Masaryk University
Faculty of Social Studies
Sociology Department
From Bratislava shooting to Devínsky masaker? Analysis of a meaning struggle.
Master’s Thesis
Supervisor: Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky, PhD. Author: Edita Bezdičková
UČO: 182840
Year of Enrollment: 2009 Brno, 2011
1
Štěpánovi
2
I hereby declare that this thesis is my own work and effort. It is to the best of my knowledge and belief, that all other sources of information used, have been acknowledged by means of a comprehensive list of references.
Date: 05/15/2011 Signature: BEZDIČKOVÁ
Number of characters: 161886
3
To Nadya for being an amazing teacher and supervisor.
To Filip, because cultural sociology matters!
Thank you for your support and patience.
Without You, this thesis wouldn’t be possible.
4
ABSTRACT:
This thesis analyses the meaning struggle to define the events of the Bratislava shooting on august 2010. By the aid of three cultural sociological frameworks: civil sphere, cultural trauma and social performance, it strives to explain the absence of cultural trauma resulting from the potentially traumatizing occurrence. Using the civil sphere framework, it explains the state of collective solidarity in the Slovak society, which represents the background for the shooting. Here lies the source of the main binary opposition of the ordinary versus inadaptable, that defined the character of the victims and thus framed the interpretation of the shootings. Through the cultural trauma framework, this thesis analyses the trauma script: the character of the victims, the character of the perpetrator, the situation and the consequences, as portrayed by the media. This script accounts for the transformation of the traumatic occurrence to a traumatic event. The analytical focus is continuous, following the meaning struggle along the definition process. The evolution of trauma depends upon the sequence of smaller interconnected performances, which lead to an attempt to perform a summary or a review of the meaning. This attempt is represented by the movie Devínsky masaker. As we could see thanks to the social performance framework, the movie defines the shootings as symptomatic to a wider structural problem of the Slovak society. It is the inability to protect ordinary citizens from abusive behavior of the inadaptable minority. Such framing prevented the identification of the wider collectivity with the victims, as much as it averted the expansion of collective solidarity to affected social group. Thus, it disabled the generation of cultural trauma resulting from the traumatic event.
5
Table of contentsINTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................8
THEORY.....................................................................................................................................................11
CIVIL SPHERE.........................................................................................................................................12
Solidarity............................................................................................................................................12
Binary oppositions.............................................................................................................................14
Institutions.........................................................................................................................................14
CULTURAL TRAUMA..............................................................................................................................16
Performance......................................................................................................................................16
Script.................................................................................................................................................18
Audiences - Collectivity......................................................................................................................19
Conditions of trauma.........................................................................................................................19
PERFORMANCE......................................................................................................................................20
Elements of social performance........................................................................................................21
METHODS..................................................................................................................................................25
Thick description...............................................................................................................................25
Media in Slovakia...............................................................................................................................26
Data selection....................................................................................................................................28
ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................................................29
CIVIL SPHERE.........................................................................................................................................31
Ordinary – Slovaks.............................................................................................................................32
Fragmentation - Inadaptable.............................................................................................................33
Political image...................................................................................................................................35
CULTURAL TRAUMA..............................................................................................................................36
Trauma script.....................................................................................................................................38
Series of Performances......................................................................................................................45
SOCIAL PERFORMANCE.........................................................................................................................49
Script.................................................................................................................................................50
Pragmatics.........................................................................................................................................55
Means of symbolic production..........................................................................................................59
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................61
BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................................67
Name Index...............................................................................................................................................72
6
ATTACHMENT 1 - DATA MATRIX...............................................................................................................73
ATTACHMENT 2 - DATA SOURCES REFERRED TO WITHIN THE TEXT:........................................................76
ATTACHMENT 3 - Interview.......................................................................................................................79
ATTACHMENT 4 - SEIZ - By the eyes of a killer.........................................................................................81
ATTACHMENT 5 - Visual materials.........................................................................................................84
7
INTRODUCTION
Nothing is true in itself – social processes create appearances of truth
(Alexander in Carballo, Cordero, Ossandón, 2008:528)
On the morning of the 30th of august 2010 something unprecedented happened in the streets
of Bratislava. Around 10am media started reporting an active shooter situation in one of the
residential parts of the city. A man, taking hand full of ammunition and an automatic gun went
and shot seven people. First victims, members of one family, were killed within the building,
inside their flat. Perpetrator then went outside and continued shooting on the streets. Despite
the severity of the situation, police did close the area down. Apart from receiving warning,
advising everyone to remain in hiding and not to approach the windows, no one really knew
what was going on. Another woman was shot, standing at her balcony. Approximately another
15 other people were injured by the shooter, who was, in the end stopped.
The chaos and panic spread quickly. Around noon time, worldwide media were already
reporting the issue. It was possible, in this era of modern technologies, to follow the situation
online, almost minute by minute. Nobody could really understand what was going on. First
news, occurring almost immediately after the attack was full of confusion and questions. The
situation was unprecedented by its scope and character. Due to its incomprehensibility and the
fact that it put lives and safety of the people into jeopardy, all in the near proximity of their
homes and schools, it had an immense traumatic potential. There were several accusations of
police and media for their unprofessional reactions. The inability to react can serve as a proof of
the severity and specificity of the situation. They did not know what to do, but thank god for
that. It is the sign that it was not normal.1
The reason that makes the situation interesting for a sociologist is a fact that despite its
indisputably traumatic character it soon faded from the public discourse. There were only
partial traces and eventual outbursts of minor subjects related to it. We could say that there
has been a period of silence. It was only in February that the shooting became a topic once
1Id Dissolved - Kyberia.sk
8
again. Two young authors created a documentary movie that intended to provide explanation
of what happened.
The main interest of this thesis lies in explaining the possible reasons of the absence of cultural
trauma. It claims that in spite of the severity of the active shooter situation, there was no
identification with the victims. The traumatic occurrence did not question the character and the
civility of Slovak society. It didn’t become an event. On the contrary, the persisting silence,
interrupted only by the documentary movie that strived to bring light into the events, still
remains in place.
When I started doing this research, various people asked me about my motivation. Most of the
expectations were connected to personal reasons. My motives were understood as subjective
search for reconciliation. The other appraisals aimed towards my human rights activism. I was
labeled a Roma lover and a freedom fighter. These labels were symptoms of a wider tension
surrounding the question of human rights in Slovakia. I was also criticized for not analyzing the
actual shooting thoroughly. I was accused that of not being interested in how the situation
really happened. And I agree. I am not looking for the truth. I am not interested in the true
reasons of the shooting. Nor do I deal with the event as such. My reasons to write this work lie
elsewhere. I want to provide a deeper analysis of the processes that underlined the meaning
struggle about a potentially traumatizing unexpected occurrence. I am trying to understand the
perception of the situation, the way it gained its meaning and to account for the leitmotiv of
the meaning struggle – the position of the Inadaptable, within Slovak media.
This thesis analyses the meaning struggle to define the events. It follows the definition process
from the unexpected occurrence of the Bratislava shooting towards the documentary movie
summarizing them and labeling the event Devínsky masaker. By the aid of the cultural sociology
paradigm, it strives to describe the connections between perceived meaning and the character
of the collectivity. It utilizes three analytical frameworks:
First, by the aid of civil sphere Framework, it concentrates upon solidarity of the collectivity.
This Framework provides an analytical tool to study the character of the social fabric present in
Slovakia. Its focus is twofold. It consists of the binary codes that represent the distinction
9
between sacred and profane values. And it allows us to see how these values get ascribed to
various social groups by the aid of regulative and communicative institutions.
Second, by the aid of cultural trauma theory, it focuses upon the character of the situation. The
traumatic occurrence has a potential to create hole in the present social fabric. By the aid of
cultural trauma theory, we ask, whether there was any hole created or whether there is an
explanation present in the actual state of the Slovak civil sphere. Cultural trauma theory
explains the roles appointed during the definition process. It analyses the four important
questions that every definition strives to explain: Who were the victims, who was the
perpetrator, what happened and what will happen next.
Third, by the aid of cultural pragmatics framework, it concentrates upon the actual
performance of the present binaries. We focus upon the way in which the meaning of the
events was presented to the public. By the aid of analyzing series of smaller performances we
create background for the analysis of the movie, which aspires to become an explanatory frame
for the events.
The main questions this thesis strives to answer are:
Why did the meaning struggle triggered by the events not result in generating
collectivity and collective solidarity?
Could there be an explanation for the absence of cultural trauma in the actual state of
the present collectivity?
These questions are important not only because the topic is still alive but also because it allows
us to understand the binary oppositions that define the character of the Slovak civil sphere. By
understanding the meanings connected to the event we can identify the background cultural
representations evoked. At the same time following the process real time allows us to observe
the meaning struggle mechanisms and to see which elements hinder the generation of
collective solidarity and the emergence of cultural trauma.
10
This thesis consists of three parts: Theory, Methods and Analysis. The first part presents the
theoretical framework. It consists of three chapters that present the Civil sphere framework,
the Cultural trauma framework and the Social performance framework. The second part deals
with methods and provides methodological justification. The last part is the Analytical part. It
presents the actual core of the analytical story. It consists of three chapters. The first one
analyses the actual state of the civil sphere in Slovakia and presents the Ordinary/Inadaptable
dichotomy. The second chapter, by the aid of cultural trauma framework, provides the
ethnographic analysis of the media and presents the meaning struggle to define the Bratislava
shooting. The third chapter focuses upon the movie Devínsky masaker and reconstructs the
narrative it presents, by the aid of social performance framework.
