Musical Faces of Croatian Multiculturality

2007 YEARBOOK FOR TRADITIONAL MUSIC Volume 39 DON NILES General Editor FREDERICK LAU Book Reviews MARGARET SARKISSIAN Audio Reviews LISA URKEvICh Film/video Reviews SUZEL ANA REILY Website Reviews Published by the INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TRADITIONAL MUSIC under the auspices of the UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION (UNESCO) Musical Faces oF croatian Multiculturality by Naila Ceribašić When I started the journey of writing this essay, I wondered at length what topic to propose and what tone it should take. Since the Yearbook for Traditional Music is a highly respected, international ethnomusicological journal, should I speak as an exponent of a small national ethnomusicology or am I allowed to take a more personal stance? Should I use this space for more canonized thoughts or could I allow myself to propose untested ones, to speak from this specific moment, inspired by recent musical events and readings? Although ethnomusicologists at home tend to be resentful when treated as only the providers of ethnographic material, should I present information in its historical, political, and social context or could I try to put forward some broader ethnomusicological thoughts? It is not by accident that such doubts coincide with my chosen subject, i.e., the landscape of the musics of ethnic minorities in Croatia. The peaks on this landscape are festivals, so we shall visit them first. This will be followed by three stopping points: the negotiation of ownership as regards minority and majority cultural expression; the heritage production, within a multi-ethnic music tradition, proposed for an international listing of intangible cultural heritage; and the vagueness of an ethnic minority music. All three of these points serve as fragmentary backstage rehearsals for performances of multiculturality. To conclude, I shall try to take stock of analytical impressions, arguing that Croatia’s journey is about parallel multicultural trajectories in a country on the road from its past towards new integrations. starting points The immediate scholarly contexts of this essay are studies on music and minorities, and more specifically, the “Music and Minorities” Study Group of the International Council for Traditional Music. The Study Group has so far held four meetings and published the proceedings from three of them (Pettan et al. 2001; Hemetek et al. 2004; Ceribašić and Haskell 2006). Ursula Hemetek, the chair of the Study Group, emphasizes the importance of four methodological aspects in its approaches: interor multidisciplinarity; the minority-majority relationship; the emic-etic relationship; and applied ethnomusicology (Hemetek 2004). Within the scope of this essay the issue of sharing will additionally appear as important, and this was also a common thread in the Study Group’s most recent proceedings: the sharing of identities inside or beyond a supposedly well defined ethnic group; the sharing of musics 1. While various events and readings will be visited during the course of this essay, the conversations with my colleague, Adriana Helbig, her suggestions, as well as her editing, are unreferenced. Therefore, I’d like to acknowledge here her contribution, and to thank her. I am also grateful to Don Niles for his dedicated and thorough editing of my English. Yearbook for Traditional Music 39 (2007)  2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music between different ethnic groups; and the sharing between researchers and their subjects. By frequently dealing with contentious political issues and marginalized communities, this last aspect is especially challenging because the Study Group brings to the fore some concerns of ethnomusicological work in general: for example, an interplay between stereotyping, de-stereotyping, and/or re-stereotyping the community under study. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the relationship between studying and acting in favour of minorities—similar to the situation in women’s studies (which deconstruct the concept of a universal woman) and the women’s movement (which, as with any political movement, aims to define the field)—confronts the Study Group with very salient issues, such as the relationship between analytical findings and activist conclusions (cf. Ceribašić 2006). Sharing between researchers and their subjects is especially sensitive within the political and social context of this essay and its strong link to the recent past, namely the break-up of Yugoslavia and the subsequent wars of Yugoslav succession. Socialist Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic country created in 1945 on the tenets of the communist and anti-fascist movements during the Second World War. It functioned as a federation of six republics, which were to be partially self-governing. The republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Macedonia were also designated as the homelands of their majority nations, while Bosnia and Herzegovina was the joint homeland of intermingled ethnic Muslims (today, Bosniaks), Serbs, and Croats. Two autonomous provinces were also set up within Serbia: Kosovo, which had an Albanian majority, and Vojvodina, which was multi-ethnic. In 1991 and 1992 Yugoslavia broke apart due to a number of reasons, perhaps the most important of which were the growth of federalism and democratization processes begun by Yugoslav president Josip Broz Tito, the lack of a uniting force, and the deepening economic crisis after Tito’s death in 980, accompanied in the late 1980s by the turn of the Serbian establishment towards unitarism, led by Slobodan Milošević. Following the collapse of Communist regimes throughout Eastern Europe and subsequent multiparty elections in 1990, the new, dominantly nationalist establishments in the Yugoslav republics moved their respective peoples away from the centralized federation promoted by Serbian authorities, towards independent national states. This led simultaneously to the wars of Yugoslav succession, briefly in Slovenia and then in Croatia from 1991, and in Bosnia and Herzegovina from 1992. Due to the multi-ethnic profile of Croatia, and especially of Bosnia and Herzegovina, these wars resulted in hundreds of thousands of mostly civilian casualties, more than 2.5 million refugees, primarily the victims of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and massive property damage. NATO’s air strikes on Serbia and Montenegro in 1999, with the aim of protecting the ethnic Albanian majority in the Serbian province of Kosovo, concluded the sequence of wars in the territory of former Yugoslavia (cf. Rusinow 2007). Thus, the ethnic landscape of today’s Croatia consists of three groups of minorities in reference to their status and level of organization in the period of former Yugoslavia: (1) those who had the status of constitutive nations—Bosniaks, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs, and Slovenes; (2) those who had the same minority status—Czechs and Slovaks (organized through the Association of Czechs ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality  and Slovaks, 1944), Italians (Italian Union for Istria and Rijeka, 1944), Hungarians (Association of Hungarians, 1949), Rusyns and Ukrainians (Association of Rusyns and Ukrainians, 1968), Roma (cultural, educational, and artistic societies “Rom,” 1980), and Jews (Jewish Cultural Society “Miroslav Shalom Freiberger,” 1989) (Domini 990:03–4); (3) those who organized themselves as minorities only after the break-up of Yugoslavia—Albanians, Austrians, and Germans in the early 1990s, and Bulgarians, Poles, and Russians during the first part of this decade. According to the 2001 census, the ethnic structure of Croatia is as follows (figure 1): Croats Serbs Bosniaks Italians Hungarians Albanians Slovenes Czechs Roma Montenegrins Slovaks Macedonians Germans Rusyns 3,977,7 201,631 20,755 19,636 16,595 15,082 3,73 10,510 9,463 4,926 4,72 4,270 2,902 2,337 Ukrainians Russians Jews Poles Romanians Bulgarians Turks Austrians Vlachs others did not declare ethnic affiliation unknown 1,977 906 576 567 475 331 300 247 12 2,80 89,130 17,975 Figure 1. Ethnic structure of Croatia, according to 2001 census (Čačić-Kumpes and Kumpes 2006:89) Comparing the situation today with that previously existing in Yugoslavia, the biggest change concerns the Serbs. Due to political conflicts and the war between Serbia and Croatia, their share of the population has decreased from 12.16% in 1991 to 4.54% in 2001. The return of Serbian refugees to Croatia is still in progress. Some minorities are primarily located in particular regions (e.g., Italians in the Istria region and in Rijeka; Czechs in and around Daruvar in central Croatia; Hungarians in the Baranja and Slavonija regions in eastern Croatia; Slovaks in Ilok and in the vicinity of Našice and Đakovo in eastern Croatia; Rusyns in Petrovci and Mikluševci near Vukovar in eastern Croatia), while others are spread throughout different regions (e.g., Serbs, Bosniaks, Roma), and/or live mostly in towns such as Zagreb, Rijeka, Pula, Osijek, and Split (e.g., Slovenes, Macedonians, Jews). However, because of historical or other reasons, a particular settlement or area can function as a centre for a minority, no matter what its share of the population. For example, Peroj in Istria is a centre for Montenegrins, although most Croatian Montenegrins live in Zagreb. Almost all organized minorities have cultural chapters in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia. With such a scholarly, social and political scene as background, it is fair to make a few comments on the agency of post-socialist, post-Yugoslav, and post-war ethnomusicologists at home. I can guess that there might be suspicions raised about such individuals: towards what is perceived to be our lack of objectivity and/or a conflict of interest because of our position at home, towards the inherited uses of music and music scholarship as tools of socialist propaganda, towards the pitfalls  2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music of war-time music ethnography, and/or towards our binding together of scholarly and applied work, i.e., simultaneously analyzing and producing our research subjects. In the context of this essay, it might make sense to try to provide rationales for this last issue, but serious discussion concerning the others reaches far beyond its scope. Thus, speaking about myself and the particular cases that will be described below, I have indeed been involved in the production of two festivals for minorities and a revival project. If ideology can be defined as “underpin[ning] our sense of identity on both emotional and rational levels of