Archive for: Culture in Transition

What underlies the controversy of the cultural identity of Serbia which has been in transition for over two centuries? I have looked for answers in the unstable, hybrid and dynamic concept of the Balkan identity. The Balkans, as a specific ethnic and culturological mix, as a place where noble barbarogeniuses meet with barbarianism, the European Orient, the melting pot of traditions and global trends, is a specific platform from which we have observed construction of presentation and mixing of our attitude to the national identity with the attitude to the culture in general. Analogy between the 19th century process of modernization and Serbia today is obvious, both in the steps for building cultural and national identity and in the latest consequences of the poor social transformations. The transition from a traditional to a modern society, modeled after West European paragons, has always neglected at least one of the key integrating factors. Hence the uncoordinated social and cultural policies and poorly directed social emancipation in general have led to ignorance of or misinterpretation of own culture, tradition and models, causing long term incompetence for preservation of cultural (as well as political) independence in these regions. This text poses some questions related to the deficit of modernity and the cultural imperialism that has remained in the Balkans as a consequence of colonial dominance. The marriage of the politics and the esthetics is analyzed on the example of visual representation of national identity, through portraits of the ruler – Knez Miloš Obrenović – a clear indication of the attempt at developing a cultural strategy and defining a unique national cultural model. Equating the notion of national identity with political mentality has shown that passive traditional mentality (static and non-communicative) is an obstacle to forming a modern cultural identity which is innovative and capable of forming its own perception of politics. The political transformation of the system, which legged behind overall social transformation, has brought about an unsustainable cultural policy (which should be a foundation for the modernization of state) as well as maintenance of the status quo attitude to the dominant centre. This is why mere erasure of the colonist identity models and acceptance of new models were not sufficient to establish own national and cultural identity. The never-ending process of modernization has caused permanent indefiniteness of the modern cultural policy, since in the unstable period of transition we still choose between traditionalism and global culture, all the while additionally emphasizing the differences and controversies without creating a field of free cultural fluctuation. Returning to the Balkans as a cultural paradigm of Serbia, the cultural policy of today should communicate with the visible wealth of diversity without contradicting either tradition or transition, in order to avoid the inferiority in recognition of or indifference for production, presentation and preservation of its own cultural riches.

The transition has changed a lot in Serbia, but there are a number of constants of the cultural context that the transition has not managed to affect. It could even be said that these constants shaped the course of transition. We need to keep in mind the global value orientations that are rooted in the tradition of the social being of the Serbian people, which continually reappear in both old sense and in new forms. In the long term, these constants make any qualitative leaps difficult and give a specific form to modernization trends. These include traditionalism, authoritarianism and their various derivative forms. These are global value orientations that seek to connect the past with the future and thus ensure historical continuity of the society. They shape a society which is internally contradictory and insusceptible to innovation.

The crisis of culture reflects in the crisis of cultural values, cultural institutions and the foundations on which it rests. More specifically, the culture crisis is driven by: a serious lack of funds which prevents the cultural institutions from better responding to the demands that have been placed upon them; inertia found in the very institutions, resulting in extreme slowness with which they adapt their internal structures to the needs, even if they are not too affected by lack of funds; and inertia of the social system, bounded by traditions, beliefs and values, which has proven to be incapable of making the best use of culture and cultural institutions in the interest of national development. The gap between cultural institutions and social environment is caused by relative autonomy of these institutions. They tend to remain what they have always been in order to protect their own interests and values. In order to overcome the crisis, it is quite obvious that the culture and the society must agree on the need for mutual adjustment and adaptation. Planning of cultural needs must take into account the development of other social activities, in particular the development and financial aspect of the economy. Programs that do not comply with other programs of social life remain a mere collection of wishes and efforts that can often bring confusion into the social life. The development of certain activities over others should be replaced by a balanced and coordinated planning of all activities. Practice has shown that “the activity” of culture in the period of pre-transitional changes was not just part of the material sphere of work, but also its result – a distribution of total income through contributions. The state has set up the necessary infrastructure and established various cultural institutions. However, bureaucratic attitude towards culture and bureaucratic culture has often neglected the function of people in dealing with social affairs. It has bypassed the world of their needs, because its objective has been to keep the production and the culture separated. This is how the culture has become a guided activity, where the possibilities of manipulation are huge.