The Serbo-Croatian language – a Significant Line of Connection and Separation Among Various Groups in the Western Balkans
Introduction
Today when the world is in a pronounced state of polarization and social upheaval, it forces us to think about and rethink different phenomena and group processes that occurred in the past. While some would say that they stayed in past, others would dispute that notion, remembering that what brought us here are fragments of the past in the form of various group processes that have not been worked through and integrated in a meaningful way, but stayed in the group matrix.
The dissolution of the SFR[1] of Yugoslavia that started at the beginning of the 1990s was a period marked by difficult socio-political changes followed by armed conflict. It also experienced a process of shifting language policy and the instrumentalization of language into a powerful tool in the nation-building processes.
In Yugoslavia, the official language used in the country was Serbo-Croatian/Croatian-Serbian, which was considered a single language with regional variations. However, as the country disintegrated, the identification of language with ethnicity and nation became increasingly pronounced. Language was no longer perceived only as a means of communication. For the purpose of strengthening national identities and fostering the process of introjection and identification with them among the national group, i.e. citizens, political elites negated regional shared cultural and linguistic practices and presented them as inherently different. Language was used as an identity marker, further deepening the divide between different ethnic and national groups in the region.
From the perspective of the theory of nation by design, it is proposed that nations can be intentionally formed and shaped through deliberate political and cultural measures and that nations are not solely products of historical or cultural forces but can also be created through intentional policies aimed at fostering a shared national identity and cohesion. This involves implementing strategies like language regulations, educational changes, cultural establishments, and the adoption of national symbols to strengthen the sense of belonging and unity among the population. In essence, it suggests that nations can be consciously constructed through specific actions rather than solely developing organically over time. (Smith, 1991, p. 110)
The change that followed new language policies influenced how the local populations of the countries started to perceive anew their national identities and strengthen their separateness, as opposed to having language be seen as a means of communication that transcended the borders of their country.
The language policy changes were frequently encountered with resistance from linguistic scholars. For example, in 2017 the Declaration about common language was adopted and signed by thousands of linguists, writers and other intellectuals from four countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montengro and Serbia). They argued that the differences between the languages were insignificant and that the efforts to separate them were politically motivated.
Language is a psychological, social, and cultural phenomenon and has many aspects, including its semantics and syntax, phonetics and phonology, and its social, psychological, and computational properties. In this paper we will take a quick glance at those aspects, but the focus will be on the relational property and the accompanying dichotomy behind it.
This paper examines how Serbo-Croatian language remains and builds a distinctive visible and invisible or less visible web of “lines” that connects and separates different national and ethnic groups throughout the Balkans on more levels than just on a communication plane.
Serbo-Croatian as a polycentric standard language
Polycentric standard language is a language spoken in two or more geographically separated countries or regions that differs somewhat — but not enough — to constitute a separate language.
This concept is applied in sociolinguistics and refers to a language that has multiple centers of standardization, as opposed to a monolithic standard language that has only one center of standardization. Every polycentric language is standard, all its variants are standard, they are connected to nations, and variants between them are noticeable but not significant enough so they can be discussed as a separate language (Kordić, 2010, p. 77). Polycentric standard language is important since it permits mutual understanding between populations who speak different variants of the same language. In addition, it helps to preserve cultural identity and linguistic diversity and facilitates communication in various spheres of society, including education, media, business, and other areas.
Polycentricity is a relatively frequent phenomenon, and in the linguistic sphere, a large number of languages fall into the category of polycentric standard languages, like English (British, American, Australian, etc. Standard English), German (German, Austrian, Swiss, Standard German), Portuguese (Portuguese, Brazilian, Standard Portuguese).
Standardization of language is the process of establishing a standard language that is used as a shared language in a particular region or country. The process itself encompasses selecting one dialect or language variant as the basis for the standard language. This includes defining spelling, grammar, vocabulary, and establishing standards for the pronunciation and written form of the language.
The expression “Serbo-Croatian language” was first mentioned in the middle of the 19th century by linguists and writers in the Croatian and Serbian national movements, long before creation of the first Yugoslavia in 1918. They initiated the idea of a common language between the two South Slavic nations. From the beginning of mentioning the Serbo-Croatian language up to this day, it was the Štokavian dialect that became the standardized language in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia (Kordić, 2010, p. 99).
