Human tendency to seek validation by opposing those who are different.

Patterns of Exclusion #

What do we know about Boris Vukasovic, Yugoslav writer? #

Boris Vukasović, a Yugoslav writer, is best known for his book Velikosrbin Drtina, published in 1987. This work seems to carry a satirical or critical tone, reflecting on certain aspects of Yugoslav or Serbian identity. The title itself, Velikosrbin, which can be translated as “Great Serb,” may suggest a focus on nationalism or cultural critique, though specific details about the plot or themes of the book are relatively scarce in publicly available sources.

The book appears to have a notable presence in former Yugoslavia, with some used or rare editions still being sold and discussed, indicating that it has maintained a certain level of interest among readers in the region. It is regarded as an important cultural work from the late 20th century, capturing the complexities of identity, nationalism, and the political atmosphere of the time​.

Given its timing and themes, Velikosrbin Drtina may also reflect the tensions leading up to the dissolution of Yugoslavia, a period marked by intense debate over ethnic and national identities.

What does “Drtina” mean? #

The word “Drtina” in Serbian colloquially refers to an unpleasant or rough person. It is often used pejoratively to describe someone as crude, boorish, or rude. In the context of the title Velikosrbin Drtina, the term likely carries a satirical or ironic connotation, suggesting a critique of a particular type of exaggerated nationalist figure. Thus, “Velikosrbin Drtina” could be translated or interpreted loosely as “The Great Serbian Brute” or “The Great Serbian Lout,” amplifying the negative traits associated with extreme nationalism or arrogance.

This was published in 1987, a while before the war started? #

Yes, Velikosrbin Drtina was published in 1987, a few years before the outbreak of the Yugoslav Wars in the early 1990s. This period was marked by increasing political instability in Yugoslavia, with growing tensions between different ethnic and national groups. The 1980s saw the rise of nationalist sentiments across the region, particularly in Serbia and Croatia, which contributed to the eventual disintegration of Yugoslavia.

By 1987, discussions about national identity, ethnic divisions, and the role of Serbia within the broader Yugoslav framework were becoming more prominent. This was also the year that Slobodan Milošević rose to power, significantly influencing the political landscape by promoting Serbian nationalism. Books like Velikosrbin Drtina could be seen as reflecting or critiquing these rising nationalist movements, even if the full extent of the conflict had not yet become apparent.

The novel’s satirical tone toward figures associated with extreme nationalism may have prefigured the ideological battles that escalated into the Yugoslav Wars from 1991 to 1995. In this way, Velikosrbin Drtina can be interpreted as an early cultural artifact that both anticipated and responded to the fracturing of Yugoslav identity.

Can we trace this author to South Africa? #

Yes, there is a connection between Boris Vukasović and South Africa. He has been involved in research for the Institute for Security Studies in South Africa, particularly focusing on issues like drug trafficking and violence. He co-authored a report in the 1990s that explored the connections between drugs, violence, and governability in the region, highlighting growing concerns over the country’s role in international drug trafficking networks. This suggests Vukasović has had an active role in socio-political research in South Africa​ (The Mail & Guardian).

Was it risky going with the theme of “Velikosrbin Drtina” in 1987. This was quite a while after Tito’s death and before Milosevic’s consolidation of power. #

Yes, publishing Velikosrbin Drtina in 1987 could be considered risky, given the socio-political climate in Yugoslavia at the time. Tito had passed away in 1980, and by 1987, nationalist tensions were growing, though Milosevic had not yet fully consolidated his power. Critiquing or satirizing Serbian nationalism during this period, particularly in a manner that exposed its extremism, could have been seen as provocative. Yugoslavia was still holding together under a veneer of unity, and works that challenged national identities or highlighted tensions could face political scrutiny or backlash.

The fact that this book emerged before the full rise of extreme nationalism in the 1990s might indicate that Vukasović was ahead of his time in critiquing the ideological movements that would soon tear the country apart.

