Yugoslav experts, Yugoslavism and the national question in the 1960s

ABSTRACT

The paper is focused on Slovene and Serbian state socialist experts and their role in the scientific field of researching the Yugoslav national question in the first half of the 1960s, with emphasis on their research and debates regarding the concept of national Yugoslavism. The institutes being examined are the Institute for Ethnic Studies (Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja, INV) in Ljubljana and the Institute of Social Sciences (Institut društvenih nauka, IDN) in Belgrade. In the early 1960s, Yugoslav soft nation-building reached its peak with the famous Ćosić–Pirjevec debate. The latter coincided with the end of the ‘transitional period’ at INV and its new leadership under Drago Druškovič. Some Serbian lawyers shifted the fight for the establishment of a socialist Yugoslav nation from political debates to the Yugoslav Association for International Law, where the dispute reached a climax in late 1964. With the abandonment of the Yugoslav national idea, IDN prepared an ambitious programme of researching Yugoslav interethnic relations, which would include several institutions from all Yugoslav republics. The League of Communists of Yugoslavia financed research on interethnic relations in Yugoslavia to create ‘correct’ policies with regard to the national question. Huge amounts of data were collected (public opinion polls, newspaper clippings) and analysed by the research institutions mentioned earlier, which often gave expert opinions to leading Communists. In the late 1960s, amateur research and opinion polling conducted by Yugoslav newspapers challenged the monopoly of the Party on the scientific research field of interethnic relations. Thus, in the early 1970s, the Party struggled to retake control.

KEYWORDS:

• League of Communists of Yugoslavia
• interethnic relations
• national question
• Yugoslavism
• history of science

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Some examples: Shoup, Communism and the Yugoslav National Question; Ramet, Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia, 1963–1983; Djilas, The Contested Country; Wachtel, Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation; Djokić, Yugoslavism; Drapac, Constructing Yugoslavia; Haug, Creating a Socialist Yugoslavia; Vujačić, Nationalism, Myth, and the State in Russia and Serbia; and Lučić, In Namen der Nation.

2. See the 2018 special issue of East Central Europe: Iacob et al., “State Socialist Experts in Transnational Perspective.”

3. Voříšek, “The Reform Generation”; Brunnbauer et al., Sociology and Ethnography in East-Central and South-East Europe; Lazić, “Sociology in Yugoslavia”; Nešpor, Dějiny české sociologie; Hincu and Karady, Social Sciences in the ‘Other Europe’ since 1945; and Koleva, Totalitarian Experience and Knowledge Production.

4. Koleva, Totalitarian Experience and Knowledge Production, 6.

5. Sommer, “Towards the Expert Governance,” 139.

6. Kristen, “Od Manjšinskega inštituta,” 53–90.

7. Kristen, “Od Manjšinskega inštituta,” 94.

8. Archives of the Republic of Slovenia (ARS), SI AS 1164, INV, Tajniški arhiv (1945–1990), box 69, folder 1/13, Drago Druškovič – življenjepis.

9. The largest newspaper collection dedicated to the Yugoslav national question in the world (1945–90), consisting of 128 archival boxes in ARS, SI AS 1164 INV.

10. Many thanks to my colleague Una Blagojević for providing me with the list of students from the Archives of Yugoslavia, fond 48, Institut društvenih nauka.

11. Iacob et al., “State Socialist Experts in Transnational Perspective,” 147.

12. Aron, Opium of the Intellectuals, 298.

13. Kalleberg, “Sociologists as Public Intellectuals and Experts,” 46.

14. Bourdieu, “The Social Space and the Genesis of Groups,” 729–31; and Bourdieu, Homo Academicus, 285.

15. Verdery, National Ideology under Socialism, 18.

16. Banac, The National Question in Yugoslavia.

17. Jović, Yugoslavia, 47–54; Djokic, Elusive Compromise; regarding integral Yugoslavism see: Troch, Nationalism and Yugoslavia; Nielsen, Making Yugoslavs: Identity in King Aleksandar’s Yugoslavia.

18. Petranović and Zečević, Jugoslavija 1918–1984, 595–611.

19. For the three-phase socialist nation-building, see: Kopeček, “Historical Studies,” 131.

20. Brunnbauer and Grandits, “The Ambiguous Nation.”

21. For the concept see: Ivešić, “The Yugoslav National Idea Under Socialism: What Happens When a Soft Nation-Building Project Is Abandoned?”; for the Yugoslav nation-building in the 1950s see also: Ivešić, Jugoslovanska socialistična nacija; Grandits, “Dynamics of Socialist Nation-Building”; and Ramet, Nationalism and Federalism in Yugoslavia, 1963–1983, 54–5.

