We, the People

387 Pages·2009·3.726 MB·English

by  Mishkova Diana

These essays explore the political instru- In the history of emerging national awareness in Europe, the formerly Ottoman- P W ABOUT THE EDITOR
o
mentalization of the concepts of folk, people and Habsburg-ruled regions in the continent’s South-East present a case of unusual li
t E Diana Mishkova is Professor of Modern
and ethnos in Southeastern Europe in the complexity and interest. South-East Europe combines geopolitical regional cohesion ic
s , History of Southeastern Europe, a founder
“long 19th century.” by mapping the discur-
and ethno-linguistic diversity, and witnessed the emergence of a complex cluster o T and the director of the Centre for Advanced
sive and institutional itineraries through f
of both early and tardy nation-building movements in close proximity and overlap, N H Study Sofi a.
which this set of notions became a focal
a
point of cultural and political thought in antagonism and exchange. Hitherto largely underresearched (owing to political t E
i
various national contexts—a process that conditions and ingrained preconceptions), this south-eastern microcosm of Europe on P
coincided with the emergence of political now takes its proper place in the panorama of European intellectual history thanks al E WE, THE PEOPLE
modernity. The originality of their approach to this excellent volume. We, the People is a landmark book. It applies the latest Pe O TABLE OF CONTENTS
lies in a combination of three factors: c
theoretical insights and comparatist approaches to a wealth of relevant and fascinat- u P
[a] seeing nation-building as a process that ing case studies, which, besides their intrinsic importance, are now made available lia L Introduction: Towards a Framework
iasn tdo w ar liatregres, erxattehnetr dthriavne nju bsty ain stiedlele ecfft ueaclts of for comparative European and macro-regional historical research. rity E Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe Part I. Ethnos and Citizens
infrastructural modernization processes; i Alexander Vezenkov: Reconciliation of the
n
[b] looking at the regional, cross-border Prof. dr. J. Th. Leerssen S Spirits and Fusion of the Interests
ramifi cations of these processes (rather than Chair of Modern European Literature, University of Amsterdam ou edited by Diana Mishkova Kinga-Koretta Sata: The People Incorporated
in a rigid single-country-by-country perspec- t Tchavdar Marinov: We, the Macedonians
h
tive) and [c] looking at the autonomous role e Balázs Trencsényi: History and Character
a
of intellectuals in these areas, rather than just s
t
e Part II. Nationalization of Sciences and
seeing Southeastern Europe as an appendix r
n the Defi nitions of the Folk
to Europe-at-large, passively undergoing
E Desislava Lilova: Barbarians, Civilized People
European infl uences. This book is a product u
r and Bulgarians
of transnational comparative teamwork, o
p Levente T. Szabó: Narrating “the People” and
and the collection of essays represents a
e
“Disciplining” the Folk
coordinated interpretation based on ten
Stefan Detchev: Who are the Bulgarians?
varied academic cultures and traditions.
e Part III. The Canon-Builders
d
i Bojan Aleksov: Jovan Jovanović Zmaj
t
e Artan Puto: Faik Konitza
d
b Bülent Bilmez: Shemseddin Sami Frashëri
y
D Notes on the Contributors
i
a Index
n
a

M
i
s
h
k
o
v
a
ISBN 978-963-9776-28-9
Central European University Press
Budapest – New York
Sales and information: [email protected]
Website: http://www.ceupress.com
9 789639 776289
We, the People

We, the People

Politics of National Peculiarity in Southeastern Europe

Edited by

DIANA MISHKOVA

Central European University Press
Budapest New York
© 2009, Diana Mishkova

Published in 2009 by
Central European University Press

An imprint of the
Central European University Share Company
Nádor utca 11, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary
Tel: [phone] or 327-3000
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: www.ceupress.com

400 West 59th Street, New York NY 10019, USA
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [email protected]

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, without the permission
of the Publisher.

