From: "Tanju SARI" <tanjus-AT-superonline.com> Subject: Re: Foucault and Balkans.. Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 01:07:37 +0300 the Mazower's claim saying that untill 19 th century ethnic classifications were not on the agenda in Balkans is absolutely true.Islamic Ottoman structure was a melting pot for religions and nations because it didnt have a feudal background and destroyed every kingdom like substance which could foster a nationalistic upheval on its path..the system was sui generis .As a result people on the region fell behind gaining a nationalistic concious. On this context i can understand Bulgarian Jivko's every bitter evaluations.. and his identity crisis as well.. -----Original Message----- From: Jivko Georgiev <jivkox43georgiev-AT-yahoo.com> To: foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu <foucault-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu> Date: 17 Temmuz 2001 Salư 13:36 Subject: Re: Il faut defendre Foucault >Personally me, I am Bulgarian. First: The Balkans are >not "area" or "region". This is one of those matrix >like that of the nationalism, which the west >constructed and applied to us, and then claim it is a >definition they found in the nature of our existence. >Isn't that so much Foucauldian? The Balkans is very >ancient and very culturally developed world - here the >specific civilization was born, which the west , wild >and noncivilized in the beginning , adopted lately and >claimed "We are the civilization!". Foucault knew >that: In Surveiller and Punir he wrote "we are not >Greeks" I am glad you read Mazower book, I read only >the review. About the argument between our church and >the greek church - the sermons were in greek. My guys >couldnt understand a single word of the sermons. It >doesnt matter if we are botrh orthodox, when you go >to hear a sermon you must understand it. >About everything else: 19th century was the time , >when Balkans were free from the Ottoman empire and the >borders of the states should be redefined, so the west >was completely involved in that process and the west >thaught to us to be nationalistic. Nowadays funny >weird blond Americans are coming to Bulgaria, pointing >finger at us and saying " Do You love your Turks?!" >and we say "What is wrong with those weirdoes? We >never divided the people of Bulgaria to >Christians/Muslims? Why they ask us do we love them? >We never made DIFFERENCE! Why they want from us to >make difference?!" Do you understand the comedy of the >western politics? First they say : 1. "You must >recognize someone in your country as different, and >thats why you must hate him!" And after that: 2. " We >will punish you for making difference, because we are >the justice!" And then again : "we , the west , we are >making difference - You are wild, we are civilized!" I >dont know if I made it clear how the west is forcing >us to make difference, to be nationalistic. I remember >how a American came to a Muslim village in Bulgaria >asking people if they were repressed for being Turks, >so a villager responded her: "Lady,,please, I have >importenant work to do right now, dont bother >me!!:-)) >As for was Foucault philosopher. Philosophy is not a >DISCIPLINE :-)) divided from other DISCIPLINES :-)). >A philosopher does not devides in to DISCIPLINES :-)). >Foucault never puted him self in DISCIPLINE :-)) >That is why he was philosopher! But I assume you dont >have philosophy education, and thats why you dont >get not the NONSPECIFITY of his philosophy! > >--- Stuart Elden <stuart.elden-AT-clara.co.uk> wrote: >> Jivko, >> >> I hesitate to respond, given the insulting stupidity >> of your >> generalisations about 'Arabs'. Is not the move from >> the specific >> instance to the generalisation, and then from a >> generalisation to a ' >> what else do we expect?', indicative of precisely >> the matters at stake >> here? >> >> In part then, these observations are more for the >> list generally >> >> Larry has usefully pointed out two things - first >> that your argument >> that because something 'originated' in the West, it >> is only ever >> Western is a very peculiar and misleading >> suggestion; and second that >> no one was suggesting Foucault _was_ a nationalist, >> but that - contrary >> to your statement - he did think it a topic worthy >> of analysis. >> >> As for the Mazower book supporting your contention, >> well, it's not >> nearly as simple as that. I've read the Mazower book >> (in the Weidenfeld >> & Nicolson edition), and it's a very readable guide >> to some of the key >> issues surrounding the Balkans. As I stated in a >> previous post I am no >> expert on this area, so I can't really pass real >> judgement on the >> claims of the book, but I can express some >> skepticism about the claims >> of the review. >> >> Mazower suggests that linguistic or ethnic >> differences did not >> necessarily have much value in the region until the >> 19th century. He >> gives the example of a church sermon being in Greek >> or Bulgarian. The >> priest and the congregation can't understand why a >> someone is >> suggesting that it should be in their own language >> of Bulgarian - what >> does it matter, they are all orthodox Christians? So >> here is a cleavage >> based on religion - they are all Orthodox >> Christians, and not Muslims >> or Turks. >> >> (Nationality and consequent nationalism have, of >> course, not always >> been based on language or ethnicity... religion and >> shared heritage, >> values, etc. these have all played a part in the >> language of >> nationalism too - look at the struggles within the >> previous empires of >> the region) >> >> Mazower traces how Romantic nationalism gained a >> foothold in the region >> in the 19th century. Sure that was later than some >> parts of Western >> Europe, but it was also contemporaneous with >> movements in Italy and >> Germany for example. Nationalism didn't just happen >> in one place and >> then get imported, it was an idea which (may or may >> not have its ' >> origin' in Western Europe and) took hold in >> different places and at >> different times. >> >> He then traces how the breakup of the old Empires in >> the East - Ottoman >> and Austro-Hungarian - led to a number of successor >> states which, he >> says 'appealed to the principle of nationality to >> claim their neighbour' >> s lands... [but] all the new states had ethnic >> minorities whose >> existence undermined their claims to rule in the >> name of the Nation' ( >> p102). On p103 he is very clear: 'the era of >> religion was over; that of >> ideology lay ahead: nationalism spanned them both'. >> >> He notes that the notion of the nation-state was not >> exclusive, and >> that Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia showed other >> forms of statehood >> still existed. But, he says, the ethnic kaleidoscope >> meant that the >> principle of nationality was a receipe for violence. >> He discusses how >> popular nationalism was often a response to problems >> within Communist >> states, who avowed principles of federation and >> internationalism. He >> talks about how Yugoslavia retained for the longest >> time the Habsburg >> notion that there could be a separation between >> nations and >> nationalities (i.e. though there might be national >> groups, they need >> not be in their own 'nation'.) >> >> Then, right in the final pages of the book, he >> suggests that some of >> the Western opposition to involvement in the region >> since 1990 was >> because >> of their suggestion that the violence and ethnic >> struggle was age old. >> Violence in the region, for these people, was not >> due to the problems >> of the European logic of state-building, but the >> 'stuff of Balkan >> history'. On the contrary, he suggests, the region >> compares very >> favourably in terms of generalised peace and crime >> to other areas of >> Europe and the world. >> >> Then comes almost the concluding sentence: 'Just as >> the nation-building >> process is more recent and compressed in the >> Balkans, so ethnic >> nationalism remains stronger, and civic traditions >> more fragile than >> elsewhere' (p. 134). >> >> Even if, and of course it's debatable, we can trace >> the notion of >> nationalism to the 'West' or 'Western Europe', it >> seems clear from >> Mazower's analysis that nationalism very clearly >> _is_ a factor now in >> the politics of the region. And that it has been for >> sometime, even if >> the suggestions that certain ignorant Western >> Europeans make about the >> ages old problem is ill-informed and dangerous. >> >> I'm glad I've read this book. I was looking at David >> Campbell's >> National Deconstruction this morning, and found that >> a very interesting >> and useful analysis. Foucauldian in places, but also >> informed by >> Derrida and Levinas. >> >> -- >> >> As I stated in a previous mail, to suggest Foucault >> is a philosopher is >> fine by me; to suggest he is _only_ a philosopher is >> nonsensical. Yes, >> Foucault has philosophical concerns or 'problems', >> but he investigates >> them in a way that draws upon a number of other >> 'disciplines'. In turn, >> Foucault's work has been appropriated and >> misappropriated by a number >> of disciplines. I know the Philosophe collection, it >> has some very >> useful pieces. Equally there's one edited by Jan >> Goldstein about >> Foucault and history, which has some very useful >> pieces... As for the >> Nietzsche comment, I can think of any number of >> 'philosophy' >> departments that would _not_ consider him as a >> philosopher for >> precisely that reason. I don't agree with them, but >> does that prove >> your point? Really, rather than try to say that >> Foucault can _only_ be >> read as X, or _never_ said anything about Y, >> wouldn't it be better for >> you to see his interests and work as a whole? >> >> Two final points, >> >> But that >> > he wrote about the nationalism does not means that >> we >> > should call "nazies" israel:)) >> >> I don't remember who, if anyone, said that. I wonder >> if you're >> misrepresenting again. I do remember that someone >> suggested that maybe >> a Foucauldian analysis of that situation would shed >> some >=== message truncated ==> > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail >http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005