Lexicon Of Stereotypes

Less still to react hysterically when someone spoils the mosaic image they have built up of themselves and the world surrounding them. The cries and insults hurled at Serbian Renewal Movement (SPO) leader Vuk Draskovic at the Congress of Serb Intellectuals casts doubts as to the name of the meeting. Those calling for Vuk's skin, the chorus, those of beggarly spirit, vultures feeding on other people's misfortune, rooters, instigators et al are reasons why we have tried to draft this ``Lexicon of Stereotypes.'' The toppling of stereotypes will be the first sign that peace is upon us. That is why those who gathered in the Sava Conference Center in Belgrade were so vehement in their reactions. Such intellectuals can exist only if Serbia is at war and apart from the rest of the world

A week ago, Vuk Draskovic, the writer, was booed and prevented from reading his speech at the Congress of Serb Intellectuals in the Sava Conference Center in Belgrade, when he tried to say that all those who wish to continue ``turning their sick words and dreams into a bloody reality'' must be stopped. The fact that Draskovic was not allowed to finish his speech was interpreted differently by the publicsome saw it as the boorish affront of ``honorable sages preoccupied with important national issues,'' others as a courageous intellectual gesture aimed at pointing out the guilt of those who have conceived disastrous national projects, and false assessment of the past, and are responsible for the introduction of a volatile mix of national myths and biases into daily politics. There are those who believe that with his speech Draskovic broached a very important subject: in order that we might regain our mental health, we will have to discard a heap of myths and false conceptions about ourselves and othersthose with which the war was started.

Stereotypes about oneself and others did not start the war, but it would not have been possible without them. Their mass exploitation, primarily by the state media, created the atmosphere which preceded the bloody clashes. Many of those who died on battlefields throughout the former Yugoslavia first fell victims of a deadly, warmongering propaganda. Propaganda bullets were fired long before the real ones. Verbal artillery paved the way for real artillery. Long before real ``Ustashi'' and ``Chetniks'' showed up on the battlefields, the mass use of stereotypes and cliches by the media in Belgrade and Zagreb transformed all the members of another nation into ``Ustashi'' and ``Chetniks.'' After that things developed easily and without a bad conscience.

``The preparation of one's public for military operations is not done without the mass exploitation of cliches about oneself and others,'' said ethnologist Slobodan Naumovic, explaining the link between stereotypes, the media and politics. ``A scale for comparison is drawn upon the one side we put `us' with our values such as democracy, human rights, tolerance. On the other side we place `them'evil, mean men who do not respect our rules of the game. The other side must be shown as a stereotype, because in this way those being initiated to war are slowly hooked on to the logic that the `others' must be destroyed. This type of preparation is part of all modern warfare, which is impossible without the previous preparing of public opinion. If we wish to improve something and create conditions in which the outbreak of a conflict will be more difficult or less plausible, then we must first attack the stereotypes, because without them there are no clashes.''

In spite of the belief that for the duration of war, it is futile to try and break the stereotypes, one must start sometime. Otherwise, one enters a world of symbols in which life is divorced from reality. One bias feeds another, leaving little space for rational thinking. The opening of diplomatic offices in Zagreb and Belgrade and certain indications that relations between the two conflicting sides could improve a bit, have automatically led to changes in the exploitation of cliches. There is a growing number of those working for Radio Television Serbia (RTS) and Croatian Television (HTV) who say loudly``Let's see if all Croats (Serbs) are really as bad they are made out to be.''

However, recovery after an overdose of stereotypes about oneself and others is neither quick nor easy. False ideas about one's history, importance or superiority with regard to others are not just part of a mental bog, but a serious symptom that the spirit of a nation has become diseased, a situation which paves the way for xenophobia and national megalomania. To rebel against this is the ethic imperative of our times if there is a wish to end the war one day. Unfortunately, very little of this was to be heard at last week's Congress of Serb Intellectuals, whose participants preferred to persevere in one of the most widespread stereotypes the one about a planetary conspiracy against the Serbian people. Things however, could have taken a different course if a different logic had been adopted one which urges that ``when one's nation and state have gone astray, then it is necessary to face the situation regardless of the fact that this nation and state are at war.''

