The gender of coffee

Abstract

This article explores the gendering of reconciliation initiatives from the perspective of Bosniac women active in women's NGOs in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. I illustrate how established patriarchal gender relations and socialistera models of women's community involvement framed the ways in which some women's NGO participants constructed essential ethno-national and gender differences, in contrast to dominant donor discourses. This leads to exploration of how gender patterns embedded in the institution of koms = iluk (good-neighborliness), particularly women's coffee visits, provided both obstacle and opportunity for renewed life together among ethnic others separated by wartime ethnic cleansing. Distinguishing between the two concepts, I show how, from the perspective of women's roles and experiences, "life together" may be all that displaced women want or expect out of "reconciliation" initiatives, and that even this may be beyond the capacity of many displaced people to forego talk about injustices and guilt stemming from the war.

Introduction: Researching Memory and Generation

“…10 Recent work on public representations of the Yugoslav past has added to the already existing literature new angles of analysis going beyond the national fractions. Helms (2013), for example, in her work skilfully analyses the way Bosnian national narratives greatly rely on gender logics. While female victims of sexual violence and rape are faced with silence and have received little support, they, as a collective, have become symbols and proof of the nations' innocence (Helms 2013).…”

“…Helms (2013), for example, in her work skilfully analyses the way Bosnian national narratives greatly rely on gender logics. While female victims of sexual violence and rape are faced with silence and have received little support, they, as a collective, have become symbols and proof of the nations' innocence (Helms 2013). Such gendered discourses of victimhood are followed, primarily, to prove the nation's moral purity and are instrumentalised to attract international aid projects.…”

“…Nor do I deny other social locations. Besides generational and national identity, other identities, as for example those based on gender, socio-economic or rural/urban background, also play a role when Mostarians position themselves vis-à-vis the local past (see Altinary and Pető 2015;Helms 2010;Henig 2012;Jansen 2005;Kolind 2008;Leydesdorff et al 1996;Paletschek and Schraut 2008). Although not at the centre of my analysis, whenever possible these social locations are considered.…”

Constructing “Ideal Victim” Stories of Bosnian War Survivors

“…For a specific category to achieve victim status, there must be some common interest that acts on behalf of the victims; in other words, there must be someone who has an interest in ensuring that the category achieves victim status. These activities sometimes take place on an institutional level and could be transferred to an individual level, as a conversation topic, for instance (Åkerström, 2001;Androff, 2012;Bartov, 2000;Brewer & Hayes, 2011Christie, 1986;Confino, 2005;Delpla, 2007;Fischer & Petrović-Ziemer, 2013;French, 2009;Helms, 2007;Holstein & Miller, 1990;Kiza, Rathgeber, & Rohne, 2006;Kidron, 2004Kidron, , 2012Maier, 1993;Moeller, 1996;Stefansson, 2007;Steflja, 2010;Stover & Shigekane, 2004;Olick, 2005;Olick & Demetriou, 2006;Webster, 2007;White, 2003;Zarkov, 2007;Zdravković-Zonta, 2009).…”

“…Victims are partly exemplified by individuals killed in the war and partly by individuals who survived the war but lost relatives or were displaced or raped during the war. The picture of the perpetrator is exemplified partly by former soldiers and policemen who had killed and raped as well as participated in the displacement, and partly by economic perpetrators who became rich during the war (Androff, 2012;Delpla, 2007;Fischer & Petrović-Ziemer, 2013;French, 2009;Helms, 2007;Kiza, Rathgeber, & Rohne, 2006;Stefansson, 2007;Steflja, 2010;Stover & Shigekane, 2004;Webster, 2007;White, 2003;Zarkov, 2007;Zdravković-Zonta, 2009). These two concepts of "victim" and "perpetrator" are objects of a general postwar discussion on a symbolic level.…”