What do we know about Serbian Christian Youth from that time? #

The Serbian Christian Youth (Srpska Hrišćanska Omladina) was part of a broader movement within Yugoslavia that sought to promote religious and national identity, especially during periods of political tension. In the post-Tito era, particularly in the 1980s, youth organizations in Serbia began emphasizing a return to traditional values, often in response to the growing secularism and state control under socialism. Such groups likely found support in segments of society that felt alienated by the state’s suppression of religious and ethnic identities, which would later become significant during the rise of nationalism in the 1990s.

Although not directly tied to any significant political power in the 1980s, these movements fostered a sense of cultural revival and identity that became crucial in the later nationalistic and religious rhetoric that shaped Serbian political life during the Yugoslav Wars.

Are we aware of the list of dissidents and traitors amongst the Serbian intellectuals that Serbian Christian Youth compiled? #

There isn’t readily available, detailed information about a specific list of dissidents and traitors that the Serbian Christian Youth (Srpska Hrišćanska Omladina) may have compiled among Serbian intellectuals in the 1980s. However, it is known that during this time, various nationalist and religious groups were increasingly critical of certain intellectuals, particularly those who advocated for a more liberal, pro-Yugoslav, or cosmopolitan stance, viewing them as betrayers of Serbian national and religious interests. The environment of growing nationalism often led to the targeting of such figures.

What happened to the rest of the “postmodern crop” of young Yugoslav writers, specifically: Predrag Markovic, Vladimir Pistalo, Nemanja Mitrovic, Dejan Simonovic? #

The “postmodern crop” of young Yugoslav writers, including Predrag Marković, Vladimir Pištalo, Nemanja Mitrović, and Dejan Simonović, represented a dynamic generation of literary voices that emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Each of these writers responded in their own way to the complexities of Yugoslav society, nationalism, and postmodern narrative experimentation. Here’s a more detailed look at what happened to them:

1. Vladimir Pištalo

Vladimir Pištalo has become one of the most successful and internationally recognized members of this generation. He is best known for his novel Tesla: A Portrait with Masks (2008), a biographical novel about Nikola Tesla, blending historical facts with fiction in a manner characteristic of postmodernist experimentation. The book won the prestigious NIN Award, Serbia’s top literary prize, and brought him significant international acclaim.

Pištalo’s works often focus on themes of identity, exile, and the blurred lines between history and myth, which resonate with the broader postmodern fascination with the instability of narrative and truth. After the breakup of Yugoslavia, Pištalo emigrated to the United States, where he has been teaching history and literature at Becker College in Massachusetts. He remains active as a writer, continuing to publish novels and short stories that explore the intersections of Serbian and American identity.

2. Predrag Marković

Predrag Marković took a somewhat different path from his literary peers, becoming more involved in the intellectual and political life of Serbia. A historian by training, Marković transitioned into politics and became a public intellectual. His scholarly work focuses on the political and cultural history of Serbia and the former Yugoslavia, which may have drawn him away from fiction-writing and toward a more politically engaged career.

Marković’s influence in the public sphere grew during the 2000s, as he held various positions in Serbian cultural and political institutions. He served as the president of the Serbian Parliament and also directed the Institute for Contemporary History in Belgrade. His career demonstrates a shift from literary postmodernism to active political engagement, which is somewhat atypical for a writer who started in the literary avant-garde scene.

3. Nemanja Mitrović

Information on Nemanja Mitrović is more scarce compared to his contemporaries. While he was part of the literary landscape during the late 1980s and early 1990s, there seems to be little documentation of his later career or works. It is possible that Mitrović retreated from public literary life after the breakup of Yugoslavia, a fate shared by many writers who found the disintegration of the country and the ensuing wars too destabilizing for continued creative work. His postmodern voice, while resonant at the time, may not have carried into the 21st century with the same visibility as others.

4. Dejan Simonović

Dejan Simonović also appears to have a relatively low profile post-1990s, with limited information available regarding his subsequent literary contributions. Like Mitrović, Simonović was part of the vibrant intellectual and literary circles in the late Yugoslav period, contributing to the emerging postmodern narrative forms. However, much like other intellectuals and artists who faced the fragmentation of their cultural sphere, Simonović may have disengaged from prominent public life during or after the wars.

