months. Imagine! Fear and there was no food. All the time I had to think about how to get food. Alen [son] did not come out of the basement where we lived for half a year, he would not, he was scared. I had to go out to get food. But there was nothing to buy. There were no shops. Sometimes you could buy a little from those who had something, some of their homemade stuff, a little meat or some honey. But it was expensive. If not, I had to pick grass, we had nothing else. We cooked it and ate it. And we were scared all the time…And the things Nihad experienced in the prison camp, he has not told me. He can’t bring himself to tell me, and I can’t stand to hear it.
Nihad: It was terrible; you can’t understand how it was. One day or one week you could maybe endure, but when it continued week after week, month after month…I saw people dying in front of me, we were scared, it was…
He stops. Nihad is not a man who talks a lot, but at this moment I simply do not think he can manage to say more, and I do not ask. His face is ash-grey, and his whole body is somewhat fallen apart. When he stops talking he lowers his glance, and it stays there. His wife then said:
Anvere: And the fear we had hasn’t left us. When I gave birth to Amer in 1997, I think I passed on that fear to him; he was like…wild and restless [she cries].
TK: Yes, but he is a good boy now, he has a good life now.
Anvere: Yes, but I passed on that fear to him, and now what does he have to grow up for? There is no future, no work, nothing.
This last section has showed how – owing to the unhealed traumas of my informants and the present depressing situation – the unmaking of the world is still going on. I have termed it the existence of an omnipresent feeling of loss. Let me stress again that my depiction of Stolac and people’s mood is just one side of the coin. The other side is hope, successfully forgetting the past, optimism, laughter, humour, determination and energy. But when the coin is flipped, this side often lands face down.
The aim of this chapter has been to give an account of central themes in my informants’ experiences related to the unmaking of their world. The very foundations of existence (property, security, food and family relations) have been affected. The stories and values governing normal social life were also damaged, which led people to question not only ontology, but also moral principles and social relations, especially ethnic relations. Furthermore, the unmaking of the world means a loss of epistemological frameworks, making both the remembering and communication – as well as forgetting and repression – of traumatic events equally problematic. Lastly, I have tried to capture my informants’ general and all-pervasive feeling of loss.
The chapter is a necessary introduction to the rest of the book, in which I concentrate on my informants’ remaking of their world. I intend to analyse the contours of the mental landscape (what I see as their counterdiscourse) they have created in order to explain and give meaning to the devastating experiences of recent years. It has been necessary to show how profoundly people’s world has been unmade in order to make it possible to contextualise how fundamental the question of identity is in this process of remaking for the Muslims of present-day Stolac. It is my argument that the unmaking of people’s world forces them to first question and then recreate a number of the central categories of human experience: social relations, moral values, the everyday world, and group identity (especially ethnic). I will be treating many of my informants’ questions and uncertainties concerning these fundamental issues under two primary headings, touched upon in each part of the rest of the book. Firstly: Who are they, the ones who did this to us? And secondly: Who are we, since this was done to us? The question of the identity of the Other will be the theme of Part II, and the question of my informants’ own post-war identity will be the theme of Part III. However, before looking at some of the answers people have come up with in detail, I will outline the central aspects of the analytical framework for my discussion of the remaking of the world.
1 Whereas in Scarry’s theorising the experience of violence is a matter of the relationship between the individual and his/her body, in anthropological theorising the experience of violence is primarily a matter of the relationship between the individual and his/her society, for society constitutes the foundation of the life-worlds of individuals. Therefore, the unmaking of the world relates to more than the inability to express individual experiences. This term also encompasses the experience of what one might call ‘social pain’, the breakdown of social relations and categories (see for instance Ross 2001).
2 Factuality could be used as a way for the speaker to distance himself from the spoken. The only time I heard Emir’s father talk about his stay in the prison camp, he mentioned that the first 41 days were the worst, then came the Red Cross, that he was in the camp for 1 days, that he lost 35 kilos, that they had one loaf of bread for 15 men and so on.
Конец ознакомительного фрагмента.
Текст предоставлен ООО «ЛитРес».
Прочитайте эту книгу целиком, купив полную легальную версию на ЛитРес.
Безопасно оплатить книгу можно банковской картой Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, со счета мобильного телефона, с платежного терминала, в салоне МТС или Связной, через PayPal, WebMoney, Яндекс.Деньги, QIWI Кошелек, бонусными картами или другим удобным Вам способом.
