Loza and Cigarettes

Last night was fantastic... . I attended a lecture on the erased, hung out with, and scored the personal email of, Silvia Federici and two Sloven activists / akademics from Ljubljana.

In talking at length about the issue of the Erased in Slovenia, about Freedom Fight in Serbia, and migrants and Roma issues, I felt totally at home in the subject matter. I also realized how strong my desire was to be part of an intellectual community and to be connected with the Balkans...

Ironically I also thought about the fact that it took a return to Maine to make akademic connections in Slovenia. But now I have them, and they will be useful, particularly if I opt for the MA Program in Bolognia, and go to Ljubljana for the second year. I will also have all the right connections for a sweet thesis on migrant / immigrant / Romski issues related to borders as power and transnational citizenship.

I still don't want to be a professor, but I realize how important it is for me to have this kind of stimulation in my life. Without it, and this happened to some degree in Belgrade (though I did have this kind of interaction with Aleks) and over this past summer, I get bored and lazy. This then becomes a slippery slope towards general unhappiness. So I am glad that I am finding a balance of work and intellectual challenge in my life again.
:-)

Quote

Here is a quote Treasury Secretary Geither:
"Our hope is that we can work with Europeans on a global framework, a global infrastructure which has appropriate global oversight, so we don't have a balkanized system at the global level, like we had at the national level," Mr. Geithner said.

Interesting use of ‘balkanized’... Brings to mind near / far away argument, that somehow we all understand the what the term “balkanized” implies, without actually knowing what it is. As K.E. Fleming argued, “the Balkans are both fully known and wholly unknowable... To Balkanize after all, means to divide; or fragment, along absurdly minute and definitionally obscure grounds.”

Balkans has truly become a metaphor for collapse, dysfunction and chaos when it is being used to such an absurd degree: as an explanation that the US financial system was in a mess he alludes to the collapse of the Former Yugoslavia. Incredibly derogatory towards the region in question, yet totally acceptable in mass media. In the language he uses, he suggests that the US and Europe (i.e. EU) work together to stop the ‘Balkans’ syndrome from harming the civilized order. Yet, is it not the ‘civilized’ (i.e. Non-balkanized) people which in fact created this “balkanized system”? How fitting is this as its own metaphor for the actual attitude of the West towards the Balkans, both historically and now?

The full article where I found the quote is in the Herald Tribune:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/26/business/regulate.php

Football Diplomacy

Croatia's top football team, Dynamo Zagreb, announced it is organizing a "friendly" match in Pristina against a local Kosovo side, Trepca 89. According to balkaninsight.com, this match is part of Croatia's ongoing bilateral initiatives with Kosovo, with who they have "positive relations." This is, of course, the same Dynamo Zagreb that was involved in the famous 1990 clash with Red Star Belgrade, which was the prelude to the break up of Yugoslavia.

Belgrade hasn't shown much reaction yet, but it will obviously see this as a direct slight by their neighbors. It is not like Serbia and Croatia are exactly best friends, but this is a strong statement by Croatia. Football maybe only a sport in some eyes, but its global popularity and financial value make it much more than that. In this case, where Croatia is further legitimizing the independence of Kosovo by sending its best soccer team in, the game has political significance. Serbia does not recognize the independence of Kosovo, nor is it going to any time soon, and thus seeing its neighbor to the north make such a clear statement of its own, which is in direct opposition to Serbia, is a studs up diplomatic tackle.

What is the motivation for Croatia in all this?, would be the key question. Politically it is clear that Croatia is working hard to get a spot in the EU, and since 22 of the 27 EU states have recognized Kosovo, it is fairly clear that Croatia is following the trend (the same argument can be made for Montenegro and FYROM by the way). Croatia is gaining some bonus points by engaging with Kosovo on the civic level, as well as on the political and the economic. But I think one needs to look deeper than that as this is also a move to shore up internal support for the Nationalistic government currently in power in Croatia.

Croatia has benefited in the past from taking aim, literally and figuratively, at Serbia. Likewise, Serbia has done the same to Croatia and benefited as a result. During the 1990's the Tujman and Milosevic regimes were rather complementary in achieving their designs for the territory of Yugoslavia. Their vicious brands of Nationalism, Leftist in Serbia, and Rightist in Croatia, enabled them to mobilize their people to break free from Yugoslavia and from each other, and to make their claims over Bosnian territory. So while they were in direct conflict with each other, they were actually helping each other at the same time.

