See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227613566
Imagined Communities and Real Victims: Self-Determination and Ethnic
Cleansing in Yugoslavia
Article  in  American Ethnologist · November 1996
DOI: 10.1525/ae.1996.23.4.02a00060
CITATIONS
121
READS
379
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Antagonistic Tolerance View project
Robert M. Hayden
University of Pittsburgh
101 PUBLICATIONS   1,084 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Robert M. Hayden on 09 September 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
TITLE : IMAGINED COMMUNITIES AND REAL VICTIMS : SELF
DETERMINATION AND ETHNIC CLEANSIN G
IN YUGOSLAVIA
AUTHOR: ROBERT M. HAYDEN
University of Pittsburgh
THE NATIONAL COUNCI L
FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEA N
RESEARCH
TITLE VIII PROGRA M
1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N .W.
Washington, D.C . 20036
PROJECTINFORMATION:*
CONTRACTOR : University of Pittsburg h
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : Robert M . Hayden
COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 807-20
DATE: July 8, 1994
COPYRIGHTINFORMA TION
Individual researchers retain the copyright on work products derived from research funded b y
Council Contract. The Council and the U.S. Government have the right to duplicate written reports
and other materials submitted under Council Contract and to distribute such copies within the
Council and U.S. Government for their own use, and to draw upon such reports and materials for
their own studies; but the Council and U.S. Government do not have the right to distribute, or
make such reports and materials avaiiable, outside the Councii or U.S. Government without the
written consent of the authors, except as may be required under the provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act 5 U.S.C. 552, or other applicable law.
The work leading to this report was supported in part by contract funds provided by the National Council
for Soviet and East European Research, made available by the U. S. Department of State under Title VIII (the
Soviet-Eastern European Research and Training Act of 1983) . The analysis and interpretations contained in th e
report are those of the author.
IMAGINED COMMUNITIES AND REAL VICTIMS :
SELF-DETERMINATION AND ETHNIC CLEANSING IN YUGOSLAVIA *
Robert M . Hayden
Department of Anthropolog y
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
412-648-8847
© 1994, by Robert M. Hayden. All rights reserved . Please do not cite or quote withou t
permission of author.
The research reported here was supported in part by the National Council for Soviet an d
East European Research ; but all opinions expressed herein are exclusively those of the autho r
and cannot be attributed to the National Council . Earlier versions of this paper were presente d
at the annual meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies
(Phoenix, AZ, Nov . 1992), the American Anthropological Association (San Francisco, CA, Dec .
1992) and the Law & Society Association (Chicago, IL, May 28-30, 1993) . This paper has
benefitted enormously from the comments of several anonymous reviewers for American
Ethnologist.
Executive Summary
From 1945 until the late 1980s, the various Yugoslav peoples were increasingly
intertwined and intermarried and living intermingled, not only in cities but in parts of Croati a
and Bosnia . Thus, the view that these peoples were incompatible, suffering from "age-ol d
hatreds," was false empirically. However, political movements that succeeded after 198 7
were premised on the hostility of these peoples, and on a view that in each republic, th e
sovereign was not a body of equal citizens, but only those who were of the majorit y
nationality . Others are minorities, tolerated at best, but always, by definition, subordinated t o
the ethno-national majority .
Examination of the constitutions and citizenship laws of the post-Yugoslav republic s
reveals the institutionalization of systems premised on inequality, the superiority of the ethni c
majority and the permanent subordination of any minorities . Further, the citizenship laws,
defining who is a member of the sovereign body, are aimed explicitly at ensuring tha t
minorities are excluded . The citizenship laws amount to bureaucratic ethnic cleansing,
denying citizenship, and thus basic rights, to those not members of the majority group .
These constitutional and legal structures are the formal manifestation of the logic o f
state formation that has lead, in Bosnia and in Croatia, to "ethnic cleansing ." Since ethnic
homogenization is the basic premise of the dominant political movements in each of thes e
states as well as in Serbia, the exclusion of minorities, by legal or forcible means, is a
corollary of the basic principle of the state. Unfortunately, this assessment holds as well for
Croatia and for the "Federation of Croats and Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina" as i t
does for Serbia and Serb-controlled parts of Bosnia and Croatia . Since the constitution of this
Croat-Muslim "Federation" was written under American patronage, the United States ha s
effectively sponsored a discriminatory state structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina .
Ultimately, implementation of the logic of ethno-national self-determination in the
mixed polity that was the former Yugoslavia had to mean ethnic cleansing . Acceptance of
this principle of self-determination by the "international community" meant de facto
acceptance of a politics of ethnic homogenization that was bound to be implemented b y
"ethnic cleansing ." Such "ethnic cleansing" has been accomplished by legal-bureaucrati c
means in those regions where the minority does not have the strength to resist subjugation :
Serbia and the parts of Croatia under Croatian government control . Where a minority does
have such strength, or where there is no clear majority, military campaigns have determined
which group remains sovereign, and which is excluded through expulsion . Thus the logic of
self-determination explains the patterning of the wars in Croatia and Bosnia.
IMAGINED COMMUNITIES AND REAL VICTIMS :
SELF-DETERMINATION AND ETHNIC CLEANSING IN YUGOSLAVI A
Robert M. Hayden
Department of Anthropolog y
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, PA 15260
412-648-8847
Abstract
The logic of the ideology of "national self-determination," the justification for the
separate nationalist political movements that destroyed the Yugoslav federation in 1991/92 ,
requires ethno-national homogenization . The constitutions and citizenship laws of the newly
independent Yugoslav republics are based on an ethnic definition of "nation" and serve as
justification for legal and bureaucratic as well as military ethnic cleansing . These legal acts
transform "the nation" from a mobilizing symbol for political action into the ethnic definitio n
of the sovereign in the new successor states, reducing minorities to second-class status ,
tolerated at best, facing discrimination at all times, eliminated at worst . In a territory with
an ethnically mixed population, the transformation of the political ideology of ethno-national
self-determination into the constitutional and legal definitions of the state is the transition tha t
leads to ethnic cleansing, military, legal/bureaucratic or both. Legal/bureaucratic ethnic
cleansing is most likely where minorities cannot resist forcibly . Large-scale violence becomes
likely in direct proportion to the strength of the minority population to resist reduction to
second-class status, which is why the Yugoslav wars have been fought primarily in the most
mixed regions. Approaches to nationalism that focus on "nation" as political symbol rathe r
than legal definition stress too much the instability of this construct, seeing the socia l
construction of reality rather than the brutal reconstruction of social reality .
You know, I'm a Hegelian: I know that the suffering of individuals isirrelevant
to the greater processes of history .
(High official of the government of the "Republika Srpska," the Serbia n
secessionist government in Bosnia, otherwise a philosophy professor, in answe r
to a question about the future for people in or born of mixed marriages, in a n
interview with the author, March 1994) .
Of course, it would be best to resolve problems with the minorities throug h
negotiation, but we should never rule out military force .
(High official of the Committee for Human Rights and Rights of Minorities of
the parliament of the Republic of Croatia, otherwise a historian, in an intervie w
with the author, March 1994) .
1
The collapse of Yugoslavia into warfare between separate polities of several of it s
component peoples presents anthropologists with a disquieting disjunction between the growin g
wisdom of the field and the increasing practices of the world .' While some few writers stil l
hold to the essentialist view that "nationalism" represents the political manifestation o f
primordial or at least respectably ancient ethnic distinctions (e .g . Smith 1986, Armstrong
1982), most tie it directly to modernity (e .g . Anderson 1991 [1983], Hobsbawm 1990, Gellner
1983) . Variations in formerly colonized countries tie polarizing ethnic distinctions to th e
colonial construction of society (see, e .g ., Chandra et al . 1989: 398-413) . 2 Verdery
(1993a :41) has given a succinct statement describing recent anthropological work, saying that i t
"sees nation as a construct . whose meaning is never stable but shifts with the changing balanc e
of social forces, and it asks what kind of leverage this construct has afforded certain groups - and
why those groups rather than others. "
At one level, it is difficult to argue with the analytical power of the approaches t o
nationalism that Verdery encapsulates. At another level, however, such analyses frequently
seem irrelevant to practice, and thus must be deficient theoretically . If reality is "socially
constructed," in Berger and Luckmann's famous phrase (1966), it is nonetheless reality. Often
the point of the social constructions is not only to deny any other social reality, but also t o
implement the social actions and structures needed to ensure that the denial is effective . From
this point of view, "nation" may well be a "construct, whose meaning is never stable," but
political action may also succeed in rendering some past constructs impossible for the future.
Further, such political action may create social structures -- in modern states, legal and
bureaucratic ones -- that work to ensure that the social construct is institutionalized as reality .
To give a stark example, John Maynard Keynes' dismissal of Poland in 1920 as "an economi c
impossibility with no industry but Jew-baiting" (Keynes 1920 : 291) is now dated, since the
large Jewish population of Poland is no more, and whatever role "Jew-baiting" may now play
in Polish politics, it can never be the "industry" it was before the Holocaust .
The disjunction between anthropological theory and political practice in the world ma y
be stated as follows : academic analyses have largely abandoned essentialist definitions of natio n
for constructionist ones, at the same time that essentialist definitions have risen to ascendanc y
in the real world of state formation and destruction . This disjunction can produce cognitiv e
dissonance in anthropologists who recognize cognate logic between essentialist politics and
older anthropological views of "culture" (Spencer 1990), and personal anguish for those wh o
see the brutal results of accepting essentialist definitions that are clearly false empirically (e .g. ,
Hammel 1993a) . Tambiah (1986 : 5) quotes Voltaire in his book on ethnic fratricide and th e
dismantling of democracy in Sri Lanka : "If we believe in absurdities . we shall commit
atrocities ." Anthropologists see increasingly that successful political movements in many part s
of the world are based on absurdities, while those who believe in them commit atrocities .
