Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T00:38:01.339Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconstructing the Meaning of Being “Montenegrin”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jelena Džankić
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although there has been significant change in the content of the category of “Montenegrin” identity, the policies adopted by the government of Montenegro within its nation-building project have been only partly successful. This study examines popular support for the policies that have helped to reconstruct Montenegrin identity in the decades following the disintegration of socialist Yugoslavia. The specific focus here is on the symbolic reconstruction of identity parameters in Montenegro after the split of the ruling party in 1997 and the start of political divisions in this tiny Balkan state. Relying on original quantitative and qualitative data, the analysis associates the divide related to the question of statehood with perceptions of identity and shows how the content of "Montenegrin" identity changed as a result of people's support for or opposition to independence.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 73 , Issue 2 , Summer 2014 , pp. 347 - 371
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This article emerged from the research project“Symbolic Nation-Building in West Balkan States: Intents and Results,” which was funded by the Research Council of Norway (RCN), project number 203356. Mayall, James, Nationalism and International Society (Cambridge, Eng., 1990), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 Brubaker, Rogers, Ethnicity without Groups (Cambridge, Mass., 2004);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Brubaker, Rogers and Cooper, Frederick, “Beyond Identity,” Theory and Society 29, no. 1 (January 2000): 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Brubaker, Ethnicity without Groups, 4.

4 Brubaker and Cooper,“Beyond Identity,” 14-17.

5 Brubaker, Ethnicity without Groups, 4-6.

6 Brubaker, Rogers, Loveman, Mara , and Stamatov, Peter, “Ethnicity as Cognition”, Theory and Society 33, no. 1 (January 2004): 32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 For non-Balkan scholarship on Montenegro, see, for example, Bieber, Florian, “Montenegrin Politics since the Disintegration of Yugoslavia”, in Bieber, Florian, ed., Montenegro in Transition: Problems of Identity and Statehood (BadenBaden, 2003), 11–42;Google Scholar Bieber, Florian and Winterhagen, Jenni, “Erst der Staat—dann die Nation: Staats- und Nationsbil-dung in Montenegro”, Südosteuropa: ZeitschriftzurPolitik und Gesellschaft 57, no. 1 (2009): 2–24;Google Scholar Morrison, Kenneth, Montenegro: A Modern History (London, 2009);CrossRefGoogle Scholar Morrison, Kenneth, “The Political Life of Milo Djukanovic”, Siidosteuropa 57, no. 1 (2009): 25–54;Google Scholar and Roberts, Elizabeth, Realm of the Black Mountain: A History of Montenegro (Oxford, 2007).Google Scholar On Montenegrin national identity, see Cattaruzza, Amaël, Territoire et nationalisme au Montenegro (Paris, 2011);Google Scholar Srda Pavlovic,“Who Are the Montenegrins? Statehood, Identity and Civic Society,” in Bieber, ed., Montenegro in Transition, 83-106.

8 In this article, the term Montenegrin means exclusively those who ascribe to the Montenegrin identity schema. When referring to the legal link between an individual and the state, the term citizen of Montenegro will be used.

9 Federalni zavod za statistiku, Popis stanovništva 1981,1991 (Belgrade, 1992).

10 Centar za Demokratsku Tranziciju, Referendum, 1 March 1992, at http://www.cdtmn.org/images/stories/dokumenti/zvanicni-rezultati-referendum-1992.pdf (last accessed 21 June 2006; no longer available).

11 Centar za Demokratsku Tranziciju, Referendum, 21 May 2006, at www.cdtmn.org/izbori/referendum06.php (last accessed 21 June 2006; no longer available).

12 Zavod za Statlstiku Crne (Gore Statistical Office of Montenegro),“Population Census 2003”, at http://www.monstat.org/eng/page.php?id=184&pageid=184 (last accessed 1 Febru-ary 2014).

13 International Crisis Group,“Montenegro's Referendum,” Europe Briefing, no. 42 (30 March 2006), at http://www.crisisgroup.Org/~/media/Files/europe/b042_montenegro_s_referendum.pdf (last accessed 1 February 2014).

14 Zavod za Statistiku Crne Gore,“Population Census 2011,” at http://www.monstat.org/cg/page.php?id=322&pageid=322 (last accessed 1 February 2014).

15 On the conflicts in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, see, for example, Gagnon, Valere Philip, The Myth of Ethnic War: Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s (Ithaca, 2004)Google Scholar, and Gordy, Eric, The Culture of Power in Serbia: Nationalism and the Destruction of Alternatives (University Park, 1999).Google Scholar On Serbian politics, see Ramet, Sabrina and Pavlakovic, Vjeran, eds., Serbia since 1989: Politics and Society under Milošević and After (Seattle, 2005);Google Scholar Ramet, Sabrina, The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918-2005 (Bloomington, 2006)Google Scholar; and Pantelić, Bratislav, “Memories of a Time Forgotten: The Myth of the Pe-rennial Nation”, Nations and Nationalism 17, no. 2 (April 2011): 443–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar On this process in Montenegro, see again Roberts, Realm of the Black Mountain, and Morrison, Montenegro.