thought, informing our conceptual boundaries of Self and Other” (Buchanan 1991:23), the main rationale is an ideological one. In other words, although unavoidably pathetic and pragmatic at the same time, my main rationale for involvement is due the fact that I live here, in Croatia: my sense of home and belonging is overwhelmingly connected with people and places in this country; the social and political turns of this society directly influence my everyday life; I pay taxes here, etc. Therefore, I have a keen interest in the present and future of this country and act as an applied ethnomusicologist in concordance with my notions of what is good and right, as well as of what is possible and feasible in a certain socio-political context. Neglecting the fact that one can never predict for sure the results of even indisputably good intentions, there is generally no doubt about the importance and desirability of the first aspect of this work: welfare. Thus, to use examples from American ethnomusicology, Anthony Seeger “took knowledge originally obtained for a scholarly purpose and helped Suyá use it to benefit themselves in their battles for land, resources, and cultural integrity” (Seeger 2005:14), while the website of the Applied Ethnomusicology Section of the Society for Ethnomusicology (SEM) presents a proliferation of ideas such as “applying … knowledge in a constructive manner” to “benefit the world,” “empower individuals and communities,” etc. (Society for Ethnomusicology 2006). As for the second, more contestable aspect of working in accordance with what is possible and feasible, I can again turn to the SEM. Judging from the text by Timothy Rice, at that time the SEM president, political advocacy is not taken for granted, but is rather limited to topics in which members of the Society “have direct interest because they impact our [members’] ability to conduct research or because they affect the people with whom we study” (Rice 2004:4; emphasis added). Another rationale for involvement is informed by the notion that scholars are nonetheless involved in the reproduction of their research subjects. As stated by Timothy Cooley in his dissertation about Polish Górale: My own past, present and future work with Górale and their music-culture is and will be a part of the music-culture. This present study has shown me that the impact of my work will depend on how I did my fieldwork—how I was in the world with Górale—at least as much as what I write here and elsewhere. Through no particular fieldwork methodology on my part, the very act of my presence and expressed interest in Górale music was occasionally worked into performances. An example occurred on 24 January 1995, a snowy winter evening in the village of Maniowy where I joined Józef and Maria Staszel and their children’s troupe for a performance. Józef began the performance with an oration in Górale dialect extolling the ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality  virtues of maintaining Górale culture. At one point he introduced me as his friend and a doctoral student from America writing about Górale music: “For what would he come here if not for this music?” (Cooley 1999:367) Scholars are unavoidably implicated in their research subjects, understanding and respect are inscribed in the foundations of ethnomusicology, interest is inevitably translated into valuation, and consequently scholarly work is, willy-nilly, a kind of applied work as well. These are far from being polar opposites, especially if fieldwork and its ethnographic outcome are conceptualized as reflexive, dialogical, humanistic, and experiential (cf. Barz and Cooley 1997). Furthermore, the quotation above comes from the conclusion of Cooley’s dissertation, meaning that this is a substantial part of what he learned during all the years of being “in the world with Górale.” Likewise, my scholarly conclusions are largely built through firsthand experiences of front- and backstage happenings and narratives at festivals and similar events. If festivalization and mediaization are among the main features of today’s musicscapes (cf. Lundberg et al. 2003:333ff.), then experiencing them first-hand can greatly benefit scholarship. Thus, this is my third rationale for being involved in applied work—it is fieldwork that provides me with better insight into the musical faces of Croatian multiculturality. The key term of this essay is “multiculturality,” instead of the much more common “multiculturalism.” Although the difference is rather subtle, I nevertheless find “multiculturality” terminologically more appropriate as it accommodates a wider spectrum of aspects, from normative to descriptive meanings, from spoken to lived realities, from political concept to cultural experience. Except in quotations, the term “multiculturalism” is used here more in reference to a former pole, namely the mechanisms created to shape multiculturality. This conceptualization follows the study by Lundberg et al. (2003:91, 341) on Swedish “multiculture,” which includes “multiculturalization”; however, I have found “multiculturality” inclusive of “multiculturalism” to be better terms for describing the Croatian context. Multiculturality (multikulturalnost) as well as multiculturalism (multikulturalizam) were first introduced to Croatian vocabulary in the early 1990s and were applied to the domestic context in the mid 990s, usually in close correlation with ethnic minorities (i.e., nacionalne manjine ‘national minorities’, in accordance with Croatian terminology). A considerable overlap between notions of multiculturality and multi-ethnicity has continued until today, as will be evident throughout this essay. There are two main emphases in the usage of multiculturality: it is understood as a wealth of diversity and/or as inter-ethnic and intercultural dialogue, where diversity implies difference, while dialogue implies affinity and, sometimes, the possibility of exchange or even similarity. So, for example, the aim of the Zagreb-based NGO Multikultura is to promote cultural diversity, which is understood primarily as the “dissimilarity” of one culture in relation to others, although one should not ignore “the fact of universality in cultural diversity” either (Multikultura 2006). In the series of world music concerts that Multikultura organized in 2005, the idea was to present “the immeasurable wealth of great cultural  2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music traditions in one cycle, in which the quality of each concert would point to their common origin” (as quoted in Piškor 2006:179). However, in domestic parlance a dialogue usually does not include exchanges (as connoted by “universality” or “common origin”), but rather only understanding and a respect for diversity. Thus, according to the Constitutional Law on the Rights of National Minorities, “ethnic and multicultural diversity, and the spirit of understanding, esteem, and tolerance contribute to the promotion of the development of the Republic of Croatia” (Hrvatski sabor 2002:art. 3, para. 2). In contrast to such a predominance of diversity over dialogue (or, more precisely, over more profound dialogue in the form of exchanges), which is customary in the Croatian context, the music of Burgenland (Austria), for instance, could not be a better reflection of the multiculturalism of a border culture. It includes many repertories of folk music, defined by ethnic and religious differences but mixed and remixed because of the extensive musical exchange between cultural groups. Although Burgenland is remote and rural, the contact between ethnic and religious groups is extensive, and the diverse repertories of the region are distinctive because of their cosmopolitan character. (Bohlman 2004:211) Moving from these examples from Croatia and Burgenland to a more general level, it is obvious that the usage of the term and the practice of multiculturality include a tension between broader notions of cultural relativism and universalism (Baumann 2001), and/or cultural rights and human rights (Malm 2001). The idea of this essay is to consider the nature of diversity in the Croatian context and to analyze how dialogical practices gain qualities of multiculturality in particular music scenes. Within that idea, at the root of my analysis are the musics of ethnic minorities, especially as performed at festivals, since festivals are powerful sites for the production of meanings. The final point for my journey refers to the dynamics between the reality of discourse and the reality of practice, i.e., as formulated by Lundberg, Malm, and Ronstöm (2003), between “reality as spoken of, a discursive level which describes the world both as we understand it and as we wish it was” and “reality as lived, a concrete level of practice, i.e., those forms that social interaction takes in actual situations” (ibid.:20; emphases in original). For example, there is quite a distinction between the “reality as spoken of” in the case of Croatia, and the “reality as lived” in that of Burgenland. The larger issue is how to deal with these often different and sometimes even rival, yet equally worthy, realities. My consideration of them here is also informed by Bourdieu’s concepts of practice, field, and habitus (Bourdieu 1977), mostly in terms of analyzing research subjects, but also partly in terms of my own agency. As for the latter, in relation to what I used to think, my analysis of and involvement with what is said to be and what is done has proven to be less universally reasonable, and more habitual and culture-specific. Thanks to Mattijs van de Port’s study situated in wartime Novi Sad, Serbia (1998), it turns out that a suspicion towards any story combined, if paradoxically, with a kind of incessant quest for a truthful story, appears to be largely a part of my cultural background. Whether this ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality  comes from political and social burdens of the socialist era, the legacy of recent war, discrepancies of post-socialism, or some more personal reason, is rather unimportant. More significant is where it leads, i.e., whether or to what degree different realities are a product of the frailties of an ethnomusicologist at home. In any event, my plan is to share a few stories, as truthfully as possible, with traces of suspicion towards any story packed with irony, associations, and metaphors that are probably both a kind of feeble escape from hot potatoes and a kind of homage to my compatriots who “survived communism and even laughed” (Drakulić 1992). Featuring minorities Minorities in this country are not only ensembles in costumes, twirling handkerchiefs, but something much more serious As noted above, I will explore here various