22. Friedman, The Bosnian Muslims, 153–4.

23. As stated by the main Party ideologist Edvard Kardelj in 1953, when he introduced a new constitutional law. See: Shoup, Communism and the Yugoslav National Question, 186.

24. Lenin, “Critical Remarks on the National Question”; and see also: Lenin, “Lenin: The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination.”

25. Miller, The Nonconformists, 64; and Marković, “Odnos partije i Tita.”

26. Haug, Creating a Socialist Yugoslavia, 147.

27. Peković, Ni rat ni mir, 320.

28. Lučić, “Making the ‘Nation’ Visible,” 427–8.

29. Trifunoski, O posleratnom naseljavanju stanovništva iz NR Makedonije u tri banatska naselja-Jabuka Kačarevo i Glogonj; Rusić, Beleške o najnovijim naseljenicima iz Makedonije u sedam sela vršačkog dela Banata; and Vasović, Najnovije naseljavanje Crnogoraca u nekim bačkim selima.

30. Rusić, Beleške o najnovijim naseljenicima iz Makedonije u sedam sela vršačkog dela Banata, 29.

31. Sinadinovski, “Sociološka istraživanja participacije i integracije šiptarske nacionalne manjine u Makedoniji,” 130.

32. Cosovschi, “Between the Nation and Socialism in Yugoslavia”; and Gabrič, Socialistična kulturna revolucija, 345–7.

33. In the 1950s many Communists talked about erasing the national borders and the merging of nations. In the late 1960s, a new concept – integration – emerged. The main difference between merging and integration was that with integration many parts would integrate into one, but their specifics or shapes would remain, while with Lenin’s merging or fusion (Slovenian stapljanje/spajanje or zlitje), all parts would change their shape to become one.

34. Jović, Yugoslavia, 87; and Pirjevec, “Tito in Kardelj,” 504.

35. For abandoning the nation-building project see: Ivešić, “The Yugoslav National Idea Under Socialism: What Happens When a Soft Nation-Building Project Is Abandoned?”

36. Schulze Wessel et al., “Introduction: Sociology and Ethnography in East-Central and South-East Europe under State Socialism,” 4.

37. Rosen, “Public Opinion and Reform in the People’s Republic of China,” 154.

38. Welsh, Survey Research and Public Attitudes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, xxii.

39. Hincu, “Introduction: ‘Peripheral Observations’ and Their Observers.”

40. Lazić, “Sociology in Yugoslavia,” 90.

41. Koleva, Totalitarian Experience and Knowledge Production, 112.

42. Sher, Praxis: Marxist Criticism and Dissent in Socialist Yugoslavia.

43. Supek, Ispitivanje javnog mnjenja.

44. Henn, Opinion Polls and Volatile Electorates, 154.

45. Koleva, Totalitarian Experience and Knowledge Production, 108.

46. Wyman, Public Opinion in Postcommunist Russia; and Kula, “Poland: The Silence of Those Deprived of Voice,” 154.

47. Henn, Opinion Polls and Volatile Electorates, 160–1.

48. I am grateful to Dr Irena Ristić from IDN for this piece of information. My presumption is that this exchange was part of the Ford Foundation programme for Yugoslavia. Regarding the American fellowships see: Vučetić, “Američke stipendije u Jugoslaviji 50-ih i 60-ih godina XX veka.”

49. Stensrud, “Europe Not Taken for Granted: The Ford Foundation’s Exchange programmes in Eastern Europe in the 1950s and ’60s,”

122.

50. Vučetić, “Američke stipendije u Jugoslaviji 50-ih i 60-ih godina XX veka,” 141.

51. Henn, Opinion Polls and Volatile Electorates, 151–2.

52. Banac, With Stalin against Tito.

53. Lees, Keeping Tito Afloat.

54. Vučetić, “Američke stipendije u Jugoslaviji 50-ih i 60-ih godina XX veka.”

55. Iacob et al., “State Socialist Experts in Transnational Perspective,” 149.

56. Skovajsa and Balon, Sociology in the Czech Republic: Between East and West, 56; and see also: Piekalkiewicz, Public Opinion Polling in Czechoslovakia, 1968–69.

57. Welsh, “Introduction: An Overview of the Status of Survey Research in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union,” 5–6.

