"Today, the discourse on the Balkans focuses on corruption and poverty. For example, if you read the news, even when Bulgaria is presented as an attractive tourist destination, it will always be described as 'the poorest country'. That adjective cannot be omitted. Of course, Bulgarians are now waiting for a poorer country to join the European Union so that they can finally stop being the 'poorest'. Poverty is criminalized, it is considered something bad, almost a moral flaw"
On Friday, December 20, Maria Todorova was awarded the annual prize of the Institute for philosophy and social theory "Miladin Životić". The award is given to leading theorists, those whose work resonates in social practice. And Marija Todorova is one of the most important world historians dealing with this region; her book Imaginary Balkans (Imagining the Balkans) laid the foundations for the research of Western ideas about the Balkans. After she identified the discourse Balkanism, other authors continued to study in which ways and in which areas the representation of this part of Europe was constructed. Her book has become one of the basic works in Southeast European studies. He is originally from Bulgaria, from a mixed Greek-Bulgarian family. Since 1998, she lives and works in the USA, where she is a professor emerita at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Among other things, she is the recipient of awards from the Guggenheim Foundation, the Institute for Advanced Studies in Berlin, the National Center for the Humanities, the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Institute for Social Sciences in Vienna, and several honorary doctorates.
"WEATHER" It's been about 30 years since you coined the term Balkanism. Is that discourse still present in the West today??
MARIJA TODOROVA: It was formed only at the beginning of the 20th century, as a result of the Balkan wars and the First World War, but also because the West looked down on those small, newly formed states. This discourse was particularly pronounced immediately after the First World War, then receded later, and then flared up violently during the Yugoslav wars.
Now he has withdrawn again. It is not heard, among other things, because it is not politically correct to hear it. In addition, a large part of the Balkans is already part of the European Union. But even when talking about the Western Balkans - which is a funny oxymoron, because there is no Eastern, Northern, or Southern Balkans - the Balkanist discourse is no longer used. He may still be present only in private conversations. However, the stereotypes are still there. The slander of the Balkans is still there. Hierarchies are there. The Balkan countries are still considered second-rate, although this applies not only to them, but also to the Eastern European part of the continent.
Are there any other aspects on which the discourse focuses today when it comes to this part of Europe??
On corruption and poverty. For example, if you read the news, even when Bulgaria is presented as an attractive tourist destination, it will always be described as "the poorest country". That adjective cannot be omitted. Of course, Bulgarians are now waiting for a poorer country to join the European Union so that they can finally stop being the "poorest". Poverty is criminalized, it is considered something bad, almost a moral flaw.
Another major focus is corruption. If we look back at theorists, the concept of corruption is very ambiguous. What exactly is corruption? How is it constructed? Who defines it? On closer inspection, corruption can be found everywhere. There is a joke, the politician says: "We only want civilized corruption, like the one in Italy." Therefore, corruption exists everywhere, but it is precisely corruption and poverty that serve as the main arguments for postponing further negotiations on the accession of countries such as North Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The discourse is therefore present, but it is not officially used.
Finally, the concept of balkanization, which arose after World War II, is now so widely used that it has lost its connection with territory. When people say that the Internet is "Balkanized" or that politics is "Balkanized," they often have no idea what the Balkans are or where they are. "Balkanization" simply means fragmentation, which is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, people talk about the "Balkanization of capital". Therefore, this term can have different meanings.
Speaking of fragmentation, how do you see European identity? Does it even exist?? Is its consolidation due to the crisis at work or exactly the opposite?
European identity is in the process of disintegration. I don't think it ever really existed, although after 1989 - during the nineties - there was a younger generation that held out hope for it, because they could travel anywhere and fit in almost anywhere.
They were multilingual, adaptable, educated. They created a kind of European and even cosmopolitan identity because at that time they often crossed the ocean. Now, with the economic crisis and the nationalization of politics everywhere, including the United States and Europe, that has been lost. You have a European identity among the bureaucrats in Brussels.
Of course it's a wonderful idea and I support it, but I think that identity is unfortunately weakened due to objective causes. There is the economy or, as some say, the refugee crisis. But it was not the refugee crisis that created the economic one, but the other way around. In a way, the whole European project is based on liberal capitalism, but that same liberal capitalism created all these problems that are now being blamed on refugees and other factors.
So, I am not happy that the European identity does not exist, but we cannot know whether it will destroy the European Union.
How do you see the role of liberal capitalism in the rise of AfD and Donald Trump? Is their success really a support for those policies or primarily a certain reaction?
