Lesson Report:
**Lesson Report**
**Title: Nationalism, Narratives, and Elite Mobilization: Analyzing the Yugoslav Wars and Milosevic’s Rhetoric**
This lesson transitioned from previous discussions on multiculturalism to focus on the role of narrative construction (narrativization) in nationalism, using the Yugoslav Wars as a central case study. Following a student presentation on V.P. Gagnon’s critique of the “ancient hatreds” explanation for the conflict, the class discussed Gagnon’s theory of elite manipulation, contrasted it with Walker Connor’s perspective, and began an activity analyzing nationalist rhetoric in a speech by Slobodan Milosevic. The objective was to understand how elites use nationalist narratives for political mobilization, often independent of grassroots sentiment.
**Attendance:**
* 1 student mentioned absent (Erhan).
**Topics Covered:**
1. **Introduction: Narrativization and Nationalism**
* The professor introduced the day’s topic: the connection between narrativization and nationalism, building on prior discussions of multiculturalism.
* The case study focus was announced as the breakup of Yugoslavia and the subsequent wars.
2. **Student Presentation: Nazima on Gagnon’s “The Myth of Ethnic War”**
* **Presenter:** Nazima
* **Reading:** V.P. Gagnon, “National Stratagems and Plastic Conflicts” (from *The Myth of Ethnic War*)
* **Core Argument Presented:** Gagnon argues that the ethnic violence in early 1990s Yugoslavia was not a natural result of ancient hatreds but was actively constructed and manipulated by political elites.
* **Key Points Covered:**
* **Elite Manipulation:** Elites used nationalism and instigated violence primarily to block democratic reforms and consolidate their own power during a period of economic crisis and political transition following Tito’s death.
* **Historical Context:** Overview of the former Yugoslavia (six republics, two autonomous regions) and the specific conflicts in Bosnia & Herzegovina, Serbia, and Croatia. The collapse of socialism and demands for democratization were highlighted as key background factors.
* **Debunking the “Ancient Hatreds” Myth:** Gagnon contends violence was elite-driven, not a grassroots phenomenon based on long-standing animosity.
* **Elite Tactics:** Included media control (spreading fear/division), suppression of civil society and reformists, creating a climate of fear, and reframing political opposition as ethnic enemies.
* **Public Opinion Evidence (Gagnon’s Surveys):** Data from Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia & Herzegovina in the late 1980s/early 1990s indicated:
* Widespread preference for peaceful coexistence and positive views on inter-ethnic relations.
* Acceptance of intermarriage and integrated communities.
* Low perception of national inequality or discrimination.
* Primary concerns were economic reform and democracy, not ethnic issues.
* Significant support for federal reforms (e.g., Ante Marković’s proposals) over nationalist agendas.
* Low popular support for explicitly nationalist parties (cited example: 13.5% in Croatia).
* **Conclusion:** Public sentiment did not drive the conflict; elites manipulated ethnic identity for political gain.
* **Note:** The professor noted that the presentation effectively summarized Gagnon but lacked the required comparison to a contemporary article.
3. **Lecture/Discussion: Situating Gagnon and Contrasting with Connor**
* **Contextualizing Yugoslavia:** The professor initiated a discussion on the common perception of the Yugoslav wars as a prime example of ethnic conflict driven by deep-seated hatreds.
* **Video Summary:** A short (~3 min) video was shown providing a historical overview of the breakup of Yugoslavia, covering:
* Post-Tito economic decline and IMF reforms.
* Rise of nationalism and Slobodan Milošević in Serbia.
* Ethnic composition complexities (Serbs in Croatia, multiple groups in Bosnia).
* Timeline of declarations of independence (Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia) and ensuing wars.
* Mention of atrocities, paramilitary groups, and international responses (UN, NATO).
* The eventual outcome (formation of new states, Kosovo conflict).
* **Connecting to Walker Connor:** The class revisited Walker Connor’s theory of nationalism:
* Emphasis on the irrational, emotional, subjective nature of national identity.
* Concepts: “Blood kinship,” shared traumas/hatreds (“ancient hatreds”), inherent distinction from/rejection of “others.”
* Application to Yugoslavia (Hypothetical): Connor would likely explain the violence as an inevitable eruption of these underlying ethnic passions once authoritarian control weakened.
* **Gagnon’s Counter-Argument:**
* **Central Question:** Did ethnicity *really* cause the violence, or was it something else?
* **Methodology Recap:** Gagnon’s surveys in ethnically mixed regions.
* **Findings Recap:** Positive inter-ethnic attitudes, tolerance, support for integration (e.g., schools), focus on economic/political concerns.