The stereotypes and misconceptions the world now has about Serbs, and there are many, were recently collected and edited in the form of a lexicon and published by the Serbian Ministry of Information. With the help of several collocutors, VREME has tried to draw up a list of stereotypes and delusions, which were used in laying the psychological groundwork of the war. The fact that some of them are contradictory and even eliminate each other, should not confuse us. Even though they are not exactly ``pearls of popular wisdom,'' stereotypes, just like folk wisdom can be rather contradictory because they are often used as justifications for all occasions.

THE WHOLE WORLD HATES US (one of the stereotypes used most frequently, and from which many others are derived, e.g. the one about a world conspiracy against the Serbs): ``It was created with the aim of explaining why we have so few allies, i.e., why the number of those who agree with us is so small. The best way of explaining what is happening to us, is to insist all the time that everybody hates us. This cliche could not have appeared without the existence of several elements which feed it, above all, the fact that the Serbs are demonized by a part of the world public,'' said Slobodan Naumovic.

``This stereotype collides, however, with others. For example the ones which claim that politics are an activity governed by goodwill, love, honesty, honor and morals, i.e. everything except interest, the only serious parameter. This second stereotype has a drawback. How does one know when, exactly, some of those who `loved' us, started to `hate' us. This is where the French, the British, the Americans and of late the Russians, enter the story. They were the last ones we would have expected to `hate' us.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE TOGETHER WITH OTHERS: ``The war and the economic crisis have created a feeling of insecurity and frustration among a great number of people,'' said social psychologist Dragomir Pantic. ``This has launched a chain reaction insecurity gives rise to worry and anxiety, while it all grows into fear, which then develops into aggression and various forms of hatred. The real causes of the frustration cannot be seen and the hatred is turned towards others neighboring nations, national minorities, and the `traitors' in one's ranks. The ruling grouping always use this when they wish to homogenize the public in order that they might manipulate it more easily. Until recently, one of the characteristics of this society was its openness to the world. Things have changed now and turned in the direction of xenophobia. Research done by the Institute of Social Sciences shows that there were signs of xenophobia among 67.7% citizens of Serbia in October 1992. In May 1993 this percentage reached 74%, i.e. three-quarters of the population. At the same time the number of countries with which it was possible to be on friendly terms grew smaller, while the number of those who were viewed negatively, grew. Research carried out in November 1993 showed that things were settling a bit, and that the war option was slowly losing in momentum, while the ruling Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) started turning towards peace-loving rhetoric, and broke off with the Radicals. All this was reflected in a decrease of xenophobia. The reluctance to live with others will decrease to the usual percentage with the lifting of sanctions and a general normalization of life.''

Sociologist Dusan Janjic claims that the stereotype ``It is impossible to live with others'' was created in order that Serbs might be divorced from others. ``Serbian nationalism was just as separatist as any other in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. This nationalism was often covered up with quasi-Yugoslav rhetoric, which left many under a misapprehension as to the real state of affairs. In fact, it was nationalism and a need which had not yet been articulated properly and then turned into aggression. Had the need been articulated as a wish to separate from others, had this been admitted, then this bloody war probably wouldn't have come about. There would have been no clash, for example, with a similar need felt by the Slovenians,'' said Janjic.

``If they all hate us, well we're not so crazy as to go on loving them,'' said Naumovic explaining the nature of this same stereotype. ``This is where the problem of what we are to do with ourselves crops up are we going to become an island? As a rule, this cliche is accompanied by proof that everybody hates us and an attempt at finding someone with whom one can get along with, someone who will also be part of this hatred, and will suffer because they are helping us. I, personally was always surprised how quickly life together evolved after the catastrophe of World War Two. Far be it that it was based on a healthy foundation, but the fact, that for a time, there were no reprisals, is due perhaps, to the regime's firm control. The stereotype that `life with others is impossible' will start to fade one day. Politics must be based on interest and an interest in a joint life will be found, and a new stereotype introduced to cover this need.''

