This article examines the role of the intergenerational memory of the Second World War (WWII) in identity formation and political mobilization. An existing explanation in the ethnic-conflict literature is that strategic political leaders play a crucial role in constructing and mobilizing ethnic identities. However, based on 114 open-ended interviews with individuals born in Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia, conducted in Serbia during 2008–2011, nearly a third of the respondents make spontaneous references to WWII in their statements, usually drawing parallels between the cycle of violence in the 1990s and that in the 1940s. The question this article asks, then, is why some respondents make references to WWII spontaneously while others do not. It is argued that intergenerational narratives of past cycles of violence also constitute a process of identity formation, in addition to, or apart from, other processes of identity formation. The respondents mention WWII violence in the context of the 1990s events because they “recognize” elements, such as symbols, discourse or patterns of violence, similar to those in the intergenerational narratives and interpret them as warning signs. Hence, individuals who had previously been exposed to intergenerational narratives may be subsequently more susceptible to political mobilization efforts.
This case study of the northern Serbian Province of Vojvodina explores the basis of regional shared group understandings in the absence of ethnic difference between the majority in the region and the center. It addresses the question of whether there is an emerging regional identity in Vojvodina within the political elite discourse at the time of the passage of the Omnibus Law in 2002, which devolved part of autonomy that the Province had lost following the 1991 Constitution. The method of content analysis was employed to uncover the collective sense of social purpose (i.e. desire for greater autonomy) and the shared views toward groups perceived as 'others'. The findings show that the principal supporters of autonomy are the center-based civic-oriented parties, as well as the regional parties. On the other hand, the opposition to autonomy comes from the center-based nationalist parties.
This concluding chapter explores several implications of this book's research for the efforts to prevent violence against civilians. One implication of this research is that a more probable path toward the prevention of wartime collective crimes would be external diplomatic efforts to put a stop to any attempts to physically divide the local population, or segregate people territorially on the basis of their presumed political ethnicities or other identities. In other words, people need to be free to choose where they want to live independently of their ethnic, religious, racial, or other social identities. Their respective states and local governments should protect their basic human rights. Another implication of this research is that the current system of peacekeeping, which relies on militarized responses that reinforce the very conditions that are conducive to wartime collective crimes—such as relocating the population to “safe zones” or refugee camps—may not be adequate in preventing further cycles of violence. Instead of attempting to control the movement of people fleeing violent conflict through increasingly more restrictive refugee laws, states should allow all those affected by such violence the freedom to decide whether they wish to integrate socially, economically, and politically into their new communities; return to their homes in the future if and when it is safe for them to do so; or settle in another country altogether.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.