58. As an example: by the end of March 1966, Druškovič sent a high Party official, Vida Tomšič, statements on the national question made by the republican leaders at the republic congresses all over Yugoslavia. See: ARS, SI AS 1164, INV, Tajniški arhiv (1945–1990), box 20, Folder 20/238–1966, Pismo Druškoviča Vidi Tomšič, March 25, 1966.

59. ARS, SI AS 1164, INV, Tajniški arhiv (1945–1990), box 20, Folder 20/238-1966, Pismo Druškoviča Vidi Tomšič.

60. Statement of Ernest Petrič to the author, Ljubljana, March 27, 2017; Petrič, “Das Recht auf die Heimat kot pojem mednarodnega prava: s posebnim ozirom na usodo nekdanje nemške manjšine v Jugoslaviji,” PhD dissertation, University of Ljubljana, 1964.

61. Jončić, Ustav SFRJ i medunacionalni odnosi; and Ernest Petrič, “Ocena: Dragoceni podatki ob nezanesljivi presoji,” Vprašanja naših dni 4, no. 16 (1963): 389.

62. Statement of Ernest Petrič to the author, Ljubljana, March 27, 2017.

63. Jončić, Ustav SFRJ i medunacionalni odnosi., 123.

64. Ernest Petrič, “Ocena: Dragoceni podatki ob nezanesljivi presoji,” Vprašanja naših dni 4, no. 16 (1963): 389.

65. Bulajić, “Sekcija za nacionalna pitanja Jugoslovenskog udruženja za međunarodno pravo.”

66. Bulajić, Šta je nacija?

67. Čulinović, Nacionalno pitanje u jugoslavenskim zemljama; Čulinović, Tri etape nacionalnog pitanja u jugoslovenskim zemljama.

68. Bulajić, Šta je nacija?, 47–73.

69. Kardelj, Razvoj slovenskega narodnega vprašanja, 34.

70. Bulajić, Šta je nacija?, 75–80.

71. Bulajić, Šta je nacija?, 88.

72. Bulajić, Šta je nacija?, 89.

73. ARS, SI AS 1589 III, CK ZKS, box 229-III, Iz polemik o jugoslovanstvu v zadnjih letih, 121.

74. ARS, SI AS 1164, INV, Tajniški arhiv (1945–1990), box 25, folder 25-295/1964, Zapisnik sestanka kolegija inštituta, December 14, 1964.

75. Sedmi kongres Saveza omladine Jugoslavije, 10–11.

76. Regarding the confusion see the reports in: Arhiv Jugoslavije (AJ), fond 507 CK SKJ, ideološka komisija A-CK SKJ; VIII, II/2-b-(2015-218), box K-17, folder 212, Sten. bele. KMMO CK SKJ, 5. 6. 1965, pp. 5–18.

77. ARS, SI AS 1164, INV, Tajniški arhiv (1945–1990), box 16, Folder 17/206-1965, Zapis o 2. sestanku in občnem zboru Sekcije za nacionalna vprašanja JUMP, January 7, 1965.

78. ARS, SI AS 1164, INV, Tajniški arhiv (1945–1990), box 16, folder 16/206-1965, Druškovičev dopis Vratuši, May 22, 1965.

79. Vučetić, “Tito’s Africa: Representation of Power during Tito’s African Journeys,” 14–15.

80. Sommer, “Towards the Expert Governance,” 143.

81. ARS, SI AS 1164, INV, Tajniški arhiv (1945–1990), box 1, Folder 1/4 – 1965, Pojasnilo v zvezi z raziskovalno nalogo o odnosih med narodi v SFRJ, November 9, 1965; Ibid., Folder 1/2 – 1965, Razvoj raziskovalnega dela na Slovenskem, November 3, 1965, 1–3.

82. Sommer, “Scientists of the Word, Unite!” 185.

83. Ivešić, “Exchanging the ‘Progressive Experiences’ in a Transnational Perspective.”

84. AJ, fond 507 CK SKJ, CK SKJ; XXIII A KMMO, box 1, folder 8, Sten, bele. KMMO CK SKJ, 10. 11. 1966, p. 21; Ibid., folder 10, Sten. Bele. KMMO CK SKJ, 16. 12. 1966, p. 91.

85. AJ, fond 507, A. CK SKJ, XXIIIA-K.2/1-4, CK SKJ KMMO, box 3, folder 2, Sten. Bele. KMMO, October 23, 1967, p. 24.

86. Petrović, “Etnička heterogamija i stabilnost braka”; and Petrović, “Promene u etničkoj strukturi Jugoslavije 1961–1971.”

