The power of politics: How political leaders in Serbia discursively manage identity continuity and political change to shape the future of the nation

Abstract

The construction of national identities through political discourse is a growing field of interest to social psychologists, particularly as many countries face changing demographics, borders and social realities as part of globalization, immigration and continued political integration and conflict. Through an analysis of 17 key speeches by Serbian politicians over the past 25 years, the present paper explores the question of how politicians, as entrepreneurs of identity, discursively manage the relationship between identity continuity and political change over time, in attempts to construct the future of a nation. We particularly explore this issue in the context of Serbia's present political aspirations toward joining the European Union. The findings indicate that (i) political change becomes negotiated within the framework of established and legitimized identity discourses that have developed over time, and (ii) while history is frequently drawn on to support political agendas, it is successful to the extent that this history offers a sense of cultural continuity rather than a coherent narrative of historical events and time periods. We conclude by arguing for the benefits that a diachronic approach to political discourse can offer social psychologists interested in the discursive construction of national identity.

Can regenerated inner‐city areas remain sites of public‐place sociability? Psycho‐social processes predicting public sociability in a changing neighbourhood

“…Perceiving the neighbourhood as retaining cultural continuity with the past predicts public place sociability, but this relationship is mediated by place identification and place knowledge. This shows how, although perceiving continuity may help per se to maintain old habits and encourage residents to perceive change as less threatening (Obradović & Howarth, 2018), residents may also actively create and sustain bonds to place through the appropriation and use of places and of their shared stories and memories, developing place identification and knowledge (Benages‐Albert et al, 2015). These findings thus contribute to current understanding of the relationship between continuity and place identification.…”

“…Thus, it is also reasonable to expect this to lead people to also preserve public “ place encounters ” (Viola, 2012, p. 143). Research also suggests that, in contexts undergoing change or social diversification, if a sense of collective continuity of the community's core elements is assured, then changes may be constructed as non‐threatening (Obradović & Howarth, 2018), lessening the rejection of those seen as different (Smeekes & Verkuyten, 2014).…”

Conspiracy mentality in post-conflict societies: Relations with the ethos of conflict and readiness for reconciliation

“…For example, during the 1990s, the Serbian regime supported the development and maintenance of different conspiracy theories seeking to justify the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the role of Serbia in the ensuing conflicts (Byford, 2002; Byford & Billig, 2001). It is additionally important to notice that these conspiracy theories supported the dominant narrative among the Serbian people - the narrative about the Serbs (and Serbia) as historical victims, with the continuous need to defend themselves from external threats, including from the international community, which is seen as negative, unjust and unfair towards the Serbian people (Byford, 2006; Obradović & Howarth, 2018). This narrative is typically recognized as the „national siege mentality“, the core societal belief of members of one society that the rest of the world have negative intentions towards them (Bar-Tal & Antebi, 1992).…”

“…In the case of the Kosovo Albanian-Serbian conflict, the dominant narratives are very different: while the Albanians justify the independence of Kosovo by their majority status, the Serbs claim their right to Kosovo as their historical heritage (Bieber, 2002; Obradović & Howarth, 2018), and the Albanians are seen as trying to ''biologically exterminate'' them from this area (Pavasović Trošt, 2018). But the dominant narrative among the Serbian people, common for all the Yugoslav wars, is the narrative about the Serbs (and Serbia) as historical victims, with the ever-present tendency to defend themselves from external threats (Obradović, 2016), including those coming from the international community, which is seen as negative, unjust and unfair towards Serbia and the Serbian people (Obradović & Howarth, 2018). These social representations of the conflicts have an important role in the creation of distrust between the ethnic groups and the prevention of reconciliation (Psaltis, Franc, Smeekes, Ioannou, & Žeželj, 2017).…”

Change, Shift or Transformation: Analysis of Methodological Approaches to the National Identity Research

“…«Учитывая, что отличие является необходимым условием для идентичности, опасность является неотъемлемой частью этих отношений» (Campbell, 1998: 81). Конструирование угрозы в дискурсе, наряду с употреблением прошлого, служит легитимацией политической повестки дня политиками и другими игроками международного сообщества (Obradović & Howarth, 2018). Когда национальная идентичность не обозначена в дискурсе эксплицитно, например, слово «нация», как таковое, может не употребляться, конструирование угрозы служит показателем попытки создания национальной сплочённости, обозначения границ и значимых Других, как «врагов», так и «друзей».…”