Ethnic Distance, Power and War: The Case of Croatian Students

Abstract

Abstract. This article examines dimensions of ethnic distance in two wartime surveys of university students in Croatia. The data from the surveys is interpreted together with the content analysis of the Croatian daily newspaper vjesnik. The article draws its central conclusion from the striking similarities between the media's depiction of various ethnic groups and the dimensions of ethnic distance towards these groups. In 1992 the prime targets of ethnic distance were Serbs and Montenegrins, while in 1993 Bosnian Moslems received similar attention. Since the majority of respondents had no war experience the authors conclude that the media's influence on popular attitudes was a crucial determinant of ethnic distance. Considering that most of the media is government‐controlled, it is argued that changes observed within these two years can be primarily attributed to the concrete political goals of power possessors.

Intergenerational transmission of historical memories and social-distance attitudes in post-war second-generation Croatians

“…The first palpable and commonly agreed upon trigger of the war, however, began in May 1990 when the first multi-party elections led to the declaration of autonomy from the Serbian-controlled region of Krajina (Cigar;Malešević & Uzelac, 1997). In June 1991, Croatia declared complete independence and sovereignty from the former Yugoslavia.…”

“…Indeed, conduct from the Serbian side suggested a statesanctioned policy to support Bethnic cleansing^ (Cigar, 1993, p. 322). These ethnic tensions continued to escalate and, eventually, spread to war in Croatia's neighboring state, Bosnia-Herzegovina, in March, 1992. At the height of the Croatian and Bosnian wars, Malešević and Uzelac (1997) surveyed young adults' social attitudes in Zagreb, the capital city of Croatia (in May 1992 andJune 1993). Approximately 80 % of the respondents were not impacted by the war directly (e.g., exposed to heavy shelling or bombing), yet the growing impact of the war on their xenophobic attitudes was evident with social-distance scores being significantly higher in 1993 than in 1992.…”

“…The scale does not measure the degree of hostility per se, but rather implies an omnibus measure of hatred, hostility, disgust, and fear. Malešević and Uzelac (1997) expanded the standard Bogardus Social Distance scale from seven to nine degrees of social acceptance. The scale comprised a continuum of three parts: (a) ethnic cohesion, (b) ethnic ostracism, and (c) ethnic aggression.…”

“…Second, given the passage of time and lack of direct impact by the war, we expect the social-distance attitudes of the postwar generation to be mitigated in comparison to the xenophobic attitudes reported by the generation that was directly and immediately impacted by the Croatian war (Malešević & Uzelac, 1997). Alternatively, if the second generation absorbs the burden of reversing what was done to the first (Volkan, 1997), more extreme degrees of social-distance attitudes may be observed in the second generation than in the first generation.…”

“…In Phase 3, ratings were collected on the impact each event had on the life and attitudes of both the parent and the participant, respectively. In Phase 4, participants completed a modified Bogardus Social Distance scale (Malešević & Uzelac, 1997) to provide measures of in-group cohesion and out-group exclusion. And, in Phase 5, participants were asked to respond to an adapted War Events Checklist (Karam, Al-Atrash, Saliba, Melhem, & Howard, 1999) for their parent's life.…”