THEORY Cultural sociology comes up with the idea that culture should be studied as an autonomous
variable. It is not perceived as a dependent variable or as something to be explained, but as an
explanatory factor. This approach goes along with the theoretical notion of a strong program.
As such, “strong program makes a sharp analytical uncoupling of culture from social structure”.
(Alexander, Smith, 2003:13) The products of cultural sociology are reconstructions of social
meaning (Alexander, 2005a; Alexander, 2010). They are interpretations about the relations
between symbolic forms, the meaning structures, and social life, the action of the social actors.
The focus on the cultural elements – structural binary codes and narratives is complemented by
the understanding of human action and agency. By the aid of thick description, the authors
within this paradigm try to provide not only description, but also explanation of cultural forms
and their effects on social collectivities. The fundamental aspect, as Alexander (according to
interview, Carballo, Cordero, Ossandón, 2008: 530) puts it is to be interpretative and to have an
imagination. Cultural sociologists set out to explore the world of meaning.
The approach of cultural sociology is multidimensional. Focusing upon institutional analysis it
creates meta-theoretical models and hermeneutical reconstructions (Alexander, 2005a). There
are several research frameworks developed by cultural sociologists. They are understood as
middle range theories and have specific aims. The research frameworks useful for the scope of
this work are the civil sphere, the cultural trauma theory and the theory of social performance.
The civil sphere framework strives to understand how collectivities and groups achieve
11
solidarity and the way how fragile social fabric holds together. The cultural trauma theory
provides us with a discursive tool – a script that allows the explanation of the ruptures within
the social fabric. It strives to represent the responsible parties and provide means of civil repair.
Last but not least, the social performance framework allows us to concentrate upon the process
of the representation and the meaning struggle itself. It provides us with a set of interrelated
elements that explain how the social fabric actually gets created, played and repaired – it deals
with how the structures presented in the two preceding frameworks (civil sphere and trauma)
are put into action.
CIVIL SPHERE
The civil sphere framework focuses upon the study of collectivities. Its main concern is to
explain how a number of individuals form a cohesive social group that holds together by the aid
of social solidarity. The sources of this solidarity are twofold. It is the underlying cultural
structures and the social institutions that allow the actualization of these structures. The
combination of structural binary codes and their institutional counterparts creates an
autonomous social fabric referred to as the civil sphere. By the aid of the civil sphere
framework, we can study how culture and codes within forming civil society go together with
the actual state of the society in reality (Alexander, Smith, 2010). It represents the arena where
the struggle for meaning usually takes place. It is important to study the compromises and
fragmentations of the real, empirical sphere, rather than “merely the idealized civil society”.
(Alexander, 2006:195) We can understand the concept of the civil sphere as an analytical
category, as Weberian ideal type, that is used to confront empirical reality and describe the
distortions. This category serves to understand how societies hold together, which values are
responsible for that, and how are these values created and transmitted.
SolidarityThe civil sphere theory combines a focus upon individual voluntarism with structural
determinism. (Alexander, 1984) It is composed of independent actors, who are glued together
by civil solidarity. The framework accounts for how the collectivities hold together by the aid of
social fabric. The solidarity of the collectivity closely depends upon the ascription of the
underlining cultural structures of binary oppositions2. But to fully understand the process, we 2 The concept of binary oppositions comes from Durkheim, who claims that it is the dichotomy between sacred and profane that is central to religious life and thus to the society. (Alexander, 2006)
12
also need to focus upon the agency of the actors. It is within the action of social institutions
that the structural meanings get represented and become the actual subject matter. These
institutions, by regulating and communicating binaries, together with structural sets of codes,
form the social fabric of the society, the civil sphere.
To analyze the social fabric, we need to concentrate upon shared values. The analytical
framework of the civil sphere strives to explain the relation between these values and social
integration. (Alexander, 1984) The structures within the civil sphere limit social actors to
members of in and out groups. They provide a sense of shared identity and solidarity (Morris,
2007) a sense of connectedness to other members of the social group. In reality, however,
social actors not only see themselves as members of the society (Alexander, 1998), but the
social attributes are ascribed to them according to their supposed membership in a particular
group.
These attributes are essentially shared along the members of collectivity and can be difficult to
achieve by the members of the out group. (Alexander, 2006) Solidarity and commonality are
closely connected to democracy. “The inclusivity of the society is determined by the level of
civility ascription to periphery groups... The incorporation of these groups depends upon the
character of the historical core of the collectivity“. (Alexander, 2006:22) “The primordial
qualities of the founders are established as highest criteria of humanity“. (Alexander, 1998:11)
Every functioning group needs a collective self-consciousness. But the truly inclusive
collectivities are able to expand and incorporate members and individuals from various
different groupings as legitimate and equal parts. (Alexander, 2006; 2006a) The critical role of
civil solidarity as Alexander puts it, is the incorporation of out groups (Goldberg, 2007), the
“closure of the gap between stigmatized categories of persons” (Alexander, 2006:410)
Solidarity emerges within the everyday lives of ordinary people. It is based upon the ways in
which they make sense of their worlds. Meaning, according to Alexander (ibid.) is relational and
relative. “Because of that, the civility of the self always articulates itself in language about the
incivility of the other“(ibid: 50) Solidarity is defined in the process of attribution of binary
structures, codes of civil and uncivil character, to members of various groups. These codes
should not be perceived as an abstract cognitive system. On the contrary, they “carry within
themselves a moral dimension”. (Alexander, Smith, 2010:237) Exclusion of non-members is
13
legitimized by the construction of their “anticivil” character. (Alexander, 2006:631) The
ascription of the binary codes allows us to understand who are the good guys and the bad guys.
Binary oppositionsThe system of general binary structures is widely shared. These underlying cultural structures
are understood and accepted by both members of the core and periphery groups. The
distinction between good and evil is stable and consistent. Thus it can and ought to be
extracted and studied. The real struggle begins by the ascriptions of the opposite sides of the
spectrum to actors, groups, their motives, relations and institutions they form (Alexander,
2006). Alexander and Smith (2010: 235; Alexander, 2006: 57) offer three key questions in the
ascription of democratic and anti-democratic code. These are:
What kinds of people are necessary for viable democracy?
What types of relationships are legitimate / illegitimate. How do people get along?
What kind of organizations is formed by these people?
InstitutionsAlexander suggests two main types of institutions that are responsible for the meaning making
within the civil sphere: the regulative institutions and the communicative ones. The regulative
are concerned with individual responsibility for action. They are represented by the political
parties, the legal systems and the office (Alexander, 2006). They carry “legal force“(Alexander,
2010: 280) The communicative institutions, on the other hand, provide “cultural authority“.
(ibid: 280) Therefore it is them who constitute the cultural arena, the stage for the meaning
making. According to Alexander, there is “no determined relation between any event, or group
and either side of the cultural scheme“. (Alexander, 1992:299) The actors and the groups are
not inherently good nor evil, civil nor uncivil. Their identity has to be strived for, as Eyerman
suggests (2004:29) throughout the “spiral of signification“. What we have, according to
Alexander (2006) is the conflict over representation. In this conflict, the communicative
institutions play an important role. They interpret the message and convey it to others. (ibid.)
They reconstruct the narratives, performed by the actors, present in the cultural background.
(Eyerman, 2004) It is then the regulative institutions that put the meanings into practice. By the
aid of legal regulations the representations and the ascriptions of binary codes gain their
legitimacy.
14
Communicative – media, pools associationsFor the scope of this work it is necessary to concentrate upon the communicative institutions. It
is mostly concerned with the ethnographic analysis of the media and the study of ways in which
they represented the meaning of the studied situation. These institutions, according to
Alexander (2006), are public opinion, the mass media and civil associations. Public opinion is
understood as a normative reference of the public sphere. Its role is to mediate between the
binaries of civil society discourse. Referring to the public opinion indicates the pure and the
impure evaluations of the members of the society. It is the “sea in which we swim, a structure
that gives us a feeling of a democratic life“. (ibid: 73) The role of associations is to press
arguments within the court of public opinion. They struggle for the expansion of rights. They
can be understood as lobbying groups and agenda setters, that play role in the boundary
definition and the in and out group placement processes.(ibid) The most important focus of this
work lies in the study of mass media. It is they who play a central role in the meaning making
process. They set the tone and provide the themes for how the occurrence gets narrated.
Eyerman (2011) states several functions of mass media. Their role is to spread the news beyond
those immediately present. They air the representations and provide interpretation. They
impose a narrative structure that tells a story, and frames the event. All this is „done visually,
orally and through the written word, through dramatic photographs of the firsthand reactions
of the general public, as well as through other specific media features such as sound and voice.“
(ibid: 229)
The mass media, as Alexander (2006) categorizes them, are factual and/or3 fictional. The factual
usually serve as the sole source of firsthand experience about others, their motives,
relationships and institutions. They should provide information in an objective manner,
emphasizing speed, accuracy and neutrality. They strive to portray the world as it is. But doing
so by “typifying previously unrecognized events in discursive categories that are already
understood“.(Alexander, 2006: 81) This entails the critical role of binary oppositions. They make
the selection of relevant news and they interpret the meaning of these news. That way they
answer the four important media questions – who was involved, what happened, where and
why did it happen (ibid.). The fictional media, on the other hand, create plots that make the
events and characters seem typical. They place the actors into easily interpretable situations
3 It is important to note that the distinction between the factual and the fictional media is blurry. And as we see further on in the text, the factual/fictional character of the media influences the authenticity of the performance.