ISBN 978-963-9776-28-9

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
We, the people : politics of national peculiarity in Southeastern Europe / edited by Diana
Mishkova.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-9639776289 (cloth : alk. paper)
1. Balkan Peninsula--Politics and government--19th century. 2. Balkan Peninsula--Politics and
government--20th century. 3. Nationalism--Balkan Peninsula. I. Mishkova, Diana, 1958-
DR43.W42 2008
949.6'038--dc22
2008037562

Printed in Hungary by
Akaprint Nyomda
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction: Towards a Framework for Studying the Politics of National
Pecularity in the 19th Century ................................................................ 1

Part I.
Ethnos and Citizens: Versions of Cultural-Political
Construction of Identity

Alexander Vezenkov, Reconciliation of the Spirits and Fusion of the
Interests: “Ottomanism” as an Identity Politics .................................... 47
Kinga-Koretta Sata, The People Incorporated: Constructions of the
Nation in Transylvanian Romanian Liberalism, 1838–1848 ............... 79
Tchavdar Marinov, We, the Macedonians: The Paths of Macedonian
Supra-Nationalism (1878–1912) ............................................................ 107
Balázs Trencsényi, History and Character: Visions of National Peculiar-
ity in the Romanian Political Discourse of the 19th Century .............. 139

Part II.
Nationalization of Sciences and the Definitions of the Folk

Desislava Lilova, Barbarians, Civilized People and Bulgarians:
Definition of Identity in Textbooks and the Press (1830–1878) ......... 181
Levente T. Szabó, Narrating “the People” and “Disciplining” the Folk:
The Constitution of the Hungarian Ethnographic Discipline and the
Touristic Movements (1870–1900) ........................................................ 207
Stefan Detchev, Who are the Bulgarians? “Race,” Science and Politics in
Fin-de-Siècle Bulgaria ............................................................................... 237
Part III.
The Canon-Builders

Bojan Aleksov, Jovan Jovanović Zmaj and the Serbian Identity between
Poetry and History ................................................................................... 273
Artan Puto, Faik Konitza, the Modernizer of the Albanian Language
and Nation ................................................................................................ 307
Bülent Bilmez, Shemseddin Sami Frashëri (1850–1904): Contributing to
the Construction of Albanian and Turkish Identities ........................... 341

Notes on the Contributors ........................................................................... 373

Index .............................................................................................................. 377
INTRODUCTION: TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK
FOR STUDYING THE POLITICS
OF NATIONAL PECULIARITY IN THE 19TH CENTURY

DIANA MISHKOVA

THE PROJECT

This volume is the result of a 15-month research work which brought together
young scholars from different Southeast-European academic cultures on a
project initiated and hosted by the Centre for Advanced Study in Sofia in
partnership with Collegium Budapest.1 The project entitled We, the People.
Visions of National Peculiarity and Political Modernities in Southeastern Europe,
is inscribed into a broad and daunting design: to help craft a more coherent
methodological and structural framework for dealing with questions of collec-
tive identity and the institutionalization of national discourse in the context of
“late-coming” nation-state projects. In undertaking this task, we focused on a
particular, yet critical area: exploring the political instrumentalization of key
concepts describing collective identity, such as nation, folk, people, ethnos,
national tradition, race, etc., with the purpose of “mapping” the discursive and
institutional itineraries through which this set of notions became a focal point
of cultural and political thought in various Southeast-European contexts, co-
incidental with the emergence of political modernity. Our intention was thus
to grasp the processes of actual emergence of the terminology of collective
identity in these cultures during the long 19th century.
Students of the region are likely to intuit the ties of an enquiry into the poli-
tics of national peculiarity to constitutive aspects of Southeast-European intel-
lectual and political cultures. What we are dealing with are political traditions
where the definition of the collective self had long been and, in a sense, still is,
a principal question. Obviously, any attempt to grasp the processes of identity
formation in contexts marked by profound discontinuities, forced structural
changes and, in consequence, acute modernization dilemmas presents a major
challenge to, but also a strong attraction for, the scholars reflecting on these

