Download Feminist (un)easiness with nationalism: expanding the concept of

A Time to Re-examine the Common Narrative
A Critical Analysis of the Scholarship
on the War-related Feminist Activism
in Belgrade and Zagreb in the 1990’s
Ana Miškovska Kajevska, PhD
European Conference on Politics and Gender
Uppsala, 11 June 2015
Research

Sociohistorical comparison of the war-related
positionings, ie discourses and activities, of the
Belgrade and Zagreb feminists in the 1990s (wars in
Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia)
- Which ethnic group can be a (sexual) perpetrator?
- Which ethnic group can be a (sexual) victim?

In-depth semi-structured interviews with 48 activists
+ organisational documents and articles from printed
media
Questions, scholarship-based

Were the positionings in Belgrade the same as those
in Zagreb? Were the positionings in 1991-1995
(Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina) the same as those
in 1998-1999 (NATO and Kosovo)?

Did the Belgrade feminists split on antinationalist and
nationalist at the same time and in the same way as
the Zagreb ones?

What did those terms actually refer to? Did they mean
the same in Belgrade and Zagreb?
Findings 1

The situation in the first half of the 1990s differed
from that in the second half of the 1990s.

Some similarities between the intra-feminist
dynamics in Belgrade and those in Zagreb, but
also significant differences

In both cities a split among the feminists, but not
at the same time and in the same way
Findings 2

The most commonly used terms in the
scholarship, 'antinationalist' and 'nationalist', were
employed only by the antinationalist feminists.
The nationalist ones used a different terminology.

In both cities: 'antinationalist' self-ascribed,
'nationalist' ascribed-to term  power difference
in naming.

'Antinationalist' and 'nationalist' did not mean the
same in Belgrade and Zagreb.
Scholarship 1

Presence of recurring information, uncritically
referenced from the same few older works,
without being checked against information from
additional, new research

Such evaluative efforts needed:
- Many silent places and (partially) incorrect and
imprecise formulations and claims
- Many of the oft-quoted works written in the
war-period or very soon afterwards: no time
distance and based on limited information
Scholarship 2

The intra-feminist split only somewhat described,
but not theorised
Using Bourdieu  feminists, besides advocating an end
to the wars and war rapes, offering assistance to the
victims and demanding persecution of the perpetrators,
also aimed at securing legitimacy for their own warrelated positionings.

Terms treated as neutral, objective descriptions of
the war-related positionings. Instead, an essential
part of the struggle for legitimacy among the
feminists
Scholarship 3

Scholars usually took sides, but only implicitly:
some feminists mentioned, others ignored, or
some only praised, others only criticised
 Scholarship politically biased, not impartial;
the (foreign and local) authors and their works
part of the struggle for legitimacy

Very limited presence – close to absence – of the
voices of the nationalist feminists and the terms
which they used
In conclusion

Context, ie time and place, matters. Much caution
is needed when drawing analogies between the
(feminism-related) developments in the postYugoslav republics in the 1990s.

Critical approach necessary even
- regarding the recurring claims  possible
existence of partial and partially true information
- when the used claims and classifications seem at
first glance value-free  possible concealed power
differences and struggles for legitimacy