15
that represent civil and uncivil motives and relations. Popular culture and tabloid media could
be seen as the “expressive media of contemporary civil society. “ (ibid: 76)
Civility is a question of representation. There is always a way for the members of the out groups
to become recognized as civil. At the same time, the civility is always under threat or abuse and
irrationality. The danger comes not only from the uncivil groups, but from within as well. Even
the good citizens themselves can become the source of pollution. The actual identity of the
social collectivity and its members is always of question. Every hole in the social fabric has the
potential to generate the refection of the „kind of society that we are“. (Alexander, 2006:66)
CULTURAL TRAUMA
According to Just World phenomenon (Lerner, 1980), people tend to seek explanations for
traumatizing occurrences, to be able to keep the idea of a balanced, transparent world, where
bad things only happen to bad people. Somehow, there always has to be a reason for suffering.
If such an explanation is missing, there is a potential for trauma development. Trauma
represents a hole in the present social fabric. There is a gap between the occurrence and the
collective representation. To create cultural trauma, this hole is to be performed in the trauma
drama process and fused with affected collectivity. This process is a performative meaning
work, which allows transformation of several disjoint narratives into a single generalized
version of the event. Trauma process consists of several elements: the speaker (the carrier
group), the audience (putatively homogenous, sociologically fragmented) and the situation (the
historical, cultural and institutional environment) (Alexander, 2004). The carrier groups present
their suffering by the aid of media. They do so to appeal upon the bases of wider collectivity. A
successful trauma generates questions about the identity and the type of collectivity and allows
civil repair. It does so by the aid of psychological identification of wider audiences with the
suffering of the victims.
PerformanceFrom a cultural sociological perspective the psychological trauma resulting from a traumatic
occurrence is but a starting point, a referent. What the research program (Alexander, Eyerman,
Giesen et al., 2004) is interested in is the process and the point, where psychological trauma
turns into a collectively shared cultural trauma. As Eyerman (2011) suggests, we should
distinguish between traumatic occurrence and traumatic events. The former relates more to a
16
psychological understanding of trauma as emotional experience. Though, it may create
“conditions conducive to setting in motion a process of cultural trauma”. (Eyerman,
unpublished manuscript: 15). The latter is the result of a meaning work of responsibility
attribution. Thanks to mass media representations, “narratively interconnected (traumatic)
occurrences“(Mast, 2006:117) become filtered through the cultural structure of binary codes.
Traumatic events are generated in process of “Attributing blame and settling on who is
responsible” (Eyerman, 2011:14). Emotionally traumatizing occurrences develop through series
of smaller meaning struggles, in which “perpetrators and victims are named” (ibid: 4). In this
performative process, they might achieve generalization and turn into traumatic event. Cultural
trauma, in terms of cultural sociology, may be understood as an interpretative frame, a struggle
to ascribe meaning to the traumatizing occurrences, turning them into events.
One of the fields where meaning struggle takes place is the mass media. They allow the
reconstruction and interpretation of the event and its narration and performance as a
traumatic one. The occurrence of trauma (Eyerman, 2011) depends upon the quality of the
performance, upon the narrative and interpretation and upon the power, character and
authenticity of various carrier groups. It is the mass media that play the most important role in
the reconstruction and maintenance of the trauma narrative, thanks to the scope and intensity
which they achieve. (Alexander, 2001) Media provide a moral framework – in the meaning
making process of an event, they draw on deeply rooted sensibilities, structures of feeling in
their representations. According to Stuart Hall (in Eyerman, 2011) mass media highlight certain
features and focus upon particular aspects of the occurrence and thus construct a preferred
understanding of what actually happened. The meaning is defined in terms of binary codes and
dramatized by use of specific narratives. Mediated images may create a sense of solidarity and
feeling of community among broad publics. Mass media actors are the first carrier group. These
are parties with “moral, professional and commercial interest in portraying an occurrence and
making it into an event. “ (ibid: 230)
I argue that the trauma process is not in fact a single performance, but a set of smaller parallel
performances, that narrate what happened, to whom and why. These several partial versions
might merge into one generalized version that becomes widely shared and defines the
character of the event. In other words a “set of narratively interconnected occurrences
17
achieves generalization“ and becomes the event. (Mast, 2006:117). The constitution of a single
widely shared narrative might serve for the ritual like performance of the experienced trauma.
ScriptPeople constantly need to “inflict meaning upon the object outside self and strive to experience
solidarity“. (Alexander, 2003:84) The world has to be perceived as a just and meaningful place.
If something unexpected, unprecedented happens, there has to be an explanation for it. And if
there is none, it might lead us to crisis. Piotr Sztompka (2000) argues that this type of crises
might turn into cultural trauma. Cultural traumas mainly deal with suffering. There is a strong
need for the responsibility attribution, a need to represent, in a symbolic and antagonistic
manner, who is the perpetrator, the cause of the suffering. (Alexander, Eyerman, Giesen et al.,
2004) At the same time the character of the victims is also struggled for. If the victims are
represented in terms of valued qualities shared by larger collective identity, if they are
recognized as one of us, the audience will be able to symbolically participate in their traumatic
experience. This identification might “broaden the realm of social understanding and
sympathy“(Alexander, 2004:14). Cultural traumas play an important role in the process of social
incorporation. They are processes of transformation, construction and reconstruction of the
social.
The cultural trauma theory, according to Eyerman (2011), works as an analytical framework to
reveal all the factors which condition, contain or catalyze cultural trauma. It may be understood
as a script that underlines the process of blame attribution and responsibility settling. Crises can
develop into cultural traumas through a meaning struggle and a form of narration in which
perpetrators and victims are named and asymmetrically positioned.
The trauma script represents a narrative that strives to answer four important questions. These
concern the nature of the pain, nature of the victims, relation of the traumatized victims to
wider audience and the attribution of responsibility for the suffering. (Alexander, 2003) The
nature of the pain speaks about what actually happened. The nature of the victim asks who was
affected, what kind of persons? The relation of the victims to the wider audience means to
what extent do the members of the collectivity identify themselves with the actual victims? Do
people see the connection between the victims and themselves, or was the trauma process
successful, fused?
18
Audiences - CollectivityTraumatic occurrences provide unique opportunities to study the foundations of collective
identity. Ron Eyerman suggests that cultural trauma provides collectivities with the “occasion to
reflect on themselves“(2011: viii, 13). A traumatic occurrence functions as a “potential catalyst
for a broader public debate“. (ibid: 13) Traumas have capacity to “question the bases of the
collectivity as well as evoke a sense of belonging” (ibid: 14) Breese and Alexander (forthcoming)
suggest that traumas can either lead to reconciliation, purification and civil repair, or towards a
deeper polarization of public fragmentation. Eyerman (2011: viii) suggests something similar
when he speaks about the capacity of trauma “to shatter, to unify and to can leave an indelible
mark on the people and the locality“. To construct a cultural trauma, the narrative has to be
directed towards a group and shape its collective identity. (Heins, Langenohl, forthcoming) If
the construction of imagined homogenous community of victims is impossible, cultural trauma
is most likely not to take place. (ibid) Alexander and Breese (forthcoming) suggest the term
cultural work to describe the meaning making process of turning suffering into trauma. The
result of such a work should be to incorporate the meaning of the suffering of the victims into
the self-understanding of the collectivity and allow them to become recognized as legitimate
parts of the society.
Conditions of trauma The occurrence is supposed to create a sense of divide between before and after. There needs
to be a definition of the cultural background, the description of how was the situation before
the occurrence. Then the trauma process represents the actual event, by acting out (Eyerman,
2011) the interpretation and the narrative of what happened. After that it also entails the
consequences, actions that happen next. This means it creates space for civil repair within the
working through (ibid.) period. Its full extent develops over time and must be studied
accordingly. (Alexander, Eyerman, Giesen et al., 2004) After a period of silence, that Giesen
(2004:116) calls the coalition of silence, there is a need for reconciliation; search for new
narratives and for the civil repair (Alexander, 2006) that allows reconnection of past and future.
Another important condition is the fusion of the event and its representation with the
background conditions and the social, cultural and political context present in society before
19
and during the trauma process. Next, there need to be strong carrier groups present. These are
actors, who speak through the media, the relatives, families and friends of the victims and the
interprets, who write books, articles, make films and artwork about the event. If the trauma is
to succeed, then the carrier groups manage to achieve psychological identification of the
audience. The whole collectivity is affected by the trauma. The identity of this collectivity is
questioned. And the suffering of the victims is perceived as unnecessary and uncivil.
In case these conditions are not satisfied, there will be no trauma generated. There might
either be silence, representing the failure to establish a shared representation of the
occurrence. Or there might be only psychological suffering of few individuals, which is not
relevant for the collective identity recognized.
PERFORMANCE
The cultural pragmatics theory represents an analytical Framework that offers to study meaning
and action. It transcends the basic sociological dichotomy of structure versus agency by
creating the structural hermeneutics approach. This approach accounts for how underlying
structures get to be performed by the aid of human action.
There are two important axioms of social performance. First, that at the core of every
collectivity, there lies a ritual experience. It is this ritual experience that, according to the
classical authors of sociological theory represents the source of social cohesion and solidarity.
Due to modernization, there has been gradual fragmentation of previously fused and seamless
society and it’s forming symbolic action. Nevertheless the main aim of every performance,
according Alexander (2004a) is to achieve fusion, to re-fuse the interdependent elements that
constitute performative action and to provide the collectivities with ritual like experience.
Consequently, the second important axiom is that the magic still matters. It means that our
lives are still centered on this ritual like experiences. There is still a need for a careful distinction
and for the maintenance of the gap between the sacred and the profane.