16 University of Oslo, Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Lan-guages,“Strategies of Symbolic Nation-Building in West Balkan States,” at http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/english/research/projects/nation-w-balkan/ (last accessed 1 February 2014). Ip-sos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” at http://www.hf.uio.no/ilos/forskning/prosjekter/nation-w-balkan/dokumenter/nb_montenegro.pdf (last accessed 1 February 2014).

17 The calculation of the statistical relevance is explained on page 5 of the report.

18 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 15.

19 Brubaker, Ethnicity without Groups; Brubaker, Loveman, and Stamatov,“Ethnicity as Cognition.”

20 Bellamy, Alex J., The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-Old Dream? (Manchester, 2003), 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Seton-Watson, Robert William, The Rise of Nationality in the Balkans (New York, 1966);Google Scholar Smith, Anthony D., National Identity (London, 1991).Google Scholar

22 Bieber,“Montenegrin Politics since the Disintegration of Yugoslavia,” in Bieber, ed., Montenegro in Transition, 21.

23 Miroljub Jevtić,“Uloga religije u identitetu južnoslovenskih nacija,” in Univerzitet u Beogradu Fakultet političkih nauka, Godišnjak 2008 (December 2008): 172; Veseljko Koprivica,“Religija na Balkanu, u znaku dualizma,” AIM Podgorica, at http://postjugo.filg.uj.edu.pl/baza/texts_display.php?id=72 (last accessed 1 February 2014).

24 Federalni zavod za statistiku, Popis stanovnistva 1981,1991.

25 The split was triggered by Dukanović's criticism of Milošević's isolationist politics, but scholars have also noted the tension between the two factions of the DPS over control of the shadow market and assets accumulated during the early 1990s. For a detailed discussion of the reasons for the split, see Morrison, Montenegro, and Morrison,“The Political Life of Milo Djukanović.”

26 Eric Hobsbawm, On History (London, 1997), 6.

27 Morrison, Montenegro; Morrison,“The Political Life of Milo Djukanović.”

28 International Crisis Group,“Montenegro's Independence Drive,” Europe Report, no. 169 (7 December 2005), at http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/europe/balkans/montenegro/169-montenegros-independence-drive.aspx (last accessed 1 February 2014).

29 Darmanovic, Srdjan, “Montenegro: Destiny of a Satellite State”, East European Reporter, no. 27 (March-April 1992): 28.Google Scholar

30 Carmichael, Cathie and Čagoroviü, Nebojša, “Constructing and Rethinking Montenegrin National Identity”, Narodna umjetnost: Hrvatski časopis za etnologiju ifolkloristiku, no. 1 (2006): 59–74;Google Scholar Jevtić,“Uloga religije u identitetu južnoslovenskih nacija,” in Godišnjak 2008. In addition to being prince-bishops, Petar I and Petar II are among the most notable literary figures in Montenegrin cultural history.

31 Sabrina Ramet,“The Politics of the Serbian Orthodox Church,” in Ramet and Pavlaković, eds., Serbia since 1989,255-85.

32 Bieber,“Montenegrin Politics since the Disintegration of Yugoslavia,” in Bieber, ed., Montenegro in Transition, 32.

33 Ivo Banac, The National Question in Yugoslavia (Ithaca, 1984).

34 The constitution was amended in 1968, and Muslims as a group became recognized as a constituent nation within the state.

35 International Crisis Group,“Current Legal Status of the Federal Republic of Yu-goslavia (FRY) and of Serbia and Montenegro,” ICG Balkans Report, no. 101 (19 September 2000), at http://www.crisisgroup.org/-/media/Files/europe/Serbia°/o2012.pdf (last accessed 5 February 2014).

36 Elizabeth Roberts, Serbia-Montenegro—A New Federation! (London, 2002), 6.

37 European Stability Initiative, Rhetoric and Reform: A Case-Study of Institution Building in Montenegro, 1998-2001 (Podgorica and Berlin, 28 June 2001), at http://www.esiweb.org/index.php?lang=en&id=156&document_ID=16 (last accessed 5 February 2014).

38 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 18.

39 Ramet,“The Politics of the Serbian Orthodox Church,” in Ramet and Pavlaković, eds., Serbia since 1989; Popovic, Milorad, Podijeljena nacija: Identitiet, država, vlast (Cetinje, 2010);Google Scholar Šerbo Rastoder, Religija i politika 1991-1999: Pogled iz crnogorske perspective, at http://postjugo.filg.uj.edu.pl/baza/texts_display.php?id=98 (last accessed 5 Febru-ary 2014).

40 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 102.

41 Ibid., 23.

42 Ibid., 65.

43 Ibid., 46.

44 Ibid., 30.

45 Banac, National Question, 45-52.

46 Bieber,“Montenegrin Politics since the Disintegration of Yugoslavia,” in Bieber, ed., Montenegro in Transition, 18.

47 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 30.

