Boris Buden: Europe Is A Whore

EuropeIs A Whore

"Oh! n'insultezjamais une femme qui tombe!"
Victor Hugo
"A whore", that is exactly the word one Croatianauthor has used talking about Europe in the press. It was at the end of1994, when he attacked one group of Croatian intellectuals in a polemicarticle, accusing them of nothing less than treason against the nationalcause. At the PEN congress in Prague, in November 1994, this group passeda resolution which opened the possibility of cultural contact with Serbianintellectuals. According to his accusation, this "betrayal of the nationalcause " received applause from the hypocritical laughing whore Europe"
It was nothing new or strange to talk this way aboutEurope in public in Croatia. Such negative attitudes toward the West andEurope have become general in the Croatian media. In this context the useof the picture of a "whore" - a typical synonym for moral andemotional bankruptcy - is particularly significant. This is not simply theinherent logic of the recent ideological and political situation in Croatia,but also has certain tradition. Before we see how Europe became a "fallenwoman" in the eyes of the Croatian public, we should return to theevents which have so fatefully determined the problem we are talking about.
Struggle for Recognition
If the political events which have determined the historicalsituation of Croatian nation in the time of collapse of communism and whichculminated 1991 in the war of the Serbian rebels and JNA (Yugoslav FederalArmy) against Croatia were to have a common title, I would suggest the term"struggle for recognition". I am thinking not merely of recognitionin the legal sense, ie. in the sense of recognition of a new state by theinternational community. The recognition I have in mind includes the broaderspheres of individual and social life and has to be considered as constitutivein the shaping of modern personal or collective identities.The legal aspect is just one part of it. It was Axel Honeth who took theterm of recognition, or rather struggle for recognition, as the centralcategory of his social philosophy. In his interpretation a social conflictcannot be understood only in its utilitarian dimension, ie. as motivatedonly by collective interests. In our historical investigation of politicalmovements we should also concentrate on oft neglected "moral grammarof social conflicts". The motives of social conflicts develop fromthe "moral experiences which arise from the injury of the deepest expectationsof recognition" This can be applied both to conflicts between ethnicgroups as well as nations. In his analysis of modern nationalism, ErnestGellner particularly stresses this point: "Nationalist feeling is deeplyinjured through disregarding the nationalist principle of correspondencebetween state and nation; (...) It is deeply injured when the ruler andthe ruled are of a different ethnos.
Deep feelings of injury or disregard of particularprinciples and strong needs of recognition are obviously constitutive forthe situation of national conflicts. Every attempt to understand these conflictsshould not be blind to this moral aspect of political struggle and to therhetorical strategies used in this struggle. The role of the media has beenof special importance to any analysis of the war in former Yugoslavia. Butsocial injury is not easy to cure, and feelings of rejection are difficultto overcome. Not every kind of a recognition brings satisfaction, however.Nor it is unimportant from whom it has been given. In the case of Croatiathis problem seems to be of great importance.
