Kursevi

Kurs: Jezik i ideologija
Voditeljica: Snježana Kordić

Zašto jezik kao malo koja druga tema diže ljude na noge, uzrujava i čini spremnima za sukobe? On je stalni izvor konflikta u Bosni i Hercegovini, Hrvatskoj, Srbiji i Crnoj Gori - danas kao i prije deset godina, dvadeset, četrdeset. Proširilo se uvjerenje među starima i mladima, među obrazovanima i neobrazovanima, kroz sve slojeve društva od političara pa do željezničara, da je njihov jezik ugrožen od strane onog drugog naroda. I da je time doveden u pitanje opstanak vlastitog naroda i svakog pojedinca. Istovremeno se rasprostranilo i mišljenje da nacija ne može postojati ako nema zaseban jezik koji ne dijeli ni s jednom drugom nacijom. Premda takvo mišljenje nije točno i opovrgavaju ga primjeri brojnih nacija, ipak se u domaćoj sredini rijetko koji pojedinac usudi ukazivati na takve primjere. Političari, mediji i većina intelektualaca napravili su atmosferu u kojoj razumna i smirena diskusija o jeziku kao da nije moguća. Pokušaji objektivnog pristupa temi jezika doživljavaju se kao napadi i dočekuju se erupcijom emocija. Nacionalne elite koriste jezično pitanje kao tinjajuću vatru koju u svakom trenutku mogu pretvoriti u požar.

U takvoj situaciji jedino upoznavanje s činjenicama i prenošenje tih znanja u šire slojeve stanovništva može skinuti s teme jezika njen veliki potencijal za konflikte. S tim ciljem će se ovaj kurs bazirati na spoznajama znanosti o jeziku, i pružiti uvid u temeljne sociolingvističke pojmove, koji se vrlo često spominju u javnom prostoru a da se ključne stvari o njima ne znaju. Rasvijetlit će i osnovne događaje vezane uz jezik, za koje su mnogi čuli ali samo u verziji korisnoj za nacionalnu mitologiju. Izbor sadržaja kursa uzima u obzir još jedno izrazito svojstvo domaće sredine: naime, karakteristično je da, čim se počne nešto raspravljati o jeziku, vrlo brzo se u raspravi pojave riječi narod, nacija, identitet, kultura, povijest. Pritom dominira neupućen, laički i populistički pogled na te pojmove. Zato će i oni na kursu biti značajne teme. Tako da će kurs u pravom smislu riječi biti interdisciplinaran jer pored lingvističkih spoznaja koristit će saznanja iz sociologije, antropologije, psihologije i historiografije.

Course: Gender, Sexuality and Violent Conflict: Beyond Oppositional Imagination

Instructor: Dubravka Zarkov

Course description:

Classical conflict studies have had a rather simplified set of assumptions when it comes to war and peace. War is seen as a distinct reality, on the opposite end of peace; it is depicted as a fight between the forces of good and evil, with clear winners and losers; the end of mass violence is taken as the end of conflict; and a linear progress is imagined leading from 'war' to 'post-war'.

Those assumptions about war and peace have relied on un-acknowledged gender assumptions: men are seen as heroic and patriotic soldiers, fighting on the front-lines, defending civilians, who are, by default, imagined as ‘innocent-women-and-children’, in need of male protection.

Feminist studies have questioned such perspectives on both war and gender. For, one thing is clear: the classical images of brave soldiers and powerless women have never been about gender only. The ‘enemy men’ are never depicted as heroes, but as primitive and brute rapists. The ‘enemy women’ are never seen as innocent, but as aggressive instigators of violence against other women and men.

Feminist analysis has sought to highlight women's and men’s social engagements and roles in both supporting violence, and in fighting against it. It had also tried to unpack the ways female and male sexuality, and heteronormativity are implicated in different forms of violence inflicted on both the female and the male bodies; and to point to the intersections of heteronormativity and gender with collective identities (such as ethnicity, race, nationhood etc) as crucial for women’s and men’s roles and experience of war and its aftermath.

Feminist also insisted that there are continuities of different forms of gendered violence in ‘peace’ and ‘war’ alike. Consequently, feminists have argued, understanding of all those dynamics is relevant not just for understanding gender and sexuality, but also for understanding war and peace, and the social and geo-political processes by which they are produced.

Classical theorizing of war is also questioned by critical political economists. Who argue that contemporary wars are not about higher moral values, ideology and winning – even when such rhetoric is used to justify them. Rather, today’s wars are about natural resources and geo-political domination; about perpetuating violence and destruction in one part of the world, so that the other part of the world can live in peace.

This rhetoric seems all the more effective when coupled with gendered images of the so-called African ‘war lords’ smuggling diamonds and ruthlessly abducting children into soldiering; or a Muslim fundamentalist suicide bomber; or a crazed Serb rapist. Making those images highly and selectively visible has a double effect – it makes invisible the truly global dynamics of localized violence; and it naturalizes gendered representations of the primitive Other and the civilized, righteous Self.

Thus, understanding the ideas about war and pace, and the processes by which they are produced and maintained, is inseparable from understanding gendered relations of power. Equally, contemporary notions of masculinity and femininity, and their intersection with sexuality, religion, race, or ethnicity are inseparable from contemporary dynamics of war and violence.