A Sociological Study of the Political Subsystem in Yugoslavia

In this critical analysis of sociological studies of the political subsystem in Yugoslavia since the fall of communism Mr. Ilic examined the work of the majority of leading researchers of politics in the country between 1990 and 1996. Where the question of continuity was important, he also looked at previous research by the writers in question. His aim was to demonstrate the overall extent of existing research and at the same time to identify its limits and the social conditions which defined it. Particular areas examined included the problems of defining basic concepts and selecting the theoretically most relevant indicators; the sources of data including the types of authentic materials exploited; problems of research work (contacts, field control, etc.); problems of analysisl and finally the problems arising from different relations with the people who commission the research. In the first stage of the research, looking at methods of defining key terms, special attention was paid to the analysis of the most frequently used terms such as democracy, totalitarianism, the political left and right, and populism. Numerous weaknesses were noted in the analytic application of these terms. In studies of the possibilities of creating a democratic political system in Serbia and its possible forms (democracy of the majority or consensual democracy), the profound social division of Serbian society was neglected. The left-right distinction tends to be identified with the government-opposition relation, in the way of practical politics. The idea of populism was used to pass responsibility for the policy of war from the manipulator to the manipulated, while the concept of totalitarianism is used in a rather old-fashioned way, with echoes of the cold war. In general, the terminology used in the majority of recent research on the political subsystem in Yugoslavia is characterised by a special ideological style and by practical political material, rather than by developed theoretical effort. The second section of analysis considered the wider theoretical background of the research and focused on studies of the processes of transformation and transition in Yugoslav society, particularly the work of Mladen Lazic and Silvano Bolcic, who he sees as representing the most important and influential contemporary Yugoslav sociologists. Here Mr. Ilic showed that the meaning of empirical data is closely connected with the stratification schemes towards which they are oriented, so that the same data can have different meanings in shown through different schemes. He went on to show the observed theoretical frames in the context of wider ideological understanding of the authors' ideas and research. Here the emphasis was on the formalistic character of such notions as command economy and command work which were used in analysing the functioning and the collapse of communist society, although Mr. Ilic passed favourable judgement on the Lazic's critique of political over-determination in its various attempts to explain the disintegration of the communist political (sub)system. The next stage of the analysis was devoted to the problem of empirical identification of the observed phenomena. Here again the notions of the political left and right were of key importance. He sees two specific problems in using these notion in talking about Yugoslavia, the first being that the process of transition in the FR Yugoslavia has hardly begun. The communist government has in effect remained in power continuously since 1945, despite the introduction of a multi-party system in 1990. The process of privatisation of public property was interrupted at a very early stage and the results of this are evident on the structural level in the continuous weakening of the social status of the middle class and on the political level because the social structure and dominant form of property direct the majority of votes towards to communists in power. This has been combined with strong chauvinist confusion associated with the wars in Croatia and Bosnia, and these ideas were incorporated by all the relevant Yugoslav political parties, making it more difficult to differentiate between them empirically. In this context he quotes the situation of the stream of political scientists who emerged in the Faculty of Political Science in Belgrade. During the time of the one-party regime, this faculty functioned as ideological support for official communist policy and its teachers were unable to develop views which differed from the official line, but rather treated all contrasting ideas in the same way, neglecting their differences. Following the introduction of a multi-party system, these authors changed their idea of a public enemy, but still retained an undifferentiated and theoretically undeveloped approach to the issue of the identification of political ideas. The fourth section of the work looked at problems of explanation in studying the political subsystem and the attempts at an adequate causal explanation of the triumph of Slobodan Milosevic's communists at four subsequent elections was identified as the key methodological problem. The main problem Mr. Ilic isolated here was the neglect of structural factors in explaining the voters' choice. He then went on to look at the way empirical evidence is collected and studied, pointing out many mistakes in planning and determining the samples used in surveys as well as in the scientifically incorrect use of results. He found these weaknesses particularly noticeable in the works of representatives of the so-called nationalistic orientation in Yugoslav sociology of politics, and he pointed out the practical political abuses which these methodological weaknesses made possible. He also identified similar types of mistakes in research by Serbian political parties made on the basis of party documentation and using methods of content analysis. He found various none-sided applications of survey data and looked at attempts to apply other sources of data (statistics, official party documents, various research results). Mr. Ilic concluded that there are two main sets of characteristics in modern Yugoslav sociological studies of political subsystems. There are a considerable number of surveys with ambitious aspirations to explain political phenomena, but at the same time there is a clear lack of a developed sociological theory of political (sub)systems. He feels that, in the absence of such theory, most researcher are over-ready to accept the theoretical solutions found for interpretation of political phenomena in other countries. He sees a need for a stronger methodological bases for future research, either 1) in complementary usage of different sources and ways of collecting data, or 2) in including more of a historical dimension in different attempts to explain the political subsystem in Yugoslavia.