According to Axel Honeth: "The historical strugglesand conflicts, unique in every case, reveal their role in social developmentonly when the function which they fulfill in carrying through a moral progressin the dimension of recognition becomes comprehensible. . Kant pointed outsomething very similar two hundred years ago when he wrote that the truthof a historical event lays not simply in the event itself, on the side ofthose who acted and were in the midst of it, but also amongst those whostayed outside and passively observed the event from the standpoint of anonlooker. Only if they recognize "progress for the better" inthis event, not in the individual sense but in the sense of "a tendencyof the humanity as a whole" it become a historical one. Such an "incident",becomes then a historical sign. Whether the incident becomes a historicalsign or not depend not on the good or evil actions perpetrated by the actors."It is simply the onlooker's way of thinking, which publicly betraysitself in this play of great changes." So the reaction of the outsidepublic is that which decides the truth of a historical event, "...its partiality expressed in general sympathy - a participation accordingto wish, bordering on enthusiasm." For Kant it was the French revolutionwhich thrilled onlookers in this way. These days, at the end of the 20thcentury the similar enthusiasm among the Western onlookers have been arosenby the events which brought to the fall of east European communism. It doesnot matter if it is the fall of Berlin Wall or so called "Velvet Revolution"in Prague, the applause of Western onlookers was heard everywhere. Eventhe bloody uprising of the Rumanian people met acclamation and open supportfrom the public in the West.
In all those events which followed the fall of thecommunism and which could be called collectively "The democratic revolutionsof 1989", the public in the West has obviously recognised the moralcomponent, that is to say, "progress for the better for the whole ofhumanity", which according to Kant is necessary if we are wish to seein some political incident a historically relevant event. No such progresscan be noticed in the event known as "the fall of Yugoslavia".Suddenly there was nothing more left with which the audience observing fromoutside, "without the slightest intention in participation", couldsympathise. There was no "progress for the better", nor any traceof morally valuable "tendency of humanity as a whole" to be recognisedfrom the outside in this case. As a result, there was no enthusiasm on theside of Western onlookers; they remained unmoved. Nothing expressed thisattitude better than the words of Marion Gräfin Dönhoff, who inSeptember 1991 wrote on the front page of "Die Zeit": "Itwould be crazy to intervene militarily in this Balkan chaos of one's ownfree will. It would be pure madness. (...) But if they are determined tovent to their Serbo-Croatian hatred, then one should leave them to it."These words thrown into the eyes of those who were acting and sufferingin the Yugoslav drama have been spoken without the slightest intention ofpartitipation whatsoever, but they expressed all the better cold antipathywhich could not be softened by any moral prejudice.
So it seems that in this decisive aspect, that fromthe standpoint of the onlookers, the historical character of the eventsin Yugoslavia have been denied since the beginning. The Western onlookerturned from what he called the "chaos" - "Headlong into chaos?"- being the title of Frau Döhnhoff's article. In this sense and strictlyin this sense can we say that Croatia has lost its "struggle for recognition".
This struggle for recognition has left clear tracesalso in the media that we analyse here. We talk about the dramatic attemptto win recognition of ones own cause from the world's democratic public- not just the realisation of ones own state, but at also a confirmationof ones self-projected identity.