Language nationalism – Serbo-Croatian language and national identity
Romanticism’s notion of a nation that closely connects the concept of state and people with their language and coincides with state borders, is considered outdated in most modern western societies. This is because the same language can be used by different ethnic and national groups outside the borders of one’s country, and because different idioms can be used within the same national or ethnic group without mutual comprehension.
An example of this is English, which is spoken in the different regions of UK, where there is a high probability of low comprehension between speakers of the same language throughout different geographic locations i.e., the Scottish Highlands and the East End of London for example, or in Serbia the lower comprehension between habitants of Pcinjski district and the city of Belgrade.
The concept of polycentric language proves that the concepts of nation and language do not overlap. In the Balkan region that covers the territory of the former Yugoslav federation. It is very popular to claim that national group identity depends and relies on language. If such a definition were in fact true, then a significant number of nationalities around the world would lose their identities i.e., Americans, Canadians, Swiss, Austrians, etc. The language that is in use is often entirely unrelated to an identity self-declaration (Kordić, 2010, p. 178).
The language separation in the Balkans contributed to political tensions in the region by reinforcing ethnic identities in terms of nationalistic strivings. The emergence of separate languages reflected the growing needs of different ethnic and national groups for a distinct national (group) identity. The formation of separate nation-states required symbols that included a unique language distinct from the other national groups. It led to linguistic nationalism, which Kordić describes as a political ideology that promotes the use of a specific language/dialect as a marker of national identity to achieve political goals. (Kordić, 2010, p. 139). A very distinct discourse is used to shape group mentality and accompanying norms and values. Wherein Dalal describes radical Foulkes (Dalal, 1998, pp. 64-65) saying that internal mechanism is in fact the internalization of external group mechanism and dynamics, we may identify a means of introjecting ideologies using public discourse.
Any ideology, including political ideology is directly responsible for establishing and maintaining power relations. Being conscious of that which can be thought, said, and known is not only a function of the intellect, but is also a function of “power relations” between people and groups of people, and it elucidates the need for dissolving the Serbo-Croatian/Croatian-Serbian language as one, polycentric language into several distinct languages. Ideology is often used to support the existing social order while preserving the status quo.
Standardization of language may be seen as a part of much bigger process that includes political, cultural, and economical unification. “It is of great importance of establishing the nationhood” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 84) and in Balkans it was used as a separation marker.
From the point of view of contemporary political philosophy, national identity is not a political concept. As the French philosopher Etienne Tassin says, “in a political community, the question of identity is not raised, but the question of citizenship (cityenneneté). And then the question is not: who are we? Rather: what do we do?” which in the spirit of (Bion, 2018)’s work could be read as a step from basic assumptions to a working group. “And the political question in the true sense is not a question of common identity but a matter of public action.” (Tassin, jun 1993)
The fact is that different peoples and nations who exist today like German, Austrian, Russian, Croatian etc., have not existed forever and in their current form were not created fortuitously by nature. Both people and nations are socio-political inventions, they are the form of merging people into larger groups. (Kordić, 2010, p. 182) In the modern world, the term “nation-making” implies that nations are constructed and not naturally occurring entities.
The process of nation formation is a construction of the social group identity that is temporarily and contextually connected. Contemporary nations are seen as multifaceted groups with strong vertical, horizontal, and ideological integration. Members of these groups are not connected by personal relationships but by an “imagined community”. The concept of an “imagined community” was introduced by Benedict Anderson and refers to the idea that nations are not based on personal relationships but on a shared sense of belonging to a larger community. (Kordić, 2010, p. 185). We can decode a shared sense of belonging as a dynamic process in which the “mind is made an interpersonal phenomenon”. (Dalal, 1998, p. 65)
It also reminds us of the idea postulated by Jürgen Habermas that common to all collective identities is always one inherent element of irrationality (Asman, 2011, p. 143). In the light of “Radical Foulkes” both ideas, imagined communities and the element of irrationality, could be seen as elements in the interplay of foundation and dynamic matrix while strengthening group cohesion.
