Report by Attila Pató

Report by Attila Pató

"We are now facing a grave multiculturalism crisis in the culturally ever-diversified Western societies. Faced by new waves of refugees and emigrants, close contacts with Islam and other cultures, rebirth of old national or religious based clashes, we are witnessing a rebirth of attitudes of hostility to what is different, hostile to sharing common values and living together in a culturally diversified society."

All the participants were to read the worried ideas in the invitation letter of the New Agora Symposium to be held in Sarajevo. The challenging idea to organize the Symposium just at the capital of the war-stricken Bosnia and Hercegovina was the fact that in 2005 we celebrated the 10 years anniversary of the massacre in Sebrenica. This tragic event could well remind Europe of the fact, that the three-year long siege of Sarajevo, and the killing of the Old Bridge - Stara Chuprija, regarded as a living creature by the inhabitants for centuries – in Mostar was not only happening somewhere at the outskirts of our civilized world. Instead, all these had their far reaching cultural dimension, if we regard the events as symbols of decline of certain values that we witness in our European culture. We should not forget that the object of the hateful attacks of ideologists of “blood purity” and their executors both in Sarajevo, Mostar, and in other places were the bridges, marketplaces. Such places as charshija, or according to the language of Greek polis, agora, are the spaces of assemblies and exchange, as if a cultural palimpsest, immediate vicinity of Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, mosque and synagogue. This is the realm of Sarajlja, that is, the citizen of a multi-cultural city set up of separate traditions in surrounding mahalas, Latin, Muslim, Orthodox, Jewish, Gipsy neighborhoods. All that coexisted well with the charshija, which in turn created a culture of dialogue with influence on the everyday life. 

The intention of New Agora Symposium was to initiate a place for dialogue, which would not simply re-call the tradition of dialogue on agora. It was dedicated to re-create such a space, where precisely such questions are at stake as that of the meaning, and or the role of agora in today’s endangered multi-cultural societies - with an assembly of distinguished representatives of humanistic reflection of our time.

New Agora Symposium, together with "Café Europa - Bosnian Generation writers’meeting" was embedded in a program entitled "Bosnian Triptych". On the 9th June, the participants joined a sightseeing trip to Sarajevo and the neighboring hills, where Mr. Jovan Djivlak was invited to show all around some of the most significant places and memories of the siege between 1992-1995. 

The Opening Session was to be held at the so-called Vijećnica, former Old Town Hall that served as library before the siege – whereby it was set on fire with then thousands of volumes. Now, the building has witnessed some reconstruction, still far from being fully recovered. Three speakers at the opening session with introducing thoughts for the forthcoming days, were Prof. Leonard Swidler, Dr. Mustafa Cerić, and Krzysztof Czyżewski. 

The first welcoming address by Dr. Mustafa Čerić, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia and Hercegovina reminded the audience to the fact that the Sarajevo Library was set on fire just 500 years after the Cordoba Library was burnt in 1492. Following this Mr. Cerić had a noteworthy idea, as it was put forward, first, politics are too important to leave on politicians alone, second, that theology is too precious to leave on theologians alone, and third, war is far too dangerous to leave on generals alone. The speaker also proposed to recall the tradition in Islam culture of lighting four candles, that of life, peace, love and hope. According to his suggestion, we should add one more candle to that, the candle of trust, as if a memory and lesson of the siege of Sarajevo. 

Krzysztof Czyżewski served with an overview of the previous activities in the frame of "Bosnian Triptych". In 2005 Mostar was selected as a place for a cross-cultural action, entitled "Bridge of Words" with the participation of young people belonging to different and often hostile cultural segments of the city and also animators from Mostar, Birmingham and Sejny. Remembering the builders /e.g. Neimar/ of the symbolic Bridge, the guiding question of the activities was put as Why the word is the fundamental tool of Neimar? Such questions have inspired the work on the Lexikon of the Bridge Builder, the Letter to Neimar, and also Litany to the Good Bridge. Out of these texts excerpts were read in addition, together with one of the animators at Mosar workshop, Tanja Miletić-Oručević. 

The keynote speech, delivered by Prof. Leonard Swidler was focusing on the essential role of dialogue. In his lecture, Prof. Swidler emphasized the essence of the age of global dialogue as universal imperative: dialogue or death. However this dialogue is not an imperative of universe, a condition for existence, but also a result of a major historical paradigm-shift at the turn of Third Millenium. Based on the theoretical approach of Thomas Kuhn, Hans Küng ("Theologie im Aufbruch") and Ewert-Cousins ("Judaism-Christianity-Islam: Facing Modernity Together"), and first of all taking into consideration Karls Jaspers ("The Origin and Goal of History"), we may conceptualise the new era of globalisation not only as the clash of civilizations (S. Huntington) but as the Age of Global Dialogue. 