Post-Yugoslav Literary Context

The fragmentation of Yugoslavia profoundly impacted all these writers. While Vladimir Pištalo thrived internationally and maintained a career in literature, the political instability of the 1990s, combined with the rise of nationalism, pushed many intellectuals either into exile or into different forms of expression. The postmodernism that characterized much of their early work became, for some, less relevant in the face of brutal wars and ethnic conflicts. The intellectual freedom and playful narrative experimentation of the 1980s were overshadowed by the brutal realities of the 1990s, leading many writers to shift focus or disappear from the literary spotlight.

In conclusion, the “postmodern crop” of Yugoslav writers followed different trajectories—some, like Pištalo, gained international fame, while others, like Marković, became more politically active. The turbulent 1990s shaped their paths dramatically, pushing some out of literature altogether and into other forms of public life.

Let us try and speculate how Vukasovic’s life and engagement would have turned out had he not left the country and stopped writing fiction altogether? #

If Boris Vukasović had remained in Yugoslavia and continued his writing career, his trajectory might have paralleled that of other prominent Serbian intellectuals who faced increasing pressure during the nationalist wave of the 1990s. His critical stance on Serbian nationalism, as seen in Velikosrbin Drtina, could have put him at odds with both political powers and nationalistic movements, leading to potential censorship or even persecution.

As nationalism intensified, intellectuals critical of the dominant narratives were often branded as traitors or dissidents, which may have marginalized Vukasović within the literary and academic circles. This might have stifled his career as a fiction writer, particularly as cultural production in Serbia was heavily influenced by the political environment. Some writers, like those with liberal or cosmopolitan views, were pushed into exile or silenced, and Vukasović could have faced similar consequences if he had continued to challenge the emerging nationalist orthodoxy.

Alternatively, had he chosen to adapt to the shifting political climate, he could have transformed into a more politically conformist figure, though this would have likely conflicted with his earlier satirical critique of nationalist extremism. Escaping the country may have spared him direct involvement in the conflicts and preserved his legacy as a writer untainted by the political violence and censorship that marred others’ careers. However, his withdrawal from fiction-writing altogether suggests that he may have preferred disengagement from literary or cultural politics to compromise or conflict.

Ultimately, his trajectory might have been a combination of political persecution and professional marginalization, had he remained in Yugoslavia, especially given his critical stance on the very forces that came to dominate the country’s intellectual and political life in the 1990s.

How does anyone choose between disengagement, compromise and conflict? What criteria should one use? #

Choosing between disengagement, compromise, and conflict is a deeply personal decision, often shaped by a mix of values, practical considerations, and situational constraints. Here are some key criteria to consider for each option:

• Disengagement: Chosen when the cost of involvement outweighs potential gains, when personal safety, emotional well-being, or the futility of effecting change is paramount.

• Compromise: Considered when there is room for mutual benefit or when maintaining relationships or stability takes precedence over ideological purity.

• Conflict: Engaged when fundamental principles are at stake, and retreat or compromise would betray core values, particularly when justice or moral imperatives demand resistance.

The decision involves balancing personal risk, moral integrity, potential for change, and long-term consequences.

Let us focus on disengagement and its ramifications in more detail? #

Disengagement: Motivations and Ramifications

1. Motivations for Disengagement:

• Self-Preservation: Often chosen to avoid personal harm, persecution, or overwhelming stress.

• Futility: Disengagement occurs when individuals feel their efforts will not lead to meaningful change.

• Moral Exhaustion: The burden of constantly resisting or compromising can push someone toward withdrawal.

2. Ramifications of Disengagement:

Positive:

• Protection: Safeguards personal well-being, both physically and emotionally.

• Intellectual Freedom: Disengaged individuals may continue reflecting on issues privately or in safer environments.

• Avoidance of Corruption: By not engaging, one avoids the risk of moral compromise in environments demanding conformity.