The aims of this section are twofold. It strives to present the cultural pragmatics framework and
describe its constitutive elements. It presents this framework as key to the analytical intention
20
of this work. Social performance theory can be understood as focusing upon the processual
part of the meaning struggle. It creates a common ground for the combination of the previously
stated middle range theories. First it represents a process in which various actors of the civil
sphere perform the binary oppositions of civility and uncivility and ascribe them to social
groups. Second it enables the understanding of the process of transition from traumatic
occurrence towards the traumatic event and thus explains the actual generation of cultural
trauma.
Elements of social performanceIn case of fused performance it might be difficult to identify and distinguish the constituting
elements. It is thanks to the fragmentation of modern societies, and the de-fusion that the
elements became visible. They became more analytically identifiable. These interdependent
elements provide framework for “interpretive reconstruction of the meanings of performative
action“.(Alexander, 2004a:533)
The analysis consists of three main focal points. First of all, the cultural background can be
analyzed by focusing upon the binaries, codes and scripts. Next, performance theory allows
focus upon the mise en scéne, fusion and the audience. Last sphere of interest can be referred
to as social power. By the aid of analyzing the means of symbolic production we can identify the
influence of power.
BackgroundCultural background consists of the elements that are already known and present. It contains
collective representations, structured by codes and narratives. The binary oppositions provide
analogies and antipathies and the narratives create a storyline. It is the structural part of the
civil sphere, the skeletal part of the social fabric that underlines every event. It can be
understood as the cultural arena where various meaning struggles takes place, connecting
themselves with their already present and settled counterparts. (Alexander, 2004) It is a system
of collective representations that allows comparative evaluation. Every past experience and
previous performance enables comparison and allows reference.
Background representations are enriched by the foreground scripts. These represent
immediate referents for action, “culturally defined roles” (Turner in Alexander, 2004a) that
actors play. The cultural background is present in form of texts. The scripts emerged as an
independent element that reflects the relative freedom of performance from background
21
representations. (ibid) Although they are already predefined, the fashion in which actors put
the scripts into practice depends upon their agency. The script, according to Alexander (ibid) is
an audience fusing device, it serves as an agent connecting the contents of cultural background
with a concrete collectivity, for which it achieves authenticity. Script is defined by simplification,
spatiotemporal compression, moral antagonism and a storyline of twists and turns.
These background figures, despite their iconic character, are not able to speak for themselves.
They need to “walk and talk in front of our eyes” (Alexander, 2004a:530) to achieve fusion.
They need actors who cathex with background iconic figures and foreground scripted storylines
and audiences who identify with these actors. They need pragmatics.
PragmaticsThere are several elements that can be marked as pragmatics. We can focus upon the actors,
upon the way the story is actually put in scéne, the mise en scéne, and upon the reactions of
the audience. Throughout the analysis, it is necessary that we avoid the confusion and
substitution of the analysis by the reproduction of the stance and the interpretations of the
actors.
The mise en scéne deals with the localization and the context of the script. It represents the
way of putting the empty grid of mythical figures into the everyday experience of the actors
and the audiences. This means making the script subjectively relevant. Actors center the
meanings upon themselves. They have to cathex with the background roles they represent.
They gain their legitimacy as “authoritative interprets of social texts. “ (Alexander, 2004a: 545)
By mediating the meanings their identity becomes authentic and allows psychological
identification of the audience. One of the aims of the performance is to achieve cultural
extension. This is by fusing script, actors and audience, who decodes the transmitted meaning.
This extension also prevents the fragmentation of the collectivities. By the aid of psychological
identification, audience fuses with the performed role and experiences its contents. Feelings
like – this is me, this is my world, this is how I feel, are symptomatic of this fusion. The audience
response and reception is an important part of the process because it questions the totality of
structural influence. There is a difference between the codes of production, the intentions of
the authors and the actors and the codes of readers (ibid: 563). This gap allows subversive
action. It is thus necessary to study the audience reception.
22
Means of symbolic production The third focal point deals with the intentions of the authors. It is the focus upon social power
influencing the performance, the means of symbolic production. Alexander (2004a), who has
been criticized for underestimating the role of social power argues, that in case of fused
performance, it is highly problematic to analytically grasp the power mechanism. It is due to its
fusion with the actual contents of the performance. The social power, for him, represents the
resources, the capacities and the hierarchies of the performance. It is the external boundary,
parallel to the internal boundary line consisting of the cultural representation. It determines the
access, the means and the responses that are acceptable and legitimate for the performance in
question. In the analytical framework, social power is represented by the means of symbolic
production. These can be divided into three main categories, the production and the creation,
the distribution and the critique of the analyzed performance. It is first the materiality and the
resources that are being used along the performative action. These are the stage, the material
context and the objects that serve as iconic representations. The distribution represents the
dissemination of the performance and its accessibility. It deals with whom and where can gain
access to the performance. Who is the intended audience and how is it reached? The critique
deals with the reception of the audience. It defines who is entitled to criticize and give opinion
and what that opinion is actually like. The differentiation of the elements of performance is
closely connected to the multiplicity of interest groups that aspire for the meaning definition.
There is no single actor or force responsible for the actual performance; it is more about the
multiplicity of speech communities and about setting up rules for understanding (Alexander in
Carballo, Cordero, Ossandón, 2008). As Alexander (ibid: 533) sums up, there is no single power,
but plurality, which “doesn’t necessarily implicate it is a liberal one”. For him, power theories
that only deal with resources forget about the highly relevant shaping power of the symbolic
forms. He reminds us that we have to study how background symbols and forms by the aid of
the mise en scéne and actor interpretation result in the audience identification. The performing
power is mediated by the accounts of effectiveness, through the reports of journalists and critics
towards the deeply resonant currents of the public opinion. (ibid)
Performing trauma to achieve civilityI picked the cultural pragmatics framework to be able to analyze an occurrence that is highly
relevant for the civil sphere in Slovakia. It illustrates the definition of collective identity and the
groups that become incorporated underneath this identity. I want to study how the binaries of
23
civility and uncivility are played and represented and how they affect solidarity with various
social groups. The character of the situation of Bratislava shooting creates a space for the
incorporation struggle. This could take place by the aid of drama performance. I ask for whom
it was relevant and what kind of collectivity did it affect, if any. This focus is closely connected
to the cultural trauma. If the social group affected by a traumatic occurrence manages to
enlarge the scope of suffering and makes it relevant for wider collectivity, this occurrence might
conducive to cultural trauma.
Alexander (2004a: 528-9) believes, that It is possible to “explain how the integration of
particular groups and sometimes even whole collectivities can be achieved through symbolic
communication“. The purpose of this symbolic communication is to mobilize solidarity and
consensus around scripted narratives. Social groups strive to represent their identity in terms of
the civil part of the binary opposition codes. The “efforts to extend solidarity“ depend, on
“understanding excluded actors in new ways“. (Alexander, 2006:649) It is through the social
drama4 that humanity can be ascribed to the ones suffering. The group might get recognition by
achieving psychological identification and catharsis (Alexander, 2006b). But for that it needs
mobilizers of communication, the translators (ibid: 6) that break the structural constraints and
make the drama relevant to wider collectivity. To achieve the civil repair and civil incorporation,
it is not only the actors, the translators and the carrier groups, but the context, the background,
the state of the civil sphere and the mise en scéne that influences the success of the trauma
drama. (ibid)
“Public inflictions of pain on members of subordinated groups“ are, according to Alexander
(2007:647), “critical in widening solidarity understanding“. However, these painful occurrences
must be “actively constructed as civil traumas“. It is by the performance of the disruptions in
the social fabric, their “staging, framing and interpretation“(ibid: 650) that that the cultural
trauma process takes place. Cultural trauma can be understood as a specific type of script that
tells a story about suffering of the victims and the guilt of the perpetrators. The theoretical
framework of cultural pragmatics offers a set of concepts for analyzing the process through
which highly certain groups represent their suffering by the aid of this script and manage to
achieve collective recognition, incorporation and civil repair.
4 Dramatization of the suffering
24
To conclude the theoretical part, I provide justification of the selected theory and its intended
application. It is first by the use of civil sphere framework that I analyze the actual state of
social fabric in Slovakia. I study the present fragmentation, closely connected to the symbolic
position of Roma ethnic group. Second, by using the cultural trauma framework, I analyze the
meaning struggle to define the traumatic occurrence in terms of traumatic event. It is by the aid
of cultural trauma script that I focus upon the victimhood ascription. Last, by the aid of cultural
pragmatics framework, I focus upon one concrete performance case (the movie Devínsky
masaker) and try to account for its cultural background and its script; for its performative
authenticity and for the power relations that influenced its creation.
METHODS
The aim of my research is to provide a cultural sociological interpretation of the events of the
Bratislava shooting. It is an ethnographic study of the event’s media representation. It is
achieved by the aid of thick description. This chapter presents the selected methods and their
methodological justification. Then it strives to explain the context and the setting of the studied
situation. It introduces the selected stage upon which the trauma performance took place.
After that it presents the process and accounts for the data selection. It justifies the sources
and describes the character of the collected data.
Thick description
I’m not sure I can tell the truth… I can only tell what I know.
(Clifford, 1986:8)
One of the main principles of strong program is to use thick description to carry out the
research. It is an ethnographical research method that Alexander (2010) uses in his
Performance of politics. He claims that his work is a case of media ethnography. In my case, it is
the same. In accord with Marcus (1986: 265), I am trying to achieve a “straightforward
analytical and descriptive account from the fieldwork”. This descriptive account has several
characteristics. It describes the situation as perceived by the social actors. It is always
25
contextually localized, always subjective. And it is never complete, never finished; it always
leaves space for further improvement.