On the deeper level the idea of language, as a tie, as a glue to bind individuals into one “body”, to shape experience of unity, of being held together, contained, of creating a separate, safe internal and external spaces, prompted me to think about Esther Bicks’s concept of psychic skin. As though the language binds together unintegrated parts of “new baby”, new states that were born. As Bick says “the primal function of the skin of the baby and of its primal objects in relation to the most primitive binding together of parts of the personality not as yet differentiated from parts of the body”. “In its most primitive form the parts of the personality are felt to have no binding force amongst themselves and must therefore be held together in a way that is experienced by them passively, by the skin functioning as a boundary. But this internal function of containing the parts of the self is dependent initially on the introjection of an external object, experienced as capable of fulfilling this function. Later, identification with this function of the object supersedes the unintegrated state and gives rise to the fantasy of internal and external spaces” (Bick, 1968, p. 484)
Langue and parole
The work of Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure and the structuralists’ outlook in general, suggest that the structure of language structures the experience. (Dalal, 1998, p. 80). Saussure, himself, had focus on distinguishing langue and parole. He regarded langue as a system or a code which is prior to actual language use, is the same for all members of a language community, and that is the social side of language as opposed to parole, which is individual. (Fairclough, 1989, p. 54) Saussure claimed that what is said or written, parole, is determined by individual choices and not by social factors and that linguistics, deal first and foremost with langue and not parole.
Language was divided into three interrelated components, word as a signifier, idea in mind as a signified and concrete object as a referent where the relationship between signifier and signified is arbitrary (the sound-name that is used can be literally anything). When the connection is established, they become inseparable. But he also stated that language consisted of a predetermined set of differences and “that the concept is purely differential and defined not by their positive content but negatively by their relationship with the other terms of the system. Their most precise characteristic is being what others are not” (De Saussure, 1959, p. 117)
“A difference generally implies positive terms between which the deference is set up; but in language there are only differences without positive terms. Whether we take a signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before the linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system. The idea or phonic substance that a sign contains is of less importance than the other signs that surround it. Proof of this is that the value of a term may be modified without either its meaning or its sound being affected, solely because a neighboring term has been modified.
(De Saussure, 1959, p. 120)
Conversely, language is characterized by many extensive linguistic variations, and sociolinguistics asserted that what Saussure thought is a product of individual choice is actually a product of social differentiations. Language varies according to the social identities of people in interaction, their socially defined purposes, social setting and so on. (Fairclough, 1989, p. 54) So, it is comprehensible to adopt the stance that language use is socially determined.
Saussure thought of langue to be unitary and homogenous throughout a society, which considering the concept of polycentric languages is difficult to grasp. For example, well known polycentric languages such as English and German — and in this case Serbo-Croatian with several different dialects and/or language versions that are usually with accompanying linguistic unification or standardization a feature of a “nation state” — are typically connected to a large politically defined territory. From this perspective, languages appear to be the result of social conditioning of the specific historical epoch. (Fairclough, 1989, p. 55) Saussure assumed that everyone in the community had the same access to and command of langue, where in reality access to and use of the standard language are unequal. One aspect of standardization is a spread of standard variety throughout the population and across different domains such as education, media, healthcare, business etc. But when it is followed by rhetorical claims that it is the language of all people, that everyone uses it, everyone holds it in high esteem etc. these claims amount to equating the form of “standard” language to a mythical national language. (Fairclough, 1989, p. 55)
In conclusion, we can underline similarities in the manner in which different languages in the Balkans share common elements of “langue,” such as similar grammar, parts of vocabulary, and phonetic characteristics. This allows relatively high mutual intelligibility, one of the key markers of a common language, due to these similarities.
Contrarywise, the differences we may note are that though these languages are similar and mutually understandable, each language has specific “parole” used in particular contexts and regions. These variations may include different expressions, words, and local dialects used in everyday speech. Also, the issues of identity and political context are associated with these languages. While linguistically they are similar and often treated as one “Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian” language, it is essential to note that language identities and divisions are complex and often influenced by social, political, historical and cultural factors. That is to say that language is a social practice determined by social structures.
In addition, post-structuralists problematized the binary structure of language which is one of the cornerstones of structuralism. Eagleton explains that binary oppositions that seem self-explanatory are in fact a reflection of ideology. It is of importance for us to consider what Eagleton says about ideologies, how they tend to draw rigid boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not, between self and not-self, truth and falsity, sense and nonsense, reason and madness, central and marginal, surface and depth. (Dalal, 1998, p. 83)
Group identification
Group identification is the process whereby individuals identify with a particular group. They share a sense of belonging to that group and the process of identification, which is not a simple process, can be based in relation to different aspects, including race, ethnicity, gender, religion, nationalities, etc. The process of group identification comprises several factors: interaction, categorization, power, and institutions. The interplay between relations of similarity and difference, interaction, categorization of others as well as self-identification, and power, institutions, and organizations play a crucial role in the formation and maintenance of groups.