aspects of diversity and dialogue by considering Croatian minority festivals. The material for comparison consists of three multi-minority festival events: the annual Manifestacija (Manifestacija “Kulturno stvaralaštvo nacionalnih manjina u Republici Hrvatskoj,” i.e., Manifestation “Cultural Activities of Ethnic Minorities in the Republic of Croatia”), the central programme of MSF 2003 (Međunarodna smotra folklore, i.e., International Folklore Festival), and one programme of Nebo 2004 (Zagreb World Music Festival “Nebo”). All of these festival events represent rare exceptions to the standard mono-minority festivals. The term “mono-minority” festivals describes their basic structure (performances of ensembles linked to one ethnic minority), the venues where they are held (usually settlements with a significant population of that minority), and the audiences they address. The term “multi-minority” festivals (rather than “multicultural”) underlines the absence or near absence of the majority group, both on stage and in the audience, and the importance of ethnicity in relation to cultural determination.2 Organized by the Council for National Minorities, the most important multiminority festival is Manifestacija, which has taken place in Zagreb since 1998. The Council is the central political body dedicated to the protection of the rights and freedoms of ethnic (national) minorities. It was established in conformance with the Constitutional Law on the Rights of National Minorities, enacted in 2002. The twelve members of the Council are also members of the Croatian parliament. Under their direction, Manifestacija is designed as a one evening event, held in the largest and most respected concert hall. At Manifestacija each minority community is given an equal time slot and is represented by one ensemble, rarely by two. The event usually lasts about two and a half hours. Minority organizations choose their representatives in agreement with the team that prepares the programme. This team consists of a member of the programme committee, two expert collaborators (for the last six years I have been one of them), and the event’s director; it is headed by the president of the Council. The concert hall is always filled, yet tickets are not offered for sale. Rather, the organizer gives them to minority institutions and 2. For more information regarding the representation of ethnic minorities at festivals in Croatia, as well as the net of minority organizations and their history, see Ceribašić (2005).  2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music organizations for further distribution. Consequently the audience generally consists of members of ethnic minorities. Attendees also include high-ranking representatives from the Croatian government, parliamentarians, leaders of institutions and organizations for minorities, city representatives, and other political dignitaries. The event begins with the Croatian anthem, followed by speeches from the Council’s president and the Government’s deputy. The main part includes performances by representatives of the minorities, mostly dance folklore ensembles. The finale features all of the festival’s participants coming together on stage, accompanied by the European anthem. Judging from comments by performers and informed members of the audience, the key issue of Manifestacija is the equality of minorities. By default all organized minority communities in Croatia are represented, and performers and members of “their” audience are very sensitive to other groups exceeding their time slot boundaries. Such sensitivity is the result of inter-ethnic (or, to be more precise here, inter-minority) stereotypes and tensions, especially those built on painful wartime experiences and on the centrality of ethnicity in society at large during the 1990s. I shall not go into these stereotypes and tensions here, but rather just say that Manifestacija tries to work against them by implementing the principle of equality. Connected with this is the second important contestable question, that of representativity. Manifesting itself as a tension between concepts of folklore authenticity and stylization (izvornost and stilizacija, respectively; both considered below), it often results in a tendency towards large ensembles, thereby symbolizing the strength of a given community. According to comments, what is quite uncontestable, however, is that an individual performance stands for the culture of a particular community and, by extension, the community itself; furthermore, the community is always seen as predominantly, if not solely, ethnic. Considering all of these issues, the event appears much more like a continuation or a kind of summary of mono-minority events, than a contribution to inter-ethnic dialogue. Multiculturality—in the sense of a multicultural and multi-ethnic dialogue and/ or a wealth of diversity—is much more present in the performances of minority ensembles themselves than in the organizational framework of the event. Already a basic concept in the activities of most minority ensembles, folklore stylization comprises a kind of dialogue between traditional contents (i.e., old templates) and their stylized forms (i.e., contemporary, “elevated” styles of performance). Furthermore, folklore stylization is a concept widely present within the Croatian folklore scene, particularly in town folk ensembles, and within the folklore scenes of the countries from which some Croatian minorities originate. At the same time, it merges the different experiences of members of minority folklore ensembles, who often inherit different regional traditions from countries of their origin (as is often the case in town ensembles), and also allows members of other communities to join in—for example, the Macedonian cultural organization in Zagreb is especially open towards non-Macedonians, as will be considered later. Thus, in and of itself, the concept of stylization is in several ways dialogical.3 3. There is a huge literature on the concepts of authenticity and stylization, as well as on the ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality  Due to multiple allegations of influence over the decision-making process, the organizers of Manifestacija do not articulate a clear and firm concept of what constitutes a desirable performance. The team that prepares the programme has no common standpoint itself; beyond that, the opinions of leaders of minority institutions, organizations, and ensembles, politicians, journalists, and others, are influential to a certain degree. For some, the most important criterion is that performances must not be boring, but lively, interesting, striking, and/or short, while others feel it is essential that a performance be of high artistic quality; some would like less folklore, while for others, notions of ethnic authenticity are crucial, etc. All the while it is not only a question of different priorities, but certainly of different understandings. However, to the extent that they can be summarized, the quality and dignity of the content presented stand out as the dominant ideas of Manifestacija. In the words of the president of the Council, “minorities in this country are not only ensembles in costumes, twirling handkerchiefs, but something much more serious” (Aleksandar Tolnauer in Obradović, 2005). This statement was not made in reference to festivals, but in the context of a discussion about the (in)visibility and (in)adequacy of the presentation of minorities in the media. “Seriousness,” therefore, here includes more than cultural content. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the comment delineates the aspirations of the Council as the organizer of Manifestacija as well. Certainly, there are always some performers who are not dressed in folk costumes, i.e., who depart from folklore material. But it is equally certain that a model of presenting folklore, specifically folklore stylization, is absolutely dominant. Thus, it seems that the organizer, through the reality of discourse (minorities are not only ensembles in costumes), tries to direct the reality of practice (participants at the Manifestacija actually mostly are ensembles in costumes) beyond just folklore, towards artistic quality, seriousness, and dignity. The basic impulse for this lies in a comprehension of folklore as being peasant, backward, and primitive, labels which extend to its bearers as well; consequently, folklore has to be abandoned or, rather, artistically transformed as much as possible. Although built on a raw stereotype, this aspiration is quite understandable. In the reality of practice, however, unifying performing styles towards an “elevated” standard contributes to multiculturality in the sense of inter-ethnic dialogue, but does not contribute to its wealth of diversity. In the reality of discourse, on the other hand, it is not at all a matter of intercultural or inter-ethnic dialogue in terms of exchanges. aestheticization, professionalization, institutionalization, commodification, or, simply, modernization of traditional music. For example, the volume Music in the dialogue of cultures: Traditional Music and cultural Policy (Baumann 1991) contains good insights into the situation in areas ranging from Portugal to the former Soviet Union, both in terms of subject matter and approaches up to that time. The journal The World of Music, under the editorial guidance of Max Peter Baumann, continues to deal with the topic through its thematic volumes: folk music revival in Europe (issue 38/3; 1996); traditional music in Bavaria (41/2; 1999); music, travel, and tourism (41/3; 1999); local musical traditions in the globalization process (42/3; 2000); and folk music in public performance (43/2–3; 2001). The writings of Buchanan (1991; 2006) are also important studies on the topic in the European context, while León Quirós (2003) is an example concerning Latin America. In folklore studies, a seminal work on authenticity is surely Bendix (1997). 