However, the enactment of the atrocities themselves makes their presuppositions less absurd, i n
the classic manner of self-fulfilling prophecy, or perhaps self-fulfilling history (see Hayde n
1994) . Thus it may well be that the various peoples of Bosnia lived well together from 1945
until 1992, or those of Lebanon until 1975 (see Geertz 1973 :293-297) ; yet the success of
polarizing political movements means that those real pasts are irrelevant . What now matters is
2
the history written by the political victors, in blood and in the seemingly bloodless yet sociall y
violent media of constitutions and laws .
In what follows. I do not try to reconnect the disjunction between anthropologica l
theory and the increasing way of the world . but rather to recognize its implications for the
analysis of the politics of the (re)construction of the nation-state . The first part of the article
shows the falseness of the essentialist definitions of the various Yugoslav nations that came t o
be accepted in the political turmoil following the end of state socialism . This analysis is mor e
than a matter of catharsis for the personal anguish of a few anthropologists and severa l
(hundreds of?) thousands of the unfortunate residents of the former Yugoslavia who are no w
called, sarcastically, "Yugo-nostalgics" or "Yugo-zombies" by official circles in Belgrade and
Zagreb. Since the discussion is on the Balkans," a geographical term that has bee n
incorporated into English to indicate chronic divisiveness and inherent hostility (but se
eBakić-Hayden and Hayden 1992, Todorova 1994), the suggestion that the former Yugoslavia wa s
more than a "forced marriage," or botched experiment in the coexistence of inherentl y
incompatible peoples, must be substantiated . However, the analysis moves past this focus o n
the past to look at the processes now under way to institutionalize the imagined communitie s
that have replaced the former body of citizens of the Land of the South Slavs . The analytical
point is not only that belief in absurdities has led to the commitment of atrocities . but rather
that the particular form of believed absurdity necessitates processes of implementation not onl y
immediately murderous, but also constitutional and bureaucratic institutionalizations of the new
definitions of state and people that do violence to the heterogenous structure of the population .
The political goal of those implementing the victorious social construction is indeed t o
construct reality, and "ethnic cleansing," both military and bureaucratic, is the logica l
corollary, and thus often political necessity, for bringing this about.
More is involved, however. The wars in Yugoslavia from 1991 until at least mid-199 4
have been almost entirely within regions that were the most "mixed," where the variou s
nations of Yugoslavia were most intermingled . The extraordinary violence that has shattered
these places was not the "fury of nationalist passions long repressed by communism ." as many
journalists and politicians would have it . Instead, I argue that the wars have been about the
forcible unmixing of peoples whose continuing coexistence was counter to the politica l
ideologies that won in the democratic elections of 1990 . Thus extreme nationalism in the
former Yugoslavia has not been only a matter of imagining "primordial" communities, bu t
rather of making existing heterogenous ones unimaginable . In formal terms, the point has bee n
to implement an essentialist definition of the nation and its state in regions where the
intermingled population formed living disproof of its validity : the brutal negation of socia l
reality in order to reconstruct it .
THE MULTINATIONAL FEDERATION AND ITS DEMIS E
Yugoslavia was a creation of the Versailles peace, incorporating Serbia, territories
acquired by Serbia as a victor in World War I, and territories of the dismembered AustroHungarian
Empire that were inhabited by South Slavic peoples . The Serb-Croat-Slovene state ,
as it was referred to in the treaties that created it, fit the geopolitical needs of the victors i n
dismantling the Austo-Hungarian Empire and creating states that would hem in Germany o n
3
the south and east (see Jordan 1943 : 218-225, Churchill 1929) . At the same time . the South
Slav state was the goal of some political and intellectual figures among the Yugoslav peoples
themselves, a form of internationalism that was derived from enlightenment and liberal theor y
(A. Djilas 1991) . This Yugoslav idea conflicted with the separate nationalist ideologies of th e
various Yugoslav peoples themselves (Banac 1984), and the first Yugoslavia (1919-1941) wa s
an unstable state (Banac 1984 . A. Djilas 1991) . The invasion. dismemberment and occupatio n
of Yugoslavia by the Axis powers in 1941 led to four years of war rather than combine d
resistance to foreign occupation, civil war much like that seen in Bosnia since 1991 4 . and
communist revolution (see M . Djilas 1978) . The victorious communists promoted th e
"brotherhood and unity" of the Yugoslav peoples as a key element in the new state, an d
Yugoslavia was reconstituted after World War II .
The Yugoslavia that existed from 1945 until 1991, a multinational state in which n o
group comprised a majority, was premised on multiculturalism . While it was composed of
republics all but one of which did have a clear majority of the group for which it was name d
(e.g. Serbs in Serbia, Croats in Croatia), all of these republics also had sizeable populations o f
minorities . The republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H), the exception, had no majority
group : in 1981, its population was composed of 39 .5% Muslims, 32% Serbs, 18 .4% Croats ,
7 .9% "Yugoslavs," and 2 .2% "others and unknown ." In the 1991 census, these proportions
were, respectively, 43 .7%, 31 .4%, 17 .3%, 5 .5% and 2 .l% (Petrović 1992:4) . At the other
end of the spectrum, the most homogenous republic, Slovenia, had a population that was
90 .5% Slovene in 1981 and 87 .6% Slovene in 1991 (Petrović 1992 : 9) .
The political geography of the country reflected these territorial concentrations . The
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1945-1991/92) was a federation of six republic s
(Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia) and tw o
"autonomous provinces" within the republic of Serbia (Vojvodina and Kosovo) . Each republic
or autonomous province was the area of greatest territorial concentration of one of the majo r
national groups that comprised Yugoslavia . Thus in 1991, for example, 99 .3% of the Slovene s
in Yugoslavia lived in Slovenia while 70 .6% of the Montenegrins lived in Montenegro .
Such concentrations of national populations in their respective "home" republic s
produced a politics of confrontation w ithin the Yugoslav federation that the American politica l
scientist Sabrina Ramet (1992) has likened to international relations between states, and the
Yugoslav political scientist Slobodan Samardžić (1990) has called "combatative federalism . "
This politics tended to define any issue as essentially a zero-sum game between the nationa l
groups as represented by their republics. Such political tendencies were reflected in an d
reinforced by the progressive loosening of the power of the federal government from 194 5
through the constitution of 1974, which effectively confederalized Yugoslavia into a league o f
nearly independent states, bound more by the political power of the League of Communists o f
Yugoslavia than by the constitutional authority of the central government (see Rusinow 1979) .
The demise of the political authority of the party coincided -- not coincidentally -- with a
challenge to the constitutional authority of the central government in 1989-90, producing a
situation in which both disappeared, thus leaving the republics de facto sovereign on their own
territories . In the absence of any political power or institution that could mediate betwee n
4
these states that were both "sovereign " and completely intertwined, the civil war that followe d
was probably inevitable . 5
The political forces that produced the breakdown of both the League of Communists o f
Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav federal system were embodied in the rise of nationalis t
movements and parties in the several republics that frequently adopted the "unreasonable "
positions definitional of chauvinism. These nationalist movements were initially sparked b y
"dissident" intellectuals in Slovenia and Serbia (see Hayden 1991), who devised nationa l
programs based on the premise that Yugoslavia had worked to the systematic disadvantage o f
Slovenia or Serbia, respectively . At a time of protracted economic stagnation and the
impending collapse of state socialism in Eastern Europe, political elites in the various republics
were aware of the potential advantages of nationalism for cementing majoritarian suppor t
among their own populations . The powerful tool of appealing to local chauvinism was firs t
seized openly by the Serbian leader, Slobodan Miloševi ć. In openly advocating a nationalist
cause Milošević rejected one of the basic pillars of Yugoslav communism . If "dissidents" were
all who argued against Yugoslav communism, Milošević thus became the first successful
dissident politician in Yugoslavia in 1987-88 (see Djuki ć 1992 ; Čavoški 1991) . 6 However, in
1989, in part in response to fears that Milošević had designs on becoming another Tito, the
Slovenian leadership, still communists, adopted a nationalistic political platform of their ow n
(see Hayden 1992b) . The politics of Yugoslavia by late 1989 were thus dominated by a feud
between Slovenia and Serbia . Soon the Croatian leadership sided with the Slovenes, a political
alliance that destroyed the League of Communists of Yugoslavia when both republican
delegations walked out of its last, aptly named 14th Extraordinary Congress, in January o f
1990 (see Rusinow 1990) .
In the free elections held in 1990, after the collapse of the League of Communists, th e
winning message in each republic was one of classic nationalism : Serbia for Serbs, Croatia for
Croats, Slovenia for Slovenes, Macedonia for Macedonians . In B&H, the vote resembled an
ethnic census, with Muslim, Serb and Croat nationalist parties accounting for about 80% of th e
total, in proportions only slightly less than those of each national group in the population of th e
republic ; the only party standing for a civil state of equal citizens, the Alliance of Reform
Forces of Yugoslavia of the federal prime minister, received only 5 .6% of the vote -- less than
the 6% received by the "reformed" communists (see Hayden 1993b) . While the strength of the
nationalist victory was not large in any republic except Serbia,' it was enough : the victorious
politicians in Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia worked independently, and for their own reasons, t o
disable the federal government, attaining thereby the de facto state sovereignty referred to
earlier.' Thus each established a true nation-state, based on the sovereignty of the majority
national group.
The separate nationalist political movements were all justified on the grounds of "selfdetermination."
However, this famous concept had a specific meaning in Yugoslav politics an d
popular culture which had grim implications for any concept of a civil state of equal citizens .
A reference in the first line of the 1974 Yugoslav Constitution to "the right of every nation to
self-determination, including the right to secession" 9 referred to the nations --narodi-- of
Yugoslavia, ethnically defined, not to the populations or citizens of republics . While these
5
"nations" were recognized as having their several republics, it was the "nations ." not the
republics, that were described as having united to form the Yugoslav state .10 and the
Yugoslav republics, unlike those of the Soviet Union, did not have a right to secede .