Following a process of de-absolutisation, characterized in different ways, also visible in fields of knowledge: Historicism, Sociology of knoledge, Hermeneutics, Language sciences. This turn is seen as a de-absolutistization of a Truth, that was prevailing as monolytic and monologous in Western tradition all over. Thus a substantial meaning of dialogue is described as the following: The knower engages reality in a dialogue in a language the knower provides, thereby absolutizing all statements about reality. This involves a completely new way of thinking – a revolution comparable to the Copernican turn – which serves also with the imperative for the responsability of cosmic harmony. 

Sessions of New Agora Symposium lasted for two days: 10 June (Saturday) and 11 June (Sunday) and Mediacenter in Sarajevo served as the Venue of the event. 

First session was moderated by Chris Keulemans, the speakers were: Ashok Balotra and Ugo Vlaisavljević. 

Chris Keulemans opened the discussions of New Agora. First speaker was Ashok Balotra, presenting his lecture with a vivid visual presentation, whereby pictures served as metaphors for brief, poetic stances. Ashok Balotra took two standpoints and in course of the speech swiftly combined them. One point was the reference to his personal identity issue. He was born in Pakistan but moved to India where still as a child, he was eye-witnessing the brutality of nationalist hatred. Now living in Rotterdam he regards his profession, that is, architecture as a specific medium to express ideas and experience. How to take multicultural ideas into designing forms? Ashok’s basic insight is - using again metaphors’ power to make ideas visible - that man is not a tree, that is, has no origins as tree has roots. Instead, man has memories that he lives with and may use in his doings. An architect is working with forms, walls, roofs, and existents like privacy or protection. On the other hand as an artist, the architect is similar to a cultural refugee or, using a different and more radical mask, that of smuggler, who would think in elements such as time, water, mask, energy. Ashok was also displaying images and commenting on some of his works in the Netherlands, China, etc. 

The moderator asked about the possibility of life on the barriers, and also about his opinion with regards to the present day of Sarajevo. Ashok disclosed his deep worries about social and cultural peace in the Netherlands, following 11 September, and as for the Netherlands, after the assassination of Pim Fortuyn and other atrocities. As for Sarajevo he commented in his own poetic style: I was listening to the city yesterday from the hills. The city is confused I could hear. As if whispering that the city is not theirs. There was indifference, there was silence. 

Second speaker in Session 1, Ugo Vlaisavljević analysed the paradox of creating national states in the Balkan. European criterion of being a member state is the existence of a homogenous political nation. States are essentially political nations – based on the homogenous general will of the people and also based on trust in political institutions. In Bosnia and Hercegovina such politically homogenous will is under heavy challenged – as sign of such situation he mentioned President Dodik’s suggestion to organise referendum in the Serb Republic for sovereignty. However, we may have a deeper understanding of the present situation if we take into consideration another issue at stake, namely trust. Taken as methodological approach the concept of psychoanalytical transfer Prof. Vlaisavljević was speaking of politics of transfer. the theory is about that trust cannot be taken for granted, neither can be produced or created as an object. We may understand in a 4-side diagram the different lines of trust between masses and elits. In fact, using as a critical means, we can understand the co-relation of politics of mistrust with strong ethno-nationalism. As such ethnic identity is viewed as a politically motivated construction for specific use. Due to failures, or even lack of politics there is no success in meeting the others, a lack of public trust (for example: the criminal is on the other side), deprivation of possibilities lead to certain ethno-politics, which means: voting in state of emergency to win over the other elit. Thus priorities of mistrust are the basic categories in politics – obstructing any serious hope for the society to meet the European criteria. 

Chris Keulemans: Is there any way out of such situation? Does the presence of foreigners help or not in BiH? 

Ugo Vlaisavljević: The problem lies also within the European politics with the paradoxical attitude toward ambitions to create or legitimise homogeneous states. At local level, we may observe, that post-communist nationalism is regarded as a way to preserve communist practices. A sign of such ethno-politics is just that to regard foreigners as enemies, the policy of they are the criminals. To repeat: to count on the lack of trust and to avoid any responsibility. 