10 2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music Rather, it is the wealth of diversity that implies difference, and the high quality of the presentations that enable adequate inter-ethnic dialogue, namely, the majority’s understanding that minorities are “something much more serious.” According to the organizer’s argument, it is precisely this high quality that will bring about such an understanding. Adding to Mojca Piškor’s thesis and the metaphor of Roma whom we like on stage but dislike in our neighbourhood (2005:82–84), it could be said that Manifestacija builds its strategy precisely upon such a possibility. Manifestacija is an event of a central political body, dedicated to the rights and protection of minorities, and held to foster a coexistence with minorities, such as the neighbouring Roma. The key aim of Manifestacija, if not its only aim, is to thoroughly integrate such minorities into Croatian society. It is therefore justified, or at least understandable, that culture is used for the purpose of general welfare, even if it means dancing in the same direction, towards the edge of cultural assimilation. To reach this goal, the more the “quality” of the culture is packaged, the better. In other words, according to the logic of equating elevated with valuable, and performance with community, the higher the quality of a particular Roma performance on stage, the easier their economic and social integration will be, and the better the life of the Roma population overall. In 2003, the main programme of MSF, the leading Croatian folklore festival, was also dedicated to the heritage of ethnic minorities. Its conception was rather different from that of Manifestacija because as a cultural event, its main goal was to feature cultural diversity and only indirectly promote coexistence. Political questions of economic and social integration are outside its aspirations and power. MSF 2003 proposed different frameworks for understanding minorities, approaching the represented groups in the following ways: (a) as both ethnic and cultural minorities, through the central event, where the necessity of cultural designation is a consequence of regional differences within an ethnic community and of exchanges between different communities; (b) as religious and ethnic minorities, through a concert of Greek-Catholic traditional singing; (c) as minorities determined by cultural, ethnic, social, and gender components, through two world music concerts and dance workshops. I shall focus here on just the central event since it is the only one comparable to Manifestacija and, at the same time, represents the general principles of MSF. Again, I myself have participated in preparations for the programme. With it, we tried to show “a truly abundant wealth of existing, living folklore traditions [of ethnic minorities] connected to different, less representative and less public occasions in their own midst,” to enable “the dominant community to gain at least a partial insight into some of those traditions” (namely, the MSF aims its programming at general audiences and central events have live TV coverage), and to “strengthen the minority national communities in [the] confidence that the pluralism of their folklore [and] local expressions is one of the values of the world we live in” (Ceribašić 2003:7). Minority organizations are decisive for the selection of performers at Manifestacija. In contrast, for MSF 2003, we, as producers of the festival, chose ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality 11 ensembles and individuals to represent certain communities, guided by the criterion of their uniqueness. However, this criterion does not necessarily manifest itself through clear distinctions from other local communities in a region, but also as a uniqueness created in interaction with them. In some cases we simply chose a certain ensemble over others, without going into repertoire or styles and manners of performance. In other cases we made selections from the repertoire proposed, encouraged the use of marginalized instruments and performing styles, and/or tried to deconstruct their choreographies. In this way we attempted, at least in some measure, to leave behind stereotypical representations present in both majority and minority communities. For example, the Italian community was represented by singers from Rovinj who performed bitinadas and arias da nuoto. Since these are urban traditions, they had not found their way into major Croatian folklore festivals before this time. As could be expected, Bosniaks performed sevdalinka, a musical genre that stands as their transnational musical symbol, but also na debelu (lit., ‘on a thick [string]’), a genre quite unknown to audiences locally and more widely. Rusyns presented their local dances created in interaction with neighbouring communities, just as Slovak tambura players delineated exchanges with the Croatian majority, etc. At this festival, both the wealth of diversity and inter-ethnic and intercultural dialogue were not only the reality of discourse, but also the reality of practice. People danced in costumes towards different directions of cultural autonomy, but, as appropriate to the joyful occasion it was, nobody asked if the dancers faced any basic life problems or what such problems may be. Manifestacija and the central event of MSF 2003 serve nowadays as basic models for the conceptualization of multi-minority events and performances. It is therefore useful to introduce a third occasion, which stands as an important exception to both models. In 2004, the Nebo festival also dedicated a part of its programme to the traditions of ethnic minorities in Croatia. That part comprised a concert featuring vocal ensembles of ethnic minorities and a workshop. At the concert, some of the differences with Manifestacija and MSF 2003 were the following: (a) only four minority communities were represented, instead of all of them, i.e., around fifteen as in Manifestacija and MSF; (b) these four minority communities were represented by small performing groups of three to fifteen singers, in contrast to thirty or more members of the same ensembles at the other two occasions; (c) performing groups had time slots of different lengths, varying from six and a half to eighteen minutes; and (d) the groups structured their performances completely on their own.4 Thus, although it was a folklore event in content, organizers applied a framework more customary for world music concerts. According to the published programme, the workshop was dedicated to the vocal heritage of the Saami people. Due to the efforts of the organizers and additional encouragements, however, it actually turned into an exchange of experiences between the Saami musician Wimme Saari and Croatian minority musicians. 4. Organizers did not even attend the general rehearsal. In phone calls preceding the event, they offered only vague instructions to performers to present their specific repertoire. These instructions were understood by performers in accordance with the conception of the central event of MSF 2003, in which all of them had participated the previous year. 1 2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music It could be said that, in spite of its non-professional(ized) approach, the organizers’ lack of awareness and/or unwillingness to follow the rules of either minority or majority folklore events, and its low visibility,5 the festival programme offered a significant divergence from the established models of Manifestacija and MSF. The previously described principles of equality and representativity (of key importance for Manifestacija and also quite important for MSF) were completely unimportant for Nebo. Moreover, judging from the short printed booklet and announcements at the concert, it was not even clear which performing group represented which minority. Performances at Nebo cannot be translated as representations of communities, which are dignified at Manifestacija and traditional at the central event of MSF 2003. Instead Nebo performances remain the expressions of musicians, i.e., “excellent vocal ensembles,” as formulated in the Nebo booklet ([Nebo] 2004). Thus, what was important for Nebo was musical excellence. Of interest also is the attitude towards the wealth of diversity of minority cultures, which in Nebo discourse stands in relation to the “wider corpus of Croatian culture” (ibid.). This depiction is similar to that for Manifestacija, while in the discourse and practice of the MSF central event, it also includes diversities inside a community, particularly regional diversities. Inter-ethnic and intercultural dialogue is also differently configured in discourse and practice on these three occasions. Practice is established at Nebo primarily through conversations between musicians, at MSF by promoting exchanges of repertories and manners of performance, and at Manifestacija by supporting stylized expression. Correspondingly, in the reality of discourse there is inter-ethnic dialogue within Croatia at MSF and across Croatian borders at Nebo, but it is absent from the discourse at Manifestacija. Thus, on the whole, the minority folklore programme at Nebo at least lightly sketches a third possible road between assimilation and ghettoization, universalism and relativism, and the ethnic and other dimensions of identity, as connoted by the other two festival events. To use a metaphor from a newspaper article, participants there formed a circle to dance a “Finnish-Serbian round dance” (Štingl 2004). ownership oops, they’re performing croatian folklore Until the break-up of Yugoslavia some key factors of national culture were termed “Serbo-Croatian,” with language being the most important. Reaction to this term has covered the spectrum from “indeed one cultural entity” to a “completely false hegemonic label.” The loudness of the latter extreme was amplified at the expense 5. Approximately 70 people attended the concert of vocal groups, while 800 people came to the central event of MSF 2003. Manifestacija usually attracts around 1700 people. Both Manifestacija and the central event of MSF are televised, while Nebo is not. However, the programme of Nebo was announced in an article in one of the most highly circulated weekly newspapers (see Štingl 2004), a level of publicity that the two other events have never achieved. It is useful to add here that only Nebo charges for entrance tickets. Manifestacija distributes free passes and entrance to MSF events is free of charge, with the exception of the world-music concerts. ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality 1 of the former as Yugoslavia faded out of existence. As noted above, Slobodan Milošević led the Serbian establishment towards unitarism and aspired to introduce the concept to the whole of Yugoslavia. There was an opposite aspiration on the Croatian side that led to the creation of Croatia as an independent state. A satellite Serbian state was established within Croatia, coupled with the threat and/or expulsion of the non-Serbian population. The final liberating actions of the Croatian forces led to a wave of Serbian refugees, the end of the war, and a gradual process of return for the refugees. All of this provides a context for a short, yet instructive, story about how to delineate one border from another. Thus, to leave this political and military discussion and return to a more cultural one, there are indeed two musical entities in the reality of discourse about Croats and Serbs in today’s Croatia, and the practice keeps confronting the uneasiness of ratifying the distinction. The sorest spot of resentment and appeal among Croats is towards the complex field of turbo-folk and whether its features are Serbian, Yugoslav, Balkan, or (at least partially) Croatian. In contrast, attitudes towards traditional music are much calmer today. Discussions over the ownership of traditional music (what is and what is not Croatian) are not as heated as they were during the early 1990s (cf. Pettan 1998), and the canon is much more inclusive today. However, for minorities, most notably Serbs, the issue of ownership is still largely unsettled. At the last Manifestacija (November 2006), the Serbian representatives were a folklore ensemble consisting of the best performers from the regions of Slavonija, Baranja, and Srijem in eastern Croatia. They performed a dance sequence titled kisel’ vode: srpske igre iz srema (kisel’ vode: Serbian dances from Srijem/Srem— a border region in Croatia and Serbia). Some non-Serbian writers for the media and folklore activists who were present at the final rehearsal were surprised that these dances were “the same” as Croatian ones from the same region. Still others were provoked enough to state that a Serbian ensemble should not perform Croatian dances or, if it does do so because of a new multicultural agenda, then it surely must not call them Serbian. The templates used are indeed the same, and the politics of labelling is just the first, most obvious layer of negotiations over ownership. Further, it is important to note that it is up to each minority to discover its distinctive place in the cultural landscape, showing that hegemonic processes are relentless. Further still, music and dance ontologies are contradictory here; i.e., despite being powerful, albeit contestable, places of identification (meaning, much more than just organized sounds or movements), they firmly retain their basic function as simple templates as well. If this were not the case, the dances in question would not be understood as being “the same” as the dances performed by Croatian ensembles, since they are quite distinct from typical Croatian performance practices: the ensemble in question adheres to the concept of stylization, while Croatian ensembles adhere mostly, although not exclusively, to the concept of authenticity. However, this is obviously not enough to establish difference. A convincing argument in the present mechanism of persuasion would be to reference the historical records of the templates as proof of ownership. However, due to the representations of Serbs and Croats as “one cultural entity,” there are hardly 1 2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music any historical records that could serve such ends and/or they are quite ambiguous (see, for example, Jambrešić 1992). In particular, records from the past, by default, contain tunes sung by people determined only by their place of residence and/or birth. If or when such information is needed, it has been customary to translate performers’ locality into nationality and, more specifically, into ethnicity, with regard to the majority, but not for minorities. To be convincing, the Serbian minority would have to obtain evidence that a person who sang fifty or a hundred years ago was definitely a Serb performing a Serbian tune, i.e., a tune collected from a number of Serbs, and rarely, if at all, from non-Serbs—an almost unfeasible request, indeed. Another option is to build on the templates taken from Serbia itself, what in practice refers particularly to the most popular Serbian folklore templates from Šumadija. All Serbian minority ensembles are more or less oriented towards Serbia as their parent country, some of them overwhelmingly so. But, if the Serbian community, with a centuries-long presence in Croatia, represents itself with material taken from Serbia, it tends to support a notion that it is not firmly rooted in Croatia and works in favour of promoting precise borders for a multiculturally adorned national exclusivism. Thus, there is no innocent use of folklore in this region; it cannot escape being in the service of higher objectives, pregnant with political messages. Consequently, at present, the most important message that Serbian ensembles express relates to their rootedness in Croatia, even if this includes arduous negotiations over the ownership of folklore traditions and the production of heritage. From ownership to heritage production This is our very best At the end of 2002, the Republic of Croatia nominated its first candidate for UNESCO’s “Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity,” namely the “Istrian Ethnomusical Microcosm.” It was thus named to safeguard the “Istrian multi-ethnic and multicultural microcosm,” which is “the place of meeting and permanent contact, exchanges, transformations, and also the continuation of the cultures of the Croats, Italians, Slovenes, Istro-Romanians, and Peroj Montenegrins.” Basically, this microcosm comprises two Istrian musical traditions: the older, untempered one, based on the so-called “Istrian scale”; and the newer, tempered one, the so-called gunjci tradition. Taken together, these traditions represent “an articulated and unique system of historical, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic nuances that delineate and determine the uniqueness of Istria in relation to the majority of Croatian, Slovenian, Italian, and also many other European regions” (from the candidature file written by Dario Marušić, as cited in Debeljuh 2005). In Croatia, this proposal has provoked extensive ongoing polemics involving researchers and administrators regarding a series of issues. While a discussion of all of them is beyond the scope of this essay (cf. Ceribašić 2004; Nikočević 2004), it is worth focussing on a particular part of that microcosm—the living tradition and recently revived heritage of Peroj Montenegrins, a compact community proud ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality 1 of their longue durée on Istrian soil from 1657.6 Their revival of pojanje is a clear example of successful persuasion (as mentioned above) and heritage production built on proven ownership. An important agency of distinctiveness for Peroj Montenegrins is the mixed choir. At the time of my visit to Peroj in February 2003, it had in its repertory twelve songs that the members of the choir considered to be a distinctive part of Peroj music. Consequently, all of these songs were featured on the CD “Ancient Peroj Songs,” which the choir published in the summer of 2004 (Grupa “Peroj 1657” 2004). However, in terms of musical structural features (both as templates and ways of performing), although this repertory is distinctive in relation to the canon of regional Istrian music, it is not at all distinctive within the transregional context. The same tunes and/or lyrics have been broadly documented in northern Croatia, especially in the northeastern region of Slavonija, beginning with Franjo Kuhač’s collections from 1870s onwards.7 Certainly, one can argue against reliance on collections and their partial truths, but at least equally truthful is the common (top-down, and vice versa) reliance on historicism, i.e., “the use of the past to imagine and construct the present,” with collections as its tools (cf. Bohlman 2004:70). So, to proceed further, since Peroj was skirted by Istrian music collectors,8 it appears that the plot could develop like the previous case concerning the Serbian folklore ensemble. However, Peroj Montenegrins were lucky enough to be worthy of a round trip from Belgrade to Peroj by the ethnomusicologist Miodrag Vasiljević in 1952. He collected seventeen songs in Peroj and later published them in a collection of Montenegrin folk songs (Vasiljević 1965). Today, Vasiljević’s trip appears to have been worth every penny for the other side as well. By reading Vasiljević’s collection, Peroj Montenegrins can gain evidence for the basis of their self-identification as a unique and centuries-old community inside the Istrian microcosm. Firstly, the collection demonstrates that most of today’s songs (or at least similar tunes) were sung in Peroj already half a century 6. Several historical documents confirm the immigration of about fifteen families from Montenegro (probably from the areas of Crmnica, Riječka nahija, and Njeguši in the coastal hinterland) to Peroj, at that time (1657) an abandoned, uninhabited settlement of the Venetian Republic (cf. Štoković 1990). As they themselves emphasize, Peroj Montenegrins continue to succeed in preserving their Orthodox faith, their language idiom, the Cyrillic script, and many customs, such as krsna slava (feast day of the family’s patron saint). 7. In order to economize space, I only present the conclusion here. Nonetheless, this is based on my thorough examination of many historical folk music collections. 8. One can only guess at the main reason for this omission. The lack of researchers is perhaps the most often cited explanation in similar cases, although it is also the most convenient excuse. Another possible explanation is the national or nationalistic orientation of the discipline, which managed to survive despite the socialist ideology of brotherhood and unity, prevalent from 1945 until 1990. The third, perhaps, most convincing explanation is the intoxication of researchers with the “Istrian scale,” which holds a mythical position in the history of Croatian ethnomusicology—see Bonifačić (2001) on the history and political background of the concept. Although comprised much more broadly, it is interesting to note that the “Istrian ethnomusical microcosm” was described in official addresses—namely, those from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Croatian Ambassador at UNESCO—as only the “Istrian scale” (cf. Ceribašić 2004:24–25). 