This seemingly arcane distinction between "nation" and "republic" as the bearer of
rights was actually of vital political importance . The essence of the separate nationalist
political movements in Yugoslavia after 1989 was to assert the need for "nation," ethnicall y
defined, and "state" to coincide. Although this formulation was hardly new to European
history, it did have sinister implications for minorities in states that suddenly define d
themselves as the nation-state of the ethnic majority . By definition, anyone not of the majority
ethno-nation could be a citizen only of second class . The key to this distinction lay in the
concept of sovereignty . As nationalist parties came to power in the various Yugoslav republics
after the elections of 1990, they rewrote their several republican constitutions to justify th e
state on the sovereignty of the ethnically defined nation (narod), in which others may be
citizens, but cannot expect to participate in control of the state .
The politics of nationalism in Yugoslavia in the late 1980s and early 1990s thus turne d
the territories of concentration of the various national groups into states in which the member s
of the majority nation were sovereign (see Hayden 1992a) . The presumption of the politics was
that the various Yugoslav peoples could not, in fact, live together, and that their common state
had, therefore, to be divided. The electoral success of this message meant that the "Yugosla v
idea" of a common state of the south Slavic peoples, which had been devised as a counter an d
rival to the separate national ideologies of each of them (see A . Djilas 1991) was defeated. To
reverse Benedict Anderson's evocative phrase (1983), the disintegration of Yugoslavia into its
warring components in 1991/92 marked the failure of the imagination of a Yugosla v
community. This failure of the imagination, however, had real and tragic consequences, for th e
Yugoslav community that could not be maintained, and thus has become unimaginable, had
actually existed in many parts of the country. Indeed, it is my argument that the spatia l
patterning of the war and its terrible ferocity are due to the fact that in some regions . the
various Yugoslav peoples were not only coexisting but becoming increasingly intermingled . In
a political situation premised on the incompatibility of their components, these mixed territories
were not only anomalous, but threatening, since they served as living disproof of the
nationalist ideologies. For this reason, the mixed regions could not be permitted to survive a s
such, but their populations, which were mixing voluntarily, had to be separated militarily.
INCREASING HETEROGENEITY, MIXED MARRIAGES AND "YUGOSLAVS "
Despite the maintenance of high levels of territorial concentration of the variou s
national groups in their respective republics, the levels of ethnonational heterogeneit y
throughout most of Yugoslavia were increasing . In Slovenia, for example, the concentration o f
the Slovene population increased between 1981 and 1991 . with 97 .7% of Slovenes residing i n
Slovenia in 1981 and 99 .3% in 1991 (Petrovi ć 1992: 15) . During this same ten-year period ,
however, the homogeneity of the population of Slovenia decreased, from being 90 .5% Slovene
in 1981 to 87 .6% in 1991 (Petrovi ć 1992: 9) . Nor was Slovenia unusual in this regard . From
1953 until 1981, almost all of the territories of Yugoslavia became increasingly heterogenou s
(Petrović 1987 : 48) ; that is, in almost all republics and provinces, the percentage of the
6
population that was made up by the majority national group declined . The exceptions were th e
two autonomous provinces in Serbia . Vojvodina and Kosovo . In Vojvodina the Serbian
majority increased, due in part to the low birthrate among the next largest group, th e
Hungarians. In Kosovo the Albanian majority increased, due in part to the high Albania n
birthrate and the massive Serbian emigration from the province .11 Between 1981 and 1991 .
heterogeneity increased in Montenegro, Macedonia, Slovenia and Serbia but decreased i n
Croatia12 and B&H (Petrovi ć 1992) .
Accompanying the increasing heterogeneity of most of the republics was an increase i n
the rates of intermarriage between members of the different national groups . Intermarriage is
usually thought both to indicate increasing assimilation and to increase integration of socia l
groups (Blau et al . 1982) . From the early 1950s through the 1980s, "mixed" marriages
increased in absolute numbers and in proportion of all marriages throughout most o f
Yugoslavia (Vreme, 11 March 1991 : 31), but were particularly common among Serbs and
Croats . and among Serbs and Muslims in B&H . Not surprisingly, the highest rates o f
intermarriage came in the places in which the populations lived most intermingled : the large
cities, the province of Vojvodina . B&H, and the parts of Croatia that had large numbers of
Serbs and Croats. 13
Considering the frequency of the claim that Serbs and Croats suffer from "age-ol d
hatred," it is worth looking more closely at their increasingly close coexistence in Croatia afte r
1945, despite the terrible massacres of Serbs by the fascist "Independent State of Croatia" fro m
1941-45 .14 The 1991 census showed that 12 .2% of the population of Croatia were Serbs ,
primarily in Zagreb and otherwise concentrated in several parts of the republic, specificall y
Slavonija, Banija, Kordun and Lika. In Lika, the population was almost entirely Serb, an d
there were few intermarriages . Where Serbs and Croats lived together, however, the y
intermarried in large numbers. In the town of Petrinja in Banija, for example, where the
population was about equally divided between Serbs and Croats, about 25% of the marriages
were mixed, while in the major towns of Slavonija the percentages of mixed marriages climbe d
to 35% (the town of Pakrac [Borba, 30 September 1991 : 11]) .
Mixed marriages, of course, produce children of mixed background. Already by 1981 ,
about one-third of the children born in Slavonijan towns such as Osijek were of mixed Serb Croat
background (Borba, 30 September 1991 : 11) . B&H had the highest percentage of
"mixed" children, 15 .9% overall, again concentrated in the most mixed areas . Even the most
concentrated republic, Slovenia, had large numbers of "mixed" or "foreign" births : 7.9 %
issuing from mixed marriages, with another 19% from non-Slovene marriages, leaving onl y
73 .1% of children issuing from "purely Slovene" marriages (Borba, 30 September 1991 : 11) .
Another indicator of heterogeneity can be found in the figures on those who identifie d
themselves in the censes as "Yugoslavs" instead of as Serbs, Croats, Muslims or any othe r
national group. Between the 1971 and 1981 censes the numbers of "Yugoslavs" increase d
dramatically, from l .3% to 5 .4% of the total population (see Burg and Berbaum 1989) . The
distribution of these ethnic "Yugoslavs" was not even, however . They were found, in 1981 ,
primarily in Belgrade and the Vojvodina in Serbia, in the major industrial centers in B&H, an d
7
in Istria and some larger centers in Croatia, as well as in the "mixed" regions of Croati a
(Petrović 1987 : 152-153 : Danas 6 August 1991 : 21) . The age distribution of these Yugoslavs
in 1981 indicated that it was a preferred identity among younger people, which led some
researchers to conclude tentatively (and subject to the rise of precisely the type of nationalis t
politics that destroyed Yugoslavia in the late 1980s) that Yugoslavia was developing a n
increasing sense of community and that support for the multinational community was likely to
increase, as would self-identification as Yugoslavs (Burg and Berbaum 1989) .
It is not claimed here that national identity vanished ; but it is clear that national identity
was not a primary focus of most people's concerns in the early 1980s . Ethnographers fro m
mixed regions have reported consistently that while national differences were recognized .
tensions were low in the 1980s until political events from outside of these regions overtoo k
them (Olsen 1993 [Slavonija], Bringa 1993 [Bosnia], Jambre šić 1993 [Banija]) . 15
As it happened, of course, the rise of mutually hostile nationalisms led to a shar p
decline in the percentage of Yugoslavs throughout the country, from 5 .4% in 1981 to 3%, a
drop of 41 .25% . Again, the rates of decline were not even . The percentage of Yugoslavs
dropped most dramatically in Croatia, from 8 .2% to 2 .2% (-72 .32%), but also declined
everywhere else: B&H by 26 .5%, Serbia by 28 .11%, Slovenia by 53 .4% (all figures fro m
Petrović 1992) . The percentages of Yugoslavs remained highest, however, in the most mixe d
regions : B&H (5 .5%) and the mixed areas of Croatia, where Yugoslavs had been mos t
numerous in 1981 (Danas, 6 August 1991 : 21) .
It should be noted that the decline in the number of self-identified "Yugoslavs" ma y
often have represented a calculated decision that continuing to identify oneself as such for
official purposes could be hazardous . At the time the census was taken, in April 1991, I was
told by a number of people that they would prefer to continue to identify themselves a s
Yugoslavs but were afraid that doing so could cost them their jobs and perhaps real property i n
the chauvinist political climates than dominant . 1 6
Through the early 1980s, then . most parts of Yugoslavia showed increasing
heterogeneity of populations, accompanied by increasing numbers and percentages of mixe d
marriages, increasing births of children of mixed parentage, and a rise in the number of thos e
who identified themselves as "Yugoslavs" rather than any of the ethnonational categories of the
several Yugoslav peoples . The distribution of these factors was not random, however . Instead ,
they were all concentrated in the central part of the territory of Yugoslavia : the republic of
B&H, the parts of Croatia bordering B&H and Vojvodina, Vojvodina itself, and Belgrade . In
these parts of Yugoslavia, the idea that the Yugoslav peoples could not live together wa s
empirical nonsense . It is perhaps because these regions constituted living disproof of th e
nationalist ideologies that became politically dominant after the late 1980s that the territories i n
which the intermingling of the populations was most complete have been the major theaters o f
the war.
8
CONSTITUTIONAL NATIONALISM : FROM STATE SOCIALISM TO STAT E
CHAUVINISM
Contrary to the official rhetoric of either the winners or of western observers, the free
elections of 1990 in Yugoslavia did not replace state socialism with democracy . Instead, the
transition was from regimes dedicated to advancing the interests of that part of the population
defined as the working class and all working people" to regimes dedicated to advancing th e
interests of that part of the population defined as the ethnonational majority . In this sense. the
transition was from state socialism to state chauvinism, and the "class enemy" of socialism wa s
replaced by the enemy to the nation of the particular local chauvinism (Hayden 1992a) . Not
surprisingly, these national enemies were, primarily, the members of the largest minority i n
the polity, along with any members of the majority who might try to support rights for th e
minority. Since the leaders of Serbia and Slovenia did not permit elections at the federa l
level,17 the contest in each republic was based on ensuring local sovereignty, and the utte r
dominance of the national group for which the republic served as area of concentration .