Geertz (1973) reminds us that doing ethnography means reading and writing culture. He aims
to capture the fleeing and always transforming world of meanings, all this for the sake of
reconstruction within the interpretative frameworks .His work is a descriptive interpretation of
how other people, the social actors, try to make sense of their lived worlds. The ethnographer
only speaks about the discourses and their qualities. He presents those who speak, who write,
when and where, with whom and under which institutional and historical constraints. It is
never possible to isolate the data from the context, from the situation that is going on or from
the people who take part in it. On the contrary, the aim of ethnographic writing is to introduce
the polyvocality of these actors and the self reflexion of the author. For Clifford (1986),
ethnographic writing is determined by contextuality and localization within certain expressive
conventions and institutional, political milieu. It is never free from subjectivity and
participation. There is no fixed external standpoint for observation. Ethnographic truth is
situated and always incomplete5. For Geertz (1973), the analysis is never finished. The deeper
we go, the more incomplete it gets.
My research follows the same logic. I try to account for the various different representations of
the selected situation. I follow the media and their audiences. By the aid of selected analytical
frameworks, I am trying to reconstruct how they managed to make sense of the situation. The
meaning is not settled yet. The situation is not over. The analysis could go on, much deeper and
much thorough. There will always be something missing and you could always ask what it is. My
findings, in accord with Geertz (1973:34), are not “privileged, they are just concrete“. His
imperative is to keep the analysis tightly bound to concrete social context and everyday life. It
means to keep the connections between theoretical formulations and descriptive
interpretations as transparent as possible. And this is exactly what I try to do.
Media in SlovakiaThe main focus of this work lies in its media analysis. The Bratislava shooting became the most
reported event of the year. It increased the ratings of all the media. 6 I decided to create a
widely focused data matrix and to incorporate resources from most of the media. I covered
5 For you could always have new actors and new interpretations.6 According to (Tragická streľba...) When looking for information, people mostly put trust to Markiza; there were 932-thousand viewers, 48,8% of the total number of the market rate
26
material accessible online. I started by press. Then I continued with television. Last I focused
upon discussion portals.
The press is represented by online versions. There has been an ongoing increasing preference
of the online media over the printed ones (Czwitkovics, Mistríková, 2009). In terms of
readership, tabloid press dominates, Nový čas is preferred by 25,7% of the readers and Plus
jeden deň by 8,8%. The influential daily press is represented by Sme by 8,3% and Pravda 7,8%.
The decrease of interest in printed media recently resulted in establishing charges for access to
electronic contents. All of the stated journals have their electronic counterparts. Apart from
these, there are bleskovky.sk, topky.sk and webnoviny.sk. All of these media share similar
characteristics. Due to the preference of electronic version, most of the media publish the
exclusive information online. The content of this news is less complex, focused on the speed.
The main problems of the internet media are much lower quality and the lack of language and
editorial correction. These standards were substituted by actuality and exclusivity of the news.
(Czwitkovics, Kollár, 2006)
Another source of data is the television and the official online threads of different channels. The
three most popular channels are Markiza, JOJ and Jednotka.7 Most of the main news were
accessible online. The trustworthiness of the TV is very low. “There is no channel that could be
considered as an independent benchmark.” (Czwitkovics, Kollár, 2008: 591)
Apart from the press and the TV, I focused upon internet discussion portals. I did so, to be able
to analyze the reception of the events by the audience. I chose to concentrate upon
facebook.com, but I have also read discussion threads underneath the news articles and some
discussion groups on other portals like pokec.sk, birds.sk and kyberia.sk.
Data selectionThis section aims to account for the process of data selection. It first explains the process of the
data selection which corresponds with the perceived meaning struggle. Then it explains the
exact mechanism of the creation of data matrix.8
7 Markiza – 35%; Joj - 16,8%; Jednotka - 16,35% (Czwitkovics, Mistríková, 2008: 591)8 See attachment 1
27
ProcessDespite the tendency to study the cultural trauma process with a temporal distance, I decided
to study the meaning struggle in process. I chose this approach to be able to follow the
evolution of the meaning of the situation live and in motion. It is important because it allows
confrontation of various data sources. At the same time, it shows how the previously diffused
situation, where several narratives strive to dominate, settles down by the aid of a coherent
assessment performance and some temporal distance. It all started in September, when I
collected various pictures representing the perpetrator. These were portraying him in different
context and were part of the iconic9 meaning struggle. In December I realized the first media
analysis of the event, focusing upon the definition of the character of the victims and that of
the perpetrator. By that time, none of the versions dominates. There was silence prevailing.
We were in the state of diffusion. I studied a series of smaller performances and the reception
of audience, by the aid of cultural trauma framework. In February, there was a movie released.
Once I noticed the advertisement campaign, I started following the news. I watched the movie,
recorded the audio track of it and collected the critical reception. I also managed to get an
interview with the authors. Then, by the aid of cultural pragmatics, I analyzed the movie, its
production, its background, the intentions of its authors and the public reception. Throughout
the entire time, I followed the news concerning the Inadaptable citizens and the Roma, to be
able to understand the underlying context.
The actual dataFor the purposes of my analysis I decided to work with internet media. These bring specific
feedback options. Online media enable discussions and allow the public, the audience to
participate. They get continuously updated, but the changes are traceable. The old articles
represent background for the newer ones and thus create a web of contents. This web
visualizes a tangible and mutually interconnected the structure of news. Bednář (2011) even
speaks about specific life cycles of online media. They vary from being published to
deactualization, possible re-actualisation, gradual merging with the context and archivation. It
is thus necessary to follow the mutual hyperlinks and to cover several levels of the news
network. Internet journalism, according to Bednář (ibid), is an interactive multimedia. It
combines text, speech, video, pictures and information that are mutually bound. There are
several types of the media – tabloid, news, specialized media and personal blogs, as well as
9 See attachment 5
28
several styles – informative, narrative, descriptive, and explicative and others. When
constructing my data matrix, the procedure was to look up relevant keywords: shooting,
Devinska Nova Ves, Devinsky masaker, etc. I followed the links and relations and covered
almost all types of media and all mentioned styles. I collected data until reaching theoretical
saturation, e.g. no new information was coming from the articles. I followed different
hyperlinks and dove into deeper levels of associations. I achieved a rich and diverse data set. To
fill in the information about the audience reception, I collected data from social networks and
discussions. The procedure was again to look up keywords and discussion threads or groups
related. I followed the official commemoration event on Facebook, several feedback threads on
the Devínsky masaker movie, Facebook group related to the movie and an immediate
discussion in the Bratislava forum on Kyberia.sk.
To analyze the movie, I created another data matrix, consisting of a variety of reactions, critique
and reception of it by different social actors, from politicians, to official critics and regular
bloggers. The principle with the sample saturation was again theoretical saturation. Apart from
the reactions, I worked with the excerpts with the movie, the official trailers as well as the
movie itself. I also had an interview with the authors, to provide a better insight into the
context and the sphere of symbolic production.
ANALYSIS
I learned about the shootings, sitting in front of my computer, in Brno. It was just after the first
news started spreading worldwide. I received a phone call from a friend, from Croatia, asking
me about the safety of my friends and family. Before that I did not know anything. I started to
closely follow the news. It was not only the official resources, but also the unofficial live feeds
on discussion portals, that I was interested in. I was surprised to see how people reacted. There
was a lot of confusion, lots of discussions taking place. People strived to get information as
much as they needed an explanation. Soon, rumor started spreading about the ethnicity of the
victims. As people learned about the victims being Roma, the discourse got polarized. There
was a new key word circling around – innocent. I was struck by the situation. But what upset
me even more was the general acceptance of the evil character of the victims. Their ethnicity as
a reason to doubt their innocence or the certitude of guilt, were the first apparent question
29
marks for the eyes of a sociologist. How is it possible, for the people, to draw conclusions
without a thorough investigation? But as a sociologist, I have to pose myself the same question
– am I able or entitled to draw conclusions about the situation without analyzing it? To escape
the void normativity of my judgment, I decided to analytically grasp the meaning struggle to
define the shootings. The deeper I went the more interesting and more complex it grew. In the
analytical part of my work I intend to account for the path I went from first noticing an
interesting topic for sociological investigation until gaining a thorough insight into the situation.
The aim is to provide a possible explanation for the absence of cultural trauma resulting from
the traumatic occurrence of shooting in the residential part of the city. I claim that the situation
became symptomatic of a deeper structural character of Slovak society.
In terms of cultural sociology, it was the state of social fabric, the character of the civil sphere
in Slovakia that provided background for the meaning struggle. This background presents the
subject matter of my first analytical chapter. It is here that I present the problematic
representation of the Roma minority in Slovakia. And it is here that I account for the word
Inadaptable that became reference for the victims. I present it as being a part of an underlying
binary opposition: Inadaptable versus Ordinary, that provided grounds for the shooting.
I then turn the attention towards reconstructing the narrative that explained the reasons for
the shooting. In accordance with Alexander and Eyerman I concentrate upon the trauma script.
By the aid of cultural trauma framework, I try to trace back the definition process of the
character of the victims and of the perpetrators personality. The aim is to describe the struggle
to represent the traumatic occurrence in terms of an actual hole in the social fabric, as a
traumatic event. It is throughout the series of smaller narrative occurrences that the meaning
of the situation settles.
But for the cultural trauma to take place, the smaller interconnected fragmented narratives
have to merge into a larger constitutive story. In my third analytical chapter I present the movie
Devínsky masaker. This movie could be perceived as such a story. It presents itself as a coherent
package of facts that sum up the situation. I analyze this movie by the aid of cultural pragmatics
framework. I concentrate upon the script it presents, as much as upon its performative
character. I evaluate its success in terms of generating fusion of previously de-fused parts of the
social fabric.