Following the participant’s comment on tolerance, that is whether we should tolerate such phenomena as a young student’s home lesson with the statement that Jesus was a bastard, a discussion was dedicated to the issue of youth and institutional tolerance. 

In Session 2 the moderator Uri Avnery took a longer introduction in the frame of which he explained how Europe looks like from a country in Asia with European roots, that is Izrael. Thus, Europe is characterised by a paradoxical process of integration and dezintegration. Recalling the birth of nation state in modern Europe that was rooted in the territorial-economical necessity we must admit that it was a progressive idea and practice in its own right. However, further integration that was gradually leading to the European Union challenges the original nation-state by imposing the question: Why to stay in a state that is going to lose its basic functions?Such feelings and practices would result in the antithetic tendencies of dezintegration. 

First speaker in Session 2 was Bo Stråth, who emphasised the power of solidarity in the present crisis of multicultural states. In his presentation he referred to the end of modern social/nation states that is characterised by globalisation, a historical period often denominated as post-histoire or post-national. The collapse of media of dialogue in Europe may well be paralleled with the collapse of Sarajevo-modell. But in describing a situation we should be aware of the risk of ideologically loaded concepts, not to take over some of the normative standpoints in use. In which sense we may develop the paralleling models? Modern nation-state was based on social solidarity, whereas a restored concept of nation could be based on ethnic solidarity. Prof. Stråth served with a short survey on modern history of nation-state: originally nation was designed to transgress cleavages of class, ethnic, and religious differences. However, the end of 19th century witnessed a challenge to nation from two sides. Trans/national economic growth was leading to global capital on the one hand, and to mass revolts on the other. All that resulted in totalitarian solutions and the 2nd Thirty Years War. Now, in an age of mass-migration and social responsibility with global dimension, there is a growing temptation to solve social challenge on ethnic grounds. In this case, if we want to restore nation on the ground of multi-ethnic solidarity, the crucial questions will be justice (against social bias), legitimation and identity. However, if we fail about restoring solidarity, we may witness the end - or perhaps but a nostalgic beginning of politics based on agora / dialogue etc. Regarding the present day’s action paralysis we may observe a tension between democracy and multiculturalism. Democracy in Europe was based on a relative small social difference that was general in the European Union, and social solidarity was relatively strong until 2004. In present situation, competition of cheap labour is just in the proximity to populism. 

The second lecture in Session 2 was presented by Aleš Debeljak who referred to the Bosnian generation, where he counted himself as well, as compared to the Spanish generation, that was galvanised for actionfollowing the civil war in Spain. The target of present actionist attitude is first of all opening up spaces for dialogue. In dialogue situation there is always more sides involved. We can take side on either side without being able to see the other (Cf. the case of Peter Handke in the war period). However, dialogue – it would be more correct to focus on the term plurilogue – is about to facilitate discourse on the grounds that no meaningful life is conceivable out of community, nor meaningful life enclosed in a monad either. In modern politics nation has been regarded as such a community: a society based on a culture with a single language. In this respect internationalism and cosmopolitarism were conceptualised by politicians and intellectuals to overcome the limited consciousness of such community. Prof. Debeljak reminded us that the two terms are generally used as mistaken synonims. Internationalism is an ideology that is strongly opposed to nationalism, but also to any community. In contrast, cosmopolitarism supposes inter-cultural competence and the capacity to situate oneself into the shoes of the other. In one way it involves a deepening self-understanding, and in the other way absorbing other cultures. An archetype of the cosmopolitarian figure is James Joyce who left Ireland to be able to write about Ireland. Thus, as a second characteristic of such an attitude also contains the move to give up the primary attachments. In a moral view, cosmopolitarism is a result of an ethical choice: No spontaneous belonging as if to a natural community (Cf. no stereotype jokes on European identity). However this attitude may well fit together with another type of identity which takes one’s own community as a ground for patriotism. This includes an intensive local attachment, a commitment to civic attitudes, and also a strong affiliation for he mother tongue, the literature and arts formulated in that culture. There is a possibility of co-existence of cosmopolitarism and patriotism as imagined in a palimpsest-like identity that is shaped by concentrating circles of identity forms. To be sure, no equal emotional attachments are required at different levels. Such patriotism might be regarded as the building block of European integration with a stress on the ethical statement: multiple identity is our destiny. 

