Lesson Report:
Okay, here is the lesson report generated from the transcript:
**Lesson Report**
**Title:** Nationalist Mobilization: Analyzing MiloÅ¡ević’s Rhetoric through Gagnon and the Kosovo Myth
**Synopsis:** This lesson continued the analysis of Slobodan MiloÅ¡ević’s 1989 speech, applying Gagnon’s theory of elite-driven nationalism. Students revisited key themes from the speech (us vs. them, historical references, justified actions) before delving into Gagnon’s framework and discussing how MiloÅ¡ević’s actions aligned with identity construction, interest definition, and political mobilization. The lesson then introduced the Kosovo Myth via a reading activity, exploring its historical basis versus its mythological elements and analyzing how MiloÅ¡ević utilized this myth to mobilize Serbian nationalism in the context of Yugoslavia’s dissolution.
**Attendance:**
* Number of students mentioned absent: 3 (based on partner reorganization for the activity).
* One student (Azamata) discussed previous absences (last two classes) with the instructor after class.
**Topics Covered:**
1. **Introduction & Plan for the Day:**
* The instructor outlined the session’s goals:
* Complete the analysis of the MiloÅ¡ević speech activity (applying Gagnon’s theory).
* Discuss the final assignment requirements (Note: This was mentioned but not covered in detail).
* Begin the course synthesis section, focusing on using theories to construct arguments based on evidence.
2. **Activity: Review of MiloÅ¡ević Speech Analysis (Part 1 – Recap):**
* **Objective:** Recap the analysis from the previous class (Wednesday).
* **Activity:** Students regrouped with partners from Wednesday. Three students needed new partners/groups due to absences.
* **Review of Previous Analysis Points:**
* **Us vs. Them:** Identified ‘Us’ as Serbs/Serbians and ‘Them’ as Kosovars, the Ottoman Empire (invoked symbolically), and internal enemies/traitors.
* **Historical References & Emotions:** Recalled themes of Serbian victimhood, blame attribution (mutual), perception of threat (from Kosovars), invocation of past glory (Battle of Kosovo, 600 years prior), and historical wrongs/betrayal.
* **Actions Justified:** Discussed the context (1989, fall of USSR, rising nationalism, pre-conflict Yugoslavia). Identified MiloÅ¡ević’s apparent goals: unifying Serbs, defining Serbian identity around himself and the Kosovo narrative (linking past humiliations/struggles to present needs for unity and victory).
3. **Activity & Discussion: Applying Gagnon’s Theory:**
* **Objective:** Evaluate MiloÅ¡ević’s speech using V. P. Gagnon’s theory of elite construction of nationalism.
* **Activity:** Students discussed in pairs whether the speech supported or challenged Gagnon’s theory (approx. 10 minutes).
* **Instructions:** Review Gagnon’s main arguments, then apply them to the speech.
* **Class Discussion:**
* A show of hands indicated most students felt the speech confirmed Gagnon’s theory.
* Students articulated alignment with Gagnon: elites drive nationalism; Milošević constructs a narrative (victimization, heroism) for mobilization; narrative relies on myth/legend over fact; group presented as historical victim; nationalism used to consolidate power/create unity/state.
* **Instructor Led Review of Gagnon’s 3 Steps:**
1. **Identity Construction:** Using only the speech, defining ‘Serb’ involves being a defender, united against enemies, victimized, part of an ancient (600+ year), historically oppressed/defeated people.
2. **Interest Definition:** Based on the constructed identity, Serbian interests include gaining political power/sovereignty/nationhood, ending victimization, securing the future, and reclaiming past Serbian glory.
3. **Political Mobilization:** MiloÅ¡ević’s speech serves as mobilization by targeting Serbs, framing current struggles as continuations of historical wrongs, convincing/angering/uniting them against ‘the other,’ aligning with the instrumentalist/elite-driven view.
