As shown above (§ 6.2.2), assuming the role of promoters/defenders of the nation’s values and distinctive character is one of the key modes of intellectual spokespersonship for the nation adopted by Croatian intellectuals. The obvious consequence of this tendency is that the distinctiveness of Croatian national identity is likely to be foregrounded across the sample texts (strategy of singularisation placing emphasis on national positive uniqueness, see § 3.5.3). Although focused on intellectuals and how they construct their standpoint, the previous analysis has already shed some light on aspects of Croatian national identity that are explicitly thematised. The most prominent one appears to be Croatia’s distinctively composite cultural makeup/heritage. Miljenko Jergović [C07] celebrates it as the outcome of cultural blending with other nations and as the source of Croatia’s beauty, whereas Pavičić [C05] sees it as stemming from two fundamental tensions underlying Croatian identity, condensed in the ‘paradoxical’ designation of the Croats as Balkan Catholics as well as Mediterranean Slavs. A similar emphasis on Croatia’s heterogeneous culture is also found in Katarina Luketić’s interview [C12], as shown in the analysis of her self-positioning as educator and emancipator of the nation (see above). A less prominent aspect relates to praising the virtues and skills of the Croatian people, which Milan Jajčinović highlights as Croatia’s most valuable contribution to Europe.
These two aspects, however, do not exhaust all the discursive manifestations of the main theme. An additional way in which the uniqueness and specificity of Croatian national identity are accentuated in the articles of the sample is by framing the European context as a platform for Croatia to exhibit and boost its national and cultural identity. Many authors among those considered seem to imply this, but it is in Josipović’s opinion piece [C03] that the argument is made most explicit:
(36) Now that we have become a full member, we have an additional opportunity to present ourselves to the other European peoples in the best light, to show them the strength and beauty of our culture and identity. (37) There is no ground to fear that our identity will be “lost” in the “sea” of the European Union. (38) Not a single people in the EU lost its identity, nor became unrecognisable, so it will not happen to us either. (39) Just the opposite – it is an opportunity to integrate our culture into European culture even more effectively, and thus become more visible and more attractive.
The passage is replete with lexical items from the semantic field of appearance and recognition (“present ourselves”, “in the best light”, “beauty”, “unrecognisable”, “visible”, “attractive”). They all refer, more or less explicitly, to Croatian nationhood, which conveys the idea that national identity requires being performed and acknowledged by others in order to endure and thrive. Indeed, this general principle serves as warrant for Josipović’s claim that joining the EU is an “opportunity” (the word occurs twice in the paragraph) for Croatia to preserve and sustain its national and cultural makeup. The aquatic metaphor in sentence 37 introduces the counter- argument that integration might in fact lead to assimilation and thus jeopardise Croatia’s specificities. The author dismisses this fear as unfounded, and further rebuts it by adducing the continuing distinctiveness of other European peoples as evidence through a topos of comparison (38), which has the following structure: if no other people has lost its identity upon integrating into Europe, then the Croatian people will not either). On the whole, this argumentative scheme suggests a conception of Europe as a stage on which different national identities strive to achieve visibility and recognition. In Josipović’s view, Croatia should engage in this endeavour in order to further promote the distinctive “strength” and “beauty” of its national identity.
As shown by the examples above, the unique character of Croatian national identity tends to be associated with positive attributes and qualities: its enriching cultural
heterogeneity, its vitality and attractiveness, the admirable skills of the Croatian people. There is, however, one dissonant view. In Between cathedrals and Balkan crevices [C05], Jurica Pavičić argues that what makes Croatian identity exceptional is its inability to accommodate so much cultural diversity into a coherent whole. In the following passage, he explains what this implies:
(34) It is because it is incapable of producing an organic identity – a tangible combination of sights, tastes and idioms that can be seen, heard and enjoyed with one’s palate – that Croatia is prone to construct abstract national narratives. (35) If you cannot “be a nation” on the basis of the Puszta, goulash soup, paprika and “Magyar nyelv” (the Hungarian language), Croatia “becomes a nation” through para- ideological stories, narratives about Zvonimir’s curses, the bulwark of Christianity, “we-have-always-been-in-the-West”, the millenary dream, geese in the fog, up to the myths about Genex’s foreign currency and Dinamo’s stolen titles.
The gist of the argument is that Croats are ready to embrace all sorts of national myths because they lack a consistent (“organic”) national identity. This is the only case in the sample where Croatian national identity is not assumed to exist as a coherent, positive whole. Instead, it is presented as an unfinished project, a failed attempt to create a synthesis of the country’s extraordinary geographic, gastronomic and linguistic diversity. As the author puts it, the impossibility of being a nation is what impels Croatia to become a nation by resorting to mythology, collective representations and common symbols, ranging from ancient history to relatively recent events such as corruption scandals. Incidentally, this argument partly reflects the well-established view of nations as imagined communities (Anderson, 1983), as well as the concept that national official history is largely fabricated (Hobsbawm & Ranger, 1983), both of which have been discussed in § 3.3.1. Yet, Pavičić does not frame the case of Croatia as a typical instance of how national identities are constructed, but rather as a singularity based on a very peculiar configuration of culture, identity and narratives. This suggests that what may initially appear as a criticism of the defective character of Croatian national identity might in fact be understood as an attempt, albeit convoluted, to glorify the country’s extraordinary cultural uniqueness.
6.3.2 European integration as a chance for Croatia to achieve social and political