Uri Avnery opened the discussion that turned to concentrate primarily around the last lecture. Peter Jukes tried to imagine a specific concept of nation-city on the model of nation-state, for example the termLondoner would be conceived as a national identity. Krzysztof Czyżewski referred to two issues. 1. Introducing the difference between utopia as a horizon of understanding and also of situating the self and metopia on the other hand referring to the nowhere land. 2. When raising the social issue with identity crisis we may ask ourselves about the crisis of community. Bo Stråth criticised the strong identity discourse since it is leading astray: no social responsibility is implied there. On the other hand, cosmpopolitarism would count on the identity of a free traveller or a sinking refugee. According to this observation, neither of such forms would really fit well with the patriotic enthusiasm. To identify political responsibility always implies the issue of social redistribution. In his answer Aleš Debeljak argued that all the social issue fits justly to the multiple identity. As an example he mentioned the ex-communication of Spinoza. As for the distinction between nation and nationalism, Debeljak argued there has always been a instant negotiation between the French model (state creates nation) and the German model (nation creates state). Yet nationalism is always different: it relies on the metaphysical concept of an ethnic nation – hence it may easily lead to chauvinism. While Ashok Balotra warned of the essentialist use of attachment, Sreten Ugričić directly opposed the use of patriotism, because it cannot be separated from nationalism. This was the lesson of the Yugoslav wars, and it is dangerous to forget that - he insisted on this point repeatedly. A short intervention by Tanja Miletić-Oručević was considered later as interesting also by other participants in the discussion. She called the attention – as an argument in the debate – to the phenomena in her home-town, Mostar, that young people there show up intensive nationalist feelings, but without any sign of local attachment - we may call with Debeljak patriotism. Thus, she concluded, nationalism may exist without patriotism. 

In the afternoon Session 3, moderated by Prof. Leonard Swidler, discussion was to begin with a lecture by Ivan Lovrenović on multiculturality of Bosnia in historical perspective. Prof. Swidler introduced the lecturer as the author of several books, both essays and studies. Thus for example, Bosnia - A Cultural History was published in London (2001) and also translated to other languages. Prof. Lovrenović developed his lecture on two basic pillars. First, that identity forms in Bosnia and Hercegovina should be regarded as long duration forms all against changes of sovereignty over the territory. The other pillar was presented as the challenge of cultural multiplicity that has been regarded as a political imperative ever since the war has ended. As such, arguments concerning that imperative are formulated in two antithetic perspectives: in the idealistic view only the benefits were shown, whereas the sceptic view holds it as a misfortune, basically as an obstacle to stability and peace. However, all the controversies are open to a criticism: both the idealistic view and the sceptic view are based on a static model of history without taking into consideration the historic dynamics. In short, the lecturer argued for a theory that provides an explanation for the long duration identity forms. Historical traditions of autonomy have been possible on the grounds of a distinction between the private and public life – which made possible that the 4 disagreeing calendars with 3 different social circles are resistant to the modern or even post-modern attempts for change. Cultural diversity itself has deep roots in pre-Ottoman ages on the territory of Bosnia, the military occupation already met rich tradition of Illyric and Roman societal forms that served as a substrat for further society development. Ottoman rule reserved a specific sort of Milet-autonomy (Cf. Milet-pasha), where private or family life was based on religious life, under the control of a strong religious leader. There has always been in the history of Bosnia a dialectical tension between antagonism and coherence of religious groups and social circles. Yet traditional forms of identity could be sustained. On the other hand, the public life belonged to a common area which is best illustrated by a shared surface of overlapping 3 circles (Muslim, Orthodox-Christian and Catholic-Christian). Following all the political changes, this common area was subject to changes. This model is valid even in the case of modernisation. 

Prof. Swidler: Are there any explanation for the general convert to Islam in the Ottoman period? 

Ivan Lovrenović: This is still far from being answered question! There are two hypotheses: 1. Bosnia was not a very well organised territory therefore conversion was easy to carry out, 2. Bosnia was an important geopolitical territory for Mehmed II, and dervis-actions were oriented toward the bogumils. It is possible that both or even more factors were responsible for the really rapid, unparalleled process of conversion. 

Prof. Swilder: Is it possible to speak about ‘laid-back Islam’ in Bosnia after the war, if we consider also the secularisation process in the 20th century? 

Ivan Lovrenović: It is not really fortunate to attribute such coins as laid-back or casual Islam. There is a process that might be characterised as local interpretation in constant change perhaps. And there are also other tendencies as well. For example, during the 19th century rebels in Bosnia were fighting against reforms in Istambul… Or, following the independence referendum Alija Izetbegović was standing out for an ideology urging a return to pure Islam. 

Uri Avnery: Why Jewish element is omitted from the social circles? 