WE ARE NOT PART OF EUROPE: ``It is frequently said that Europe hates the Serbs and that they should not be part of it,'' said Dusan Janjic. ``This is at odds with some elitist thesis which purport that the Serbs are the cradle of European culture. It is difficult to explain how you can be the cradle of something to which you don't belong. This confusion is very characteristic of this brainwashed segment of public opinion, an unstable culture and undermined political and social values. This stereotype is the result of a deep identity crisis.''

``This type of stereotype cannot make a definite choice between two worlds and is always hovering somewhere in between,'' said Naumovic. ``Such a position is ideal for remaining on the periphery.''

WE HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY OUR TRADITIONAL ALLIES: In a recent interview Slobodan Vitanovic, a professor at the Faculty of Philology mentioned this way of experiencing history and politics: ``It is funny that we should be talking at all about the categories of feelings and passion. We have a lover's approach to History, which is a very primitive level of awareness. It is a relationship in which one partner is stronger than the other, and in which the weaker partner can win some rights,'' said Vitanovic.

``The real answer to this stereotype in politics and in the context of love and adultery was given long ago by Bekic when he asked: ``But, may I ask, who in the world loves the British?'' said historian Andrej Mitrovic. There are individual anglophiles, but it would be difficult to talk about masses of anglophiles. And the British are not bothered by the fact that some love them and some don't. World statesmen are led by the interests of their environments. Sometimes these interests concern countries, sometimes alliances, sometimes visions of a future world. Here we are witnessing an absurdity a lot of blood is being spilt and many people are dying for very small territories which do not really mean much. The political interests which led to this state of affairs cannot count on the fact that it is in the interest of others to support such a policy, and they certainly cannot count on emotions, friendship or loyalty after allowing so much destruction and bloodshed in the battle for territory when the issues could, and should have been resolved by political means.''

VICTORS IN WARLOSERS IN PEACE: ``This stereotype is for daily usage and poor in content,'' said Andrej Mitrovic. ``The world is full of losers and winners, and the interchangeableness is great. Whether you belong to the winners or losers depends on the wisdom of a certain policy, and not so much on arms. Even if something has been won by arms, the wisdom of politics determine its further fate. Therefore, we must blame the wisdom of our policy, and not fate, inevitability or damnation. There is no damnation, there is a certain constellation of forces which produces a certain policy. Serbia spread at international conferences. We did not capture Yugoslavia (in 1918); Croatian chauvinists are wrong in this respect, because our troops, and a small number at that, were asked to come. Yugoslavia was created at an international conference in Paris, thanks to the struggle of a certain policy. This kind of stereotype is disastrous.''

THIS WAR WILL RESOLVE THE SERBS' NATIONAL QUESTION ONCE AND FOR ALL: ``This stereotype is a suggestion,'' said Mitrovic. ``With these wars we are opening a phase of new wars. We will not ensure anything. The idea that something can be ensured forever does not hold water. It is another matter that the national question erupted here and that the Serbs are not alone in this tsunami of nationalist hysteria, which makes it possible to say that we must resolve all our problems because this is what everybody wishes. The policy of `now or never', `either-or', are no guarantees for the future.''

