Sima Cirkovic on the Vicious Circle of Truisms

Considering that I wasn't among those who wrote it, I cannot reply directly, and can take the question as a reason for participating in the renewed discussions on the so-called Memorandum. I would, above all, support the idea of a ``critical edition''--whatever that may mean in this case. It must be shown clearly which are the proposed texts, what the alternatives and variants, and to identify the authors of parts of the text. A critical publication should include the signing, because the text, before its unusual appearance before the public had not been considered nor accepted by any of the Academy's bodies. That is why it's definition as the Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Arts and Sciences (SANU) is an abuse.

Naturally, for a complete interpretation of the document and its role, the text in itself won't be enough, especially for those who weren't grown up or present at the time, so that they didn't witness its appearance and all that followed. It will be difficult to understand the reaction of the public, the feverish interest, the experience of discovery, if the atmosphere of the times which preceded it is not understood.

For today's readers the text itself will not conjure up the passions and excitement which it caused at the time, when it was photocopied in great numbers. After all that has been published, it has lost the excitement of forbidden fruit. After changes which followed a lot of its topicality has been lost, and it has lost in veracity after the painful experiences we have gone through.

The fragmentary character, incoherence and lack of consistency between various parts of that truly incomplete text, do not inspire and do not awaken the wish for a critical discussion; in fact, the anonymity of its arguments put one off. The greatest fault of this diagnostic-programmatic torso is its commitment to a moment, concrete circumstances and a real or imagined opponent. Historical rhetoric does not manage to hide its daily political character. From a greater distance it will be easier to see if this unfinished document had any effect in giving some general guide lines or if its effect consisted in showing what stand should be adopted by those (or by one person) who wanted the support of the nationally oriented intelligentsia.

I have always believed that views concerning the position of one's nation in the world, its needs and perspective within the context of general developments, should be developed by every serious intellectual. I think that this is the natural framework of one's engagement, a creative alternative to commitment to a party or similar programs. If asked about such topics, I would discuss them, but I would not take part in writing a document which had ambitions of an official character or hid behind the authority of the Academy. A democratic answer to the ``Memorandum'' would have to be a pluralism of drafts.

Rather than an ``anti-Memorandum,'' I would like to read a series of alternatives given from the point of view of men (and women) of various knowledge, experience, and views of the world. A way out of the vicious circle of truisms, the shallowness and dreariness of our political thought is required no less today than it was at the time when the ``Memorandum'' was leaked to the public.