4. **Introduction to the Kosovo Myth:**
* **Objective:** Provide deeper context for the historical references in MiloÅ¡ević’s speech.
* **Transition:** The instructor linked the speech’s focus on the Battle of Kosovo (600th anniversary) to the broader “Kosovo Myth.”
* **Guiding Question:** What was the Battle of Kosovo, and how do the actual events compare to MiloÅ¡ević’s narrative use?
5. **Activity: Reading on the Kosovo Myth:**
* **Objective:** Understand the historical basis and mythological elements of the Kosovo Myth.
* **Activity:** Students read sections of the Kosovo Myth Wikipedia article in pairs.
* **Reading Assignment:** “Sources and development” section down to the end of the “Historical basis” section.
* **Task:** Re-examine the initial questions about MiloÅ¡ević’s speech (Us vs. Them, Historical References/Emotions, Justified Actions) with this new context.
6. **Lecture & Discussion: Deconstructing the Kosovo Myth & MiloÅ¡ević’s Use:**
* **Key Elements of the Myth:**
* Battle of Kosovo (1389): Kingdom of Serbia vs. Ottoman Empire.
* Figures: Tsar Lazar (Serbian King), Sultan Murad (Ottoman Sultan, killed in battle), Vuk Branković (portrayed as betrayer), Miloš Obilić (legendary hero who killed Murad).
* Lazar’s Pact: Lazar chooses a “heavenly victory” (death and defeat) over an “earthly victory,” securing Serbs as God’s chosen people through sacrifice.
* **Myth vs. Historical Fact:**
* Key figures (Lazar, Murad, Branković) were real; Obilić’s existence/name is uncertain.
* Murad and Lazar died in/after the battle.
* **Major Discrepancy:** Vuk Branković did *not* betray Serbia; he fought and later resisted the Ottomans until his death. The betrayal narrative is part of the myth.
* Lazar’s Pact is likely a later mythological addition.
* **Connecting Myth to MiloÅ¡ević’s Speech:**
* Milošević explicitly downplays the importance of fact vs. legend.
* **Us vs. Them (Revisited):** ‘Them’ includes symbolic Ottomans (representing Muslims, Albanians, Bosnians, foreign invaders), other Yugoslav nations, potentially the Soviet Union, and internal betrayers (echoing the myth of Branković).
* **Actions Justified (Revisited):** Milošević uses the myth to argue:
* Contemporary Serbs face the same historical struggle/oppression (continuity over 600 years).
* A call for readiness, sacrifice (echoing Lazar’s Pact).
* Reinforcement of Serbian exceptionalism.
* Justification for reclaiming national glory and independence after centuries of perceived foreign domination.
7. **Conclusion & Wrap-up:**
* The instructor emphasized that the power of nationalist rhetoric often lies in myth and emotion, not historical fact, using Milošević as an example preceding the Yugoslav wars.
* Previewed next class (Wednesday): Focus on constructing arguments using course theories.
**Actionable Items:**
* **Assignments & Course Logistics:**
* Instructor to post specific themes for the final literature review assignment on the syllabus/course platform (“tonight”).
* Address student query regarding the final paper discussion timing – confirm it will continue Wednesday.
* Update attendance records in the e-course system, particularly regarding Azamata’s absences and the temporary grade impact.
* **Lesson Planning:**
* Ensure the planned detailed discussion of the final assignment (logistics, requirements) is covered, either in the next session or via online announcement, as it was skipped today.
* Prepare the transition to the argumentation-focused activities for the next class.
Homework Instructions:
NO HOMEWORK
Justification: The transcript details in-class activities, including finishing the Milosevic speech analysis related to Gagnon’s theory and reading/discussing the Kosovo Myth Wikipedia article, but does not contain instructions for a new assignment to be completed outside of class. The professor mentions announcing themes for the final literature review later that night via the syllabus, but this is an update notification rather than a homework assignment derived from the lesson’s specific activities.