48 Ibid., 40.

49 Ibid., 41.

50 Madeleine Albright,“U.S. Support for Democracy in Serbia and Montenegro,” remarks at U.S.-European Union-Serbian Opposition meeting in Berlin, Germany, 17 Decem-ber 1999, U.S. Department of State Dispatch 10, no. 10 (December 1999): 1.

51 Dragan Durić,“Montenegro's Prospects for European Integration: On a Twin Track,” South-East Europe Review 79, no. 4 (2004): 79-105; Ministarstvo vanjskih poslova i evropskih integracija,“Spoljno-politićki prioriteti Crne Gore,” at http://www.mvpei.gov.me/ministarstvo/spoljno-politicki-prioriteti (last accessed 5 February 2014).

52 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 32.

53 Ibid., 27.

54 Miodrag Mališa Marović, Veljko Milatović (Podgorica, 2006).

55 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 27.

56 Krastev, Ivan and Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina, Nationalism after Communism (Budapest, 2004).Google Scholar

57 Ramet,“The Politics of the Serbian Orthodox Church,” in Ramet and Pavlaković, eds., Serbia since 1989,264.

58 “Mitropolit crnogorsko-primorski Amfilohije za ‘Glas’ o ‘ratu’ crkava u Crnoj Gori: ‘Oblačak koji će proći,’” Glas Javnosti, 3 February 2002, at http://arhiva.glas-javnosti.rs/arhiva/2002/02/03/srpski/I02020201.shtml (last accessed 5 February 2014).

59 Centre for Democracy and Human Rights (CEDEM), Public Opinion in Montenegro: January 2005 (Podgorica, 2005).

60 The CPC, established in 1993, was often described as the“epiphenomenon of Montenegrin politics.” Ramet, The Three Yugoslavias, 264. It operated as a para-legal in-stitution before being registered as a non-governmental organization in lanuary 2000.

61 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 48.

62 Ibid., 47.

63 Ibid., 51.

64 Srdan Janković,“Amfilohije bacio anatemu i za božićne praznike,” Radio Slobodna Evropa, 10 January 2011, at http://www.slobodnaevropa.org/content/sve_amfilofijeve_kletve/2271881.html (last accessed 1 March 2014).

65 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 52.

66 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 44. Please note that although there is also a national category of Muslims in Montenegro, the survey had not differentiated between Bosniaks and Muslims.

67 Ibid., 52.

68 Ibid., 49.

69 Douglas, Mary, Implicit Meanings (London, 1975), 14.Google Scholar

70 “Zakon o državnim simbolima i Danu državnosti Crne Gore,” Službeni List Republike Crne Gore, br. 47/04 (435.) od 12. srpnja 2004.

71 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 23-24.

72 Miša Durković,“Montenegro: Headed for New Divisions,” Conflict Studies Re-search Centre: Balkan Series 7, no. 9 (March 2007), 6.

73 Milena Milošević,“Fate of Montenegro's State Symbols in Balance,” Balkan In-sight, 26 April 2012, at http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/fate-of-montenegro-s-symbols-still-uncertain (last accessed 5 February 2014).

74 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 25.

75 Milošević,“Fate of Montenegro's State Symbols in Balance.”

76 See Smith, , National Identity; Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence, eds., The In-vention of Tradition (Cambridge, Eng., 1983);Google Scholar and Breuilly, John, Nationalism and the State (Chicago, 1985).Google Scholar

77 White, George, “Southeastern European Nationalism in Its Temporal and Spatial Context”, in White, , Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe (Oxford, 2000), 45–67.Google Scholar

78 White, Nationalism and Territory, 181.

79 Rajka Glusica,“Crnogorski jezik u celjustima nacionalizma,” Riječ: Časopis za nauku ojeziku i književnosti, no. 4 (2010): 25-47; Cattaruzza, Territoire et nationalisme au Montenegro.

80 According to Aleksić, R., Pravopis srpskohrvatskoga književnog jezika: Sapravopisnim reinikom (Novi Sad, 1960),Google Scholar Ijekavski is one of the three Serbian dialects (in addition to Ikavski and Ekavski). Ijekavski was predominantly spoken in Montenegro and Herze-govina. The difference between the three stems from the modern pronunciation of the old Slavic letter B (Jat), which is today pronounced“e,““i,” or“je” or“ije.”

81 The Slovenian and Macedonian languages, which are linguistically different from the former Serbo-Croatian language, officially use Latin and Cyrillic scripts, respectively. The Croatian language officially uses the Latin script exclusively, and the Serbian lan-guage uses Cyrillic.

82 “Ustav Crne Gore,” Službeni List Crne Gore, br. 1/07.

83 Zavod za Statistiku Crne Gore,“Population Census 2013,” at http://www.monstat.org/cg/page.php?id=57&pageid=57 (last accessed 1 March 2014).

84 Zavod za Statistiku Crne Gore,“Population Census 2011.”

85 Ipsos Strategic Marketing,“Report: Nation Building—Montenegro,” 14. The issue of script was not covered in the survey.

86 Ibid., 59.

87 Milošević,“Fate of Montenegro's State Symbols in Balance.”