Balkanization of Politics, Politics of Balkanization

Abstract

There are two sides of Balkanization: 'Balkanization from above' is a historical project of breaking inter-ethnic solidarity and regional sociocultural identity, violent incorporation into the nation-state system and capitalist world-economy, and more recently, imposing neoliberal colonialism. 'Balkanization from below', on the other hand, stresses social and cultural affinities, customs in common resulting from mutual aid and solidarity and fostering inter-ethnic self-activity-which was largely severed by Euro-colonial intervention. This pluri-cultural reality finds expression in anti-authoritarian politics of local self-government, communal land use, and federative movements. Activists and scholars would do well to recuperate this precious, historical vision of a trans-ethnic, anti-authoritarian society that a Balkan federation would make possible. We must examine the implications of 'Balkanizing' theory and 'Balkanizing' politics if this vision of 'federalism from below', sustained by networks of autonomous and culturally-diverse communities, is to be built-a prospect with significance far beyond the Balkans.

Zenitism and orientalism

“…Equally, this ideal was founded on the notion that non-European cultures can in general be characterised as barbarian or savage, and are located outside history (Boas, [1933] 1966). 10 In the twentieth century, primitivism and modernism would converge in a new and powerful way, with primitivism recognised as a rejuvenating force that could push the then-fatigued European civilisation out of the doldrums, and infuse it with energy necessary to embrace modern industrial reality.…”

“…In this way, Zenitism opened up a conversation that has lost none of its relevance. By embracing Balkan identity as a method of emancipating the Balkan subject in a process described by Andrej Grubačić as "Balkanization from below," Zenitists demonstrated that they did not belong to the Balkans, as they did not subscribe to the Balkan/ Europe dichotomy, and did not see the world as divided between the Orient and the Occident, or Europe and non-Europe (Grubačić, 2012). Alongside its attempt to incite countercultural self-re-Orientalisation, the Zenitist enterprise is today recognised for its peculiar melange of Oriental and Occidental identity, and its aspiration to belong at once to both the Slavic Orient and Western Europe.…”

‘If This Was a Normal Situation’: Challenges and Potentials for Deliberative Democratic Peacebuilding in Kosovo's Emerging Governance Networks

“…This thesis observes that liberal democracies are less likely to experience wars than are non-democracies. Confidence in this thesis has been undermined from three distinct bodies of research: a realist analysis questioning this relationship (Doyle and Sambanis, 2000;Gleditsch and Ward, 2000;Hegre, 2001;Mansfield and Snyder, 2002;Enterline and Greig, 2005;Narang and Nelson, 2009); a critical body of research casting transitions as veiled attempts to further Western interests (Duffield, 2002;Schwartz, 2005;De La Rey and McKay, 2006;Barakat and Zyck, 2009;Grubacic, 2012); and a reform-oriented strand responding to the limited success of democratisation missions over the past 20 years (Paris, 1997(Paris, , 2004Bigombe et al, 2000;Pugh and Cobble, 2001;Mansfield and Snyder, 2002;Brinkerhoff, 2005;Rondinelli and Montgomery, 2005;Barnett, 2006;Hippler, 2008). As a result of this last strand in particular, the democratic peace strategy has been modified, calling for a period of institutionalisation before full liberalisation (Mansfield and Snyder, 2002;Paris, 2004Paris, , 2010Rondinelli and Montgomery, 2005).…”