Once in power, the victorious nationalists in each republic began to construct systems
of constitutional nationalism, meaning constitutional and legal systems devised to ensure the
dominance of the majority ethnonational group (see Hayden 1992a) . Thus the constitution of
Croatia (1990), 18 for example, in its preliminary section gives a capsule history of the effort s
of the Croat "nation" (narod) to establish "full state sovereignty" . After referring to the
"inalienable . . . right of the Croat nation to self-determination and state sovereignty," th e
Republic of Croatia is "established as the national state of the Croat nation and the state of th e
members of other nations and minorities that live within it." In all of these passages, "Croat
nation" (Hrvatski narod) has an ethnic connotation and excludes those not ethnically Croat.
This exclusionary definition of the bearer of sovereignty is reinforced by the emblems of th e
state, a flag and coat-of-arms bearing designs associated only with Croats (Art. 11) and
specifying that the official language and script of Croatia are "the Croatian language and Lati n
script" (Art. 12), thus excluding the Serbian dialects and the Cyrillic alphabet customarily use d
to write them . 1 9
Similar formulations of constitutional nationalism have arisen in other republics (se e
Hayden 1992a: 658-663) . The two where they are least visible constitutionally are also those i n
which constitutional structures have least practical importance . Serbia and the Federal Republi c
of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) exhibit the fewest forms of nationalism in thei r
constitutions; yet these constitutions are unimportant, since the entire point of the Serbia n
Constitution of 1990 and the constitution of the new "federal" Yugoslavia of 1992 was t o
institutionalize the personal rule of Slobodan Milošević and ensure that it could not be
challenged (see avoški 1991 : 107-110; Nikoli ć 1991 : 287-295; Lilić 1993) . Thus the
statements of the equality of citizens in those documents are about as relevant to state practic e
as were the provisions for individual rights and freedoms in the Soviet Constitution of 193 6
(the "Stalin Constitution") . On the other hand, the Constitution of the self-proclaimed
Republic of Serbian Krajina (1991), the secessionist Serb republic in Croatia, defines the state
as "the national state of the Serbian nation and all citizens living within it" (art . 1), in which
"sovereignty belongs to the Serbian nation of the Republic of Serbian Krajina and all citizen s
living within it" (art. 2) . These phrases echo those of the Croatian constitution, simpl y
9
replacing "Croatian" with "Serbian ." In a similar inversion to the Croatian constitution, the
Serbian republic in Croatia reinforced the exclusive definition of the bearer of sovereignty b y
state emblems exclusively Serb (art . 6) and specifying that the official language and script ar e
the Serbian language and Cyrillic script" (art . 7) .
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, constitutionalism cannot be said to exist . as the Muslim.
Serb and Croat nationalist parties that won the free elections of 1990 could not agree on a ne w
constitutional structure for that stillborn "state" (see generally Bogosavljevi ć et al . 1992 ;
Hayden 1993b) . The "Proposed Constitutional Structure for Bosnia and Herzegovina" that wa s
put forth by international mediators Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen in October 1992 20 and as
modified thereafter21 was perhaps the only constitutional document in play in the forme r
Yugoslavia after 1991 that was not based on constitutional nationalism ; yet it was also the onl y
such document that was not written or sponsored by elected officials in the former Yugoslavia .
The March 1994 Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, drafted by Croats
and Muslims with American assistance, is another matter, dealt with below .
When the Croatian . Serbian and Slovene constitutional structures were created they
were primarily exercises in symbolic politics, particularly since federal Yugoslavia still existed ,
and the federal constitution included provisions that guaranteed the equality of citizens
"regardless of nationality . . . language, [or] religion" (art. 154), stipulated that "the language s
of the nations and nationalities and their alphabets shall be equal throughout the territory o f
Yugoslavia" (art. 246), stated that there would be a single citizenship, that of the Socialis t
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and that a citizen of any republic would also hold Yugosla v
citizenship (art. 249), and that citizens of any republic would "on the territory of another
Republic have the same rights and duties of the citizens of that Republic" (art. 249) . Granting
that this constitutional equality under the socialist state was, to put it mildly, flawed (see, e .g. ,
M. Djilas 1956; avoški 1990), overt discrimination on the grounds of nationality wa s
discouraged.22 The new constitutional orders reversed this presumption of equality by defining
the state as that of the majority group and privileging its language and script . Americans may
get a feel for the tenor of the change by envisioning a political situation in which the Preamble
of the U .S. Constitution was revised to read "We the white. Protestant people of the Unite d
States . . .," and laws regarding minority rights were passed and administered by a governmen t
headed by right-wing extremist David Duke . The devastating effects on putatively democrati c
systems of such " differential incorporation " into a multi-ethnic or multi-national polity are
explored by Tambiah (1986, 1987, 1992) .
The dire practical implications of state chauvinism are documented in the reports fro m
the various republics of discrimination against minorities . The Serbian rule of the province of
Kosovo has led to widespread, systematic discrimination against the Albanian majority ther e
(who form a minority in Serbia as a whole) 23 in regard to jobs, education, information media ,
provision of medical services and treatment by police (see Mazowiecki 1992a : 29-32 and
Mazowiecki 1993 : 33-39) . In Croatia, on the other hand, it is the Serbs who have bee n
discriminated against by the Croatian nationalist government that was elected in 1990, b y
means including "the destruction and confiscation of property, arbitrary arrest, the dismissa l
1 0
from employment and verbal as well as physical abuse" (Mazowiecki 1992 :22 ; see also
Mazowiecki 1993 : 26-27; Glenny 1992 : 12-14) .
The transition from state socialism to state chauvinism is seen in the formulations of
state identity and purpose contained in the various republican constitutions . Where the socialist
constitutions had grounded the state on the dual sovereignty of the working class and al l
working people" and "the nations and nationalities" of Yugoslavia, the collapse of socialis m
left only one sovereign (Samardži ć 1990 :31) . Further, formation of the state of each of these
sovereign "nations" was justified by the right of self-determination . This is seen in the
preambles or prefatory parts to the various constitutions (emphasis added in each case) :
Proceeding from . . . the inalienable and inextinguishable right to selfdetermination
and state sovereignty of the Croatian nation, the Republic of
Croatia is established as the national state of the Croatian nation and the state o f
members of other nations and minorities who are its citizens . [1990]
Resting upon the historical, cultural, spiritual and statehood heritage of the
Macedonian nation and upon their centuries' long struggle for national and
social freedom, as well as for the creation of their own state . . . Macedonia is
established as the national state of the Macedonian nation. . . . [1991 ]
On the basis of the historical right of the Montenegrin nation to its own state ,
established in centuries of struggle for freedom . . . the Parliament of
Montenegro . . enacts and proclaims the Constitution of the Republic o f
Montenegro. [1992]
Proceeding from the centuries-long struggle of the Serbian nation for
independence . . . determined to establish a democratic state of the Serbian natio n
. . . the citizens of Serbia enact the Constitution of the republic of Serbia . [1990]
Proceeding from . . . the basic and lasting right of the Slovene nation to selfdetermination
and from the historical fact that Slovenes have, over centuries of
struggle for national liberation formed their national identity and established
their own statehood, the Parliament of the Republic of Slovenia enacts the
Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia . [1991 ]
Although not internationally recognized, the "Republic of Serbian Krajina," the selfproclaimed
Serbian state in Croatia, defines itself in its constitution in much the same terms as
the recognized successor states above:
Proceeding from the right of the Serbian nation to self-determination . . . and the
centuries-long struggle for freedom . . ., determined to establish a democratic
state of the Serbian nation on its own historical and ethnic space, in which the
other citizens are guaranteed the realization of their national rights, a state base d
on the sovereignty belonging to the Serbian nation and other citizens in it . . . the
1 1
Serbian nation of the Republic of Serbian Krajina . . . enacts the Constitution o f
the republic of Serbian Krajina (1991) .
In each of these preambles . the word "nation" (narod in all of the languages involved) has an
ethnic connotation ; narod is cognate to the verb roditi (to give birth) . When preceded by the
ethnic adjective (Croatian, Macedonian, Montenegrin. Serbian, Slovenian), the construction s
exclude those not of the specified ethnicity . From the excerpts above, and particularly th e
phrases emphasized, it is clear that the various formerly Yugoslav republics are considered to
be manifestations of the right to self-determination--meaning the right to form its own state--o f
the majority, titular nation (narod), even when some expression is given to the equality o f
minorities. Again, a contrast can be made with the Preamble of the American Constitution ,
which provides simply that "We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish thi s
Constitution. " 24
Bosnia and Herzegovina, like the Yugoslav federation itself, represents the failure of a n
attempt to define the state in such a way as to recognize the sovereignty of all of its constituent
groups without privileging any of them . The last socialist constitution of B&H (1974) had
defined the republic as
a socialist democratic state and a socialist self-management democratic
community of working people and citizens, the nations [narodi] of Bosnia and
Herzegovina -- Muslims, Serbs Croats and members of other nations an d
nationalities living within it, based on the rule and self-management of th e
working class and all working people and on the sovereignty and equality of the
nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the members of the other nations an d
nationalities that live within it (Art . 1) .
As socialism collapsed . this definition was replaced by a constitutional amendment, so that th e
definition of the state in Art . 1 read : "The Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is a
democratic sovereign state of equal citizens, of the nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina--
Muslims, Serbs and Croats and members of other nations and nationalities living within it . "2 5
Yet this definition did not satisfy the aspirations of Serbian and Croatian political figures i n
Bosnia and Herzegovina . In part because of problems of defining the state, no new constitutio n
for B&H was ever agreed upon . and as Yugoslavia collapsed the Serb and Croat leaders i n
Bosnia proclaimed their own self-determining regions within the republic, which quickl y
became quasi-states, closely linked to Serbia and Croatia, respectively, and independent of th e
supposed government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo (see Shoup 1994) . The war that
followed effected the partition of B&H into regions that were meant to be, and are fast
becoming, ethnically "pure" (see Hayden 1993b) . This partition was inevitable once
Yugoslavia collapsed, for the self-determination of the Yugoslav nations (narodi), the political
program that succeeded in 1990, meant that the Serbs and Croats of B&H would be drawn
inevitably towards union with their ethnic confreres.26 Thus "self-determination" brought o n
the civil war that destroyed Bosnia .
