Discursive Practices of Serbian Cultural Intelligentsia and Production of Socio-Political Crisis Through and within the Union of Writers of Yugoslavia during 1985

Abstract

In her work and on the basis of archival material, the author presents and analyzes the discursive practices of writers gathered in the Union of Writers of Yugoslavia, and articulated through the work of its governing bodies – Congresses, Assemblies, and the Presidency – throughout 1985. Namely, that year, at the 9th Congress of Writers in Novi Sad, one part of Serbian writers, gathered in the Association of Writers of Serbia, opened and actualized the so-called Kosovo issue within the Union, by constructing uniformly structured, and persistently repeated ideological narrative about the endangerment and persecution of Serbs in Kosovo, claiming that it was – genocide. The paper presents and summarizes the main features of the aforementioned congress, which indicate that the Yugoslav socio-political crisis of the early 1980s deeply affected the Union during 1985 and that it revealed deep conceptual divisions among Serbian and other writers in Yugoslavia. The dividing line was built around the rejection of the 1974 Constitution and the denial of national-cultural and republican identities and borders within Yugoslavia, on the one hand, and their defense and plea for them, on the other. The text seeks to clarify what the concept of freedom of literary creation and politicization of literature, which was advocated and defended by the Serbian cultural intelligentsia at the 9th Congress, essentially meant, as well as to point out that the period of the 1980s was marked by the ambition of writers to affirm themselves as significant socio-political factor through criticism of dogmatic and repressive political authorities of socialist selfgovernment. The author then focuses on the work of the Literary Union Presidency during 1985, and on the discursive practices of some Serbian writers, gathered in the Association of Writers of Serbia and the Association of Writers of Kosovo, articulated through The Open Letter and other letters of the UKS administration, which insisted on further opening of the so-called Kosovo issue and made serious accusations against the Albanian administration of the Kosovo Writers' Association. This encouraged the continuation of the crisis production process within the Union. She concludes that behind all of these discursive efforts was a concrete goal of recentralizing the federal literary organization, mastering the Kosovo literary association and discursively supporting the Serbian political elite, which at the same time, at the federal political level, insisted on opening and resolving the so-called Kosovo issue and the issue of unity of the Serbian federal and state unit within Yugoslavia. The author started from the hypothesis that (war) violence, specifically that in Kosovo, against Albanians, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, was conceived, among other things, in the words of the Serbian humanistic intelligentsia, which produced discursive/ideological knowledge through which interpreted the past and present of the national community and which aimed to encourage national mobilization and homogenization and put them at the service of a certain political project – the recentralization of the Yugoslav state, of Serbia, strengthening and unification of the imagined and scattered Serbian national-cultural society in Yugoslavia. Through the aforementioned discursive knowledge, a stigmatic image of the barbaric Albanian Other was built, which served to legitimize his exemption from the legal order, i.e. the imposition of a state of emergency and the normalization of violence in Kosovo throughout 1990s. Given that the aim of this paper was to give a meticulous overview of a conjuncture episodes in the work of the Union of Writers of Yugoslavia during 1985 and discursive strategies that would lead to its disintegration in the continuation of the process, and since this topic is still largely subject to politicization, the author let the sources “speak” in the text to the greatest extent possible.