Nationalism and Literature

Zunic investigated the relationship between nationalism and Serbian literature. He first analysed and evaluated the justifications for a number of critical accusations against Serbian literature. These included mythological and epic foundations (traditionalism), an obsession with national history and with the motif of the Serbian people as an eternal victim, the domination of the collective over the individual (populism), an anachronistic romantic conception of the social function of literature. In order to gain an unbiased judgement of the nationalistic role of contemporary Serbian literature, Zunic prepared a list of those books with the greatest number of copies issued in the decade 1985-1995, and constructed an appropriate hermeneutic procedure of understanding the meaning of the content and form of these works. He concluded that contemporary Serbian literature is in fact occupied with national history, and also with the unmasking of communist totalitarianism. The most influential books express and document either nationally-oriented or civil-oriented world views. The former, although mostly not militant works (with their realistic "closed" form), might have had an ideological influence on the Serbian national consciousness, while the civil-oriented works (with their "open" modern or post-modern form) could not neutralise all these extra-literary effects of the nationally-oriented works, since the predominant way of reading is a communication with the literary content (realised as a testimony of historical facts), and not with the literary form (as a carrier of the artistic value and a "moderator" of any content).

The Influence of the Social and Cultural Environment on a Child's Playing in the First Three Years of Life

The research focused on children's behaviour in playing with objects both independently and in interaction with adults. It was based on studies of 40 Slovene children in 4 age groups (6,12,18 and 24 months) and of 23 Croatian children in 2 age groups (18 and 24 months). All the children were sampled proportionally by their gender and the educational level of their parents (middle and higher). Several coding check lists with satisfactory internal consistency were constructed during the study and used to analyse the video-recorded playing sessions with each child. The basic conclusion reached was that even in early childhood playing behaviour differs significantly between the infants from the two Central European countries. The difference lies not so much in the structure or the content of the playing actions, but in the way in which the infants deal playfully with the objects. This difference appears regardless of the type of object the infants are playing with and even regardless of the playing condition. It can best be described as the difference between the first significant discriminant function activity versus passivity. The Slovene infants were found to be on the active pole and the Croatians on the passive one. Social and gender differences were much less significant than cultural ones in determining the structure, the content and the way of playing. Significant age differences appeared in all three aspects, which was consistent with general trends in infants' psychological development. The group define the Slovene interactive playing style as object oriented, while the Croatian one was largely communicated oriented. Within the experimenter-infant dyads, children of both cultures played at a developmentally more advanced level than they did with their mothers, showing that the mothers were not as successful at reaching the ZPD as were the trained experimenters. In addition, the children of mothers who attributed more cognitive benefit to play played on a more advanced level than those whose mothers attributed more emotional benefit to play. The quality of the object the children were playing with was also significantly related to the structure, content and partly the way of dealing with the objects. Highly-structured objects stimulated complex play and low-structured ones stimulated simple play, regardless of playing conditions. The group concluded that both culture and the quality of the available object have an important impact on young children's play. Through the playing interaction, the infants internalise culturally specific patterns of behaviour and culturally specific meanings. These internalisations become apparent very early in their lives, even in non-social situations. On the other hand, the objects themselves have an impact on the level of infants' play. When they do not provide sufficient perceptive and functional support for a representational action, the infants' play will lag behind their actual developmental capacities.