30
By the aid of these three focal points I follow the process in which the meaning of the Bratislava
shooting established and turned from an unexpected shocking occurrence to what we now
refer to as Devínsky masaker.
CIVIL SPHERE
You don’t need that much. It is just a representation of Roma that is complementary to the Slovak identity based on suffering.
(Elena Gallová Kriglerová…)
Every social fabric is fragmented. The civil collectivities are under constant pollutive thread of
uncivil minorities. As Bancroft says, this fragmentation; segregation and Othering is an inherent
part of modernity. To protect the idea of the modern, he claims, modernity includes the idea of
backwardness as its counterpart. There is always a polluted minority of backward vagrants,
strangers10, threatening the social moral fabric of the state and society. Their “backwardness
becomes a moral category”11. (Bancroft, 2005:5)
This chapter presents the actual state of the social fabric in Slovak collectivity and to
demonstrate its fragmentation. It does so, to provide the analysis of the cultural background
necessary for the analysis of the meaning struggle. It is chapter that I present the problematic
representation of the Roma minority in Slovakia. And it is here that I account for the word
Inadaptable that became reference for the victims. I present it as being a part of an underlining
binary opposition: Inadaptable versus Ordinary, that provided grounds for the shooting. The
collective identity and the membership in Slovakia are defined in terms of Slovak ethnicity.
Other minority groups are seen as uncivil. They represent a thread to the integrity and
independence of the Slovak nation. Therefore the collective solidarity can’t be stretched to
incorporate them. I argue that this inherent fragmentation can be defined by the binary
opposition of ordinary versus Inadaptable. By the aid of the first section I present the category
10 As elaborated by Simmel.11 It is similar to Alexander speaking about the inevitability of the evil for the good. He claims, that “evil is necessary to give contrast to good” (Alexander, 2003: 110) It must be “coded, narrated and embodied in every social sphere” (ibid: 115)
31
of the ordinary which refers to the majority of the citizens in Slovakia, the ethnic group of
Slovaks that form the dominant collectivity. By the aid of the second one I present the
Inadaptable. This label, as I demonstrate further on, is a euphemism used to refer to Roma,
who are perceived as the most conspicuous other in Slovakia.12
Ordinary – SlovaksWe simply want to separate the decent people from those who are not.
(Hruška13, 1998 in Bancroft, 2005: 60)
Slovakia is mentally perceived as the country of Slovaks.
(Vašečka, 2009:243)
Michal Vašečka (2009) speaks about the ethnization of the civil sphere in Slovakia. For him, one
of the main problems with the civility of Slovak society rests upon the definition of Slovak
identity and the membership status derived from it. This identity was defined by the president
of Slovak republic, Ivan Gašparovič (as cited in IVO, 2009: 138), who stated that the “important
values” he wants to protect are “safety, prosperity and identity”. It is the “family, the ancestry,
the nation and Slovakia that are key” The definition of Slovak identity is specific by three
characteristics: it portrays the majority as suffering. It establishes official protection of the
majority form the discriminatory minority abuse and it represents minorities as a thread.
In the constitution and in the preamble, the definition of Slovak identity is ethnicized. It is “Us,
the Slovak nation, remembering the political and cultural heritage of our ancestry, and the
hundreds of years of struggle for national sovereignty and integrity“(preamble of the Slovak
constitution), that bear the legitimate membership. This “Us” is considered to be the direct
descendants of the Slavs and are thus the authorized owners of the Slovak land and the Slovak
state. One of the most important myths that explains the need and the right for the Slovak
national state is the thousand years long struggle for independence (Gallová Kriglerová,
12 82% of the majority disagrees with having a Roma family as their neighbors. (The annual report on the state of Slovak society IVO 2008; 69)13 Contemporary Mayor of Usti nad Labem.
32
Kadlečíková, Lajčáková, 2009:86). It is this struggle that underlines the suffering of Slovaks, also
present in the Slovak national anthem14.
There is a perceived threat from the minorities anchored in the constitution. It literally states
that “the exercise of the minority rights might not conducive to the discrimination of majority
population, and might not question the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the state”.
(Slovak constitution, article 34(3), supra memo 50, In ibid.) Even the antidiscrimination law that
was accepted by the government in order to guarantee equal opportunities was consequently
cancelled. (Lajčáková in IVO, 2009: 219) The government itself raised question to the
constitutional court to investigate the legitimacy of the law. It was dismissed for being in direct
conflict with the constitution, which guarantees “the protection of the majority from the
members of national and ethnic minorities”. (ibid.:219) The members of the “majority renarrate
themselves as the victims of recalcitrant minority.” (Bancroft, 2005:135)
The ethnic stratification of the inhabitants and the privileged position of the dominant nation
create “space for minority accusation. The members of minority groups are perceived as
potentially disloyal” (Gallová Kriglerová, Kadlečíková, Lajčáková, 2009:87) and represent a
“threat” (ibid: 90) to the long pursued Slovak sovereignty. It is by their unemployment and
poverty, that they endanger the social and economic development, by their criminality, that
they thread the security and by their abusive behavior, that they jeopardize the international
prestige of the country15 (Hojsík, 2009).
Fragmentation - Inadaptable To demonstrate the fragmentation I want to present Roma minority, an ideal Other to provide
contrast to the moral self-image of the majority. First I present the shift from the word Roma
to Inadaptable – while arguing that the characteristic traits remain in place. Then I present an
example of Roma minority representation in political discourse.
There is a major problem with the definition of the Roma. They are mostly defined as “self-
identified members, the carriers of the culture of the Roma settlements or as those who are
recognized as Roma by the majority”. (Mikuš, 2007) This definition problem is inherently
14 Slovakia has been long asleep, but it is the thunder and the lightning that will wake it up. 15 Slovakia receives severe critique form the international human rights institutions.
33
present in the governmental documents. The Roma are defined as the “group of people which
majority refers to as Roma according to anthropological signs, cultural belonging or the
lifestyle”, the point is in “the subjective perception of this group as being different”. (Gallova
Krigelova, 2009:32) The definition problem is also present in the academic sphere. According to
Jakoubek and Budilová (2008) no one really knows and defines who Roma are. “We consider as
Roma a person, who sees himself so, even though he does not necessarily have to declare it.
We also consider Roma such person, who is considered as Roma by a major part of his social
surroundings, based upon the real or imagined anthropological, cultural or social indicators.“
(ibid: 5) But such definitions are problematic, due to their inherently essential construction of
the category of Roma.
There has been a major confusion about Roma as a race, as an ethnic group and Roma as a
socially excluded minority. All of the definitions have their rationale, but they need to be used
reflexively. The mixture or hybridization of these categories brings the risk of “conservation and
deepening of the already present negative stereotypes.”(in IVO, 2008:214) Apart from
hybridization, there is a deliberate tendency to set aside the ethnicity. But this setting aside
happens without the actual deconstruction of the defining characteristics. The “de-ethnization
of the discourse”, as Mikuš (2007:75) refers to it, leads to “contextual synonymous
designations”, such as the Roma from the settlements, the socially excluded, the members of
the Roma national minority or the Inadaptable. (ibid: 83) The Inadaptable, according to Mikuš,
is a cryptical designation of Roma. It is widely used by the media. Since it is not acceptable to
describe the criminals by their ethnic label, the Inadaptability appears to be a specific form of
political correctness.
Mikuš (2007) asks to which extent the discourse of the Inadaptable could be considered as a
specific form of racism. He claims that, if racism is to be explained as the “base for Othering”,
then the Inadaptability label is highly problematic, because it implicates no chance for
adaptation. The fusion of the Roma ethnicity with the Inadaptable euphemism is problematic
because it omits the historical and social sources of the bases of the Inadaptability. It also
legitimates the violence exercised against these individuals, since they are understood as
polluted for once and for all. It is the mental difference that creates a specific form of social
essentialism, where a social group is considered to be different without ability to change
(Mikuš, 2007). It is the undisputable incompatibility of the Roma. Although their incompatibility
34
is not connected to their Roma essence, but to their psychological difference, the Inadaptability
(of the Inadaptable).
Political imageTo illustrate the actual political background, I present two examples. One of them is the official
billboard of former parliamentary party and the other one is the excerpt from the electoral
campaign of one of the actual members of the governmental coalition.
The first one, the electoral campaign of one of the recent coalition parties SNS, represents the
iconic character of Roma in Slovakia. Their billboard16 portrayed a stereotypical image of a half-
naked, tattooed person, with dark complexion, and a lot of gold necklaces. It was accompanied
by the text We are not going to feed those who don't want to work. It is one of the emblematic
images that somehow underpin the situation in Slovakia. Roma are portrayed as maladjusted
minority. Ethnicity is entwined with social Inadaptability. When accused of racism, the speaker
of the political party in question answered : “It is not us being racist. It is those people who see
Roma on that picture, the human rights activists, that are racist.“ (Anna Belousovova. Latentní
rasisti, alebo...)
The second one is the election program of the independent candidates that refer to themselves
as the Ordinary people. These were four independent candidates listed on the candidate list of
the newly established political party SaS17. Despite of being listed at the end of this list, all four
of them managed to speak out for such a wide public, that they were selected and became new
members of the parliament. We could say that their electoral campaign achieved immense
fusion.
