In this paper, we offer a possible interpretation of reconciliation in the former Yugoslav area. In a conflicting past and not-reconciled region, it is presumed that the truth should be the main pillar of reconciliation. However, according to our empirical analysis of 146 reconciliation projects implemented in the period between 2002 and 2015, there are many interpretations of truths in the region which are opposed to each other. These interpretations are the result of different national political constructions, supported by the dominant structures of the societies in question. Accordingly, instead of insisting on a single factual truth, we propose the introduction of the 'agonistic dialogue' principle, where multiple truths would coexist, thus turning former war enemies into political adversaries in the post-conflict setting.
Keywords:
Former Yugoslavia / SFRY / reconciliation / truth / agonistic dialogue
Source:
Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 2020, 20, 3, 455-472
TY - JOUR
AU - Bešić, Miloš Lj.
AU - Džuverović, Nemanja
PY - 2020
UR - http://rfpn.fpn.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/795
AB - In this paper, we offer a possible interpretation of reconciliation in the former Yugoslav area. In a conflicting past and not-reconciled region, it is presumed that the truth should be the main pillar of reconciliation. However, according to our empirical analysis of 146 reconciliation projects implemented in the period between 2002 and 2015, there are many interpretations of truths in the region which are opposed to each other. These interpretations are the result of different national political constructions, supported by the dominant structures of the societies in question. Accordingly, instead of insisting on a single factual truth, we propose the introduction of the 'agonistic dialogue' principle, where multiple truths would coexist, thus turning former war enemies into political adversaries in the post-conflict setting.
PB - Routledge Taylor & Francis Group
T2 - Southeast European and Black Sea Studies
T1 - How many truths are there? Reconciliation and agonistic dialogue in the former Yugoslavia
EP - 472
IS - 3
SP - 455
VL - 20
DO - 10.1080/14683857.2020.1793463
ER -
@article{
author = "Bešić, Miloš Lj. and Džuverović, Nemanja",
year = "2020",
abstract = "In this paper, we offer a possible interpretation of reconciliation in the former Yugoslav area. In a conflicting past and not-reconciled region, it is presumed that the truth should be the main pillar of reconciliation. However, according to our empirical analysis of 146 reconciliation projects implemented in the period between 2002 and 2015, there are many interpretations of truths in the region which are opposed to each other. These interpretations are the result of different national political constructions, supported by the dominant structures of the societies in question. Accordingly, instead of insisting on a single factual truth, we propose the introduction of the 'agonistic dialogue' principle, where multiple truths would coexist, thus turning former war enemies into political adversaries in the post-conflict setting.",
publisher = "Routledge Taylor & Francis Group",
journal = "Southeast European and Black Sea Studies",
title = "How many truths are there? Reconciliation and agonistic dialogue in the former Yugoslavia",
pages = "472-455",
number = "3",
volume = "20",
doi = "10.1080/14683857.2020.1793463"
}
Bešić, M. Lj.,& Džuverović, N.. (2020). How many truths are there? Reconciliation and agonistic dialogue in the former Yugoslavia. in Southeast European and Black Sea Studies
Routledge Taylor & Francis Group., 20(3), 455-472.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2020.1793463
Bešić ML, Džuverović N. How many truths are there? Reconciliation and agonistic dialogue in the former Yugoslavia. in Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. 2020;20(3):455-472.
doi:10.1080/14683857.2020.1793463 .
Bešić, Miloš Lj., Džuverović, Nemanja, "How many truths are there? Reconciliation and agonistic dialogue in the former Yugoslavia" in Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 20, no. 3 (2020):455-472,
https://doi.org/10.1080/14683857.2020.1793463 . .