Negative:

• Marginalization: Disengaged voices often lose influence in shaping political, cultural, or intellectual discourse.

• Guilt or Regret: Feelings of guilt may emerge from perceived inaction during times of societal crises.

• Missed Opportunities for Change: Disengagement can be seen as tacit approval of a harmful status quo, reducing the collective potential for resistance or transformation.

3. Long-Term Consequences:

• Legacy and Perception: Historical judgment of disengagement can vary; some are remembered as principled refusers, while others are criticized for their silence.

• Internal Reflection: Disengagement often leads to profound introspection, where individuals reassess their values and the balance between personal well-being and societal duty. This may lead to future re-engagement under different circumstances.

Choosing disengagement can be a strategic act of self-preservation, but it carries ethical and practical dilemmas that shape both personal identity and public perception.

What do we know about Predrag Vukasovic, author of “Od Troje do Termopila - kako su stranci postali varvari”? #

Predrag Vukasović, author of Od Troje do Termopila – kako su stranci postali varvari (2012), delves into the formation of the concept of “barbarians” in ancient Greek civilization. His work explores how the Greeks’ perception of foreigners evolved, particularly from the Trojan War to the Battle of Thermopylae. This idea of the “barbarian” became a central part of Greek identity, sharply contrasting with the concept of “Hellenism.” Vukasović meticulously traces this development, showing its enduring influence across various epochs, from the Classical to Byzantine periods.

The book is a scholarly exploration of how Greeks distinguished themselves from others, and how this influenced both their culture and interactions with neighboring peoples. Vukasović’s study is significant for its examination of how cultural and political self-awareness formed in one of the most influential civilizations in history​.

This book was published by Službeni Glasnik in association with the Institute for Comparative Law, reflecting Vukasović’s broader engagement with legal and historical studies. It stands as a rich contribution to the understanding of classical thought, particularly in terms of identity and alterity.

If possible, let us compare and perhaps find comonalities of the two titles discussed above, specifically in relation to the events in Balkans? #

Comparing Boris Vukasović’s Velikosrbin Drtina (1987) and Predrag Vukasović’s Od Troje do Termopila – kako su stranci postali varvari (2012) offers a fascinating lens through which to analyze how these works reflect on identity, nationalism, and the role of “the other” in both ancient and modern contexts, especially in relation to the Balkans.

1. Themes of National Identity and “The Other”

• Velikosrbin Drtina: Boris Vukasović’s satirical work critiques Serbian nationalism, specifically the “Great Serb” mentality, by targeting the excessive, arrogant forms of identity that define outsiders as inferior. Written before the Yugoslav Wars but during a time of rising nationalist sentiments, the novel likely foreshadows the dangerous consequences of ethnocentric nationalism, which later fueled the violent conflicts in the 1990s. The work touches on the theme of how internal politics create and amplify the distinction between “Serbs” and “non-Serbs” in an exaggerated way, ultimately contributing to division and conflict.

• Od Troje do Termopila: Predrag Vukasović’s work, although rooted in ancient history, deals with a parallel theme — the Greek construction of the “barbarian” as a foreigner, someone who is fundamentally different and inferior to the Greek ideal. This process of “othering” is central to the formation of Greek identity and resonates with the nationalistic “us vs. them” discourse seen in the Balkans during the Yugoslav crisis. By exploring how the Greeks distinguished themselves from others, Vukasović indirectly draws connections to modern identity formation, where external threats and internal unity are key.

2. Historical and Cultural Context

• Velikosrbin Drtina: Published in 1987, at a time when Slobodan Milošević was beginning to consolidate power, the book’s critique of Serbian nationalism had contemporary relevance. It likely mirrored the anxiety surrounding the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the rise of ethnonationalism, as the term “Velikosrbin” (Great Serb) captures a historically loaded concept. The novel’s biting satire can be read as a warning against the rising tide of nationalism that, unchecked, would lead to the wars of the 1990s.

