Ethnos in the Past and Present

Pozivajući se na grčku, židovsko-kršćansku i staroslavensku tradiciju, autor najprije zaključuje da je pojam "etnos" bio višeznačajan u predmodernom vremenu, te da se definira tek u suvremenoj znanosti. Ipak, slavenski prijevod etnosa, prema autoru, ukazuje na »jezik« kao korisnu analogiju za shvaćanje etnosa i etničnosti. U daljnjem tekstu raspravlja se o genezi i o relacijama etnosa. Među inim, tvrdi se da je etničnost opća antropološka kategorija koja nastaje usporedo s razvojem samoga čovjeka, a odnosi se na (»historijsku«) svijest o zajedništvu. Ta svijest određuje i vanjsku relaciju između pripadni¬ka zajednice (»nas«) i stranaca (»njih«). S vremenom, međutim, raste značaj i unutrašnje relacije između kolektiva u cjelini i pojedinaca u njemu. U zadnjem dijelu rada autor pokušava odrediti mjesto etnosa i etničnosti u suvremenom razvijenom društvu. Pri tome smatra da se problematika etnosa u suvremenom svijetu ne može svesti na pitanje razvoja nacija, te da bi trebalo istraživati mogućnosti etnosa / etničnosti mimo ili poslije nacije. S druge strane, dinamiku suvremenih etničkih identiteta autor vidi kao međuigru između slobodnog izbora, posredovane historijske svijesti i onoga što su pojedini članovi konkretnih zajednica naslijedili i/ili prisvojili u doba svoje socijalizacije i individualizacije.After an overview of the Greek, Judeo-Christian and Old Slavonic traditions, the author concludes that the concept of ethnos was polysemantic throughout the pre-modern era. However, its Slavic translation, according to the author, indicates “language” as a useful analogy for understanding ethnos and ethnicity. Further on in the text, the author examines the genesis of ethnos, as well as the relationships that it entails. He claims that ethnicity is a general anthropological category that has developed parallel with the development of Man himself, and that it pertains to (“historical”) consciousness of the community. This consciousness also determines the external relationship between community members (i.e. “us”) and outsiders (“them”). With time, however, the internal relationship between the community as a whole and its individual members becomes more important. In the final part of his paper, the author attempts to determine the place of ethnos and ethnicity in contemporary, developed society. In this regard, he considers that the question of ethnos cannot be reduced to the question of national development, and that the possibilities of ethnos / ethnicity alongside or after the nation should be examined. On the other hand, the author sees the dynamics of modern ethnic identity in the interplay between free choice, intermediated historical consciousness and that which individual members of concrete communities have inherited and/or appropriated during their socialisation and individualisation