Ivan Lovrenović: There are more reasons, insulating factors: the Jewish community was presented relatively late in Bosnia and settled down in some urban areas (Sarajevo, Mostar, Banja Luka) only, they were speaking a different language (Latino), living a closed way of life had not much impact on popular culture. 

Antonije Žalica: How to evaluate the present day situation, for example, if we regard the mixed marriages, people living in emigration etc.? 

Ivan Lovrenović: In this regard we have to admit that Bosnia and Hercegovina exists on paper only. There are different political formations it belongs to. This may remind us of what Taylor said about Tito:The last Habsburg who tried to rule over what cannot be ruled… In general however we should not forget that while Bosnia never experienced a deep modernisation, yet in the 20th century it witnessed the eruption of mass culture. In this regard the situation is again complex, for example, there are huge differences between rural and urban areas. Or, for further illustration, we may recognise the re-invention of traditional cultural forms after the war. 

Ugo Vlaisavljević: How should we evaluate the role of the communist ideology in regard with identity forms? 

Ivan Lovrenović: Perhaps there is an explanation that ideological identity covered ethnic identity. This resulted in forms such as Atheist Muslim or Atheist Catholic etc. 

Krzysztof Czyżewski: If we regard some examples, such as we can read in a recent monographic study about Hitler’s frustration in Vienna, that may explain his hatred against such societal culture – we ought to say that it needs certain competence to live in a complex cultural context. 

Diana Ivanova: Shall one count on the energy of nostalgia? How to cope with that? 

Ivan Lovrenović: This may remind us to the short story written by Ivo Andrić where two friars are talking like this: What was past was much better, and the best never happened. Still it is plausible a sort ofnostalgia—complex – the loss of a better life as an informative layer of the society. 

Gregor Mirwa: The gender aspect is an interesting side of the identity issue as for example we read in the short story by Jasmina Huseinović about three women artists. 
Ugo Vlaisavljević: To be sure, the crisis of identity was not caused by ideological crises, the collapse of social identity of working class was also a major contributing factor. Social trust is always between people belonging to the same group or community. 

Krzysztof Czyżewski: This also can be related to the issue that there is a need of a common space, an agora to show memories of positive / humanistic actions. Such spaces are also available for rituals in joint practice. The public rituals are partly conditioned by competence in multicultural context, but on the other hand they also support or give strength to the cultural context itself. 

On the second day of New Agora Symposium participants joined 3 Sessions again, the third part was dedicated to discussion alone. Session 1 was moderated by Isabella Thomas. The speakers were focusing on issues of tolerance and peace in very different, still in many way similar societies: that of Bosnia and Izrael. Dr. Mustafa Čerić, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia was revealing some of his personal background, telling the audience that he learned Turkish language during his Ph.D. studies at Chicago University, from a Professor with Jewish identity. He addressed the topic, tolerance, quoting one of de Gaulle’s phrases: I respect those who resist me, but I cannot tolerate them. Thus, respect is not enough since it may fit well with intolerance, or even indulgence. On the other hand, how tolerance was appreciated during the siege in Sarajevo he recalled the preach of tolerance that was in daily use at that time. According to Dr. Čerić one of the fundamental lessons of the war is that tolerance is the sign of strength, showing a strong identity, while intolerance is a sign of weakness. Perhaps a sign of weak identity is visible in the fact, that the proposed pre-ambulum of the Constitution of European Union was to exclude the reference to the Christian heritage. Therefore, to be strong, we should learn the Art of Tolerance as against the Art of War, considered as something essential for the states. 

Isabella Thomas: Is it possible to evaluate the complex impact of modern secularisation process on Islam and similarly, on the various societies based on the Islam? 

Dr. Mustafa Čerić: Indeed, Islam / Muslim societies witnessed powerful attempts of modernisation in the forms of nationalisation, democratisation, liberalisation. A very characteristic example challenging for many political parties and societies was Turkey under Kemal Atatürk. However, in the last decades a re-Islamisation of the Muslim world has been going on following the revolutionary call proclaimed by Khomeini Ayatollah. Thus, today we observe a two-fold development in the Muslim world. As a matter of fact, there is a universal Muslim agreement and support for the return to the religious roots, but on the other side there is a nationalistic competition of Muslim states. In general, it is a strong ambition of Islam to get back to the mainstream of history. Uri Avnery agreed with Dr. Čerić in his vote for a passionate peace – which is a moral imperative despite any political ambitions and realities. Mr. Avnery served with a personal account about the efforts for reconciliation between Palestinian and Jewish nation. He identified himself as someone who was a terrorist and learnt to be humanist in the war. The account was recalling the shared beliefs, values, and actions by him and his fellows in the frame of the peace organisation Gush Shalom. In his view, there is no direct way to armistice and stability in the Middle East. What is and ought to be changed is the attitude toward the history. If we compare the two mainstream narratives of Palestinian and Izraeli people we shall realise that the two pictures would never fit together. It is even impossible to find any contact between them. Hence there should be serious attempts to build a realistic view based on the following principles: 1. each side would take one’s own responsibility for the past and present and 2. show respect for the others’ positive efforts. 

