ABSTRACT
Scholars of the Balkans differ on the exact relation of Balkanism to Orientalism. According to Maria Todorova, while the discourse of Orientalism is about asserted oppositions, the discourse of Balkanism is about asserted indistinctness. The term Balkanism has predominantly been associated with violence and sociopolitical instability. The imaginary of Balkanism refers to a concrete place with clear geographical outlines and historical certainty, by contrast with the figurative projections about the Orient. The broad framing of the Balkans and Balkanism, including the use of the term balkanization globally and in diverse fields, was necessary in order to appreciate the significance of Yugoslavia’s implementation of balkanization and the region’s specificity within the Balkans. The path to the 1918 formation of a heterogeneous Yugoslavia through unification of the South Slav peoples into one nation state was paved with violent nationalist outbursts. The 1990s disintegration of Yugoslavia was at the same time the dissolution of the model and the reintroduction of the barbaric imaginary.