WE PLAY A FATEFUL ROLE IN WORLD PROCESSES: (We are defending the West from the breakthrough of Islam, we are defending Russians from themselves...) ``This is just a ridiculous thesis,'' said Andrej Mitrovic. ``When you have become a marginal force thanks to the prevalent policies at home, you are offered the compensation of believing that you are of consequence. Our whole problem lies in the fact that we are really not very important, but have found ourselves at the center of big problems. We have the role of one who does not stand a great chance, so that this is compensated with the claim that we are at the center of world history and a myth. If we cannot help the world, then we will be a celestial people, and we will show our tendency towards suicidal behavior. If a rational view is taken, then many nations, could, with regard to their roles in a region, quote their great importance. Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland could all lay ownership to such a claim, and the fact that some important moments in world history took place there. This area of ours does have certain importance, and it is true that the Serbs participated in some special situations, but I don't think that they were exceptional. It is no surprise that the Hungarians and Croats and the Greeks and Bulgarians support similar theories whereby they are bastions of Christianity. The Serbs and Croats along with the Hungarians and the Germans in the territory of present day Krajina, resisted the Ottoman empire longest in this respect. The role of the Serbs in WW1 must not be underrated, but viewed as part of a world event. According to some German analyses, the First World War started in a peripheral theater and over a minor issue (the assassination), because efforts were being made at avoiding a German-French or German-Russian front. Serbia proved a hardy factor and bragged three important allies. It is often said here that Serbia broke the back of three empires. It is silly to say that we caused the downfall of a single empire. The Austro-Hungarian empire's main front was in the east and main opponent in the west. All this does not deny the importance of Serbia's history, just the stereotype of our fateful importance for the rest of the world,'' said Mitrovic.

``If a great power wants players who will play one or two episodes in its big historical film, it is obvious that the actors who vie for the role will be those who believe that they are preordained to play historical roles,'' said Slobodan Naumovic. ``This has happened to us several times. A nation with this kind of consciousness does not think twice of defying Hitler, of turning against Stalin and the entire world. Such a nation, believes that if the outcome is not guaranteed, then the importance of the event is, and that this justifies the sacrifice of everything, right down to the last member of its community. On the other hand, there is something about the heroic patriarchal culture which makes us attribute special importance to ourselves. No matter how this belief arose here, some great powers have known how to manipulate this characteristic of ours and easily incorporated us in world processes as useful bit players. We now believe that we are giving the Russians a chance to return to world politics. This belief, however, is not entirely groundless. It doesn't mean that we have really given them something, but we were used as an inducement in a game. In this game, the struggle for our fate is not the issue at stake. The fact that we agreed to be the inducement can result in some difficulties. We, however, will conclude once again, that we are playing a fateful role,'' said Naumovic.

SERBS ARE THE BEST FIGHTERS: (``We don't know how to work, but we do know how to fight,'' ``We have the strongest army in Europe''Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic).

This very important stereotype is a combination of the stereotype on our intelligence and our primeval honesty, a medieval belief that the man who supports a just cause cannot lose out,'' said Naumovic. ``We often quote the proverb that `war is not fought with arms but brave men'. And we do have heart. This stereotype contains defiance, a just mission, cunning and intellect. Only someone who is coldly rational can stand up against our heart.

SERBS ALWAYS DEFEND THEIR HEARTHS: The problem with this stereotype is that those who use it work themselves into a corner. It is absolutely clear that no side in a war is naive enough to just defend itself. That is why this stereotype cuts both ways. It is good when certain things have to be justified. It is problematic when it leads one into illogical impasses. You're defending yourself and at the same time advancing a few kilometers every day. One can say O.K., there are some targets we have to win. But in that case, the rhetoric must be changed, and it is necessary to say from time to time that one sometimes attacks. That's where the catch lie show to find good reasons to justify the attacks. All wars have this problem with finding a good reason for explaining one's war option. These explanations are usually of a defensive nature. We say that we will attack them in order that they might not attack us as a preventive measure. These are the general rules used in preparing public opinion. We do not differ much from others in this respect, the only difference is that in our case the stereotype contains more folkloric elements,'' said Naumovic.

An Open Door

Historian Andrej Mitrovic explains how it came about that we have returned to historical myths in everyday life. ``We have lived with a history full of corpses and great drama in the creating and preserving of the country, and the fact that during two world wars practically every single family suffered a loss. At the same time, the previous period of history was marked by black/white, right/wrong, progressive backward characteristics. The Communist regime committees were mistrustful of Serbia's history. There were no bans to studying it, but there was a tendency towards controlling it. So it happened that the prevailing impression was that the real contents of Serbia's history were suppressed, even reduced in importance. Not so much the greatness, inasmuch as the dramatic element and the intensity. This created a psychological vacuum which was later filled with pseudo-historical content and interpretations. This opened the door to a nationalist approach,'' said Mitrovic.