2014
DOI: 10.1080/13537113.2014.969151
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Što Te Nema?: Transnational Cultural Production in the Diaspora in Response to the Srebrenica Genocide

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Concurrently with concerns about terrorism, conflict scholars became preoccupied with diasporas having detrimental effects on domestic conflicts by radicalising from abroad (Collier and Hoeffler 2000;Kaldor 2001;Koinova 2011), maintaining conflict networks (Adamson 2005), conflict-prone institutions (Shain 2002), fund-raising for radical factions (Hockenos 2003), and taking arms and joining local warfare from abroad (Perritt 2008). To counterbalance a trend to see diasporas as only conflict-prone actors, other arguments emerged showing that they can be engaged in peace processes (Smith and Stares 2007;Orjuela 2008), international development (Kapur 2004;Newland and Patrick 2004;Brinkerhoff 2008), and post-conflict reconstruction (Kleist 2008;Hall and Kostic 2009;Koinova 2011;Karabegovic 2014;Hall 2016). Driven by particularistic identities, diasporas nevertheless mobilise as transnational social movements, acting on political opportunities and constraints (Wayland 2004;Koinova 2014), and using brokerage, framing, ethnic outbidding, lobbying, coalitionbuilding, diffusion, and scale shift among other causal mechanisms (Koinova 2011(Koinova , 2014Adamson 2013;Adamson and Koinova 2013;Koinova and Karabegovic 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Concurrently with concerns about terrorism, conflict scholars became preoccupied with diasporas having detrimental effects on domestic conflicts by radicalising from abroad (Collier and Hoeffler 2000;Kaldor 2001;Koinova 2011), maintaining conflict networks (Adamson 2005), conflict-prone institutions (Shain 2002), fund-raising for radical factions (Hockenos 2003), and taking arms and joining local warfare from abroad (Perritt 2008). To counterbalance a trend to see diasporas as only conflict-prone actors, other arguments emerged showing that they can be engaged in peace processes (Smith and Stares 2007;Orjuela 2008), international development (Kapur 2004;Newland and Patrick 2004;Brinkerhoff 2008), and post-conflict reconstruction (Kleist 2008;Hall and Kostic 2009;Koinova 2011;Karabegovic 2014;Hall 2016). Driven by particularistic identities, diasporas nevertheless mobilise as transnational social movements, acting on political opportunities and constraints (Wayland 2004;Koinova 2014), and using brokerage, framing, ethnic outbidding, lobbying, coalitionbuilding, diffusion, and scale shift among other causal mechanisms (Koinova 2011(Koinova , 2014Adamson 2013;Adamson and Koinova 2013;Koinova and Karabegovic 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The book sought to challenge simplistic notions that diasporas are either moderate or radical actors, and brought empirical evidence that they can be both. In the book's aftermath, scholarship grew exponentially to emphasise that there is no direct relationship between conflict-generated diasporas and their conflict-prone agency, but that conditions, causal mechanisms, and processes of diaspora mobilisation need to be deeply scrutinised (Mavroudi 2008;Orjuela 2008;Brinkerhoff 2009Brinkerhoff , 2011Brinkerhoff , 2016Koinova 2009Koinova , 2011Koinova , 2014Lyons and Mandaville 2010;Carling, Erdal, and Horst 2012;Adamson 2013;Horst 2013;Karabegovic 2014;Cochrane 2015;Abramson 2017). Comparative work began to emerge, primarily in illustrative ways, drawing empirical evidence from the same diaspora in different countries, and theoretically emphasising diaspora agency (Brinkerhoff 2016) and possibilities and limits to diaspora cooperation (Carment and Sadjied 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Earlier research had already noted that mobilization around commemoration is different within the country and in the diaspora. For example, the genocide in Srebrenica, Karabegovic (2014) argues, is memorialized in a less divisive way in the diaspora, while according to Schlund-Vials (2012) genocide memorialization by Cambodians in the United States needs to resist the amnesia of both the homeland state and the host state. This article adds a spatial and material dimension to the understanding of diaspora memorialization by pointing to the opportunitiesand limitationsfor diaspora groups to appropriate space and establish memorials in the countries they live in.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The "Što te Nema?" nomadic monument represents a particularly interesting initiative in collaboration with a Bosnian American artist and diaspora communities around the world (Karabegović 2014).…”
Section: Srebrenica: Centralized Coordinationmentioning
confidence: 99%