One of the key social processes in group identification is categorization, because that is one of the mechanisms how individuals give meaning to the surrounding world. Categorization is a complex social process that involves various factors such as social processes of exclusion and incorporation, the creation of in-groups and out-groups, the formation of social hierarchies, and power relations. Categorization involves separating people into different categories based on similarities and differences, which bore opportunity to discard common language, proclaim separate language and establish a boundary and difference regarding another national group. (Jenkins, 2014, p. 115)
Different ethnic groups in the Balkans were driven by the desire to promote their own dialects into separate language as a means of solidifying their own national identities. Subsequently, it led to the formation of in-groups and out-groups, as mentioned, where individuals identified with their own ethnic group and perceived other groups as outsiders.
Norbert Elias addresses the importance of power relations as the main feature of figuration, the concept that explains the interconnectedness of human existence. (Dalal, 1998, p. 88)
Even though people are connected as Dalal states metaphorically by these “elastic bands”, people’s activity is not determined but is constrained by the group. (Dalal, 1998, p. 89).
Those ties are quite often coming in the form of economic and language ties. Nevertheless, it does not mean that people are simple helpless pawns but that there is a “restriction” of individuals by society on what they are allowed to do, be and think. On the other hand, the individuals themselves contribute to the construction of these cultural and social forces. Power is a structural characteristic of all human relations, and the presence of power is an inevitable outcome of living together. Regardless of whether power differentials are large or small, power balances are always present wherever there is functional interdependence of people.
Groups distinguish themselves from, and discriminate against, other groups in order to promote their own positive social evaluation and collective self-esteem.
In the observational study, The Established and Outsiders, Elias compared two working classes, which did not differ in any way, except that one group had a history of living in a settlement, and thus better cohesion (feeling of “we”) and better organization. “Difference” fueled hatred but was also artificially created to preserve the power differential. Difference perpetuated the “need” to treat newcomers forever as inferior, through the mechanisms of ideology and gossip (through which ideology spreads).
The inability of all the ethnic groups to consistently promote and advance a single dialect proved to be the most significant impediment to language unity. (Greenberg, 2004, p. 29) Kordic mentions the prominent Croatian historian Ivo Banac who made a witty remark about the Croatian language, wherein the Kaykavian, Chokavian and Shtokavian dialects cannot be brought into relation with the idea that language is mirroring the deepest level of the spirit of a nation, because this would imply that the Croatian nation has three spirits (Kordić, 2010, p. 180)
Therefore, the formation of in-groups and out-groups is related to the formation of identity in the Balkans, as individuals identify with their own ethnic group and view other groups as outsiders based also on linguistic differences. This is the “glue” that binds and fortifies the power differential, used to reinforce existing power dynamics and social hierarchies. While establishing the dominance of a standard language there are always the subordinate groups who uses less favorable dialects, and it becomes the power differential in the power relations.
The concept of power is based on the concept of function. And the notion of function is based on the notion of relationships. Power is intrinsic to all human relationships precisely because we are in a relationship that is interdependent. The power is intrinsic to all human relations because we are related and interdependent (Dalala, 1998, p. 91) Elias also emphasized the importance of language and communication in shaping power relations. He argued that language is not simply a neutral tool for communication but is deeply embedded in power relations and social structures. For example, the use of certain language or terminology can reinforce existing power relations and hierarchies, while the use of other language can challenge and subvert these hierarchies. So by having a distinct language as opposed to one shared language with several national centers, one group gets more power over the other group who doesn’t speak the “right” language within certain geographical area. This is what Freud described in narcissism of minor differences that “we often defend our uniqueness when differentiating ourselves from those who are very nearly same as us.” (Freud, 1930, p. 305)
Conclusion
“Identity and culture are neither traditions nor mentalities, but representations built by a not-so-long history and activated depending on the circumstances. In today’s context, reference to identity or culture should be considered as an expression of identity strategies of defense against dominant or excluded social groups.” (Halpern & Ruano-Borbalan, 2009, p. 424) The long, complex and painful shared history of people throughout the Balkans, who underwent numerous changes, mostly volatile, of state borders, typically accompanied by vast social and individual traumata preserved in transgenerational trauma left them in a state of prolonged, or better to say, never processed trauma, the overwhelming pain of lost that did not have adequate space for grieving but was “misplaced”, split off and buried somewhere in social unconscious echoing frequently from foundation matrix through defenses that in Bionian language we recognize as, among other defenses, as basic assumptions.
