The Ethnopsychological Framework of the Croatian and Serbian Nations

The author proceeds from the opinion of E. Gellner that nationalism creates nations, and not vice versa. In South-East Europe homogeneity has been brought about through a traditional model, wherein archetypes and psychological matrices, especially those based on hajduk (bandit) myths, proved to be persistent during the 20th century, even in its closing decades. As the historical framework in his analysis, the author uses the concept of Illyricum, and not of the Balkans. The later term was invented only at the beginning of the 20th century and it does not have any historical, cultural or geographic validity. In research on the problem of nationalism and nations in South-East Europe it is possible to apply an ethnopsychological approach, in which Freudian theories can be of great help. In order to understand archetypes that still survive in the area of ancient Illyricum, one must analyse three historical models that were formed during the long centuries in this region: 1) the Croatian-Pannonian feudal model as well as the Mediterranean one in the West, 2) the patriarchal model in the mid-areas, 3) the Serbian “despotic” model in the East. In regard to patriarchal society, the author recognises in its ideology (national songs, myths etc.) the Kraljević Marko syndrome (with projections, paranoia and narcism as its symptoms). The author emphasises that the parental super-ego is transferred to children, and so becomes the upholding factor of tradition and values. Mediaeval Serbia, in which Church and State were linked, had a different social development from European society. “Oriental despotism” as a dominant type can be seen in Serbian history from the Nemanjić period, through the Ottoman epoch to the modern Serbian state. During the Ottoman period, a homogeneous national culture prevailed, which was deeply marked by the Dinaric heritage. Stimulating paranoia and projects in the population, the modern state, assisted by the Church, threatened its neighbours by creating the idea of “Great Serbia”. For their part, Croats, who at an early date had become a part of European-Christian civilisation, while accepting outside influences, had maintained and developed their own autochthonous culture. Various types of society existed among Croats (the Dalmatian commune, the Croat nobility, feudalism and the kajkavian free cities in the North). Yet Croats also have their own “blood thread”, founded on the Kraljević Marko syndrome, even though their super-ego experiences transformations under the influence of the Church, culture and the legal system. The author rejects the ideological construct that equates the Mediaeval Serbian and Croatian states with their modern nations. Mixture, war, migration and religious conversion have all altered the ethnic picture that had existed in the first centuries following their arrival in the South. Furthermore, relying also on Freudian theories (e.g. in regard to the archetypal destructiveness of Serb and Croat Quislings), he explains the period after 1918 as a conflict between two cultural and social traditions. Likewise, he emphasises the existence of the “other”, democratic Serbia, even though it is at present powerless to oppose the forces deriving from archetypes. Finally, while taking into consideration all the criticism of the ethnopsychological approach (the danger of pseudo-science, racism, simplification, etc.), the author feels that it has to be improved, and not a priori rejected