Papers by Zlatko Hadzidedic
Academicus, 2021
Most theories of nationalism labelled as 'modernist' tend to overlook the fact that the phenomeno... more Most theories of nationalism labelled as 'modernist' tend to overlook the fact that the phenomenon to which they vaguely refer as 'Modernity' is defined by a single, very precise and consistent socioeconomic system, that of capitalism. However, this fact makes nationalism and capitalism, rather than nationalism and 'Modernity', practically congruent. From this perspective, the essential question that arises is whether the emergence of these two was a spontaneous but compatible and useful coincidence, or nationalism was capitalism's deliberate invention? In the capitalist era, society has become merely a resource whose existence enables functioning of the market. Such a society must destroy all traditional communal ties on which the maintenance of traditional society was based, so that the principles of reciprocity and solidarity be replaced by the procedures of asymmetric economic exchange. Once the procedures of asymmetric economic exchange become the central principle of human relations, society stops functioning as a whole and becomes sharply divided into two parts-a well-organised and tightly-structured network of self-interested individuals permanently striving for perpetual economic gain and a shapeless mob of socially dislodged labour permanently striving for mere survival. The incessant widening of the gap between the two strata makes capitalism's essential principle of endless accumulation of capital socially unsustainable. For, rapidly urbanised masses, forced into selling their labour below the minimal price, contain a permanently present insurrectionary potential that might threaten stability of the entire system. So, bridging that gap without actually changing the structure of society becomes the paramount task for the system trying to preserve its mechanism of incessant exploitation of labour and limitless accumulation of capital. Therefore, the system has to introduce a social glue that is tailored to conceal, but also to cement, the actual polarisation of society. At the same time, this glue is designed to compensate the uprooted masses for the loss of their authentic identities by replacing these with a single artificial one. This multipurpose invention is an abstract concept of absolute social unity, named "the nation", based on the assumption that those who are located on both sides of the gap, no matter whether they are on the exploiting or exploited side, automatically share the same equal rights, same common interests, and same identity.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Godišnjak Bošnjačke zajednice kulture »Preporod«, 2016
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
" Ethnic conflict " has become a very fashionable notion. However, it was not always so. Indeed, ... more " Ethnic conflict " has become a very fashionable notion. However, it was not always so. Indeed, in the not-so-distant past such a notion was practically unknown. In the pre-modern times, conflicts were assumed to take place between power-holders, over pieces of land. The former sought to seize, control and exploit all resources within the latter, including the population that was also perceived and treated only as yet another resource for exploitation. Ethnic identities of the population residing within particular territories were totally irrelevant to the power-holders and hence did not serve as a source of disputes and conflicts between them. Indeed, having been treated as yet another resource for exploitation, the inhabitants of the targeted lands were regarded as essentially identity-less. What mattered to the power-holders was the land itself, with all its resources, including the subjects residing there. And the subjects themselves, no matter whether they had several diverse ethnic identities or a single unified one, were so powerless as to be unable to launch a conflict between themselves, let alone a rebellion against the power-holders. Thus the powerless could only serve as the powerful's assets for the land's occupation and exploitation of its resources. Given the increasing presence of the term " ethnic conflict " in the public communication, we may rightfully ask whether the nature of power, and hence the nature of conflict, has changed so much as to make identity, rather than power itself, the source of the modern type of conflict?
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
A 'Schindler List' for Southeast Europe few days ago Observer published a column under the title ... more A 'Schindler List' for Southeast Europe few days ago Observer published a column under the title Putin-Proong the Balkans: A How-To Guide, written by John Schindler. In this article the author advocates some new geopolitical redesigns of the Balkans which are actually far from being a novelty. As a matter of fact, these ideas represent a pale copy of the ideas recently published by Foreign Affairs in the article under the title Dysfunction in the Balkans, written by Timothy Less, a former British diplomat who served as the head of the British diplomatic ofce in Banja Luka, the capital of the Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as well as the political secretary of the British Embassy in Macedonia. Less advocates a total redesign of the existing state boundaries in the Balkans: the imagined Greater Serbia should embrace the existing Serb entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but also the entire internationally recognized Republic of Montenegro; the Greater Croatia should embrace a future Croatian entity in Bosnia-Herzegovina; the Greater Albania should embrace both Kosovo and the western part of Macedonia. All these territorial redesigns, says Less and Schindler agrees, would eventually bring about a lasting peace and stability in the region. Of course, it is easy to claim that both Schindler and Less are now only freelancers whose articles have nothing to do with their former employers' policies. However, the problem is that certain circles within the foreign policy establishment in both Great Britain and the United States, in their numerous initiatives from 1990s onwards, have repeatedly advocated the very same ideas that can be found in these two articles, such as the creation of the imagined monoethnic greater states – Greater Serbia, Greater Croatia and Greater Albania – as an alleged path towards lasting stability in the Balkans, with Bosnia's and Macedonia's disappearance as a collateral damage. Of course, these ideas have always been spread below the surface of ofcial policy, but they have never been abandoned, as the 'coincidence' of almost simultaneous appearance of Schindler's and Less's articles in the renowned mainstream magazines demostrates. BY PROF. ZLATKO HADZIDEDIC (/INDEX.PHP?OPTION=COM_K2&VIEW=ITEMLIST&TASK=USER&ID=562:PROFZLATKOHADZIDEDIC&ITEMID=132) MAY 05, 2017
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Forced to be Free. The Paradoxes of Liberalism and Nationalism, Oct 2012
How can we possibly relate liberalism to nationalism? By definition, liberalism is universalis... more How can we possibly relate liberalism to nationalism? By definition, liberalism is universalistic, individualistic and tolerant; nationalism is particularistic, collectivistic and intolerant. However, they are both based on a set of common concepts, such as liberty, equality, popular sovereignty, self-determination, etc. They have both inaugurated the nation-state as the framework for these concepts’ application. Their simultaneous spreading in the last two centuries has decisively shaped modern society and its values. Is this overlapping to be interpreted as accidental? Or, does it imply that the politics of nationalism is to be understood as a part, or a by-product, of the politics of liberalism? This book analyses five paradigmatic liberal thinkers (John Stuart Mill, Algernon Sidney, John Rawls, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Lord Acton) and demonstrates that nationalist principles are built into the very core of the liberal doctrine. It shows that liberalism’s fixation on the sovereign nation-state as the only legitimate model of governance necessarily invites nationalism as a means to reproduce such a model. Due to this built-in ‘error’, political efforts to apply liberalism’s principles regularly cause various manifestations of nationalism, including those commonly denounced as illiberal and anti-liberal. The symbiosis between liberalism and nationalism is an inevitable consequence of liberalism’s endorsement of the nation as the exclusive unit of political legitimacy, and of nationalism’s endorsement of liberty as the ultimate value which universally legitimises its political claims. The existing liberal-democratic discourse thus serves as an umbrella under which liberalism’s individualistic and universalistic aspects appear side by side with nationalism, rather than in opposition to it. And the omnipresence of liberalism in modern society keeps nationalism omnipresent, too.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers by Zlatko Hadzidedic