This campaign presents Roma as specific by the fact that they “don’t work“. They are portrayed
as “usually uneducated, with poor hygienic standards and with no sense of order“. Without
diving into specific details of this campaign, it is important to underline the perception of the
actual Roma population and its characteristics: the inability for economical rationality, the
tendency to ask money for nothing, the lack of hygiene, the drug abuse and the criminality. The
problem, according to ordinary people, is that “we feed Roma with our taxes“. Our
governments, as the program claims, “were bribing the Roma to avoid problems when facing
the European Union“. But once the thread of rejection is over, ordinary people feel „free to
16 See attachment 517 Sloboda a solidarita – Freedom and solidarity.
35
speak out loud again“: Literally – “It can no longer be accepted to label the Roma attack against
a white person a fight and to label the whites beating Roma a racially motivated crime. It is not
normal and we can even speak about the discrimination of the whites ... Work is the only cure
for this disease“. It seems to be very straightforward. Maybe it is actually this directivity and
straightforwardness that makes the ordinary people so attractive for the Slovak voters.
This chapter spoke about the binary structure present in the Slovak society. It is the distinction
between ordinary and inadaptable that represents the sacred and profane dichotomy defining
the character of the present collectivity. As we will see in following chapters, it is this binary
opposition that creates basis for the ascription of several antagonistic qualities to the victims
and to the perpetrator, and consequently represents the cultural background for the meaning
struggle to define the meaning of the Bratislava shooting.
CULTURAL TRAUMA
There has been an active shooter. He killed five members of a family within their flat. Then he
went out to the streets, raging and shooting around. He killed another two and injured more
than a dozen of others. Finally, he stopped. There are discussions about his death, was it a
police bullet that injured him or did he kill himself? First few hours after the event, situation is
unclear. Media all around the world report the news. Everyone is shocked, waiting for the
official version and information. The Police are petrified, eagerly looking for possible
accomplices. People start discussing, asking questions. At 14:30 there is an official
“improvised” press conference directly from the crime scéne. The perpetrator is dead. The
police president reports the total of seven victims – five members of the family within the
building, another one on the street. When asked about the seventh one, he adds – the
perpetrator. One of the most important questions for the press: were the victim Roma stays
unanswered for now. Within the next few days, the identity of the victims as well as the one of
the perpetrator becomes the main issue. Everyone keeps on asking about the motives.
The world is inherently a meaningful place to be. According to the psychologists, we have a
tendency to Believe in a Just World (Lerner, 1980). This means, that we believe that bad things
only happen to the bad people. If there is harm to innocence it is considered as shocking. The
36
moments of meaningless suffering have potential to generate ruptures in the delicate social
fabric. Ron Eyerman offers the concept of cultural trauma, to describe situations of meaning
crisis. It is these situations, where we are unable to explain the reasons of the suffering, that
the trauma process might take place. During the trauma process, we need to identify the
carrier group. This group represents the collectivity, the mutually shared “we” identity of the
people, who are directly18 affected and suffer. We could say that the trauma process consists of
definition of the boundaries of collectivity affected by the traumatizing occurrence. All this
takes place to facilitate social justice. It is necessary to identify the one responsible, the cause
of the suffering. These are then represented as utterly evil and are to be punished accordingly.
The punishment represents the civil repair, the process of healing of the social fabric.
I analyze the meaning struggle within the field of mass media. There are two main focus points,
two frameworks – the first is the cultural trauma script – the definition of roles - the character
and the consequences of the situation and the parties involved. And second, the analysis
requires thick, multilayered interpretation (Eyerman, 2011) of how the meaning developed
over time, throughout the series of smaller performances. The trauma process presents a
performative meaning struggle. This struggle starts with a traumatic occurrence and, through
series of smaller narratives, leads towards establishing a traumatic event. It is here, that, as
Alexander (2004a:530) suggests, the script begins to “walk and talk in front of our eyes”.
Trauma scriptThis section analyzes the trauma script as represented by the Slovak internet media. It focuses
upon the roles and characteristics that were ascribed to those who were part of the situation –
the affected victims and the responsible perpetrators. It first briefly introduces the definition of
the situation, as presented by the media. Then it turns towards defining the affected
collectivity. It speaks about the representation of the members who were affected. It analyses
the ascription of victimhood. Last, it concentrates upon who was held responsible for what
happened. It strives to define the evil and looks for possible repair.
18 It is not directly in terms of undergoing the trauma, but in terms of perceiving it as affecting. In accord with the cultural trauma theory, it is the meaning work that allows the collectivity to experience the pain of the victims as its own suffering.
37
SituationThe situation was first unclear. No one knew what was going on. There were rumors about
drugs, mafia wars19 and remarks about the Wild West and the Wild East20. It was perceived as
an active shooter situation. There was a huge debate about the tragic and traumatizing
character of the situation. We learned about the murdered victims coming from one flat, being
members of one family. From that moment on, the situation could be understood as a
neighborhood conflict. Then we learned about the ethnicity of the victims. Suddenly it was their
wrongdoing and the suffering of the perpetrator21 that were understood as the cause of the
shooting. It became perceived as a tragic event. The shooting was not considered an
intentional active act, more it was referred to as a passive catastrophe inflicted upon the
people22. It was the gun, which killed23. The suffering of the citizens was caused by “desperate
times which require desperate measures”.(Prečo kat vystrieľal…)
VictimsDue to the traumatizing potential of the shooting, there was a need to explain and understand
the reasons why the situation happened. The character of the affected collectivity became
questioned24. It was first perceived widely. Until the disclosure of the ethnicity of the victims, it
was the whole society affected by the shooting. Once we discovered the ethnicity of the victims
– a different line of thought was circling around. All of a sudden, the innocence was in
question. Who was actually the one suffering? Was it a case of crazy shooting? Or was there a
reason that caused the tragedy? Was the perpetrator insane or was it the society that drove
him to commit the act?
To explain the struggle for answering these questions, I sum up the various different ways in
which media and other relevant actors referred to the victims, to the perpetrator and to the
majority. I try to reconstruct the binary oppositions that defined the boundary between the
victims and the majority collectivity, as well as the boundary between this collectivity and the
perpetrator. I reconstruct the definition struggle for the sacred character of the ordinary citizen.
19 Prime Minister Radičová using the words – “Sicilly” and “ Vendetta”. (Radičová:Streľba...)20 Various discussion portals mentioning USA, referring to Devínska Nová Ves as DENVER or BEIRUT.21 “Harman decided to resolve his problem by the aid of the automatic gun.”(Nápisy v devínskej… )22 “Slovakia trembles from the shooting massacre, that took place in Devínska..” (Vrah z Devínskej…)23 “The shooting demanded” –“ took” –“ lives” (Po streľbe v...;Streľba v Bratislave…;Streľbu v Devínskej…) or “This man was a loner and a weapon lover. And it was his biggest love, the automatic rifle that took seven people’s lives. He then turned her against himself. “(Ľubomír Harman mal..)24 Alexander (2004) argues that trauma has potential to generate questions about the character of the affected collectivity.
38
I argue that the representation of the affected groups was underlined by the binary
opposition25 of the civility of the ordinary people and the uncivility of the Inadaptable victims.
MAJORITY
ORDINARY
VICTIMS
INADAPTABLE / ROMA
Civil uncivil
Values oriented Money oriented
Rich, working Poor, Don’t want to work
Good people Bad Roma26
Obey law Escape regulation
Decent Improper
Clean (white) Dirty, Polluted
Moral Immoral
Quiet, shy Noisy
Reasonable Passionate
Friendly, calm Aggressive
Honest Heartless
Table of binary oppositions
Who were the actual victims? When reporting about the victims, the media usually claimed the
number was eight. Seven of them were shot by the perpetrator and the eight was the
perpetrator himself. The victims were sorted into target victims, the members of the family
killed in the flat. Then there was a random victim, who was shot on her balcony. And last the
perpetrator, who was also presented as a casualty, or as one of the victims.
First, the target victims, the members of the murdered family, became represented by their
ethnicity. The moment they were labeled Roma27, the meaning of the situation changed. Once
the victims were defined this way, it was much easier to justify the committed act and the
reason for the tragic situation to take place. As several people stated – suddenly an
25 See the section Ordinary/Inadaptable26
27 “Why did the executioner kill Roma family?” (Prečo kat vystrieľal...)“He shot a Roma family… that had conflicts with the neighbors” (Útočník vystrieľal rómsku…)“The family belonged to the Roma ethnic group" (Statement of the ministry of inner affairs, Strelec zabil v..)
39
“incomprehensible situation could make sense”.28 Roma are portrayed as abusive, dependent,
maladjusted. They are perceived as inherently uncivil. For that reason, they can’t be granted
the membership status of the majority collectivity. It is also a reason for the absence of
psychological identification. The suffering of the Roma victims became displaced by the sacred
rights of the normal, ordinary people that are defined as always threatened by the evil minority.
I argue that these are the main reasons why the cultural trauma could not take place.