1 2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music Figure . Comparison of a tune from: (a) the collection of Vasiljević (1965:no. 537) and (b) the revived pojanje version as performed in 2005 ago, thereby increasing the persuasiveness of the community’s argument over ownership (and decreasing that regarding borrowings from Slavonija). Secondly, among the tunes Vasiljević collected in Montenegro, there are only two that are variants of Peroj tunes.9 This supports a distancing of today’s Peroj community from ordinary Montenegriness, towards a unique, Peroj identity. Thirdly, Vasiljević’s research provided them with the type of tune that highlights this uniqueness: seven two-part tunes with melismatic cadenzas on “oj” and endings on a harmonic second. Until recently this type of tune no longer existed in the Peroj musical tradition, i.e., it had been completely forgotten. Furthermore, there are no direct variants of such tunes in either Croatian or Montenegrin collections, or in Italian collections from Istria. Thus, it can function as a true Peroj specialty, and has consequently started to be revived in late 2004. The revived tune differs from Vasiljević’s original in relation to several elements (cf. figure 2). These can be explained as consequences of the stamina of the existing tradition, adjustments to the Istrian microcosm, and vagueness regarding the early phase of revival. This revived type of tune has a special name, pojanje. In standard Croatian, this word is primarily reserved for chanting of the Orthodox Church. Surprisingly, Vasiljević did not use that term, but only pesma and pevanje (‘song’ and ‘singing’ in standard Serbian). Nonetheless, comparing a few other details in Vasiljević’s collection as well as in another important source from the same time (Bošković-Stulli 1954), it seems that Vasiljević’s two-part tunes with endings in seconds are indeed examples of pojanje, as a locally valid name for a specific type of tune. The issue of naming again reveals the fragmentarity of his9. Perhaps ironically, the original melody of one of these songs, known in Peroj as “Ljubio se bijeli golub,” is a Croatian national rousing song, “Još Hrvatska nij’ propala,” composed in 1833 by Ferdo Livadić, a distinguished member of the Croatian National Revival movement. ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality 1 torical records and also the persistence in their usage for constructing the present. In order to vivify the present rather than re-vive the past, they are treated as malleable; but, in concordance with the historicist approach to heritage production, they are also solid. Thus, today’s intangible music tradition in Peroj is built on and/or proven by tangible historical templates; it is objectified, bounded, and encapsulated in precisely 12+1 songs. As such, it departs from notions of a malleable tradition and the common good, towards notions of heritage and protected intellectual property. Regarding intangible heritage production guided by UNESCO, KirshenblattGimblett has asserted that if the phenomenon in question “is almost dead, safeguarding will not help” (in press:7) and that “UNESCO places considerable faith— too much faith, according to some participants in the process—in the power of valorization to effect revitalization” (ibid.:9). Yet this is precisely what happened in relation to Peroj. Surely, the historicist orientation of the community, or more precisely of several leading members of the singing choir, was a crucial impetus for reviving pojanje. However, it did not happen without outside support. In response to my question in May 2005 about the chronology of the revival, to my initial surprise, one of the revivalists replied that it was I who had mentioned Vasiljević in the first place, in early 2003. Indeed, as a researcher, as well as a producer, for MSF, I enquired then about a specific type of tune I had found in a collection. However, I did not initially reveal what type of tune. The members of the choir had no idea what I was asking about and why, except that they knew that something called pojanje had existed in the past and was quite different from everything they presently sang. Consequently they put the question to me, and only then did I mention Vasiljević’s collection containing Peroj songs and an interesting and specific type of tune. Although I did not suggest that they do anything with the collection, I obviously should have known that the words of a researcher and festival producer could easily have a strong effect on them. In this way, the plot developed further along the historicist agenda of using the past to construct the present, from both the inside and the outside. The crucial point came in late 2004, when five male members of the choir began to practise pojanje under the auspices of Dario Marušić, an ethnomusicologist specializing in Istrian traditional music, a recognized musician, and, far from coincidentally, the writer of the candidature file for UNESCO’s masterpieces. Thus, considered together, these direct and more indirect engagements helped Peroj heritage to become a persuasive component of—to quote one of the key theses of the candidature file—the Istrian “centuries-long spiritual and cultural sedimentation and interweaving, in which the particularity has been rising fruitfully to the surface from a kind of unity of cultural diversity” (Marušić, as cited in Debeljuh 2005). To summarize, I would say that the revived pojanje is quite beneficial to all the key participants in the story: it is on its way to becoming the very best of the community; it speaks clearly in favour of the whole project in question and its interwoven particularities; and it returns happily to Paris via Zagreb, justifying UNESCO’s endeavours to safeguard oral traditions that are “fragile and perishable but essential for communities’ cultural identity” (UNESCO 2006). The relation- 2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music 1 ship between perishable-ness, essential-ness, and temporality—i.e., between living tradition and hastily animated heritage—seems to be of secondary importance.0 In addition, completely neglected remains the third and probably most vivid part of the practice, which is neither tradition nor heritage, as documented in an ethnographic description of the Peroj carnival in 1991: The silence of that afternoon was broken by accordion, song, and bell ringing—carnival goers had commenced their jesting … They were singing popular and folk songs so that … to each they sang the song that best revealed one’s character or the majority’s opinion of the person: … “Nakraj sela čađava mehana” [At the edge of the village a sooty tavern] to a [regular] inn customer …, “Kolika je Jahorina planina” [How huge Jahorina mountain (near Sarajevo) is] to a Bosnian who lives in Peroj, “Bitola” to a Macedonian, “Hvalile se Kaštelanke” [Women from Kaštela (near Split) boasted] to a Dalmatian, … songs like “O, Ana” [Oh, Ana], “Svjataja Marija” [St. Mary] to women bearing these names, and “Ciao bella, ciao” to former power-holders, etc. (Zrnić 1992:43) Where are these people and their practice, not to mention their traditions or heritage? Do they exist only in a carnival’s turning of the world upside down? And what is, after all, a community—who makes it and who defines it? In order to reflect upon possible answers, it is useful to introduce the next story. Hybridity aren’t you Macedonians? Up until this point, I have been concerned with the official representatives of minority cultures, i.e., the different kinds of ensembles that work inside the registered minority cultural organizations, and whose members “have ethnic, linguistic, cultural, and/or religious characteristics different from other citizens, and are guided by the wish to preserve those characteristics,” following the definition of ethnic/national minorities given in the Constitutional Law on the Rights of National Minorities (Hrvatski sabor 2002:art. 5). But, outside and more rarely inside the net of minority organizations, there are also people who appear not to act in concordance with their supposedly inborn characteristics. They take pleasure in performing “characteristics different from other citizens,” rather than having an urge to preserve them. I am speaking here about voluntary groups, specifically about aficionados of different music cultures or genres (e.g., Irish, Mexican, or Macedonian, among those with an ethnic prefix), and about one band in particular, Afion. Afion participates within the Croatian scene of world music (or ethno music in Croatian terminology), performing their own arrangements of traditional songs. About half of their repertory comes from several regions in northern Croatia (especially Međimurje), with the remainder consisting of songs from other parts of former Yugoslavia, especially Macedonia. The band is presently the most visible representative of Macedonian music in Croatia. They appear in public for differ10. See Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (in press:16, 19, 28, 31) on the relationship between life, habitus, and heritage. ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality 1 ent occasions up to three or four times a month and at a variety of venues, such as clubs, diverse festivals, and other happenings, often those associated with alternative, student, and/or ecological concerns. Afion has gained a significant number of fans among young urban audiences, especially in Zagreb. Some of their songs have been played on local radio stations, particularly after the band published their first CD (Afion 2006a). For many listeners, Afion simply “touched their hearts and, moreover, made them dance” (Afion 2006b). However, the main point for professionals and some of the audience, especially in more “serious” contexts, such as the opening of an exhibition rather than a student club, revolves around the question: “Aren’t you Macedonians?” Sometimes this question is expressed precisely in this manner. The musicians of the band repeatedly have to explain that despite not being ethnic Macedonians they perform Macedonian music simply because they like it and have been in touch with it for some time. Afion actually originated from another band that was active within the Macedonian Cultural Society “Krste Misirkov” in Zagreb until the formation of Afion in autumn of 2003. This earlier band cherished Macedonian dances and old urban songs (ora and starogradski pesni), and functioned as the most authentic and legitimate representative of Macedonian music in Croatia, even though the ethnic backgrounds of the musicians involved were not uniform, and their musical backgrounds varied from rock to reggae and art music, coupled with an interest in Macedonian music. Furthermore, Macedonian music is not like any other foreign music today. Because of the period shared as part of Yugoslavia, some Macedonian songs have been among the most popular in Croatia, along with some Croatian Međimurje and Dalmatian songs, Bosnian sevdalinke, etc. Hence, Macedonian songs are part of the musical tradition of many of today’s inhabitants in Croatia. However, when it comes to the reality of discourse, some people, most notably professionals (including musicians on the world music scene, music critics, ethnologists, and ethnomusicologists), appear cautious towards non-Macedonians performing Macedonian music, probably owing to the clear-cut national agenda of the 1990s. For example, in his review of Afion’s CD, one influential music critic remarked that the skilfulness demonstrated in almost faultlessly