12
The Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina that was signed i n
Washington by Croats and Muslims in March 1994 and written with the help of America n
diplomats, is based on constitutional nationalism, this time excluding Serbs from the sovereign
peoples of Bosnia. While the Preamble states that The peoples and citizens of Bosnia an d
Herzegovina, determined to establish full national equality, democratic relations, and th e
highest standard of human rights and freedoms, hereby create a Federation ." Article 1 then
states that
Bosniacs and Croats, as constituent peoples (along with others) and citizens o f
the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the exercise of their sovereign
rights, transform the internal structure of the territories with a majority o f
Bosniac and Croat population in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina into a
Federation . . . .27
The term "Bosniac," apparently an Anglicization of Bosnjak, which has a purely Muslim
referent and does not equate with "Bosnian" (Bosanac), is a term for ethnic Muslims that
avoids the religious load of Muslimani. In any event, this Constitution excludes Serbs from the
structure of the Federation, apportioning executive offices to Muslims/ Bosniacs and Croat s
(IV.B .1 . arts. 2 - 5) and ensuring veto power in the legislature to Muslim/ Bosniac and Croa t
delegations, but not to others (IV .A .4, art. 18). The exclusion of Serbs became apparen t
immediately after the constitutional draft was signed in Washington, when a conference o f
Serbs in Sarajevo who were loyal to the idea of a multi-ethnic Bosnian state asked to b e
included in negotiations . They were ignored (Borba March xx, 1994 : ) .
THE QUESTION OF CITIZENSHIP : NATURALIZATION AND DENATURALIZATIO N
I slowly reached for my passport and handed it to a Slovenian policeman . . . . It
was the old red Yugoslav passport, of course . All of a sudden, I became awar e
of the absurdity of our situation : I knew that, while he inspected my Yugoslav
passport, he must still carry the very same one . There we were, citizens of one
country falling apart and two countries-to-be, in front of a border that is not ye t
a proper border, with passports that are not good any more . . . . Walls are being
erected throughout Europe, new, invisible walls that are much harder t o
demolish, and this border is one of them . (Slavenka Drakuli ć [1993 :53-54], on
her first crossing from independent Croatia into independent Slovenia, January
1992)
In popular speech and in many international documents, the world is composed of
nations; but at the levels of law and politics . it is composed of states . Citizens of a state almos t
always have rights that non-citizens do not share, and this is certainly true in the formerl y
Yugoslavia republics. As these states attained independence their governments began to writ e
the rules which would determine who can stay and who can not, who can work and who can
not, who can vote and who can not, who will receive medical insurance or other benefits and
who will not, who may own real property and who may not. In each case, citizens are entitled
to the right or benefit and non-citizens are not, or are entitled to them only temporarily . Thus
the question of citizenship in the successor states to the former Yugoslavia is one of utmost
13
importance to the people living in them . since those who do not attain citizenship will b e
denied the rights essential for any kind of normal life.
It must be stressed that the question of citizenship for many of the people now forced to
seek it was new. As noted earlier, the constitution of Yugoslavia had provided for a single ,
uniform Yugoslav citizenship, and also guaranteed the equality of Yugoslav citizens throughou t
the country. Suddenly, however, the citizenship of many residents in the newly independen t
states became questionable. New citizenship laws, written to privilege the members of th e
sovereign majority in each case, have worked to discriminate against residents not members o f
that group . In essence, the new citizenship regimes have simultaneously extended citizenship t o
members of the majority ethnonation who are not resident through easy naturalization for
them, while denying citizenship to many residents who are not of the right group. This last
process turns residents of a republic who had been equal citizens of federal Yugoslavia int o
foreigners, a process that we might call denaturalization . Neither of these phenomena is
unique to the formerly Yugoslav republics, of course . The easy extension of citizenship to nonresident
ethno-national-religious confreres is well known (e .g . Ireland and Israel), while the
denial of citizenship to large numbers of people who until then might have been thought t o
have held it was the purpose of the 1981 British Nationality Act (see Gilroy 1987) . In this last
case, however, most of the "denaturalized" potential citizens were non-resident in Britain . The
combination of easy naturalization of non-residents with the denaturalization of residents seem s
uncommon, but is manifested now in the successor states of the former Yugoslavia and th e
former Soviet Union (see Brubaker 1992a and 1993) . The power of an imagined community
(Anderson 1993) to break up actually existing communities in these post-communist settings i s
clear.
With the demise of Yugoslavia, the immediate practical question for many citizens o f
those erstwhile states was citizenship in one of the successor states . Here, laws and policies
have varied. At the most inclusive end, the Slovenian Citizenship Act of 1991 offere d
citizenship to all citizens of another Yugoslav republic who had resided in Slovenia on the da y
that the plebiscite on independence was held . and most applicants have been granted citizenshi p
(Mazowiecki 1993 : 44) . Even so, approximately 50,000 citizens of Yugoslavia who wer e
counted in the 1991 census .s residing in Slovenia have become foreigners there since the
independence of that republic, (Vreme, 8 March 1993: 33) . Other states have been far less
accommodating . The Law Croatian Citizenship of 1991, unlike the Slovenian law, made n o
special provision for citizens of other Yugoslav republics, instead rendering all of the m
"foreigners" who must seek naturalization . Further, Serbs in Croatia have complained that
their requests for citizenship or for naturalization have been denied (see Mazowiecki 1992 : 22;
1993: 26-28) . Although the Croatian authorities have denied discriminating against the Serbs ,
relatively large numbers of requests for citizenship have been rejected (Vreme, 8 March 1993 :
34) . Since the Law on Croatian Citizenship (art . 27 §2) permits the authorities there to reject a
citizenship application even though the applicant has met all the criteria if they "are of th e
opinion that there are reasons in the interest of the Republic of Croatia for refusing the reques t
for the acquisition . . of citizenship" and the same article (§3) provides that these authoritie s
need not state their reasons for rejecting an application, the opportunity for discrimination, a s
complained of by the Serbs . certainly exists.28
14
The laws governing citizenship and naturalization are interesting because they are th e
mechanisms through which the imagination of an ethnonational community is made manifes t
and actualized . Specifically, these laws provide the grounds for the acquisition of membershi p
in the community, thus revealing the principles thought to define it. Again, the Law on
Croatian Citizenship (1991) 29 is interesting. Article 8 of this law provides that
A foreign citizen who files a petition for acquiring Croatian citizenship shal l
acquire Croatian citizenship if he or she meets the following requirements :
1. [age requirement: 18]
2. [omitted]
3. that before the filing of the petition, he or she had a registered place o f
residence for a period of not less than five years uninterrupted on the territor y
of the Republic of Croatia .
4. that he or she is proficient in the Croatian language and Latin script .
5. that a conclusion can be drawn from his or her conduct that he or she adhere s
to the laws and customs prevailing in the Republic of Croatia and that he or she
accepts Croatian culture .
Sections three and four of this article do not seem at first glance to be overl y
controversial, but both open wide opportunities for discriminatory application . The residency
requirement depends on the interpretation of the qualification "uninterrupted" (neprekidno) .
More interesting is the language qualification . The dialects of what has until now been know n
as Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian are myriad and intermixed, with some Serbian population s
speaking dialects similar to those spoken by some Croats, and some Croat populations speakin g
dialects similar to those spoken by some Serbs (see Hammel 1993 :7-8) . Serbs do prefer to use
Cyrillic while Croats almost never use it . Thus the language criterium is interesting : is
someone who speaks the Belgrade dialect proficient in the "Croatian language?" Who decides ,
and on what grounds? Would a "Serbian" dialect qualify if the speaker is an ethnic Croat but
not otherwise?
Section five, however, is most revealing . What, exactly, does it mean to "accept
Croatian culture," and how does one conduct oneself to show such acceptance? Since the
primary distinguishing feature of Croatian culture is Roman Catholicism, must one convert to
that faith? If not that, what? This provision of the law takes a term that anthropologists hav e
regarded as descriptive and analytical and makes it prescriptive ; yet it remains empty o f
specific content. This emptiness at the formal level is hardly a recognition of indeterminacy ,
however . To the contrary, one suspects that the authorities who enacted this law have quit e
specific ideas about what it means to "accept Croatian culture ." and that their intent is to draw
very rigid lines indeed .
The implications of these basic provisions for naturalization become even mor e
interesting when the special rules for emigrants and their descendants (Art . 11) and for
members of the Croatian nation (narod) who do not reside in Croatia (Art . 16) are considered.
In regard to both categories, Croatian citizenship can be acquired even though the applican t
does not meet the requirements stated in Art . 8, §§ l-4 . However, these candidates must stil l
15
meet the requirement of § 5 . To an anthropologist . of course, the complete separation thus
contemplated between language and culture seems odd : yet it is restated twice, and thus seem s
not to have been a slip of the drafter's pen . This provision provides a tool for extendin g
citizenship only to ethnic Croats (e .g ., the child of Croat emigres from Croatia or of ethnic
Croats from Serbia) while denying it to others similarly situated (e .g ., the child of Serb
emigres from Croatia) . Taken together . the naturalization provisions of the Law on Croatian
Citizenship may lead to situations in which, for example, a Muslim from Bosnia, long resident
in Croatia and a native speaker of a Croatian dialect of what used to be called Serbo-Croatian ,
is denied citizenship, while an ethnic Croat from the United States, who has never been t o
Croatia and who doesn't know the language, is granted Croatian citizenship . While numbers
of cases in Croatia are not known, it is interesting to note that the Slovenian provisions i n
regard to naturalization also privilege ethnic Slovenes ; and that while 50,000 residents of
Slovenia who were citizens of the former Yugoslavia have not acquired Slovenian citizenship,
25,000 ethnic Slovenes from outside of Slovenia have done so (Vreme, 8 March 1993 : 34) .30
Again the power of the imagined community to break up communities on the ground i s
apparent. The new citizenship laws provide the legal means for doing so : in essence.
bureaucratic ethnic cleansing.