CONTINUE


EuropeIs A Whore


	"Oh! n'insultezjamais une femme qui tombe!" Victor Hugo "A whore", that is exactly the word one Croatianauthor has used talking about Europe in the press. It was at the end of1994, when he attacked one group of Croatian intellectuals in a polemicarticle, accusing them of nothing less than treason against the nationalcause. At the PEN congress in Prague, in November 1994, this group passeda resolution which opened the possibility of cultural contact with Serbianintellectuals. According to his accusation, this "betrayal of the nationalcause " received applause from the hypocritical laughing whore Europe" It was nothing new or strange to talk this way aboutEurope in public in Croatia. Such negative attitudes toward the West andEurope have become general in the Croatian media. In this context the useof the picture of a "whore" - a typical synonym for moral andemotional bankruptcy - is particularly significant. This is not simply theinherent logic of the recent ideological and political situation in Croatia,but also has certain tradition. Before we see how Europe became a "fallenwoman" in the eyes of the Croatian public, we should return to theevents which have so fatefully determined the problem we are talking about. Struggle for Recognition If the political events which have determined the historicalsituation of Croatian nation in the time of collapse of communism and whichculminated 1991 in the war of the Serbian rebels and JNA (Yugoslav FederalArmy) against Croatia were to have a common title, I would suggest the term"struggle for recognition". I am thinking not merely of recognitionin the legal sense, ie. in the sense of recognition of a new state by theinternational community. The recognition I have in mind includes the broaderspheres of individual and social life and has to be considered as constitutivein the shaping of modern personal or collective identities.The legal aspect is just one part of it. It was Axel Honeth who took theterm of recognition, or rather struggle for recognition, as the centralcategory of his social philosophy. In his interpretation a social conflictcannot be understood only in its utilitarian dimension, ie. as motivatedonly by collective interests. In our historical investigation of politicalmovements we should also concentrate on oft neglected "moral grammarof social conflicts". The motives of social conflicts develop fromthe "moral experiences which arise from the injury of the deepest expectationsof recognition" This can be applied both to conflicts between ethnicgroups as well as nations. In his analysis of modern nationalism, ErnestGellner particularly stresses this point: "Nationalist feeling is deeplyinjured through disregarding the nationalist principle of correspondencebetween state and nation; (...) It is deeply injured when the ruler andthe ruled are of a different ethnos. Deep feelings of injury or disregard of particularprinciples and strong needs of recognition are obviously constitutive forthe situation of national conflicts. Every attempt to understand these conflictsshould not be blind to this moral aspect of political struggle and to therhetorical strategies used in this struggle. The role of the media has beenof special importance to any analysis of the war in former Yugoslavia. Butsocial injury is not easy to cure, and feelings of rejection are difficultto overcome. Not every kind of a recognition brings satisfaction, however.Nor it is unimportant from whom it has been given. In the case of Croatiathis problem seems to be of great importance. According to Axel Honeth: "The historical strugglesand conflicts, unique in every case, reveal their role in social developmentonly when the function which they fulfill in carrying through a moral progressin the dimension of recognition becomes comprehensible. . Kant pointed outsomething very similar two hundred years ago when he wrote that the truthof a historical event lays not simply in the event itself, on the side ofthose who acted and were in the midst of it, but also amongst those whostayed outside and passively observed the event from the standpoint of anonlooker. Only if they recognize "progress for the better" inthis event, not in the individual sense but in the sense of "a tendencyof the humanity as a whole" it become a historical one. Such an "incident",becomes then a historical sign. Whether the incident becomes a historicalsign or not depend not on the good or evil actions perpetrated by the actors."It is simply the onlooker's way of thinking, which publicly betraysitself in this play of great changes." So the reaction of the outsidepublic is that which decides the truth of a historical event, "...its partiality expressed in general sympathy - a participation accordingto wish, bordering on enthusiasm." For Kant it was the French revolutionwhich thrilled onlookers in this way. These days, at the end of the 20thcentury the similar enthusiasm among the Western onlookers have been arosenby the events which brought to the fall of east European communism. It doesnot matter if it is the fall of Berlin Wall or so called "Velvet Revolution"in Prague, the applause of Western onlookers was heard everywhere. Eventhe bloody uprising of the Rumanian people met acclamation and open supportfrom the public in the West. In all those events which followed the fall of thecommunism and which could be called collectively "The democratic revolutionsof 1989", the public in the West has obviously recognised the moralcomponent, that is to say, "progress for the better for the whole ofhumanity", which according to Kant is necessary if we are wish to seein some political incident a historically relevant event. No such progresscan be noticed in the event known as "the fall of Yugoslavia".Suddenly there was nothing more left with which the audience observing fromoutside, "without the slightest intention in participation", couldsympathise. There was no "progress for the better", nor any traceof morally valuable "tendency of humanity as a whole" to be recognisedfrom the outside in this case. As a result, there was no enthusiasm on theside of Western onlookers; they remained unmoved. Nothing expressed thisattitude better than the words of Marion Gräfin Dönhoff, who inSeptember 1991 wrote on the front page of "Die Zeit": "Itwould be crazy to intervene militarily in this Balkan chaos of one's ownfree will. It would be pure madness. (...) But if they are determined tovent to their Serbo-Croatian hatred, then one should leave them to it."These words thrown into the eyes of those who were acting and sufferingin the Yugoslav drama have been spoken without the slightest intention ofpartitipation whatsoever, but they expressed all the better cold antipathywhich could not be softened by any moral prejudice. `So it seems that in this decisive aspect, that fromthe standpoint of the onlookers, the historical character of the eventsin Yugoslavia have been denied since the beginning. The Western onlookerturned from what he called the "chaos" - "Headlong into chaos?"- being the title of Frau Döhnhoff's article. In this sense and strictlyin this sense can we say that Croatia has lost its "struggle for recognition".` `This struggle for recognition has left clear tracesalso in the media that we analyse here. We talk about the dramatic attemptto win recognition of ones own cause from the world's democratic public- not just the realisation of ones own state, but at also a confirmationof ones self-projected identity.`

	`CONTINUE`