Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies
Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies
Cultural Identity Politics in the (Post-)Transitional Societies
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Cultural</strong> <strong>Identity</strong> <strong>Politics</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> (<strong>Post</strong>-)<strong>Transitional</strong> <strong>Societies</strong><br />
From 1990 to 2010 <strong>the</strong> speakers of <strong>the</strong> languages of o<strong>the</strong>r nations of <strong>the</strong> former Yugoslavia<br />
<strong>in</strong> Slovenia – <strong>the</strong> majority of <strong>the</strong>m have <strong>the</strong> former Serbo-Croatian language, now Croatian,<br />
Bosnian, Montenegr<strong>in</strong> and Serbian, 5 for <strong>the</strong>ir mo<strong>the</strong>r tongue – have been categorized<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>the</strong>ir legal status <strong>in</strong>to a number of categories. The names assigned to <strong>the</strong>se<br />
categories almost uniformly <strong>in</strong>dicate some sort of temporality and non-stability of <strong>the</strong>ir stay,<br />
regardless of <strong>the</strong> formal status as a citizen or a foreigner. The categories <strong>in</strong>clude “immigrants<br />
from o<strong>the</strong>r republics of Yugoslavia”, “second/third generation of immigrants”, “erased”,<br />
“refugees”, “asylum seekers”, “migrant workers (from <strong>the</strong> western Balkans)”, “third country<br />
nationals”, and similar. In public policies relat<strong>in</strong>g to language and communication <strong>in</strong> Slovenia<br />
<strong>the</strong>re is still no consideration and understand<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>se are <strong>the</strong> same language<br />
groups whose language and communication rights and capacities need to be addressed.<br />
Systemic measures need to be set up aimed at <strong>the</strong> preservation of <strong>the</strong>se m<strong>in</strong>ority languages<br />
and <strong>the</strong> promotion of cultural diversity. It seems that <strong>the</strong> transition to that understand<strong>in</strong>g<br />
is still tak<strong>in</strong>g place, and <strong>the</strong> long route to it is caused not only by nation- and state-build<strong>in</strong>g<br />
configurations, but also by its orig<strong>in</strong>s <strong>in</strong> earlier developments with<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> former Yugoslavia.<br />
Knowledge of a mo<strong>the</strong>r tongue o<strong>the</strong>r than Slovene as a handicap<br />
Various statements and public discussions suggest that it is not quite clear whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />
and when members of o<strong>the</strong>r nations of <strong>the</strong> former Yugoslavia <strong>in</strong> Slovenia may use <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
mo<strong>the</strong>r tongue <strong>in</strong> public. They also raise <strong>the</strong> question as to why <strong>the</strong> speakers of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
languages threaten to revert to <strong>the</strong>ir mo<strong>the</strong>r tongue or beg<strong>in</strong> to use it when <strong>the</strong>y feel<br />
rejected. All of this <strong>in</strong>dicates that <strong>the</strong>re is a unique conflict <strong>in</strong> Slovenia concern<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong><br />
status and use of <strong>the</strong>se languages. Why is this so and how did it come about<br />
The issue of <strong>the</strong> languages of o<strong>the</strong>r nations of <strong>the</strong> former Yugoslavia vs. Slovene did not<br />
become contentious only after Slovenia became a sovereign country. That <strong>the</strong> conflict<br />
is older is <strong>in</strong>dicated by responses to questions posed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> series of surveys entitled<br />
Slovenian Public Op<strong>in</strong>ion conducted dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> second half of <strong>the</strong> 1980s. For example, a<br />
question <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Slovenian Public Op<strong>in</strong>ion 1986 survey, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> section entitled “National<br />
Relations” went as follows: “Some say that immigration from o<strong>the</strong>r republics poses a threat<br />
to Slovenes. Do you agree with this statement If yes, what is it that is threatened” The<br />
biggest portion of <strong>the</strong> respondents, 39% of <strong>the</strong>m, replied that it was <strong>the</strong> Slovene language<br />
that was threatened (Toš, 1997: 533). 6 In <strong>the</strong> follow<strong>in</strong>g year’s survey, <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> section now<br />
entitled “The Problems of <strong>the</strong> Slovenes and Relations Among Nations”, <strong>the</strong> question was:<br />
“Do you th<strong>in</strong>k that <strong>the</strong> Slovene language is threatened, or that it is not threatened” Of<br />
respondents, 65.6% thought that it was threatened, and 25.2% stated that it was not. In<br />
5<br />
On arguments that it is still <strong>the</strong> same, polycentric language, see Kordić 2010.<br />
6<br />
In <strong>the</strong> same survey, 33.8% of respondents thought that immigration of workers from <strong>the</strong><br />
former Yugoslav republics was a threat to <strong>the</strong>ir employment opportunities, 23% thought that<br />
it threatened nationhood, and 20.4 % that it threatened Slovenian customs (Toš, 1997: 533)<br />
76