SELF-DETERMINATION, HOMOGENIZATION AND "ETHNIC CLEANSING "
The reference to "ethnic cleansing" in the last sentence is intentionally provocative. The
point is indeed that the logic of "national self-determination" in Yugoslavia make s
homogenization of the population a necessity . This logic is in fact a pure structuralism of th e
type analyzed by Mary Douglas (1966). In states defined as the polity of only the sovereig n
segment of the population, all not in the chosen group are "matter out of place," and may be
treated accordingly . "Ethnic cleansing" thus becomes an indicative metaphor indeed .
As a process of homogenization, "ethnic cleansing" can take many forms . Within areas
in which the sovereign group is already an overwhelming majority, homogenization can be
brought about by legal and bureaucratic means, by denying citizenship to those not of the righ t
group, thus also inducing those members of minorities who can do so to assimilate, and thos e
who cannot or will not assimilate to leave . On the other hand, in more mixed areas ,
homogenization requires more, the physical expulsion, removal or extermination of th e
minority population . Although it is only this latter process that has come to be known, sinc e
the Yugoslav war began, as "ethnic cleansing," it is important to recognize that legal an d
bureaucratic discrimination is aimed at bringing about the same results : the elimination of the
minority .
Although most of the world's attention has been focussed on Bosnia and Herzegovina ,
it is useful to look at the situation in Croatia, precisely because of the extent to whic h
homogenization of the populations has taken place by bureaucratic and legal means as well as
through military activity. Serb and Croat activities in this regard have been as similar in inten t
if inverted in content as the constitutions of the Republic of Croatia and the "Republic o f
Serbian Krajina," cited above . Thus Croats have been expelled from the parts of Croatia that
are under Serb control (Mazewiecki 1993a : 21-23) . At the same time, Croatian forces have
engaged in the outright military ethnic cleansing of Serbs (Mazewiecki 1993a : 14-15), and the
16
Croatian government has tolerated or initiated discriminatory treatment of the remaining Serb s
(Mazewiecki 1993a: 14-19) . The result has been the effective exchange of populations, wit h
formerly mixed areas such as Banija and Slavonija being divided into regions virtually wholl y
Serb and virtually wholly Croat.
There have not yet been any reliable studies of the results of forced emigration, whic h
has led to complete changes in the ethnonational structures of parts of Bosnia and Herzegovin a
and of Croatia . Since the Croatian government attempts to maintain the form of a state of law ,
and is more open to international inspection than the Serb authorities in the Krajina region s
that they control, the few figures available relate to Croatia, making it easiest to look at the
form of these pressures in that Republic . Although many people left their homes in the firs t
few weeks of the war in Croatia in 1991, pressure to induce emigration continues (Mazowieck i
1993a : 21-23) . As Mazewiecki notes (1993a : 14-21), Serbs in Croatia have been subjected to
arbitrary execution and other violations of the right to life, denied police protection by th e
Croatian state, subject to arbitrary detention and denied the right to a fair trial, subject to
illegal eviction from their homes and confiscation or destruction of their property . As already
noted, the Croatian citizenship law provides ample scope for arbitrary and abusive application ,
which has in fact been documented by Mazewiecki (1993a : 16-18) . The result is the continue d
emigration of the Serbs, as shown in the few available statistics on their distribution in Croatia .
At the time of the April 1991 census only 268,642 of the 580,762 Serbs in Croatia (46 .2% )
lived in areas now under the protection of the United Nations, which includes the Krajin a
region plus a central zone (UNPA West) partially under Serb control (Crkvenčić and
Klemenčić 1993: 19). Thus at least 312,000 Serbs lived in the areas now under control of the
Croatian government .31 As of March, 1994, however, Croatian government official s
estimated that only 200,000 Serbs remained in parts of Croatia under government control, 32
while Serb political figures put the figure at 100,000 . 33 The effect has been to concentrate the
Serbs of Croatia into the regions of that republic and of Bosnia that are under Serb control ,
and in Serbia itself, which has more than 500,000 refugees .
The fate of Croats in these Serb controlled parts of Croatia is even more grim : virtuall y
all have been expelled . Where the Croatian government gives color of law to discriminatio n
against Serbs, the Serb authorities tend to tolerate or initiate more direct action . The
difference is of technique, however, not end result . The Republic of Croatia and the " Republic
of Serbian Krajina" are both premised on the principle that minorities do not belong in them ,
even though the minority populations may have lived there for centuries . Discrimination
against minorities in these circumstances is implied in the very definition of the state.
FROM NATION AS MOBILIZING SYMBOL TO NATION AS BRUTALIZIN G
SOVEREIGN
Bette Denich (1994) argues that the "transition from exclusionary metaphor int o
physical extermination is the transformation of meaning that defines genocide ." I would argue
that in a territory with an ethnically mixed population, the transformation of the political
ideology of ethno-national self-determination into the constitutional and legal definitions of th e
state is the transition that leads to ethnic cleansing, military, legal - bureaucratic or both . Legal
- bureaucratic ethnic cleansing is most likely where minorities cannot resist forcibly . Large-
17
scale violence becomes likely in direct proportion to the strength of the minority population t o
resist reduction to second-class status . tolerated at best. facing discrimination at all times.
eliminated at worst . Unfortunately, it is precisely in those regions that are most thoroughly
mixed that war is thus most apt to come, as local minorities resist the imposition of the stat e
that would turn them from equal citizens into subjugated minorities .
From this perspective, it is not enough to say that "Nation is first of all a politica l
symbol", the meanings of which are "as varied as its multiple histories and as numerous as th e
social-structural positions from which it can be both utilized and read" (Verdery 1993b : 202-
203, emphasis in original) . The social-structural position of state chauvinism transforms thi s
symbol in ways strikingly similar, in territories that contain more than one "nation," howeve r
defined . Moreover, the transformation of nation from symbol into legal sovereign limits th e
range of meanings available for the future construction of the paramount symbol . In so far as
some portion of the population must thereby be permanently excluded from equal citizenship ,
the imagination of community produces real victims, which is, of course, what ethnic cleansin g
is all about.
1 8
NOTES
1. The disintegration of Yugoslavia is . of course, far more than a conceptual disjunction for the
three million refugees within the territory of the former federation, as well as for many of those
who have remained in the shattered. " ethnically pure " ruins of what were thriving multiethnic loca l
communities. The situation analyzed in this paper is a manifestation of human suffering that was
knowingly created by political actors within and without the former Yugoslavia . My efforts to
analyze this tragedy are in part an attempt to control my own reactions to the destruction b y
intellectualizing it. Any part of the analysis that appears to trivialize the appalling suffering in the
former Yugoslavia is not intended to do so .
2. The terminology of such distinctions remains less than uniform. Indian analysts, for example ,
refer to "communalism" rather than "nationalism ;" but this distinction itself is a manifestation o f
acceptance of the secular nationalism (as per Nehru's The Discovery of India [1946]) that Ashutos h
Varshney (1993) has identified as competing with Hindu nationalism and separatist Sikh an d
Kashmiri nationalisms in independent India . "Communalism" may become "nationalism" whe n
it succeeds, and a state is granted to the "community," as occurred with Pakistan in 1947 . Thus
Croatian separatist ideology in 1990 was as communalist as Indian Muslim separatist ideology i n
1946 ; or, conversely, Muslim separatist ideology in 1946 was as nationalist as Croatian separatis t
ideology in 1990. From this perspective, Verdery's argument (1993b : 202) , that it is mistake n
to assume that "just because something we call 'nationalism' occurs in many places, it is the same
phenomenon in all of them" misses the point . Polarizing distinctions driven by images of blood
exist widely, and to concentrate on their particularities, as she suggests, even when given a loca l
label different from "nationalism," risks missing the importance of the wider phenomenon .
3. Geertz' 1973 assessment of Lebanon (an addendum to the original early 1960s text of th e
article), that "to date Lebanon continues to be a proof that although extreme primordial diversity
may make political equilibrium permanently precarious, it does not necessarily, in and of itself ,
make it impossible" echoes comments that many made about Yugoslavia in the 1980s . The point
is not that Geertz was wrong ; rather, that the optimism many felt about what he termed "th e
integrative revolution" seems suddenly misplaced . Of course, it is doubtful that Geertz himsel f
would now use the term "primordial," and its appearance in the title and text of the article is itsel f
a sign that the analysis is dated .
4. The primary differences between 1941-45 and 1991-1994 were, first, that in the 1940s, Serbs
were the chief victims of genocidal activity carried out primarily by Croats, secondarily b y
Muslims, while in the 1990s, Muslims have been the chief victims o f
genocidal activities carried out primarily by Serbs, secondarily by Croats . The second difference
is more telling, however : whereas in the 1940s the Communists were a political force strongly i n
favor of Yugoslav unity, by the 1990s, there is no important political movement in support of a
south Slav state .
5. The inevitability of war in these circumstances is made clear from the first ten numbers of the
Federalist Papers (Madison et al. 1987 [orig . 1787]), the classic discourse on federal structures .
Indeed, the collapse of Yugoslavia into war serves as confirmation of the reasoning employed b y
1 9
the Federalists. The specific political and structural problems of the Yugoslav (con)federation i n
1990/91 are discussed in Samardžić (1991) .
6. The characterization of Miloš ević as the first successful dissident" in Yugoslavia has draw n
sharp criticism from anonymous reviewers of this paper and from audiences who have heard i t
presented . However, one of the most troubling aspects of the post-Communist transition has bee n
the easy transit of former darlings-of-democracy dissidents into totalizing politicians in a politica l
spectrum running from ultra-right to neo-fascist (see Hayden 1992b) . In Yugoslavia. such figures
include the Serbian fascist leader Vojislav Šešelj, subject of government harassment an d
imprisonment in the 1980s, his defense attorney at that time, the right-wing Croatian politicia n
Vladimir Šeks, the Croat fascist leader Dobrisav Paraga, once praised by the U .S . Congress as
a fighter for human rights, and the President of Croatia, Dr . Franjo Tudjman, whose books
provide a quasi-intellectual underpinning for the politics of ethno-nationalism. In fact, not all
dissidents were thereby democrats, and the fact that Milo šević adopted a dissident platform a s
state policy does not detract from that platform's critical stance towards the Yugoslav communis t
system -- the defining criterium of "dissident" status .