It's absolutely about reaction. The US Democratic Party embarked on a path of self-destruction when it tried to explain the vote for Trump by saying that his voters were brainwashed. But it was not only about the voice from the protest, but also about the fact that Trump, although on the one hand very unpredictable and narcissistic, very skilfully touched what people really care about, what they feel.
And I don't necessarily agree with equating all those parties - National Gathering, AfD and other extreme right-wing movements - because some of them come with social programs. This does not mean that they should be loved, but only the rejection of their voters and sympathizers as wretch, as Hillary Clinton called them, is not right and not smart. One has to wonder why people vote for such alternative options. In Trump's case, the key is his promise to dismantle institutions. Of course he won't be able to do that, but his promise is, among other things, why people voted for him. Because the opposite was the maintenance of the status quo.
You now live partly in France. What's going on there?, how alive is the rebellion to preserve the welfare state?
Emmanuel Macron effectively used the left to marginalize Le Pen, and now he is completely betraying the left and moving to the right. Remember the yellow vests? They were also against the status quo, wanting to change institutions. Namely, people in many countries rebel against the destruction of social institutions, which does not exist among those who think in terms of efficiency and liberal capitalism. Sometimes these demands are irrational, but they are fundamentally correct. The state can afford to preserve social institutions instead of investing in a war machine, and the richest get richer.
You mentioned how the Balkans are viewed through the prism of corruption and poverty. The painful topic here is exactly that investors are coming, they use cheap labor, the government gives them huge subsidies, and labor rights and environmental standards are violated... How could that change? Otherwise, how is the relationship between the center and the periphery changing in the economic framework?
Economies change. Italy was the center of the world in the 15th and 16th centuries, then it became the Netherlands, then London and Paris, now it's New York... And in the end it will be the Far East. Many of my colleagues, who used to look for work in Europe or the US, are now going to Hong Kong or China, where they are better paid. It is or will be the same with other businesses.
Therefore, it is a natural process that the center attracts the workforce. As for our region, the situation will remain like this, but we cannot know for sure how the trade routes will develop further. Romania and Bulgaria will become full members of the Schengen zone from January 1, 2025. Those countries had already met all the criteria, but were kept outside the area. Why? The argument of the Dutch was that they were too corrupt; The Austrians were more honest, saying that these were border areas and that they did not want refugees. But in the case of the Netherlands, where does that attitude come from? I read an analysis and it seemed logical to me: Rotterdam is the biggest port for everything to enter Europe, including drugs. And if you have a Schengen zone in the Eastern European, Balkan area, Piraeus also becomes a port of entry, which would take some of the traffic away from Rotterdam. In the end, poverty was caused, among other things, by the Schengen rules. When you have 10 or 20 kilometers long lines of trucks with goods waiting at the border with Romania and Bulgaria, certainly their economies will be less efficient. I hope that will change now.
Do you think that the so-called Western Balkans should join the European Union?, or we will stay in the waiting room forever?
I am convinced that the EU will eventually accept the remaining Balkan countries as well. After starting negotiations with Moldova and Ukraine, they realized in Brussels what a slap it was for Bosnia and Herzegovina, so they took a step towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. The fact is that the criteria were always higher for each subsequent member state. But the moment everyone is inside, when everyone can move freely, many problems will be solved. Look at the criminal networks now, they cross borders without problems. And when those borders are completely open, normal, ordinary people will build their own networks. Of course, I don't think milk and honey will flow, but it's still better to be part of the EU than to be outside.
Are there any dominant fantasies that the Balkans currently have about themselves?? Or it disappeared along with all the geopolitical and local changes?
When people sit in a pub and drink, they talk about some kind of Balkan mentality, but it's just a chat. There are commonalities, whether it's about music, cuisine - although you'll find differences there too - or some other issues stemming from a common historical heritage. You even have it in nature, but it depends on where you look: the western Balkans are close to Italy, the eastern Balkans to Turkey. But I don't think there is an idealized period in history as receptive to being exalted and exploited as, say, Austria-Hungary - the legend of a beautiful monarchy that people used to create the idea of a central Europe.
After you've published a book Imaginary Balkans, and other authors began to deal with that topic, like Milica Bakić Hajden, Vesne Goldsworthy, Larry Wolf... Today, a lot of young people from the region work at faculties all over Europe. How much research in the Balkans has changed in these three decades?
A lot has changed, we have in a certain way established that research on the perception of the Balkans. Today, we no longer talk about perceptions, which is an epistemological change that does not only apply to Balkan studies. Attention is now being paid more to the economy, urbanization, environmental and identity issues.