1 I would like to thank the German Foreign Office and the Swedish Bank Tercentenary
Foundation for the support they offered to this focus-group research and the series of attending
workshops.
2 WE, THE PEOPLE
issues. Understanding the evolution of these cultures is, on the other hand,
essential to any attempt to reconstruct the conditions of nation making, the
precarious reality of the nation-state framework and, ultimately, what István
Bibó had called “the fear about the existence of the community” in this part of
Europe.2 Therefore, whereas the connection between the questions of moder-
nity and collective identity is a generic one, the historical trajectory of the
Southeast-European societies makes the recreation of the narratives of na-
tional identity even more challenging and germane to the comprehension of
these societies’ experiences of modernity.
Research in this field on a historical-regional scale has the potential to
probe the existence of a regionally distinctive political culture by reconstruct-
ing the actual scope and channels of cultural interaction and highlighting
cross-cultural patterns of similarity and differences. On this basis the formula-
tion of a new set of questions and the generation of new analytical concepts
becomes possible, stirring us to rethink some of the basic comparative catego-
ries of contemporary scholarship. Albeit indirectly, this also implies facing the
mainstream historiographic traditions stemming from the region, which tend
to interpret the evolution of social and political ideas almost exclusively
within discrete national frameworks and discursive isolation. Although the
individual contributions to this volume do not engage in straightforward com-
parative enquiries, it is the inherent dialogue between them, their inbuilt cross-
references, intertwining themes and juxtaposed concepts—in brief, the poly-
phonic tenor of the collection as a whole—that intimates the heuristic advan-
tages from such a negotiated comparativist approach.
The threads that created that common texture unfolded along three main
lines of enquiry. One was the conceptual reconstruction of the fundamental
terms of identity-building processes (e.g., folk, nation, race, national peculiar-
ity, culture, lineage, etc.) in the chosen national traditions during the 19th
century. Another sought to chart the external (mostly Western, but also intra-
regional) discursive and theoretical influences, and the models and institu-
tions of cultural transfer, in the nation-making processes in the region. The
third aimed to develop a provisional map of the competing discourses in the
respective thematic field. The comparative setting thus orchestrated yielded,
at the end of the day, important new results. It made it possible to highlight
the cross-cultural mechanisms of reception of certain scholarly paradigms
coming from Western Europe and, at the same time, allowed us to detect

2 Bibó (1986), p. 162.
INTRODUCTION 3
some almost completely neglected intra-regional cross-fertilizations. The aspi-
ration to devise an interpretative framework locating the major ideological
traditions at play in the various national contexts, on the other hand, sparked
off several fundamental questions: what were the ideological options for con-
structing the national “ideologems”?; could the labels commonly used in the
scholarly literature for certain configurations (such as populism, liberal na-
tionalism, racism, etc.,) be used in these contexts or do we have to develop an
alternative conceptual framework for dealing with these phenomena?; what
criteria should guide attempts at classifying the nationalisms in the region?
While we took the contested nature of national identity—the multitude of
inventions and the struggle over their meanings—essentially for granted,3 our
hope was to go one step further by throwing the main forces behind this di-
versity into relief and exposing their cross-cultural embeddedness.
The main asset of the project was due to the unusual intensity of compara-
tive teamwork and interpretative negotiation. As a result, a number of more
precise questions could be formulated, which created underlying links among
the individual research agendas. Such questions concerned the modalities and
typology of political nationalism in Central and Southeastern Europe (“supra-
national,” “a-national,” “imperial,” etc.); the ideological function of popular
representation and its institutions; the relation of confessional and national
identities (especially the politicization of religion in the last decades of the
19th century); the “paradigm-shifts” of the national discourses (mid-19th cen-
tury, fin-de-siècle, post-1914); the professionalization of science; and, finally,
the itinerary of various theories of ethno-genesis and of race, kinship, etc. The
intentional focus was on certain themes, texts and figures which could present
a synoptic overview of the common traits and the local peculiarities of the
traditions under exploration. Our objective along the way was that, while de-
veloping their individual research projects around these common questions,
the members of the team could come up with something more than the usual
collection of unrelated research papers: a shared vision of the main lines of
the history of political ideas in Southeastern Europe in the long 19th century,
thus providing an example of a new type of “negotiated” historiography in the
region.4

3 The “Inventing the Nation” series (ed. by Keith Robbins), London, Arnold, which in-
cludes publications on several countries in Europe and Asia, is illustrative of the kind of studies
concentrating on these issues within specific national frameworks.
4 In this respect, the “We, the People” team work could build upon the experience and the
insights gained in the course of a preceding, broadly comparative project of CAS Sofia, Dis-