While the context is different now, and there is less perceivable benefit for Serbia in this, beyond what Carl Schmitt would argue is giving Serbia a clear enemy against which to define itself, Croatia can marginalize its own Serbian minority from the political and cultural sphere, keep the nationalists happy by poking Serbia in the eye, and please Europeans by being a nice brother to little Kosovo. This also serves the American agenda that, for very unclear reasons, seeks to keep Serbia down. Having regional actors, especially such 'clean' ones as Croatia (an image not at all justified) engaging with Kosovo only blosters the inevitability of its de jur status as a Nation-State.

So football has a clear political agenda here. It serves Croatia in sprucing up its image abroad and in securing support back home; it serves Kosovo because it gives legitimacy to the institutions (such as the Kosovo Football Federation) and the government itself; and it serves the Pro-Kosovo international community in legitimizing its bid for statehood. 

But conversation is where it's at ...

... and being relegated always hurts.

I had my most spontaneous insight into Critical Multiculturalism during a café conversation with L on Saturday. I have been struggling with the last part of my thesis; the part where I analyze my own experience, so this insight came at a good moment. The conversation went as follows:

A community with an exclusive view of its own identity, in this case we were talking about the deaf community, discriminates against all others they don't think meet the standards of "deaf-ness." This doesn't mean a hearing person can't be accepted by the deaf community, be friends, or even be married to a deaf person, but if that hearing individual wishes to be identified as deaf, that is, if they take their personal identity from the deaf community, they will never be accepted as such.

This is the same principle that underlies nationalism. It is not inherently violent against outsiders, but it is the final authority on who can and cannot be a part of the 'group'; a person wishing to identify themselves as a certain nationality or culture must first get approval of that culture or nationality (often in the form of passports). In this sense, a persons own feelings about where they belong in the world are secondary. As I mentioned above, this in-and-of itself will not lead to violence every time, but it is the mechanism that permits violent behavior to be encouraged, as it places one identity/nationality/community above the others.

This means there is never a true acceptance of the individual within these groups, nor is there ever an acceptance of outsiders either. This static, rigid interpretation of culture, or community and of identity essentializes norms and values to the point of creating division and and an unwillingness to share yourself, your rituals, with others for fear of it being corrupted. Under the right circumstances, this leads to violence. By circumstances I mean economic insecurity, territorial insecurity, etc. In these situations leaders will emphasize the differences between yourself and the 'other' in order to pit you against the other. We see this in the US with the fear of Arabs, in the Balkans between Serbia and Kosovo, in Asia between China and Tibet.

What Critical Multiculturalism offers is an opportunity recognize that culture is not an inherent 'thing' that we are born with, that cannot change, and that its standards are exclusive. Culture and community should rather be seen as fluid, evolutionary, learned and inclusive, as this will permit a much deeper understanding of the 'other' and a reduction in one's possessiveness of your own culture. Identity is inevitable; we need a world-view in order to understand what goes on around us in the world, and as such it is inevitable. But this doesn't mean it has to be exclusivist and divisive. A critical multiculturalist attempts to challenge their own ideology by going into the cultures of others, living as they do, and then looks back at themselves. This perspective exposes the power dynamics of cross-cultural relationships and de-essentializes norms and values.

Ultimately, this is not about giving up your own values, but simply about being able and willing to look at yourself from the 'other' perspective, and having a willingness for you culture to change. This means shedding your 'ownership' of your identity and accepting a individual on their own terms, not on the terms you want them to operate. But this is also a huge challenge to the status quo and a very difficult thing to achieve, even for someone as willing as me.

How is this relevant to soccer? Soccer should never be so important that it prevents you from seeing other things as important ... just kidding. Soccer is a bit antithetical to Critical Multiculturalism as it emphasizes a team mentality. But as long as soccer is not a metaphor for the norms and values in society, as long as it is not held up as symbolic of the power of the culture, then it can be a positive communal game and bloody good fun!