* **Gagnon’s Explanation:** The discrepancy between survey data (local reality) and the outbreak of violence points to a difference between **”lived experience”** (tolerance at the local level) and **”elite narratives”** (national-level mobilization around ethnic conflict).
* **Elite Mobilization Thesis:** Nationalism and ethnic violence are often tools used strategically by political elites to achieve political goals (e.g., consolidating power, deflecting from economic failures, undermining opposition).
* **How Violence Occurred (According to Gagnon):**
* Structural factors: Economic crisis, political vacuum post-communism.
* Exploitation by elites: Nationalist parties gained power (sometimes via winner-takes-all electoral systems) often campaigning initially on economic issues before escalating ethnic rhetoric.
* Strategic use of violence: Violence was employed by elites for political gain, not necessarily reflecting widespread popular desire for conflict.
* Downplaying violence: Elites often hid or minimized the extent of violence, suggesting awareness that the general population lacked deep commitment to ethnic warfare.
* **Overall Conclusion:** The Yugoslav violence was primarily driven by elite strategies exploiting structural problems, rather than being a spontaneous eruption of popular ethnic hatred.
4. **Activity: Analyzing Slobodan Milosevic’s Nationalist Rhetoric**
* **Objective:** To identify and analyze how elites construct and deploy nationalist narratives in political speech.
* **Text:** A 1989 speech by Slobodan Milosevic (President of Serbia).
* **Format:** Partner activity (with one group of three).
* **Task:** Students were asked to read the speech and discuss four questions:
1. Identify the “us” and “them” in the speech.
2. Identify historical references and invoked emotions (e.g., victimhood, threat, past glory, betrayal, disunity).
3. Determine the potential actions the speech aims to justify.
4. Connect the speech’s narrative to Gagnon’s argument about elite construction versus popular sentiment.
* **Initial Debrief (Due to Time Constraints):**
* **Us/Them:** Us = Serbs; Them = Enemies/non-Serbs (both external and internal).
* **References/Emotions:** The 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo was a central reference point and metaphor. Key themes identified: Serbian past glory/heroism, disunity/internal betrayal, and a sense of present threat (“sword hanging over head”).
* **Justification:** Preparing the Serbian people for struggle, potentially military action; framing actions as self-defense based on a victim narrative. The internal threat/source of disunity was linked to Kosovo/Kosovans.
* **Gagnon Connection:** Full discussion deferred to the next lesson.
5. **Wrap-up and Next Steps**
* The discussion on the Milosevic speech and its connection to Gagnon’s theory will continue next week.
* The concept of the “Kosovo myth” will be introduced to provide further context for Milosevic’s rhetoric.
* The professor corrected an earlier statement: there *is* one more assigned reading for next week, which will be posted online.
**Actionable Items:**
* **For Instructor:**
* **Follow-up with Erhan:** Contact Erhan regarding his absence and reschedule his presentation, as the planned date (May 7th) is no longer a class day.
* **Post Next Reading:** Upload the assigned reading for Week 14 to e-course.
* **Nazima’s Presentation:** Note the missing contemporary article component for grading/feedback purposes.
* **For Students:**
* **Remaining Presentations:** Anoush Timur, Sobir, Aynazik, Nazima, Salamat, and Erhan need to prepare their presentations. They must select a reading from earlier in the semester and find a *new* contemporary article for comparison (contact instructor if unsure which articles have already been used).
* **Prepare for Next Class:** Be ready to continue the discussion on the Milosevic speech, focusing on Question 4 (Gagnon connection) and the broader implications of narrative construction. Read the upcoming assigned article on the Kosovo myth.
Homework Instructions:
ASSIGNMENT #1: Prepare for Next Week’s Discussion on Nationalism Narratives
This assignment requires you to complete the assigned reading to prepare for our continued discussion on how elites construct nationalist narratives, specifically building on our analysis of Gagnon, the Yugoslav wars, and the Milosevic speech we began examining in class. Completing this reading will help you understand the upcoming discussion on the Kosovo myth and its role in justifying political actions.
Instructions:
1. Locate the assigned reading for next week, which will be posted later this evening.
2. Read the text thoroughly before our next class session.
3. As you read, reflect on how the material connects to V.P. Gagnon’s arguments regarding elite manipulation versus popular sentiment in the context of the Yugoslav wars.
4. Consider how the concepts presented in the reading might relate to the themes and rhetoric identified in Slobodan Milosevic’s speech that we started analyzing together.
5. Come to the next class prepared to discuss the reading, particularly its insights into how narratives (like the Kosovo myth mentioned in class) are used to frame historical events and potentially justify political actions or violence.