On the surface, one of the mechanisms of establishing a group and constructing its group identity is establishing it as opposite to another. Establishing oneself as an antithesis to another is establishing oneself as an autonomous group. I am what the other is not, they are not (like) us. So, by negating the similarities, looking for the differences, by establishing new language one group becomes what the other is not and at the same time what oneself is. It was Hegel who said that in the struggle for recognition, two consciousnesses collide, each of which aspires to be recognized as an exclusive totality of individuality. This consciousness perceives every violation of its relationship to things as its complete “negation” (Milisavljevic, 2006, p. 163) So, after the dissolution of Yugoslavia and consequent dissolution of Serbo-Croatian language in that context it was apparent how new, separate languages had an additional function, and it was to shape identity and culture related to new states, nation-states formed on the territory on what once was one country. In the light of that, when Norbert Elias argus that power relations are not just reflected in language use, bat are also reinforced and reproduced through language, we recognize the patterns how “new” separate languages were used as a tool for shaping and strengthening political and cultural agendas throughout the Balkans. As a result, this has led to linguistic boundaries and hierarchies, which at the end reinforced social and cultural divisions and power relations. The language itself is a powerful symbol, active force that is deeply embedded in social relations and power structures that reinforce cultural norms and values.
On the deeper level these are the group forces that permit and encourage the degradation and annihilation of the otherness. Taking that into the consideration, it seems that little place was left for people to find the common words in the shared language to grieve and understand their own pain but also, the pain of the other. Maybe that is why a separate language had an additional function, in the service of splitting, which is leaving us clueless in the limbo of persecutory guilt. The meaning of the words is changed not by assigning different meaning to the particular word but as it was mentioned in this paper already quoting Saussure that “the value of a term may be modified without either its meaning or its sound being affected, solely because a neighboring term has been modified”, in other words “I hate you” translates into “You hate me”. On a deeper level I had an association with a patient after long term analysis who was able to expand his knowledge of himself, but without true transformation, when analysis fails and there is a an untouched core, psychic retreat where he/she hides whenever crisis occurs.
How is it, if we do not find common words for concern and reparation with other, we find a way to heal ourselves? I find that Serbo-Croatian language, the shared language with all its nuances and variations can serve as a transition space for finding the right words and the meaning behind them for creating a good enough environment to feel safe to share all the pain, sorrow, loses and ultimately allow us to build a capacity for concern for other which will enable fundamental change.
Bibliography
Asman, J., 2011. Kultura pamćenja. Beograd: Prosveta.
Bick, E., 1968. The Experience of The Skin in The Early Object-Relations. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, Volume 49, pp. 484-486.
Bion, W., 2018. The Complete Works of W.R. Bion. s.l.:Routleage.
Bugarski, R., 2004. What’s In A name: The Case Of Serbo-Croatian. Revue des études slaves, 75(1), pp. pp. 11-20.
Dalal, F., 1998. Taking the groupo seriously. London: Jessica Kingsley Publisher.
De Saussure, F., 1959. Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library.
Fairclough, N., 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.
Freud, S., 1930. Civilization and its Discontents. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. s.l.:s.n.
Greenberg, R. D., 2004. Language and Identity in the Balkans. s.l.:Oxford Univeristy Press.
Halpern, K. & Ruano-Borbalan, Ž.-K., 2009. Identitet (I) Pojedinac, grupa, dru[tvo. beograd: Clio.
Jenkins, R., 2014. Social Identity. New York: Routledge.
Kordić, S., 2010. Jezik i nacionalizam. Zagreb: Durieux.
Milisavljevic, V., 2006. Identitet i refleksija Problem samosvesti u Hegelovoj filozofiji. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva.
Smith, A. D., 1991. National Identity. s.l.:Penguin Group.
Tassin, E., jun 1993. “Identities nationales et citoyennete”. Faaborg: lecture at “European Identities”.
Volkan, V., 2009. Large grouo identity, international relations and psychoanalysis. 18(4), pp. 206-213.
[1] Social Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Maja Lyon (Belgrade, Serbia)
Psychologist, MA Culturologist, Psychoanalytic Psychotherapist and Group Analyst under supervision