7. In Serbia, the "socialist" leader Slobodan Milo šević , a communist until earlier in the year ,
accomplished a Ceausescou-like transformation, turning an ostensibly communist party into a
nationalist one. His lopsided victory in the 1990 elections reflected (apart from the fact that th e
elections were staged unfairly) his ability to appeal to both nationalist and communist member s
of the electorate .
8. The leaderships of B&H and Macedonia were caught in the crossfire between the Serbia .
Croatia and Slovenia. The Macedonians and the Bosnians would clearly have preferred th e
continuation of Yugoslavia, since the chances of either B&H or Macedonia being a viable state
outside of Yugoslavia were minimal . The tragic consequences for B&H of the politics o f
nationalism are analyzed in Hayden (1993b) .
9. Constitution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1974, "Introductory Part, Basi c
Principles . "
10. Ibid., Art. l .
11. B&H showed a rather different trend : the Serbian plurality recorded there in 1961 became a
Muslim plurality in 1971, after the recognition of "Muslim" as a nationality in 1967 and th e
subsequent change in the declaration of nationality by many who had called themselves Serbs i n
1961 (see Petrović 1987: 47 n. 19) .
12. The increase in the percentage of Croats in the census in Croatia in 1991 was apparently th e
result of a shift by many who had identified themselves as "Yugoslavs" in 1981, to Croat . The
number of "Yugoslavs" in Croatia declined by 72% between these two censes, from 8 .2% of the
population in 1981, to 2 .2% in 1991 (Petrovi ć 1992: 7) .
20
13 . I am not convinced by the recent argument by Botev and Wagner (1983) that intermarriag e
did not increase in Yugoslavia . which considers aggregate data on the level of the republic, an d
thus is not sensitive to regional variations . Further, the symbolic value even of what they refe r
to as small numbers of intermarriages was great . Contrary to their reasoning, Ivan Šiber of th e
University of Zagreb has documented a sharp decline of intermarriages in Croatia since 1991 . and
interprets it as a sign of homogenization of the population (Feral Tribune 11 January 1994) .
14: The extent of these massacres became a topic of hot debate in the late 1980s, with Croatia n
historians attempting to minimize the numbers (see Boban 1991, and its discussion in Hayde n
1992c and Boban 1992 ; also Hayden 1993a) . Croatian sensitivity on this topic can be seen in a
ferocious attack, far in excess of normal standards of propriety in American scholarship, on
Hayden's comments on Boban by a second Croat writer (Kneževi ć 1993a; and reply by Hayden,
forthcoming) .
15. The transformation of the people of a mixed Muslim - Croat village from neighbors o f
different faiths into enemies of different nationalities is seen in Tone Bringa's stunnin g
ethnographic film, Bosnia: We Are All Neighbors, broadcast in America on PBS in May 1994.
16. Some respondents to the census registered a protest against the whole process by listin g
themselves as Eskimos, Bantus, American Indians, Citroens and refrigerators, among othe r
fanciful categories . The deadly nature of the categories was brought home to participants at a
seminar on "Beyond Genocide" at John Jay College in New York in April 1992, when a huma n
rights group from the town of Zenica in B&H used leftover blank copies of the 199 1
census forms as the paper for a book of pictures of atrocities committed on the Muslims of B&H .
17. The republican leaderships refused to permit federal elections because the federal prim e
minister, Ante Markovi ć , was by far the most popular political figure in all parts of Yugoslavi a
in 1990-91 . Markovi ć was popular precisely because he was seen as trying to preserv e
Yugoslavia . By denying Marković the opportunity to run, the republican leaderships denied hi m
the opportunity to obtain a democratic mandate . Had federal elections been held before those i n
the republics, it is very likely that Markovi ć would have obtained a mandate to counter the various
separatist political actors in Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia, and the Yugoslav tragedy might wel l
have been avoided.
18. In this section of this paper and the one that follows it, a great deal of emphasis is given t o
the analysis of Croatian constitutional and legal materials . Unfortunately, in the political climate
surrounding the demise of the former Yugoslavia, the analysis of Croatian materials is frequently
perceived by Croats as "anti-Croat" or even "pro-Serbian," or as "disproportionate" if less spac e
is devoted to the analysis of Serbian materials (see, e .g ., Knežević 1993b and Hayden 1993c) .
Since this article deals primarily with constitutional and legal materials, however, it focusses o n
those documents that best exemplify the points under discussion, which are Croatian . As noted
below, the Serbian materials are less revealing, not because the Serbs manifest the phenomena a t
issue any less than do Croats, but rather because the Serbian regime of Slobodan Milo šević has
put into place constitutional and legal structures that look progressive but that have little bearin g
on the actions of that authoritarian state (see also Hayden 1992a : 660) . The criticism is in any
2 1
event misguided, since it is based on the assumption that Croatian materials should be immune t o
analysis because of the actions of the Serbs . a proposition that is difficult to defend in regard t o
academic work.
19. To be sure, this same article contains a second clause that permits the use . "in particular local
jurisdictions," of another language and script . "under conditions established by statute" (emphasi s
mine) . Both limitations, however, are suspect . If local jurisdictional lines are gerrymandered so
that no minority is anywhere a local majority, the constitutional provision becomes meaningless .
Further, the subjugation of a supposed constitutional right to ordinary legislation vitiates the right .
Thus, for example, a statute providing that one could use the "Serbian language in Cyrillic script "
to write to the Minister for Religious Affairs, and only for that purpose, would be constitutional
yet serve to deny, in a practical sense, the supposed "right . "
20. International Conference on the former Yugoslavia, document STC/2/2, October 27, 1992 .
21. See United Nations Security Council, "Report of the Secretary-General on the Activities o f
the International conference on the Former Yugoslavia : Peace Talks on Bosnia and Herzegovina, "
Document S/25479, 26 March 1993 . The development of the Vance-Owen plan is also discusse d
in Hayden 1993b.
22. Indeed, the federal Yugoslav government in the 1980s was frequently condemned for its
"oppression" of nationalist political activists in the various republics and provinces, actions whic h
the government justified by saying that the separate (and separatist!) nationalist positions would,
if permitted to become dominant, destroy the Yugoslav state and provoke civil war -- a prognosis
rather more prescient than those of Amnesty International or Helsinki Watch. The troublesome
contrast between the morally unassailable criticisms of the Yugoslav government by human right s
activists in the 1980s and the terrible results of the success of the course of action they demande d
are explored, if overly polemically, in Hayden (1992c) .
23. The problem of minorities who form a local majority is particularly troublesome in regard t o
minority rights, since the local minority, members of an overall majority, often themselves requir e
protection. This problem is discussed in Varadi 1992 : 267-269, an article that is extremely usefu l
in regard to the legal problems of protecting minority rights in the former Yugoslavia .
24. To be sure, the U .S . Constitution as written (1787) did recognize a difference between "free
persons" and "all other persons ." and excluding "Indians not taxed" (Art . I, § 2) . Further,
American citizenship was limited by law to only "white persons" until after the Civil War, an d
even then, naturalization was permitted only to "white persons" and "Africans or persons o f
African descent" until 1952 (see Gettys 1934) . A more appropriate contrast might therefore b e
the Preamble to the Constitution of India (1950), consciously designed to implement a democrati c
system in a polity fragmented on lines of caste, religion and language as well as social class: "We,
the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, secular ,
democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens : Justice . . . Liberty . . . Equality . . . Fraternity
. . . do hereby adopt, enact and give to ourselves this constitution. "
22
25. Amendment LX to the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina .
Službeni List Socijalističke Republike Bosne i Hercegovine 46 (no . 21 . 31 July 1990) : 499 .
26. The Vance-Owen plan, which ostensibly was aimed at preserving a single B&H, recognize d
this fact of political life by opposing the division of B&H into only three ethnically-determine d
regions, saying that "a confederation formed of three such States would be inherently unstable ,
for at least two would surely forge immediate and stronger connections with neighboring state s
of the former Yugoslavia than they would with the other two units of Bosnia and Herzegovina "
(International Conference on the former Yugoslavia, document STC/2/2, Oct . 27, 1992: 5).
However, the Vance-Owen plan for dividing B&H into ten completely autonomous regions wa s
unrealistic, since it amounted to proclaiming a house divided to be a condominium despite the
demonstrated willingness of many of the residents to raze the edifice (see Hayden 1993b) .
27. Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, draft of March 13, 1994, 5 P.M . ;
obtained from the Embassy of Croatia, Washington, D .C . ; in English as one of three (with
Croatian and "Bosnian") original languages .
28. As is the case with the constitutional provisions (see above . Note 18), Serbia is les s
susceptible to analysis because that state, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that contains it ,
is hardly a legal state at all . In the present instance, there is no new citizenship law in Serbia, an d
I am not aware of any analysis of Serbian practices in this regard . However, the bureaucratic
requirements for obtaining citizenship in the new Yugoslavia (Vreme, 3 August 1992: 16-17) and
the general pressure on minorities in that country (see Mazowiecki 1992 : 27-36 ; 1993 : 32-42) ,
indicate that the situation there is likely to be manipulated in order to discriminate against non -
Serbs.
Zakon o hrvatskom državlanstvu, Narodne Novine 1991 # 53 : 1466-1469 ; amended in
Narodne Novine 1992 # 28 : 659 .
30. Again it is necessary to state that the situation in regard to the determination of Serbia n
citizenship is no different (Mazowiecki 1993a: 26-27) . At the time this is written (May 1993) ,
however, Serbia is an international pariah under an authoritarian regime, and probably few are
clamoring to acquire its citizenship . Indeed, this author has met many Serbs who would like t o
acquire Croatian, Macedonian or even Bosnian citizenship for purely pragmatic reasons, t o
facilitate travel and emigration. Most have found this impossible to do, however, even when their
parents were from those republics .
31. The number must actually be higher, since part of UNPA West is also under the control o f
the Croatian government.
