Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:51:09.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From ‘Organic’ Legislators to ‘Organicistic’ Interpreters: Intellectuals in Yugoslavia and Post‐Yugoslav States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Siniša Malešević
Siniša Malešević*
Affiliation:
National University of Ireland, Galway
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The article is divided into three parts. In the first part I review and compare the two leading sociological theories on intellectuals, those of Z. Bauman and A. Gramsci whose concepts are later critically examined to form the basis of my argument. The second part of the article draws on Gramsci's typology of organic and traditional intelligentsia and Bauman's distinction between interpreters and legislators in order to identify and assess the profile of the Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav intelligentsia. Here I argue that Yugoslavia lacked the category of traditional intellectuals (be they legislators or interpreters) and that the dominant type of Yugoslav intellectual was an ‘organic’ legislator. As a result, the post-Yugoslav states are also characterized by the lack of a traditional intelligentsia and thus in the early post-communist period only the former organic legislators have become ‘organicistic’ interpreters. The final part of the paper summarizes the findings and looks at their implications relating to Bauman's and Gramsci's concepts.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 2002 , pp. 55 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 My interpretation of the collapse of communist Yugoslavia is extensively elaborated in Malešević, S., ‘Ethnicity and Federalism in Communist Yugoslavia and its Successor States’ in Ghai, Y. (ed.), Ethnicity and Autonomy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000 Google Scholar and in S. Malešević, Ideology, Legitimacy and the New State: Yugoslavia, Serbia and Croatia, London, Frank Cass, forthcoming 2002.

2 Gramsci, A., Selections from the Prison Notebooks, London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1971, p. 9 Google Scholar.

3 Ibid., p. 9.

4 Ibid., p. 7.

5 Mannheim, K., Ideology and Utopia, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966 Google Scholar.

6 A. Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, op. cit., pp. 5–6.

7 Bellamy, R., ‘The Intellectual as Social Critic: Antonio Gramsci and Michael Walzer’, in Jennings, J. and Kemp-Welch, A. (eds), Intellectuals in Politics, London, Routledge, 1997, p. 35 Google Scholar.

8 Bauman, Z., Legislators and Interpreters, Cambridge, Polity Press, 1987, p. 2 Google Scholar.

9 Ibid., p. 4.

10 Lyotard, F., The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1984 Google Scholar.

11 Z. Bauman, Legislators and Interpreters, op. cit., p. 69.

12 A. Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, op. cit., p. 12.

13 Z. Bauman, Legislators and Interpreters, op. cit. p. 145.

14 Jugoslavija 1945–1985: Statistički prikaz, Belgrade, Savezni Zavod za Statistiku, 1986, pp. 12–25.

15 A. Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, op. cit., p. 10. Some may argue that Gramsci’s concept of ‘organic intellectual’ was developed as a critique of the class structure in Western capitalism and as such would not be applicable in the context of communist Yugoslavia. However, that would be a very narrow understanding of a broader sociological concept. As a sociological model Gramsci’s concept is theoretically and empirically useful precisely because it is able to transcend its historical and geographical origins.

16 Ibid., p. 115.

17 Ibid., p. 12.

18 Ibid., pp. 113–16.

19 Ibid., pp. 118–20.

20 Like any general typology, this one might look too crude to accommodate subtle differences between and among these three groups as well as between the individual intellectuals. However, as J. Breuilly has rightly pointed out, all typologies are contestable and the only legitimate criterion in assessing a particular typology should be the question of its analytical usefulness. See Breuilly, J., Nationalism and the State, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1993, p. 9 Google Scholar.

21 The Praxis school was certainly the most important theoretical development in communist Yugoslavia. From its beginning it included a fairly diverse group of academics, mostly from the Universities of Belgrade and Zagreb. The Belgrade group (M. Marković, S. Stojanović, Lj. Tadić, Z. Golubović, D. Mićunović, M. Zivotić, N. Popov and T. Indjić) was in some ways more radical and as a result suffered harsher treatment by the authorities when in 1974 all eight members were expelled from the University and the journal Praxis was banned. The Zagreb group (G. Petrović, R. Supek, M. Kangrga, D. Grlić, Z. Puhovski) was from the beginning much more anti-nationalist but they were also less critical of the authorities.

22 A. Gramsci, Prison Notebooks, op. cit. p. 7.

23 Program Saveza Komunista Jugoslavije, Belgrade, Komunist, 1977, p. 44.

24 Sesardić, N., Iz analitičke perspective: Ogledi o filozofiji, znanosti i politici, Zagreb, SDH, 1991, p. 228 Google Scholar.

25 Tudjman, F., Nationalism in Contemporary Europe, Boulder, Colo., East European Monographs, 1981, p. 288 Google Scholar.

26 Smith, A., Nationalism and Modernism, London, Routledge, 1998 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 M. Marković, ‘Inteligencija je uz narod’, Politika (10 April 1994), p. 3 and Politika (30–31 August 1991), p. 5.

28 Secor, L., ‘Testaments Betrayed: Yugoslav Intellectuals and the Road to War’, Lingua Franca , 9:6 (09 1999), p. 5 Google Scholar.

29 Milosavljević, O., ‘From the Memorandum to “Collective” Responsibility’, in Serbian Elite, Belgrade, Helsinski Odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji, 2000 Google Scholar. One should also note that not all Praxis philosophers have become nationalists. Some like M. Životic´ and N. Popov were leading opponents of Milošević’s regime and ethno-nationalist policies in Serbia.

30 Pantié, D., Promené vrednosnih orijentacija mladih u Srbiji, Belgrade, IDN, 1990 Google Scholar; Siber, I. Psihologijski aspekti medjunacionalnih odnosa, Zagreb, Kulturni Radnik, 1988 Google Scholar; Katunaric, V., ‘Sistem moci, socijalna struktura i nacionalno pitanje’, Revija za Sociologiju, 16:1–4 (1986), pp. 75–89 Google Scholar.

31 Lukovic-Pjanovic, O., Srbi, narod najstariji, Belgrade, Glas Srba, 1990 Google Scholar.

32 Z. Bauman, Legislators and Interpreters, op. cit., p. 145.

33 F. Tudjman, Nationalism, op. cit. p. 289.