modernized versions of Međimurje, Slavonija, and Bilogora songs [all Croatian regions] … quickly turns into the insecurity of a beginner on the imaginary journey toward the southeast. The amazing Macedonian folk standards are still too hard of a nut for Afion. (Čulić 2006) Comparing this and similar remarks to the highly positive comments regarding some bands dedicated solely to types of clearly bounded non-Croatian music (most notably Irish), it seems that everything is fine as long as there is no overt hybridization at all, especially any hybridization that would include fragments from former Yugoslavia. In other words, Afion attracts suspicion and criticism from experts solely because of their choice of ethnically different repertoires. In contrast, performing groups affiliated with minority cultural organizations are immune to such 0 2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music criticisms because of their unambiguously declared and organizationally supported traditionality and/or authenticity, even though their sound can be quite similar to Afion’s. In the literature, the notion of hybridity refers to different kinds of creative and/ or subversive mixtures, crossings, blurred polarities, blendings, bricolages, creolizations, and so on (cf. Kapchan and Strong 1999). It also presupposes intentionality, diversely imagined and practiced communities, states of in-betweenness, of being both and neither, playfulness, pleasure, and consumption (cf. Bhabha 1994; Werbner 2001; Erlmann 1998). Both aspects are present in the case of Afion, and thus it is appropriate to talk about the band within the notion of hybridity. The fact that Afion’s hybridity can be recognized less in the musical sound per se is of secondary importance, since “nowhere is it safe to draw conclusions about what belongs to whom, because it isn’t how the music sounds, but how it can be thought that counts” (Slobin 1993:xii; emphasis in original). However, the trap of hybridity lies precisely in its dependence on notions that it allegedly surpasses—namely purity, but also milder terms such as authenticity, representativity, and traditionality. In other words, as its primary component, hybridity actually presupposes a non-hybridity, essentializing concepts of cultural identity and difference, and necessitating a solid, clear, and pure origin. This is discussed especially in studies on world music (cf. Piškor 2006, regarding the Croatian world music scene). The trap is evident both in the realities we deal with and in our writings. As an example of the latter, when Kapchan and Strong theorize about the hybrid, they note that “hybridity is effected whenever two or more historically separate realms come together in any degree that challenges their socially constructed autonomy” (1999:243, quoting an earlier study by Kapchan). Then “separate realms” and “autonomy,” even if they are “socially constructed,” remain to resonate, not as the opposites of hybridity, but rather as contradictions inside the notion of hybridity itself. Similarly, I actually fall into the trap here that I have myself laid: I oppose hybridity with traditionality, yet, at the same time, plead for the concept of tradition, which would itself allow the above mentioned mixtures, crossings, blendings, and so on. on the road towards european integration There are those who sing, and the folklore and dances of serbs, croats, Gypsies, rusyns, and ukrainians—here, all are represented; there is no politics among us Contrary to this statement by Slavko Vrbanovski (president of the Cultural-Artistic Society “Karpati” from Vrbas, Serbia), which can be read as a reaction to the predominance of ethnicity as a marker of difference and power in post-Yugoslav 11. Vrbanovski’s statement was made on the occasion of his group’s guest performance at “The Evening of Ukrainians” in Lipovljani, Croatia, organized by the Ukrainian Cultural Society “Karpati” from Lipovljani. It was broadcast on the television programme Multinational Magazine Prism (Multinacionalni magazin Prizma) by Croatian Television (HTV) 2 on 25 November 2006. The statement was translated from Ukrainian by Adriana Helbig. ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality 1 states, one can argue that there is a great deal of politics among us. To begin with, for some years the affirmation (rather than simply a confirmation) of Croatia as a multicultural society has been an important part of the central Croatian political project aimed at joining the European Union. For instance, Manifestacija is the second most expensive folklore event (after MSF, which is clearly at the top) in the state budget, and minority folklore ensembles are supported from the same source at a rate markedly above the Croatian average (Ceribašić 2005:11–13). While such “positive measures in favour of national minorities” (Hrvatski sabor 2002:art. 3, para. 1) are probably persuasive in political negotiations abroad, they are quite unknown and invisible at home. The official, state multiculturalism, with Manifestacija as its product, is oriented towards minorities themselves, towards the protection of their distinctiveness, or, in the words of the Constitutional Law, their “cultural autonomy” (ibid.:art. 7, item 4). State multiculturalism features them as “clearly delimited groups, each with ‘its culture,’” where the cultures in question are clear-cut, separate, “well-defined entities” (Lundberg et al. 2003:401). Such a purist version of multiculturality can be termed multicultural nationalism, owing to the centrality of its “cultural defense of borders” (Bohlman 2004:81). I am quoting here from works dedicated to European nationalism and Swedish multiculturalism in order to point out that the Croatian heritage of nationalism, as exemplified by negotiations over ownership, historicist heritage production, and suspicion towards hybridity, finds its companions in different parts of Europe.2 The multicultural nationalism of today appears to be very Western; thus, a small country on the road to European integration can embrace it without hesitation. However, in this small country there is a heritage of multicultural exchanges, i.e., of quite blurred borders, as exemplified by the representation of minorities at MSF 2003, the Istrian microcosm, Afion’s Macedonianess, or the quotation at the beginning of this section. It appears to be impossible to answer exactly whether or to what degree this heritage was imposed by the Yugoslav ideology of brotherhood and unity, or if it came into being more “naturally,” for example through the previously mentioned “centuries-long … sedimentation and interweaving.” The point is that today the heritage of multicultural exchanges is here, it is a reality of practice. At least it is an experience of a very well-known other, if not, following van de Port (1998), the other in our own body. It is a reality certainly not imposed from above, but equally certainly on the road. Thanks to the nature of roads, it leads somewhere, though seemingly not towards the centres of international cultural power. In particular, the UNESCO authorities’ reaction to the “Istrian Ethnomusical Microcosm” and to its multicultural exchanges, was to ask if that candidature should be constructed as multinational, because the described cultural expression was presented as being part of [not only Croatian, but also] Italian, Montenegrin and Slovenian culture. If that would have been the case, the candi12. I single out Sweden because of its complete opposition to the Croatian reputation of militant nationalism. However, a number of other settings in the Western world could provide comparative material—e.g., Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (in press), Rasmussen (2004), and Žižek (1997).  2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music dature could have been endorsed also by other relevant countries. Otherwise, the file should have been, according to their [UNESCO’s] rules, representing only the Croatian character of the cultural expression. (Nikočević 2004) So, it again seems that multicultural nationalism, this time of the most international kind, works in favour of clear-cut categories and against the bastards of exchanges, despite strong intellectual grumbling about complex disjunctures and intersections of the world we live in—theorized, for example, in ethnomusicological literature by Slobin (1993), Rice (2003), and Lundberg et al. (2003). In other words, I can argue, as an academic ethnomusicologist, and would like to argue even more, as an applied ethnomusicologist, together with Slavko Vrbanovski, that there is no politics in people of different ethnic affiliations dancing together. It is good that such dancing is at present feasible in both the reality of practice and the reality of discourse, even if it is only in some contexts. reFerences cited3 Afion 2006a Afion. Compact disc. Zagreb: Aquarius Records CD 134-06. 2006b “[Afion website].” http://www.afion.net/. Barz, Gregory F., and Timothy J. Cooley 997 Ed. shadows in the field: new Perspectives for fieldwork in ethnomusicology. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Baumann, Max Peter 99 Ed. Music in the dialogue of cultures: Traditional Music and cultural Policy. Wilhelmshaven: Florian Noetzel Verlag. 2001 “Festivals, Musical Actors and Mental Constructs in the Process of Globalization.” The World of Music 43/2–3: 9–29. Bendix, Regina 997 in search of authenticity: The formation of folklore studies. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. Bhabha, Homi K. 994 The location of culture. London and New York: Routledge. Bohlman, Philip V. 2004 The Music of european nationalism: cultural identity and Modern History. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Bonifačić, Ruža 2001 “O problematici takozvane ‘istarske ljestvice.’” narodna umjetnost: Hrvatski časopis za etnologiju i folkloristiku 38/2: 73–94. Bošković-Stulli, Maja 1954 “Folklorna građa iz istarskog crnogorskog sela Peroj, 1954.” Manuscript in Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, Zagreb, IEF rkp 173. Bourdieu, Pierre 977 outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Buchanan, Donna A. 1991 “The Bulgarian Folk Orchestra: Cultural Performance, Symbol, and the 13. All webpages were accessed on 21 December 2006. ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality  Construction of National Identity in Socialist Bulgaria.” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. 2006 Performing democracy: bulgarian Music and Musicians in Transition. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Čačić-Kumpes, Jadranka, and Josip Kumpes 2006 “Etničnost i etničke manjine u Hrvatskoj: Skica stanja i perspektiv���� istraživanja.” razprave i gradivo 50–51: 88–111. Ceribašić, Naila 2003 “Folklore Groups of National Minorities at the International Folklore Festival.” In 37. međunarodna smotra folklora, Zagreb, 16.