87. Burić, “Becoming Mixed,” 167.

88. In 1966 such topics were: federal and republican congress, Socialist Alliance, economic reform, interethnic relations, cultural policies, Vietnam and others.

89. Pantić, Etnička distanca u SFRJ, 2.

90. Bogardus, Immigration and Race Attitudes.

91. Saenger, The Social Psychology of Prejudice.

92. Theoretical and methodological modification was used also in other cases, such as opinion polling. In the 1966 programme of the IDN Centre for Researching Public Opinion, one of the emphases was also on the ‘Critical review of theoretical-methodological orientation in the research of public opinion in the USA.’ See: Institut društvenih nauka, Godišnjak 1965, 198.

93. Pantić, Etnička distanca u SFRJ.

94. On the national key see: Pearson, “The ‘National Key’ in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

95. Matić et al., Republički i nacionalni sastav kadrova u organima federacije, 2–9, 13–211, 246–9.

96. Ćimić, “Nacija u svjetlu sociološke analize,” 392–3.

97. Informativni bilten IDN, year 1968, no. 1–4; and Informativni bilten IDN, year 1969, no. 1–4.

98. Woodward, “Yugoslavia,” 80.

99. As an example, see a survey conducted by an early sociologist, Oleg Mandić, among students from Zagreb regarding their nationalities. The results were published in the Vjesnik newspaper: ARS, SI AS 1164, INV, Podserija 0, box 18, Oleg Mandić, ‘Što ste po narodnosti?’, Vjesnik, May 4, 1967.

100. Wachtel, Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation, 189–92.

101. AJ, fond 507, SKJ, CK SKJ, XXIIIC-K.4, box 4, Sastanak radne grupe Komisije Predsjedništva SKJ za razvoj društveno-političkih zajednica i medjunacionalnih odnosa, September 17, 1969, pp. 56–65.

102. AJ, fond 507, SKJ, CK SKJ, XXIIIC-K.4, box 4, Sastanak radne grupe Komisije Predsjedništva SKJ za razvoj društveno polit. zajednica i medjunacionalnih odnosa, July 8, 1970.

103. AJ, fond 507, SKJ, CK SKJ, XXIIIC-K.2, box 2, Sjednica KMMO Predsjedništva SKJ, May 19–20, 1971, pp. 120–61.

104. Klasno i nacionalno u suvremenom socijalizmu.

105. Ibid., Stručne analize odabranih tekstova u medjunacionalnim odnosima, ed. Drago Druškovič, pp. 6–14.

106. As a professor at the Faculty of Arts in Belgrade, Rot created a separate chair for social psychology in the early 1960s. In 1961 he was one of the creators of the Institute of Psychology. Between 1969 and 1971 he worked as the dean of the Faculty of Arts in Belgrade.

107. Đurić, “Etnički stereotipi učenika u nacionalno-homogenim i mešovitim sredinama Bačke.”

108. Rot and Havelka, “Izrada skale za ispitivanje oblika nacionalne vezanosti.”

109. The scope and the results of this survey were already debated in: Wachtel, Making a Nation, Breaking a Nation, 192–7.

110. AJ, fond 507, SKJ, CK SKJ, XXIIIC-K.4, box 4, Magnetofonske beleške sa sednice KMMO Predsedništva SKJ, June 30, 1970 and November 24, 1971; AJ, fond 507, SKJ, CK SKJ, XXIIIC-K.2, box 2, Sjednica KMMO Predsedništva SKJ, January 12, 1972 and October 29, 1972.

Additional information

Funding

The author acknowledges financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency Research programme P6-0380 (research core funding No. P6-0380, ‘Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the Slovenian Territory in the 20th Century’).

Notes on contributors

Tomaž Ivešić

Tomaž Ivešić is a director at the Study Centre for National Reconciliation in Ljubljana. He was previously a Ph.D. History researcher at the EUI, where he researched the concept of socialist (national) Yugoslavism. After finishing his BA in Maribor, he obtained two MA degrees in History from the University of Ljubljana and Central European University in Budapest. He has published several scientific articles in Slovene historical journals and edited three scientific volumes concerning the Slovene and Yugoslav history of the twentieth century. In 2016 he published a book Jugoslovanska socialistična nacija: Ideja in realizacija (1952–58) (The Yugoslav Socialist Nation: The Idea and the Realization).