Paprika
Jackass of the Week
The Construction of Macedonian Identity
From an anthropological perspective, the Macedonian Question in its current from can be seen as a conflict between two opposing national ideologies, both of which reify nations, national cultures, and national identities; project them far back into the past; and treat them as eternal, natural, and immutable essences. The anthropology of nationalism must dereify the nation; it must deconstruct national cultures and identities. These tasks can be accomplished by analyzing the process of nation formation, the process by which nations, national cultures, and national identities are constantly constructed and reconstructed from pre-existing cultural forms. In this way anthropologists can avoid being coopted by the persuasiveness of either the Greek or the Macedonian nationalist myth. Instead they can concentrate on the analysis of the historical processes through which the Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek, and Macedonian nations have been constructed.
The construction of a Macedonian national identity began in the second half of the nineteenth century with the first expressions of Macedonian ethnic nationalism on the part of a small number of intellectuals like Krste Missirkov, who in 1903 called for "the recognition of the Salvs in Macedonia as a separate nationality - Macedonians." At this time, however, the vast majority of the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia were illiterate peasants with no clearly developed sense of national identity at all. According to most disinterested observers, any expression of national identity that was encountered among the Macedonian peasantry was very superficial and could be attributed to educational and religious propaganda or simply to terrorism.
From an anthropological perspective the relatively recent date of the creation of a Macedonian state and the construction of a Macedonian nation, in comparison to other Balkan cases, does not mean, as Greek nationalists claim, that the Macedonian nation is "artificial," while the Greek nation is "genuine." Nor does it mean that Macedonian national identity is only "imagined," while Greek national identity is "real," as Evangelos Kofos put it, citing Anderson in what is a clear misuse of Anderson's work to serve the goals of nationalist historiography. Both Macedonian national identity and Greek national identity are equally constructed.
Similarly, the Greek claim that there is no linguistic evidence to support the view that Macedonian is a distinct language and not just a dialect of Bulgarian ignores the widely accepted sociolinguistic insight that the decision as to whether a particular variety of speech constitutes a language or a dialect is always based on political rather than linguistic criteria. The existence of the Macedonian language is accepted by linguists everywhere in the world except in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece. Finally, an anthropological perspective suggests that attempts by the Greek state to impose a homogeneous national culture on a group of people with different linguistic and cultural traditions may itself contribute to the creation of a national minority.
From an anthropological perspective, the Macedonian Question in its current from can be seen as a conflict between two opposing national ideologies, both of which reify nations, national cultures, and national identities; project them far back into the past; and treat them as eternal, natural, and immutable essences. The anthropology of nationalism must dereify the nation; it must deconstruct national cultures and identities. These tasks can be accomplished by analyzing the process of nation formation, the process by which nations, national cultures, and national identities are constantly constructed and reconstructed from pre-existing cultural forms. In this way anthropologists can avoid being coopted by the persuasiveness of either the Greek or the Macedonian nationalist myth. Instead they can concentrate on the analysis of the historical processes through which the Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek, and Macedonian nations have been constructed.
The construction of a Macedonian national identity began in the second half of the nineteenth century with the first expressions of Macedonian ethnic nationalism on the part of a small number of intellectuals like Krste Missirkov, who in 1903 called for "the recognition of the Salvs in Macedonia as a separate nationality - Macedonians." At this time, however, the vast majority of the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia were illiterate peasants with no clearly developed sense of national identity at all. According to most disinterested observers, any expression of national identity that was encountered among the Macedonian peasantry was very superficial and could be attributed to educational and religious propaganda or simply to terrorism.
From an anthropological perspective the relatively recent date of the creation of a Macedonian state and the construction of a Macedonian nation, in comparison to other Balkan cases, does not mean, as Greek nationalists claim, that the Macedonian nation is "artificial," while the Greek nation is "genuine." Nor does it mean that Macedonian national identity is only "imagined," while Greek national identity is "real," as Evangelos Kofos put it, citing Anderson in what is a clear misuse of Anderson's work to serve the goals of nationalist historiography. Both Macedonian national identity and Greek national identity are equally constructed.
Similarly, the Greek claim that there is no linguistic evidence to support the view that Macedonian is a distinct language and not just a dialect of Bulgarian ignores the widely accepted sociolinguistic insight that the decision as to whether a particular variety of speech constitutes a language or a dialect is always based on political rather than linguistic criteria. The existence of the Macedonian language is accepted by linguists everywhere in the world except in Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece. Finally, an anthropological perspective suggests that attempts by the Greek state to impose a homogeneous national culture on a group of people with different linguistic and cultural traditions may itself contribute to the creation of a national minority.