Correspondence to a mentor

I enjoyed the article also ("Us against Them" in Foreign Affairs), though I don't entirely agree with its conclusions. Franklin Foer makes a similar argument in "How Soccer Explains the World" when he holds Catalan nationalism up as a model of how it can be a benign force. But then, in general, Catalan region is much wealthier than the Balkans. As I watched the videos on youtube, one of the consistent factors in the "reality" for hooligans was relative poverty, though there are many exceptions.

I finally found the full hooligan video on youtube.com (the one dealing with Frm.
Yugoslavia) and thus was not surprised to read the soccer firms were involved in the
recent violence in Belgrade. According to interviews in the documentary, all sides are
still eager to fight/kill each other. To me this suggests the "solid" borders have done nothing to create stability beyond keeping everyone in their corner.

As soon as there is any interaction, or challenge to this status quo, the violence flairs up (e.g. Kosovo). The fact that much of this violence finds its expression around soccer culture lead me to think, as an peace-making tool, soccer is tainted, at least in this region.

Perhaps going the Laibach venue would be an idea. Can soccer be made in(to) a social mirror? This would something to ponder in the 3 chapter/conclusion, and to think about for the summer...

Culture is a verb

The violence in "that" region called the Balkans is once again based on "that" myth called nationalism. As I read the news stories and blogs about what is happening, I think back to Bjelic's comment from the MUN panel, that we have two choices if we want peace: accept the status quo of borders as they are, or dismantle them entirely. Kosovo didn't accept theirs, but they didn't dismantle them, rather they built new ones. Now Serbia is rejecting this challenge to the status quo, so we have violence. Now I read on Yahoo! that Serbian football hooligans are joining the fight. I appreciate that they are assisting me with my thesis, but my stomach turns at reading such things...

...I want so badly for soccer to be a game of peace, of pleasure, and of understanding, but it has so much violence in it.

Been thinking a lot about how culture is a construction. It isn't rooted in hard biological fact; we are not who we are, on a cultural level, because of DNA, but because of what was put into our brain as we grew up. Education (in its many forms) and experience are the two obvious culprits who "produce" culture. This, in itself is not such a radical idea, but people often react as if it is. How else are you going to have an identity? It does challenge the notion of a free will however, and maybe that is why it is controversial.

If culture is constructed, then it can be deconstructed. This means it is not a real thing, but simply something we create in order to make sense of the world around us. In many ways it is unavoidable. The fact that nature can be deconstructed means it can evolve and change; it is an active thing, not a static one. We should treat it as thus and reject racist ideas (like the Huntington thesis) of cultural status quo.

How often have you hear people say things like "well, X is like that because they come from ... and that's just how they are there!" As if to suggest the person could never change, never come to a new identity. It is no different from Huntington suggesting that certain cultures are unable to achieve democracy "because that's just the way they are". Crap!

This is why I love watching Predictions of Fire and the work of NSK, they challenge culture to be full aware of itself. Their method is to perform the rituals of culture, national identity, etc., in a stylistic manor, thus confronting people with their own identities, thereby forcing a self-reflection. As Zizek said, they are not the answer, only the question.

Can soccer be such a mirror? Can it be held up to the public eye and force introspection? Can the rituals be a subversive critique of social life? I thought about these questions as I went through my warm up 'ritual' before last nights game. It was the first time I had been so aware that my actions were in fact ritualistic in nature. Here is how it unfolded:

1)undressing, taking of clothing, selecting the 'uniform' that I felt most attracted to. Yesterday it was last years MeMUNC shirt with the number 7. The dark color was what did it. I wanted people to ask about it. I put on the Adidas socks and pushed them down to my ankle. Then the shoes, I looked them over, loosened the laces and put them on. The final touch is my black Nike sweat band.

2)music. I put on my Ipod and searched for music. Started off with some Immortal Technique, then moved on to the Prodigy. All aggressive stuff. It always is when I warm up.

3)Gym. I hit the gym for 30-45 minuets as a warm up. nothing to hard, just streatching, some upper body stuff and 15 minuets on the bike. But its always the same routine.

Then I am ready. Ipod goes back into the locker, and I head upstairs to the pitch. I feel like a soccer player now, I walk different, I feel different. This ritual of new skin, agressive music, and physical movement changes my mentality.

Now I can hold the mirror up to myself, how can I turn it on those fans going to Kosovo to have a tear up?