• Od Troje do Termopila: Although this book focuses on a much earlier historical period, its publication in 2012 also holds contemporary relevance. By examining how the Greeks viewed outsiders, Vukasović invites reflection on the Balkans’ own history of creating “barbarians” out of those deemed ethnically or culturally different. The post-Yugoslav context, marked by ethnic fragmentation, echoes these ancient Greek ideas of defining self-identity through exclusion. While it focuses on the ancient past, the work subtly resonates with the post-war Balkans, where the idea of “the other” remained a point of tension.

3. Approach to Conflict and Division

• Velikosrbin Drtina: The satire in Boris Vukasović’s work can be seen as a direct critique of the rising nationalist fervor that contributed to the eventual breakup of Yugoslavia. By mocking the Great Serb mentality, the novel dissects the dangerous oversimplifications of ethnic superiority, presenting a narrative of internal conflict. The “Drtina” (brute) figure symbolizes a crude embodiment of nationalistic violence, making the book a politically charged commentary on what was to come in the Balkans.

• Od Troje do Termopila: Predrag Vukasović’s historical analysis of Greek self-definition through opposition to barbarians mirrors the divisions that occurred in the Balkans during and after the Yugoslav Wars. Although framed in a classical setting, the theme of cultural exclusion could be applied to the ethnic conflicts of the 1990s. His book highlights how civilizations have historically dealt with the outsider, often leading to conflict, a pattern that resonates with the political and ethnic divisions in modern Balkan history.

4. Ramifications in the Balkans

• Velikosrbin Drtina: If Boris Vukasović had remained in Yugoslavia and continued writing, it is likely that he would have faced political backlash during the Milošević era. His critique of nationalism could have positioned him as a dissident, potentially leading to censorship or worse. His departure from fiction reflects a disengagement from the increasingly polarized intellectual and political landscape in Serbia. The book’s satirical take on nationalistic zeal remains prescient, as the wars that followed were defined by the very divisions he critiqued.

• Od Troje do Termopila: Predrag Vukasović’s work, although academic and focused on ancient history, invites reflection on the recurring patterns of xenophobia and nationalism. In the context of post-war Serbia and the broader Balkans, the book’s exploration of “othering” could be seen as an intellectual contribution to understanding how nationalist ideologies form and perpetuate conflict. While not overtly political, the work subtly comments on the dangers of defining national identity through exclusion, a lesson relevant to the region’s post-war reconstruction.

Conclusion: Comparative Reflection

While Boris Vukasović’s Velikosrbin Drtina directly critiques the rising nationalism of the late 20th-century Balkans, Predrag Vukasović’s Od Troje do Termopila looks back to ancient history to understand the mechanisms of identity formation and exclusion. Both works highlight how the concept of “the other” can fuel conflict — whether through satire in a contemporary setting or through historical analysis. In a Balkan context, these works offer rich reflections on the perils of nationalism, division, and the enduring relevance of ancient patterns of self and other.

Tell me more about these “ancient patterns of self and other”? #

The concept of “self and other” has been central to the formation of identity in ancient cultures, particularly in Greek civilization. This dichotomy of “self” (one’s own community or group) versus “other” (foreigners, outsiders, or those perceived as different) serves as a powerful tool for understanding how civilizations have historically constructed their sense of belonging, superiority, and exclusivity. In ancient times, these patterns often contributed to cultural, political, and military conflicts.

1. Ancient Greek Civilization: Helenes vs. Barbarians

In classical Greece, the Greeks referred to themselves as “Helenes” and anyone outside their cultural and linguistic sphere as “barbarians.” The term “barbarian” originated from the perception that foreigners spoke incomprehensible languages—“bar-bar” being a mimicry of unintelligible speech to the Greeks. This linguistic difference became symbolic of cultural, intellectual, and moral inferiority.

• The Greek Identity: Greek civilization, particularly through thinkers like Herodotus and later philosophers such as Aristotle, shaped the concept of the “other” as a necessary foil to define Greek virtues. Greek culture was seen as rational, civilized, and orderly, while barbarians were depicted as irrational, chaotic, and often despotic.