So now you have borrowed concepts which apply to the region. Sometimes these universal discourses are inadequately adopted, such as that of decolonization or race. But, on the other hand, there are excellent works that connect the Balkans with other areas, and not necessarily only in the sense of the second or third world, such as the Non-Aligned Movement, but also before that, when it comes to the connection with Latin America, Africa and other places. The fact is that there are people who deal with the Balkans, young scientists who take up this topic. It is wonderful that this is happening at a time when there is a crisis in the social and humanities.
This crisis is social-humanities is actually a global problem. What does such a crisis show?? And do you think there will be some change?
In the 19th century, the social and humanities were at the top and looked down on the natural sciences. Today we have a crisis that is related to the question of efficiency, more precisely - what brings money. But I think we are slowly witnessing a turning point.
China, for example, invested a lot in the natural sciences - we can see the results of that - but now they have started to do the same when it comes to the social and humanities. There are huge investments in linguistics departments. Why? Because they realized that they need people who can think critically. American businessman David Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, said that he has a new formula H = MC2, which means - humanities equals more money (Humanities equals more cash). Because it turns out that people from the humanities make the best CEOs, the ones most capable of making the turnaround that comes from critical thinking. And it was forgotten how important critical thinking is.
Russophobia is strongest among the British public and the Baltic states. But even in Bulgaria, which is considered Russophile, the discourse is incredibly Russophobic now. And this demonization of Putin - whatever happens in the world, he is to blame and is behind it - causes the opposite reaction, people start making fun of it.
Russophobia will probably be present in Western Europe for a long time, as it was during the 19th century. But then you have interruptions, reactions... Certainly a lot depends on the outcome of this war, but also on whether BRICS will be successful. And it is certainly not wise for Europe to completely separate itself from Russia. Because Russia is an empire, it is a huge territory, building a wall there is pointless. However, it is no longer such a strong empire and I think that within Russia itself there is an awareness of its limitations. Therefore, the story about Russia wanting to conquer all of Eastern Europe sounds really crazy to me, to say nothing harsher.
Less than two days of blockade - that's how long it took to see how weak and powerless the public media service is, both from the outside and from the inside. At the moment of writing this text, it is the eighth day of the blockade, and the sixth that RTS is not broadcasting its program. They also seem to be facing a strike inside the house. And the essence of blocking RTS is not in what it publishes, but in what it keeps silent
In the months after the fall of the canopy in Novi Sad, the flames of rebellion spread throughout Serbia. The first protests started in Novi Sad right after the tragedy. The authorities responded with arrests, police cordons and intimidation, but instead of calming down the protesters, new protests followed.
The rector of the University of Belgrade, Vladan Đokić, has been the target of top state officials and regime tabloids for months, who label him as an insidious instigator of student protests, an opportunist, "the face of evil" and "the leader of the criminal octopus." How and why a rector became "state enemy number one"
"I'm standing in the cordon, and my daughter is shouting at me 'aw, aw, killers'. What should I do? If they ordered me - I would throw down my baton and bulletproof vest and stand on the side of my child," a police officer from the south of Serbia, who works as needed in the Belgrade Police Brigade, told "Vreme"
The recent formation of the Đura Macuta government is part of the regime's revenge and cynicism. This can be seen most in the "black troika" of new ministers appointed to deal with the parts of society that are the leaders and symbols of the big rebellion that lasted for several months, the cause of which was the fall of the canopy in Novi Sad, which claimed 16 human lives. Education, universities, unsolicited media and parts of the judiciary that refuse to listen to orders, either publicly, with announcements, or hiding behind legal procedures, should be dismantled. Those who will have no problem doing everything they are told, even reinforcing the orders with their own inventions, are chosen for this.
Ministers often call Vučić a class teacher. There is no joy or critical reflection in his classroom. Everyone has to bow their heads over the benches, hum and listen. What this is about, the reader sees on television every day
RTS is blocked, universities do not work, and threats, insults and calls to the prosecutor's office and the police to arrest blockers, rioters and terrorists are pouring out from the top of the government. The Serbian state has turned into a farce
Anyone who condemns the regime's targeting of people from the media, the non-governmental sector, the opposition and universities, must not agree to this targeting of RTS editors and journalists either.
The archive of the weekly Vreme includes all our digital editions, since the very beginning of our work. All issues can be downloaded in PDF format, by purchasing the digital edition, or you can read all available texts from the selected issue.
See all