–20. srpnja 2003, ed. Zorica Vitez, 5–7. Zagreb: Koncertna direkcija. 2004 Ed. Zaštita tradicijskog glazbovanja—safeguarding Traditional Music-making: Istarski etnomuzikološki susreti—Istrska etnomuzikološka srečanja— incontri etnomusicologici istriani 2003. Roč: KUD “Istarski željezničar.” 2005 “Krajolici nacionalnih manjina na manifestacijama kulturnog amaterizma u Hrvatskoj.” Narodna umjetnost: Hrvatski časopis za etnologiju i folkloristiku 42/2: 9–38. 2006 “shared Musics and Minority identities: An Introduction.” In Ceribašić and Haskell 2006: ix–xviii. Ceribašić, Naila, and Erica Haskell 2006 Ed. shared Musics and Minority identities: Papers from the Third Meeting of the “Music and Minorities” study Group of the international council for Traditional Music (ICTM), Roč, Croatia, 2004. Zagreb and Roč: Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research and Cultural-Artistic Society “Istarski željezničar.” Cooley, Timothy J. 1999 “Ethnography, Tourism, and Music-culture in the Tatra Mountains: Negotiated Representations of Polish Górale Ethnicity.” PhD dissertation, Brown University. Čulić, Ilko 2006 “Afion: Međimurska baklava?” Jutarnji list (2 November). http://www.jutarnji.hr/kultura_i_zivot/glazba/clanak/art-2006,11,2,album_afion,48823.jI. Debeljuh, Armando 2005 istra multimuzikalna … iliti ljestvica koje nema: XXXi. susreti na dragom kamenu. Rakalj: Katedra Čakavskog sabora. Domini, Mirjana 1990 “Hrvatska: Česi, Mađari, Romi (Cigani), Rusini, Slovaci, Talijani, Ukrajinci.” In Manjine u alpsko-jadranskom prostoru: Verzija na hrvatskom jeziku, ed. Petar Piskač and Mirjana Domini, 89–136. Zagreb: Institut za migracije i narodnosti. Drakulić, Slavenka 992 How We survived communism and even laughed. London: Hutchinson. Erlmann, Veit 1998 “How Beautiful Is Small? Music, Globalization and the Aesthetics of the Local.” Yearbook for Traditional Music 30: 2–2. Grupa “Peroj 1657” 2004 starinske perojske pjesme. Compact disc. Peroj: Društvo perojskih Crnogoraca “Peroj 1657.”  2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music Hemetek, Ursula 2004 “Music and Minorities: A Challenge to Our Discipline—Some Theoretical and Methodological Considerations from the Roma in Austria.” In Hemetek et al. 2004: 42–53. Hemetek, Ursula, Gerda Lechleitner, Inna Naroditskaya, and Anna Czekanowska 2004 Ed. Manifold identities: studies on Music and Minorities. London: Cambridge Scholars Press. Hrvatski sabor 2002 “Ustavni zakon o pravima nacionalnih manjina.” narodne novine 155 (23 December). Available at: http://www.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeno/2002/2532.htm. Jambrešić, Renata 1992 “Etnonimska analiza banijskih rukopisnih zbirki Instituta za etnologiju i folkloristiku.” narodna umjetnost 29: 219–52. Kapchan, Deborah A., and Pauline Turner Strong 1999 “Theorizing the Hybrid.” The Journal of american folklore 112/445: 239–53. Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, Barbara in press “World Heritage and Cultural Economics.” In Museum frictions: Public cultures/Global Transformations, ed. Ivan Karp and Corinne Kratz. Available at: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/bkg/web. León Quirós, Javier Francisco 2003 “The Aestheticization of Tradition: Professional Afroperuvian Musicians, Cultural Reclamation, and Artistic Interpretation.” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Lundberg, Dan, Krister Malm, and Owe Ronström 2003 Music Media Multiculture—changing Musicscapes. Stockholm: Svenskt Visarkiv. Available at: http://www.visarkiv.se/mmm/book/index.htm. Malm, Krister 2001 “Music in the Field of Tension between Human Rights and Cultural Rights.” In Pettan et al. 2001: 31–36. Multikultura 2006 “Multi-culture: Mission & Vision.” http://www.multikultura.org/aboutus.htm. [Nebo] 2004 3. Zagreb World Music festival nebo. Zagreb: Nebo—Udruga za promicanje tradicijske glazbe. Nikočević, Lidija 2004 “The Intangibility of Multiculturalism.” http://www.kunst.no/alias/ HJEMMESIDE/icme/icme2004/nikocevic.html. Obradović, Stojan 2005 “Još nisu iskorištene sve mogućnosti koje pruža Ustavni zakon: Interview s predsjednikom Savjeta za nacionalne manjine Aleksandrom Tolnauerom.” stina newsletter 26 (26 April). Available from: http://www.stina. hr/index_en.htm. Pettan, Svanibor 998 Ed. Music, Politics, and War: Views from croatia. Zagreb: Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research. Pettan, Svanibor, Adelaida Reyes, and Maša Komavec 200 Ed. Glasba in manjšine: Zbornik referatov 1. mednarodnega posvetovanja Študijske skupine Mednarodnega sveta za tradicijsko glasbo (icTM) Glasba ceribašić musical faces of croatian multiculturality  in manjšine—Music and Minorities: Proceedings of the 1st international Meeting of the international council for Traditional Music (icTM) study Group Music and Minorities. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. Piškor, Mojca 2005 “World music i njegova recepcija u Hrvatskoj uz studij primjera recepcije i percepcije afričkih glazbi u Hrvatskoj.” MA thesis, University of Zagreb. 2006 “Celebrate Cultural Diversity! Buy a Ticket! Reading the Discourses of World Music Festivals in Croatia.” narodna umjetnost: croatian Journal of ethnology and folklore research 43/1: 179–201. Rasmussen, Anne K. 2004 “Mainstreaming American Musical Multiculturalism.” american Music 22/2: 296–309. Rice, Timothy 2003 “Time, Place, and Metaphor in Musical Experience and Ethnography.” ethnomusicology 47/2: 151–79. 2004 “SEM and Political Advocacy.” seM newsletter 38/2: 1, 3–4. https://www. indiana.edu/~ethmusic/membersarea/documents/38_2_mar_2004.pdf. Rusinow, Dennison 2007 “Wars of Yugoslav Succession.” In Microsoft encarta online encyclopedia. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761584605/Wars_of_Yugoslav_ Succession.html. Seeger, Anthony 2005 “The Charles Seeger Lecture: Lost Lineages and Neglected Peers: Ethnomusicologists outside Academia.” In The society for ethnomusicology, 50th annual conference, Program, 13–14. http://www.indiana.edu/ ~semhome/2005/pdf/finalprogram.pdf. Slobin, Mark 993 subcultural sounds: Micromusics of the West. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press and University Press of New England. Society for Ethnomusicology 2006 “Applied Ethnomusicology Section.” http://webdb.iu.edu/sem/scripts/groups/ sections/applied/applied_ethnomusicology_section.cfm. Štingl, Aleksandra 2004 “Finsko-srpsko kolo u Zagrebu.” Globus 728 (19 November): 82. Štoković, Vjekoslav 1990 “Naseljavanje Crnogoraca u Peroj 1657. godine: Proces njihova udomljavanja.” Prilozi o zavičaju 6: 65–87. UNESCO 2006 “Proclamation of Masterpieces.” http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.phpURL_ID=2226&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. van de Port, Mattijs 998 Gypsies, Wars and other instances of the Wild: civilisation and its discontents in a serbian Town. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Vasiljević, Miodrag A. 1965 narodne melodije crne Gore. Beograd: Izdavačka ustanova “Naučno delo.” Werbner, Pnina 2001 “The Limits of Cultural Hybridity: On Ritual Monsters, Poetic Licence and Contested Postcolonial Purifications.” Journal of the royal anthropological institute 7/1: 133–52.  2007 Yearbook for TradiTional Music Žižek, Slavoj 1997 “Multiculturalism, or the Cultural Logic of Multinational Capitalism.” new left review 225 (September–October): 28–51. Zrnić, Lidija 1992 “Peroj: Tri stoljeća održanja identiteta Crnogoraca u Istri.” MA thesis, University of Zagreb. SAŽETAK Glazbena lica hrvatske multikulturalnosti Članak je zamišljen kao putovanje glazbenim krajolicima nacionalnih manjina u Hrvatskoj. Vrhuncem su im festivali, pa im je posvećeno i najviše pozornosti. Raspravlja se i o pregovorima manjine i većine oko vlasništva nad folklornim tradicijama, produkciji baštine unutar multietničke glazbene tradicije predložene za međunarodni registar nematerijalne kulturne baštine te o primjeru višeznačnosti manjinske etničke glazbe. Na kraju se govori o usporednim putanjama multikulturalnosti u smislu bogatstva raznolikosti i dijaloga na hrvatskome putu prema europskim integracijama. U uvodnom se dijelu ovaj rad smješta u kontekst teorijskih i metodoloških pristupa Studijske skupine “Glazba i manjine” Međunarodnog savjeta za tradicijsku glazbu, društveno i političko okružje raspada bivše Jugoslavije i nastanka neovisne Hrvatske, u okvir prijepora akademskog i primijenjenog etnomuzikološkog rada, u odnos prema poimanju multikulturalnosti u hrvatskom javnom diskursu te u kontekst teorije o realnosti diskursa i realnosti prakse. Rasprava o festivalskom predstavljanju manjina zasniva se na analizi triju multimanjinskih priredbi. Kao najvažnija se izdvaja Manifestacija “Kulturno stvaralaštvo nacionalnih manjina u Republici Hrvatskoj.” Njezina se struktura i koncepcija (načela jednakopravnosti i reprezentivnosti manjina, vrsnoća prikazanih sadržaja, pretežnost folklornih stilizacija) uspoređuju s konceptualiziranjem manjina u okviru Međunarodne smotre folklora iz 2003. godine te s pristupom Zagreb world music festivala “Nebo” iz 2004. godine. Na razinama strukturiranja priredbi i izvedbi na njima ta su tri festivala ponudila različite okvire za razumijevanje manjina s obzirom na odnos kulturnog univerzalizma i relativizma te ljudskih i kulturnih prava. Slijedi dio posvećen prijeporima vlasništva nad folklornim tradicijama na primjeru obrazaca repertoara i načina izvođenja u manjinskih srpskih i većinskih hrvatskih folklornih skupina s područja istočne Hrvatske. Teza o kontradiktornosti glazbenih i plesnih ontologija, koje bi imale zadržati značaj jasnih i omeđenih obrazaca zvuka i pokreta, ali i poslužiti stvaranju etničke posebnosti i međuetničke razlike, dalje se razvija na primjeru oživljene baštine perojskih Crnogoraca. Historicistička uporaba prošlosti za stvaranje sadašnjosti u tom je primjeru bila iznimno uspješna, zaoštravajući međutim pitanje definiranja i odnosa između žive tradicije i naprečac oživljene baštine, te razotkrivajući procijepe UNESCO-va projekta zaštite nematerijalne kulturne baštine. Posljednji dio tematizira etno-glazbeni sastav “Afion” i scenu makedonske glazbe u Hrvatskoj. Suprotno okosnici prethodnih primjera ovdje je riječ o hibridnom zamućivanju esencijalizirajućih koncepcija etničke zajednice, reprezentativnosti, nositelja tradicije i glazbene autentičnosti. Četiri hrvatske studije primjera u zaključnom se dijelu povezuju s multikulturnim nacionalizmom zapadnih demokratskih društava i lokalnom baštinom multikulturne razmjene onkraj čistih kategorija etničke i kulturne pripadnosti.