• Persian Wars: The Persian Empire, the Greeks’ most significant “other” during the Persian Wars (499–449 BCE), embodied this dichotomy. Persian kings were portrayed as autocratic and tyrannical, reinforcing the Greek image of themselves as defenders of liberty and democracy. The battles of Thermopylae and Marathon, while military conflicts, were also deeply symbolic confrontations between the Greek ideal of free polis (city-state) life and the perceived oppression of foreign despotism.

• Internal Identity vs. External Othering: The Greek polis itself fostered a strong sense of civic identity. Each city-state (Athens, Sparta, etc.) cultivated its own customs and laws, but they were united by a shared Hellenic culture. This collective identity was sharpened by the presence of external enemies like the Persians, reaffirming the unity and superiority of Greek ways of life.

2. Roman and Other Civilizations: Center vs. Periphery

The Romans also employed this dichotomy in defining themselves in contrast to other peoples. Roman civilization, much like the Greeks, was founded on a perception of cultural superiority, viewing non-Romans (referred to as “barbarians” as well) as uncivilized.

• Roman Imperialism: The Roman Empire expanded on this “self and other” construct by integrating foreign elements into its system while simultaneously maintaining the superiority of Roman law, customs, and the Latin language. The “civilizing mission” of the Romans, particularly in relation to their conquest of Gaul, Germania, and Britannia, was justified through the notion of bringing order to “barbaric” lands.

• Germanic Tribes: The eventual collapse of the Roman Empire, in part due to the pressure from Germanic tribes (whom the Romans classified as “barbarians”), highlighted the tension inherent in this constructed binary. These “others” were initially viewed as threats, but as they became integrated into the Roman world, they significantly influenced the cultural and political landscape.

3. Ancient Near East and Egypt

In the ancient Near East, empires like the Assyrians and Egyptians also had clear delineations between “self” and “other.” The Egyptians, for example, referred to their land as the realm of order (Ma’at) and the lands beyond as the realm of chaos. This dichotomy justified their conquests and their divine right to rule over foreign peoples.

• Ethnic and Religious Superiority: Egyptian texts often depicted foreigners (Nubians, Libyans, and Asiatics) as lesser beings who needed to be controlled or subdued. This concept was intertwined with their religious views, in which the pharaoh was seen as the intermediary who brought order to the chaotic “other” lands.

4. Broader Patterns of Othering in Ancient Civilizations

Across many ancient civilizations, the “self and other” pattern played out in similar ways:

• Civilized vs. Uncivilized: This was a common thread in most ancient societies. The “self” was identified as the keeper of civilization—whether in terms of culture, religion, or political organization—while the “other” was often cast as a threat to this order.

• Religious Dimensions: Many ancient societies also defined themselves through religious terms. For example, the Israelites in ancient Judea distinguished themselves from neighboring peoples by their covenant with Yahweh, casting surrounding pagan cultures as inferior or impure.

• Justification for War and Domination: This binary frequently served as a rationale for wars, territorial expansion, and the enslavement of foreign peoples. By dehumanizing the “other,” ancient civilizations justified conquests and the subjugation of those outside their perceived cultural or ethnic group.

Relevance to the Balkans

The construction of “self and other” in ancient history resonates strongly with the Balkans, where ethnic, religious, and national identities have been deeply shaped by similar processes of othering. In the 20th century, the breakup of Yugoslavia, for example, saw renewed attempts by different ethnic groups to define themselves in opposition to their neighbors, often resulting in violent conflict. The ancient tendency to construct an enemy out of cultural or ethnic difference was echoed in the nationalist rhetoric that fueled the Balkan Wars.

Conclusion: Patterns of Exclusion

The ancient patterns of “self and other” not only reveal how civilizations constructed their identities but also show how these binaries can escalate into conflict. In many cases, the “other” became a scapegoat for internal problems, or an external threat that unified disparate groups under a common identity. In the context of both ancient and modern history, these patterns demonstrate the dangerous potential of rigidly defined identities and the human tendency to seek validation by opposing those who are different.