Session 2 was moderated by Edwin Bendyk, with 3 speakers. First Mr. Bendyk formulated a question, addressing the possible role of technology in creating communities. How for example such phenomena, he referred to topics of previous discussions, like trust or trespassing may be realised in virtual space? There are many forms of non-market virtual production but how they modify the ways of production in culture? 

In her presentation Elżbieta Matynia was focusing on the concept of the space of appearance, with theoretical origins in Hannah Arendt’s work, with reference to the relation of multiculturalism and the agora. In her view we may formulate the politics of multiculturalism as an institutionalised form, or a set of politics. In a rigid interpretation and practice institutionalised politics of multiculturalism may result in an archipelago of mono-culturalism. This would mean a passive policy, where dialogue and agora are questioned in their meaning. Then the quest is how to find an arrangement where policies may transcend institutions. Mrs. Matynia argued for a performative democracy, that would involve imagination and creativity. On the other hand democracy in a performative way would stress the importance of local policies. Such practice of politics would involve more artistic / aesthetic competence. In fact, she referred to relevant artistic achievement where the space of appearance, the agora and multicultural policies are at stake. In the famous volume by Ivo Andrić, entitled "Bridge on Drina", we find a very special place, the so-called kapia: an unusual physical form just on the middle of the bridge, a halt with key role in the narrative. This is the point where one can see more, or imagine more. As another example of performative / aesthetic / local democracy a performance group was shown in Lublin. The aim of their action is to preserve the gate that once was leading to the old Jewish town. 

Leonidas Donskis provided to the discussion a specific side of identity in regards with the topic of unfulfilled promise of modernity. In the perspective of identity discourse, modernity promised to let people choose and develop their identity according to their own free will. Following Zygmunt Bauman the presentation could show some specific cases where the clash of pre-modern and modern identity forms did result in cases that could not be described as fulfilment of such modern paradigm. It is likely that phenomena described among others by I. B. Singer of Jewish self-hatred can be interpreted in this way. Otto Weininger might be an interesting case of an identity caught in a no-man’s land between Ghetto-emancipation and the modern society. As a case study Prof. Donskis also mentioned the puzzling case of Vilnius and those personalities who had their origins in the city itself, however without any legacy to Lithuanian identity. And there are other specific cases as well. Czeszław Milosz admitted a strong commitment both to Polish and Lithuanian culture. However in Lithuania he is received as a Polish writer. And there have been Polish speaking Lithuanian writers as well. Generally, the present task in this regard is how to integrate, how to re-discover as part of Lithuanian heritage all those identities that in one or another way are connected to it, still not disconnecting them from their own identification. The speaker referred to the positive example of Sergej Paradjanov with Georgian origin being integrated in Ukrainian culture. 

The last presentation was performed by Sreten Ugričić who was speaking about the Post-Balkan Symbolic Infrastructure and about the possibility of Europe as a post-Balkan utopia. In his definition post-Balkan utopia would be grounded on the opposite values of the ethno-centric situation that ended up in complete failure. Balkans is described then with the prevailing presence of ethnos and chaos: with the attributes like intolerance, fear, arbitrariness, and servility. In order that the utopia be realised the transfiguration of former cognitive attitudes, culture and knowledge, is necessary. This would mean, for example, a change in the direction of control. While the failed policies targeted a control over the beliefs and motifs, the new attitude would focus on controlling the consequences of deeds. Such transfiguration is based on the freedom of imagination (Cf. Buñuel: Imagination is free alone, people are not). The constitutive power of images makes possible formulating symbols in the work of imagination. On this ground a new infrastructure would / should be available: the symbolic infrastructure of such areas as music, philosophy, colours, metaphors, gestures, and also that of the most fundamental human infrastructure, the language. Such a complete transfiguration would be a condition for a realisation of the post-Balkan utopia.