of oblivion and historical
taboos, where private memories, collective memories and recorded, normative memories
were not coherent, social conflicts and wars, ethnic hatred and differences between public
and official opinion brought a specific interest to memory studies. Memory was studied
as a key element in the construction of national, ethnic or any other group identity which
is opposed to other group identities sharing the same cultural, political, geographical and
historical space. In Southeastern Europe, construction and representation of the past and
reinterpretation of historical facts (events, historical figures, notions) within different
group identities were quite studied phenomena, in the educational system and in the
media (Đerić, 2008; Stojanović, 2008), but not properly documented and researched
within public cultural policies.
Cultural policies of countries in transition (Đukić, 2003) have not dared to touch on issues
of memory politics directly. Even when reinforcing national cultural identity was proclaimed
as a main aim, this part of national cultural strategy was defined neither in law nor through
instruments. Sometimes it meant the destruction and removal of the “memory of the other”,
neglect or heritage conservation, but without making it “alive”. These are three extremely
different strategies regarding “dissonant heritage” (Tunbridge and Ashworth, 1996) and,
when applied, they could provoke fear and further exodus (as in the case of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, where throughout the territories monuments representing the culture of “the
other” were destroyed).
Major instruments of memory policy as part of a national cultural policy intending to
re-shape collective identity (through changing collective memories) are:
- the creation or representation of certain types of narrative (financing of film
production, repertory theatres, translations, museum collections, etc.);
- the renaming of institutions, streets and squares, parks and bridges, etc;
- the creation of new types of festivities, awards, celebrations, “homage” policies,
etc;
- the re-appropriation of institutions, sites or even the destruction of “dangerous”
memories;
- a policy towards memory spaces, burial sites (mausoleums, graveyards, etc.) and
monument building or removing;
32