Search results

Autor propituje ulogu ideologije, mita i klase u razumijevanju kompleksnih procesa savremene političke subjektivizacije u BiH. Polazeći od revolucionarnog konteksta s početka devedesetih godina dvadesetog stoljeća koji razumijeva kao paralelni proces nacionalne i kapitalističke reaproprijacije, autor na pitanje pod kojim uslovima, diskurzivnim i institucionalnim, određene etničke razlike postaju politički relevantnima, postaju izvorom političke moći i mobilizacije, razvija odgovor u vidu antireprezentacionalističke hipoteze po kojoj su to s jedne strane diskurzivni i institucionalni uslovi "nacionalne države" shvaćene kao države homogenog etnonacionalnog domaćina i zanemarive etnonacionalne manjine, a s druge strane njima komplementarni diskurzivni i institucionalni uslovi kapitalističkog poretka iz kojega se nacionalni poredak historijski izdiže, a koji podrazumijeva klasnu strukturiranost. Subjekt proizvodnje nacionalno-kapitalističkog poretka je vladajuća klasa, u slučaju BiH klasa etnopolitičkih poduzetnika koja je u posjedu sredstava za proizvodnju društvenog života uopće: i materijalnog i onog simboličkog. ; Author investigates the role of ideology, myth and class in understanding the complex contemporary processes of political subjectivization in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Starting from the revolutionary context from the beginning of the 1990s, which the author understands as a parallel process of national and capitalist re-appropriation, the author poses the question: which are the conditions, discursive and institutional, for specific ethnic differences to become politically relevant, to become the source of political power and mobilization. The answer is explored on the basis of the anti-representationalist hypothesis according to which, on the one hand, these are the discursive and institutional conditions of "nation-state" understood as a state of homogenous ethnonational host and negligible ethnonational minority, and, on the other hand, the discursive and institutional conditions of capitalist order from which nationalist order is historically developed presupposing its class structure. The subject of the production of national-capitalist order is the ruling class; in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the class of ethnopolitical entrepreneurs which is in possession of the means of production of social life in general: both in the material and in the symbolical sense.

Početkom 20. stoljeća brojne krize potresale su Balkan, a one poput Aneksione (1908–1909) i Balkanskih ratova (1912–1913) snažno su utjecale na gibanja u bosanskohercegovačkom društvu. Suočena s vrlo kompleksnom političkom situacijom na Balkanu, Austro-Ugarska je morala izgraditi strategiju jačanja svog utjecaja na ovom području. U tom smislu, Sarajevo je trebalo odigrati vrlo važnu ulogu. U ovom radu se želi pokazati kako je austrougarska vlast u Bosni i Hercegovini, plasirajući ideju da bi se u Sarajevu mogao osnovati univerzitet, lavirala između davno zacrtane kulturne misije u datom području i političkih mahinacija kojima se trebao anulirati rastući utjecaj Srbije. Reakcija javnosti, kako one u Bosni i Hercegovini, tako i one u Monarhiji, na ideju o osnivanju sarajevskog univerziteta, primorala je njene glavne zagovornike na propitivanje vlastitih političkih rezona. ; At the beginning of the 20th century, the Balkans was the epicentre of numerous crises and some of them (the Annexation Crisis 1908–1909 and the Balkan Wars 1912–1913) had a major effect on social activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, faced with a very complex political situation in the Balkans, Austro-Hungary was about to develop a strategy of increasing its own influence in the mentioned area. Consequently, Sarajevo was bound to play an important role in these plans. This paper argues that, by promoting the idea of establishing a university in Sarajevo, the Austro-Hungarian authorities were actually oscillating between their previous plan of conducting a cultural mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina and political machinations aimed at the annihilation of Serbian influence. The public reactions in Bosnia, as well as in the remainder of the Monarchy, forced the solicitors of this idea to re-examine their own political considerations.

