1997/09/01 by Zlatko Skrbiš · 7 citations
Social Sciences · Psychology · #Philippine History and Culture #Diaspora, migration, transnational identity #Migration, Refugees, and Integration #Nothing #Mythology #New Historicism #Interpretation (philosophy) #Power (physics) #Politics #Historicism #Identification (biology) #Aesthetics #History #Displacement (psychology) #Epistemology #Shadow (psychology) #Sociology #Position (finance) #Law #Political science #Literature #Art #Psychology #Philosophy #Psychoanalysis
paper · doi:10.1080/00905999708408527
published in Nationalities Papers 25(3), 601-610 (Cambridge University Press)
openalex publication_date 1997/09/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
There are two common ways of reflecting upon the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia. The first one, journalistic, transmits and animates the images of horror, brutality, deprivation, and displacement. The second one, historicist—as opposed to historical—invests its energy into interpretation, construction and reconstruction of the past, attributing it with a self-explanatory power. “When and where did it all start? … So what does the past tell us?” (Sinclair-Loutit, 1994, p. 230). In this way, history is given the power to serve as an undisputed indicator and guide in the disarray of myths and facts. Both these positions share a common denominator; they both help us to assume a position of contemporary voyeurs—comfortable, distant observers who can do nothing but consume the provided imagery.