32. Interview with Josip Manolić , Speaker of the upper house of the Croatian parliament ,
Zagreb, 11 March 1994.
33. Interviews with Serb political figures in Zagreb, March 10-12, 1994 . Names of informants
withheld to avoid possibility of prosecution for "slandering the Croatian state," as has happene d
at least once in the past .
23
REFERENCES
Anderson, Benedict (1983) Imagined Communities : Reflections on the Origin and Spread o f
Nationalism. London: Verso .
Anderson, Benedict (1992) "Long-Distance Nationalism: World Capitalism and the Rise of Identifying
Politics." Ms .
Banac, No (1984) The National Question in Yugoslavia : Origins, History, Politics . Ithaca: Cornel l
University Press.
Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann (1966) The Social Construction of Reality . New York:
Doubleday .
Blau, Peter, Terry Blum and Joseph Schwartz (1982) "Heterogeneity and Intermarriage ." American
Sociological Review 47 : 45-61 .
Bogosavljević, Srdjan, Vladimir Goati, Zdravko Grebo, Jasminka Hasanbegović, Dušan Janjić,
Branislava Jojić, and Paul Shoup (1992) Bosna i Hercegovina izmedju Rata i Mira. Beograd
and Sarajevo: Forum za Etničke Odnose .
Botev, Nikolai and Richard Wagner (1983) "Seeing Past the Barricade: Ethnic Intermarriage in
Yugoslavia during the Last Three Decades." Anthropology of East Europe Review 11 (l-2) :
27-34.
Bringa, Tone (1993) "National Categories, National Identification and Identity Formation i n
'Multinational' Bosnia ." Anthropology of East Europe Review 11 (1-2): 69-76 .
Brubaker, Rogers (1992) Citizenship and Nationhood in France and Germany . Cambridge, MA :
Harvard University Press .
Brubaker, Rogers (1992a) "Citizenship Struggles in Soviet Successor States ." International Migration
Review 26:269-291 .
Brubaker, Rogers (1993) "Nationhood and the Natlonal Question in the Soviet Union and Post-Soviet
Eurasia: An Institutionalist Account." Theory and Society
Burg, Steven and Michael Berbaum (1989) "Community, Integration and Stability in Multinational
Yugoslavia." American Political Science Review 83 : 535-554 .
Čavoški, Kosta (1990) Tito : Tehnologija Vlasti. Beograd : Dosije.
Č avoški, Kosta (1991) Slobodan Protiv Sloboda . Beograd : Dosije.
Crkvenčić, Ivan and Mladen Kamenčić (1993) Aggression Against Croatia : Geopolitical and
Demographic Facts . Zagreb: Republic of Croatia, Central Bureau of Statistics.
Chandra, Bipan, Mridula Mukherjee, Aditya Mukherjee, K.N. Pannikar and Sucheta Mahajan (1989 )
India's Struggle for Independence . Delhi: Penguin.
Churchill, Winston (1929) The World Crisis : The Aftermath . London:
Denich, Bette (1994) "Dismembering Yugoslavia : Nationalist Ideologies and the Symbolic Revival of
Genocide." American Ethnologist (forthcoming)
Djilas, Aleksa (1991) The Contested Country . Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press .
Djilas, Milovan (1957) The New Class . New York: Harcourt, Brace .
Djukić, Slavoljub (1992) Kako se Dogodio Vodja. Beograd : Filip Višnjić.
Douglas, Mary (1966) Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the concepts of Pollution and Taboo .
London : Routledge.
Drakulić , Slavenka (1993) The Balkan Express : Fragments from the Other Side of War . New York:
W.W. Norton.
Geertz, Clifford (1973) "The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in th e
New States ." In C . Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures, pp . 255-310. New York: Basic
Books .
Gellner, Ernest (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press .
24
Gettys, Luella (1934) The Law of Citizenship in the United States . Chicago : University of Chicago
Press .
Gilroy, Paul (1987) "There Ain't No Black in the Union Jack" . Chicago : University of Chicago
Press .
Glenny, Misha (1992) The Fall of Yugoslavia. New York : Penguin.
Hammel, E. A. (1993) "Demography and the origins of the Yugoslav Civil War ." Anthropology
Today, 9 (no . 1) : 4-9 .
Hammel, E. A. (1993a) "The Yugoslav Labyrinth ." Anthropology of East Europe Review 11 (1-2) :
35-42) .
Hayden, Robert M . (1991) "Yugoslavia: From Civil Society to Civil War ." Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, December XX, 1991 .
Hayden, Robert M . (1992a) "Constitutional Nationalism in the Formerly Yugoslav Republics ." Slavi c
Review 51 : 654-673 .
Hayden, Robert M . (1992b) "The Beginning of the End of Federal Yugoslavia : The Slovenian
Amendment Crisis of 1989 ." University of Pittsburgh, Center for Russian & East European
Studies, The Carl Beck Papers no . 1001 .
Hayden, Robert M . (1992c) "Human Rights Activists and the Civil War in Yugoslavia: The
Questionable Morality of Liberal Absolutism ." Economic and Political Weekly, June 13-20,
1992 : 1252-1254.
Hayden, Robert (1993a) "Recounting the Dead: The Rediscovery and Reinterpretation of Wartim e
Massacres in Late- and Post-Communist Yugoslavia," in Rubie S . Watson, ed., Memory and
Opposition under State Socialism . Santa Fe : School of American Research .
Hayden, Robert M . (1993b) "The Partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1990-93 ." RFE/RL Research,
May 28, 1993 : 1-14 .
Hayden, Robert M. (1993c) "Reply to Anto Knežević." Slavic Review, Summer 1993.
Hayden, Robert (1993d) "On Unbalanced Criticism ." East European Politics and Societies 7 : 577582 .
Hayden, Robert M. (1994) "The Use of National Stereotypes in the Wars in Yugoslavia ." Paper
presented at the colloquium on National Images and Stereotypes as Factors of Politica l
Change in Central and Eastern Europe, Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences, Amsterdam ,
May 18-20 .
Jambrešić , Renata (1993) "Banija : An Analysis of Ethnonymic Polarization ." In L . Feldman, I Prica
and R. Senjković, eds ., Fear, Death and Resistance: An Ethnography of War : Croatia 1991-
1992, pp.73-118 . Zagreb: Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research .
Jordan, W . m . (1943) Great Britain, France and the German Problem, 1918-1939 . London: Royal
Institute of International Affairs .
Keynes, John M . (1920) The Economic Consequences of the Peace . New York: Harcourt, Brace and
Howe.
Knežević, Anto (1993a) "Some Questions about a 'Balanced' Discussion." East European Politics and
Societies 7:155-166.
Knežević, Anto (1993b) "Letter to the Editor." Slavic Review, Summer 1993 .
Lilić, Stevan (1993) "The Unbearable Lightness of Constitutional Being ." Ms .
Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (1987[orig . 1787]) The Federalist Papers . New
York : Penguin.
Mazowiecki, Tadeusz (1992) "Report on the Situation in the territory of the former Yugoslavia
prepared by Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human
Rights." United Nations, General Assembly and Security Council, document A/47/666 an d
S/24809 (annex), 17 November 1992 .
25
Mazowiecki, Tadeusz (1993) "Situation of Human Rights in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia . "
United Nations . Economic and Social Council, document E/CN .4/1993/50, 10 February
1993 .
Mazowiecki, Tadeusz (1993a) "Fifth Periodic Report on the Situation of Human Rights in th e
Territory of the Former Yugoslavia ." United Nations, Economic and Social Council ,
document E/CN.4/1994/47, 17 November 1993 .
Nehru, Jawaharlal (1946) The Discovery of India. New York: John Day .
Nikolić, Pavle (1991) "Institucija Predsednika Republike i promšaji i nedorečenosti Ustava
Republike Srbije od 1990," Arhiv za pravne i društvene nauke 77 : 287-295 .
Olsen, Mary Kay G. (1983) "Bridge on the Sava: Ethnicity in Eastern Croatia, 1981-1991 . "
Anthropology of East Europe Review 11 (l-2) : 54-62 .
Petrović , Ruža (1987) Migracije u Jugoslaviji i Etni čki Aspekt . Beograd : SSO Srbije.
Petrović , Rula (1992) "The National Composition of Yugoslavia's Population, 1991 ." Yugoslav
Survey 1992 (no. 1) : 3-24.
Rusinow, Dennison (1990) "To Be or Not To Be : Yugoslavia as Hamlet." Field Staff Reports 1 8
(1990) .
Samardžić, Slobodan (1990) Jugoslavija pred Iskušenjem Federalizma . Beograd : Stručna Knjiga.
Samardžić, Slobodan (1991) "Dilemma of Federalism in Yugoslavia -- Problem of Sovereignty in a
Multinational Federation ." Praxis International 11 :377-386 .
Shoup, Paul (1994) "The Bosnian Crisis of 1992 ." In Sabrina Ramet, ed ., Beyond Yugoslavia . (
Westview Press).
Tambiah, Stanley J . (1986) Sri Lanka : Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy . Chicago :
University of Chicago Press .
Tambiah, Stanley J . (1989) "Ethnic Conflict in the World Today ." American Ethnologist 16 : 335-
349 .
Tambiah, Stanley J . (1992) Buddhism Betrayed? Religion, Politics and Violence in Sri Lanka .
Chicago: University of Chicago Press .
Todorova, Maria (1994) "The Balkans: From Discovery to Invention." Slavic Review, forthcoming.
Varadi, Tibor (1992) "Collective Minority Rights and Problems in their Legal Protection : The
Example of Yugoslavia ." East European Politics and Societies 6 : 260-282 .
Varshney, Ashutosh (1993) "Contested Meanings : India's National Identity, Hindu Nationalism, an d
the Politics of Anxiety ." Daedalus 122 (3) : 227-261 .
Verdery, Katherine (1993a) "Whither 'Nation' and 'Nationalism'?" Daedalus 122 (3) : 37-46.
Verdery, Katherine (1993b) "Nationalism and Nationalist Sentiment in Post-Socialist Romania . "
Slavic Review 52: 179-203 .
26
View publication statsView publication stats