U prvom dijelu ove studije, objavljenom u prvom broju časopisa "Svjetionik", autor je ukratko izložio osnovne elemente filozofije politike karakteristične za historiju savremenih nacija u kojem je analizirao odnose pojedinca, naroda, nacije i države. Drugi dio ove studije fokusira se na odnos Bošnjaka prema kolektivnom sjećanju koje je, kako autor smatra, pod utjecajem dugoročne političke strategije susjeda, dovedeno na prag amnezije. Autor smatra da poljuljana kolektivna memorija predstavlja najneuralgičniji problem i najveću opasnost za historijsku reintegraciju i homogenizaciju Bošnjaka kao naroda i nacije. Autor naglašava da je "Bosanac" teritorijalna odrednica i potpuno isključuje nacionalnu odrednicu "Bošnjak". Koketiranje s formulacijom "Bošnjaci/Bosanci", koja se često koristi, ne samo što ne afirmira etničku i nacionalnu pripadnost Bošnjaka nego još dodatno negira njihovu posebnost – a time dovodi u pitanje i samo postojanje Bošnjaka. Bošnjak se rađa, Bošnjak se ostaje. "Bosanac" se postaje, "Bosanac" se prestaje biti. Bošnjak koji živi u Bosni ujedno je i "Bosanac". "Bosanac" koji nije Bošnjak, nigdje, pa ni u Bosni, ne postaje Bošnjak. Bošnjak koji ne živi u Bosni ostaje Bošnjak, ali prestaje biti "Bosanac". Cilj supstituiranja historijskog imena Bošnjaci teritorijalnom odrednicom "Bosanci", očigledan je: Razbiti homogeno jezgro Bošnjaka brisanjem svijesti o njihovoj etničkoj posebnosti, imenu, nacionalnom jedinstvu, zajedničkoj historiji, kulturi, jeziku, ukratko – zajedničkoj prošlosti, sadašnjosti i budućnosti. Također u studiji se podsjeća na razliku savremenog shvatanja nacije od načina na koji je ovaj društveni fenomen bio tumačen sve do sredine 20. stoljeća. Iza razgraničenja nacije od naroda, kao njegove navodno superiorne forme, u pozadini se krije nastojanje da se narod, kao objektivna činjenica, relativizira, uzajamne veze njegovih pripadnika oslabe i da se cijelo stanovništvo podvede pod kontrolu centralne političke moći – kao prividno integrirana i homogena cjelina. ; In the first part of this study, published in the first issue of the magazine Illuminatio/Svjetionik/Almanar, the author briefly outlined the basic elements of the philosophy of politics characteristic of the history of modern nations in which he analysed the relations of the individual, the people, the nation and the state. The second part of this study focuses on the attitude of Bosniaks towards collective memory, which, according to the author, was brought to the threshold of amnesia under the influence of the long-term political strategy of their neighbours. The author believes that the shaken collective memory represents the most neuralgic problem and the greatest danger for the historical reintegration and homogenization of Bosniaks as an ethnicity and a nation. The author emphasizes that "Bosnian" is a territorial determinant and completely excludes the national determinant "Bosniak". Flirting with the phrase "Bosniaks/Bosnians", which is often used, is not only a denouncement of the ethnic and national affiliation of Bosniaks, but further denies their uniqueness – and thus calls into question the very existence of Bosniaks. A Bosniak is born, a Bosniak remains. A "Bosnian" becomes, a "Bosnian" cease to be. A Bosniak living in Bosnia is also a "Bosnian". A "Bosnian" who is not a Bosniak does not become a Bosniak anywhere, not even in Bosnia. A Bosniak who does not live in Bosnia remains a Bosniak, but ceases to be a "Bosnian". The goal of substituting the historical name Bosniaks with the territorial designation "Bosnians" is obvious: Break the homogeneous core of Bosniaks by erasing awareness of their ethnic identity, name, national unity, common history, culture, language, in short – a common past, present and future. The study also recalls the difference between the modern understanding of the nation and the way in which this social phenomenon was interpreted until the middle of the 20th century. Behind the separation of the nation from the ethnicity/people, as the supposedly superior form, lies the effort to relativize the ethnicity/people, as an objective fact, to weaken the mutual ties of its members and to bring the entire population under the control of central political power – as a seemingly integrated and homogeneous whole.

This paper aims at defining the concept of "geopolitical space of the geopolitics of the Sea" and it analyses the way it is constructed. Given that the notion of geopolitical space in the general sense has been largely neglected in contemporary geopolitical theory, this is not a simple task. The paper deals with a physical space of the World Sea and utilizes the theory of modern human geography in which space is understood as a product of human activity. We argue that there is a significant connection between geopolitics of the Sea and the academic discipline of the International Law of the Sea. This link is taken as the basis for the discussion regarding geopolitical space, which encompasses three teleological elements: the fulfillment of the paper's main objective; the argument regarding the connection of Geopolitics of the Sea with the International Law; and, finally, presenting the political science context of the codification of the modern International Law of the Sea. By using earlier studies, the paper analyses the geopolitical space through ideas of construction within dichotomy, as well as through the process of establishing a community within the international framework. The paper also offers our own theory according to which the geopolitical space is the space of manifestation of geopolitical phenomena. ; Temeljni je cilj rada prikazati na koji način nastaje i šta zapravo jeste "geopolitički prostor geopolitike mora". Argumentacija nije bila jednostavna jer je geopolitički prostor kao pojam u općem smislu zanemaren u recentnoj geopolitičkoj teoriji. U diskusiji smo se bavili fizičkim prostorom Svjetskog mora te koristili teorijom suvremene humanističke geografije u kojoj je prostor proizvod društvene djelatnosti. Iznijeli smo stav da je geopolitika mora posebno disciplinarno povezana s međunarodnim pravom mora. To smo, dalje, iskoristili kao poligon za raspravu o geopolitičkom prostoru, i to s tri teleološka elementa: ispunjenje osnovnog cilja rada; argumentacija veze s pravom; te prikaz politološkog konteksta procesa kodifikacije suvremenog međunarodnog prava mora. Geopolitički prostor smo ispitali kroz postojeće ideje konstrukcije unutar dihotomije, te pri uspostavi zajednice u međunarodnom okviru. Ponudili smo i vlastitu teoriju po kojoj je geopolitički prostor prostor manifestacije geopolitičkih fenomena.