Debating the end of Yugoslavia

Abstract

Debating the end of Yugoslavia, edited by Florian Bieber, Armina Galijas and Rory Archer, Burlington VT, Ashgate, 2014, xiii + 261 pp., US$119.95 (hbk), ISBN 978-1409-46711-3This edited volume brings together more than a dozen authors from a variety of academic disciplines and countries to discuss the state of the field of since the wars of dissolution. On the one hand, this project synthesizes the literature that can make the lives of researchers on this subject easier. Yet, on the other hand, the limited size of each contribution restricts the development of individual arguments. With that said, the volume succeeds more than it fails and it should serve as a useful tool, especially for people who are trying to gauge the field and make meaningful contributions in the coming years.The editors divided this work into two main sections: the first covers the state of the debates over topics, while the second delves into new directions for research. Such a division is logical and served the purpose of the book well, which was, according to Florian Bieber, to highlight the importance of the debate and the need for a sober scholarly assessment (6). Another of the strengths, already mentioned, is the variety of contributors, crossing disciplinary lines as well as professional expertise. Regarding the latter, it was nice to see new scholars working on topics; these folks have the potential to move beyond the political dogmatism or nationalistic agendas that have influenced scholarship on southeastern Europe, perhaps especially concerning the of the wars of secession. In fact, more than one contributor takes on this legacy of instant history coupled with shoddy policy ?analyses' and the sales-driven journalistic, introductory, and other casual accounts (23, 67). Combined with what V. P. Gagnon claims is a lack of attention to the Yugoslav dissolution within the field of political science - specifically, as he puts it, within top journals in the subfields of international relations and comparative politics, it would seem that the state of the debate is in need of repair (56). This reviewer agrees that the scholarship on Yugoslavia has both suffered from problems and been largely ignored in the academy.Gagnon's assertion over a lack of attention might be a bit too ambitious, but rather than condemn it, I would rather see his words as a call to action for future scholars. fact that Yugoslavia remains marginalized from the mainstream or used as fodder for large-n case studies fits with how certain historians have had trouble seeing for what it was and not for what it became and how political scientists largely treated it as part of models for things such as civil-military relations gone wrong (64). This reviewer's own bias lends favour to influential political science articles such as Barry Posen's The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy (35, no. 1 [1993]: 21-AT), which Gagnon does mention. Posen's assertion, or model, is an interesting starting point for understanding why Serbs in Croatia, for example, might have pursued the politics that they did in the early 1990s (that is, out of fear for security as a minority in a new state). It is, of course, an incomplete answer - only a more in-depth, research-driven analysis could adequately grapple with a sense of truth - but it nonetheless gets us away from ancient hatreds or the lid that Tito so tightly held down all minorities and opponents with during his dictatorship. …