There were many reactions on the discussion portals that more or less openly expressed racial
hatred. These provoked the reaction of the NGO people against racism, who alerted to avoid
racism.29 Within the reactions to their appeal, we could see that the term racism was
constantly denied and redefined.30 Afterwards the ethnicity of the victims became relabeled by
their Inadaptability31. This way we could speak about the Roma ethnicity without actually
mentioning it.32 But the ethnicity of the victims wasn’t lost. It was just redefined by a set of
binary codes, characterizing them as uncivil, Inadaptable33. The media still portrayed the family
as a typical one, the social and psychological characteristics remained the same. It was but the
name and the label that changed. It was no longer race, but cultural differences and/or social
Inadaptability that represented the victims’ difference. To prove that the Roma ethnicity
remained the major descriptive sign, we can confront the way people on discussion portals
referred to the victims. The victims were indicated as “we all know who” or the “unnamed
ethnic group”; the Inadaptable “also-citizens” or the “citizens for now”. They were labeled as
the “gypsy family” of the Inadaptable, the “vermin”, the “Indians”, “dirt”, “parasites”, the
“burned ones”, “smoked ones”, “cacaos”, the “disease spreaders”. They were often
represented by the socially excluded ghetto LUNIK IX.34
28 “But, when I learned it was a gypsy family, it stopped bothering me” or “There were five gypsies in the flat, so nothing terrible happened.” (Obrazom: Slovensko v…) And the conclusion of a human rights activist: “Suddenly a feeling crawls in, slow marasmus, that the tragedy, in the end, is not that big” (Devínska Nová Ves – rasová…)29 (Výzva zástupcom televíznych…) 30 “It was a racially motivated act” (08/31/2010, Streľba v Devínskej, bol to…)“It wasn’t a racially motivated act” (09/03/2010, Streľba v Devínskej, nebol to…)31 “Only one of the victims was Roma” (Iba jedna obeť…)32 Reaction from the discussion TV NOVINY: “it is not the skin color, it is the lifestyle. And the fact that they are a minority and they have a different color is just their advantage” (user QWQ, Obrazom: Slovensko v..)33 “One of the victims had criminal record” the Police President stated during the official press conference (Jaroslav Spišiak, Iba jedna obeť…)The press offered an explanation: „Bad neighbor had to die, skin-color wasn’t important- that was the logic behind the act, since only one victim was Roma.” (ibid) And they exemplified it by: “The neighbors complained there were ten people living in the flat. They were noisy and asocial.” (Strelec bol Samotar…) 34 Ghetto like residential part of Košice that became known as an emblematic negative “Roma settlement”.
40
Second, there was the perpetrator, who was also listed among the victims. He was perceived as
a decent man. It was his motive that was widely searched and strived for. His act was seen as a
result of lifelong frustration35. Some of the media reported that his action was planned36. They
presented the shooting as a long awaited37, intentional act of justice38. Others spoke about
nervous breakdown. They considered the shooting to be an impulsive act, a “self-assessment”
suicide39, where the perpetrator punished everyone he considered as the source of his
suffering. His character and membership status in the majority collectivity were long strived for.
His act was referred to as a cut off, the loss of patience, the overflow, the nervous breakdown
or the falling down. He was perceived as psychologically labile, introvert and distant, indirectly:
mentally deranged. It was only for a small public on the discussion portals40 that he was granted
the status of an ordinary citizen. Over there he was represented as: “our boy”, the “innocent
victim”, the “national hero”, the “victim of terror” or simply41, “the citizen”. And he was
referred to respectfully as “Mr. Harman”.
Third, there was the random victim and several injured people affected by the situation. We
could speak about the suffering of the inhabitants of the locality and of the people on the
streets, whose lives were put in jeopardy. These people were considered to be the ones
unarguably innocent. The innocence was especially visible in the discussion servers. Here they
were referred to as the “local inhabitants”, “the neighbors” or the “innocent victims”. On a
wider scope they were defined as “white Slovaks”.42 They were recalled as the “ordinary
citizens”, the “non Roma”, the ”discriminated majority”, the ”white Christians” or “the white
human with average level of decency”. In the discussions people usually expressed compassion
with the relatives of “the victims who did not deserve to die”, or those “who were at the wrong
35 “That guy had to be desperate” (Nešťastná príbuzná obetí…) Both “psychologists suggest that his act was a result of a lifelong frustration. “ (Strelec si terče…)36 According to the expert: “he prepared himself. He had it planned. He did not want to leave anything to chance.” (Samopal, ktorý vraždil..)Media account for this opinion by referring to the statement of one of the neighbors: “suddenly Harman appeared, aiming at her and her granddaughter. Get out of here! He shouted. So she ran away, but she heard another shooting.” (Vrah susede, vypadni…)37 Video of a psychologist who speaks about perpetrators act: “It was a long awaited act of justice.” (Radičová sa podpísala…) 38 Why did the executioner kill Roma family? (Prečo kat vystrieľal…)39 A psychologists refers to the act as a “bilance suiscide, that results from frustration and inability to escape. And that is why he killed everyone that he considered to be the source of his problems.” (Strelec z devínskej si terče…)40 Various reactions in the discussions. Especially the FB perpetrator commemoration groups.41 Extreme positions in the discussions42 Discussion in .tyzden media
41
place in the wrong time”43. It is the ordinary citizens that were affected by the situation. They
are not the Inadaptable, and so they don’t identify with the suffering of the Roma. On the
contrary, the target victims are perceived as one of the reasons of their suffering. Neither are
they psychologically labile. But I ask all along the analysis process, the same question over and
over again. Who are they? And how are they like?
As we could see, there was a major difficulty in appointing the virtue of victimhood. The
character of the target victims got undermined by their ethnicity. This ethnicity, later relabeled
as Inadaptability, was seen as the cause of the shooting. It was thus only the ordinary innocent
people on the street that were perceived as true victims of double suffering. On one side it was
the perpetrator, threatening their lives, on another, the Inadaptable citizens that pollute the
collectivity by their uncivil presence.
Attributing responsibilityThe last part of this section deals with the appointment of responsibility. As we could see in the
previous part already, the situation became represented as resulting from a deeper structural
problem of the majority suffering, caused by the polluted minority. This explanation is
problematic. It presents a transparent case of victim blaming44, which is considered as uncivil.
To escape uncivility, there has to be others to attribute responsibility. There are several sides
that are to be held responsible for the situation. I present those, who were mentioned in the
press or emerged from the reactions of the public. These are the police and the system on one
side and the human rights activists on the other.
The system and the police are criticized for the inability to resolve the conflict situation and the
complaints of the neighbors45 on two levels: before and during the accident. It is represented
as crisis of security46. People need to be protected from polluted minority. But the responsible
do not provide them with this protection. On the contrary, they even positively discriminate
Roma. The system is perceived as unable to deal with the situation. Because of that, it was
legitimate47 for the citizen to take matters into his own hands and resolve them. This narrative
was especially strong and visible on the extreme right web portals. In the media there was a 43 Facebook commemoration event44 William Ryan (2009) - Blaming the victim – tendency to explain the suffering of the victims by their uncivility, usually present in case of racial discrimination.45 The statement of the local inhabitants, as described by media: “The problems of the citizens are unresolved. And this is the result. The politicians just play with us. Thus summoned up the situation one of the citizens, Rastislav Tešovič (32), who even took a day off to participate on the meeting.” (Občania Devínskej, problémy… )46 (Proti kríze bezpečnosti)
42
milder version of the need for elimination present, the need to build walls to escape the
pollutive influence.48 After the accident, the police was criticized because it failed to comply
with the duty to protect lives of the citizens. “They ran away from the crime scéne” 49. It was
even discussed whether it was the police or the perpetrator himself who eliminated the
thread50. The most extreme critique questioned the police conduct to such extend that they
accused the police to be the source of the injuries and the death of the innocent random
victim51.
The other side that is held responsible52 for the situation are the activists and human rights
fighters. There are understood as the supporters of positive discrimination – discrimination of
the majority by the minority. This discrimination is perceived as the main source of the racial
conflicts.53 It is not only the minority (in this case Roma) that are the source of injustice, but the
human rights fighters and the activists, who support them. These people live on the
international funds or use state money54. Their perceived activity is based upon the accusation
of racism. But these accusations are void55, since the activists are represented as being way out
of line, without real experience with the ones, they are protecting. The political correctness
they proclaim is just a cover for the real problems56. These are never named by the true names.
It is not the race, not even the culture of the minority that poses problems. It is the dirt57, the
chaos and the abusive behavior58 that are the key issue, the Inadaptability. And so “we have to
47 They even refer to the constitution: “Citizens are authorized to stand against everyone, who threatens democracy and the basic human rights granted by this constitution, in case the responsible organs fail to do so and legal means are precluded (art. 32).” This can be understood as, when the state fails. The citizen can strive for justice himself. (Pokus o sociálno…)48 Walls are better than shooting: „the increasing number of walls in the proximity of Roma settlements that people build for their protection…. It is up to the state to fix the situation.“ (Proti kríze bezpečnosti…)49 In discussion: „The thieves in the uniforms, were there in two minutes…. So how come that the national hero kept on shooting another hour into the surrounding windows?“ (Obrazom: Slovensko v…)50 Media claimed that: “he killed himself” (Strelec zabil v…) Or later on, quoting the Minisrty of Internal Affairs, that: “The police killed him” (Strelca z Devínskej trafil…)51 This extreme opinion is only present in the discussion portals and blogs.52 “Activists”, “parasites”, “doped”, “accomplices” – some of the reference labels from the discussions.53 It might be the due to the Suffering of the ordinary.54Reactions from the discussion under the People against racism appeal. „the NGOs who parasite on EU money“ (Výzva zástupcom televíznych…) and from .Týždeň discussion thread: “ I thought we call things by their true names here, without the unnecessary political correctness. Do we all have to comply the instructions of the humanists from EU governorate?” (Štvanica na Rómov…)55 From discussion: „We are all racist if we want the gypsies to live as decent people“ (user Hary, Jak a proč…)56 From discussion: „Welcome multiculturalism, Welcome anomie, Welcome USA!” (Štvanica na Rómov…)57 “What the hell are you speaking about? It is no culture, and I don’t mean poverty, but the crap and filth that they spread around them.” Discussion reaction (Rómovia: Masaker bol…)58 From discussion: „This social group. I refer to it this way, for by definition It is not a discrimination case anymore. So It is politically and morally clean. Although this group mostly consists of Roma.“ (Štvanica na Rómov…)
43
be very careful to avoid the perception of the Devinska Nova Ves shooting as an act of racism. It
should be perceived as the neighborhood conflicts with problematic neighbors that neither the
police nor the government succeeds to resolve. Otherwise everyone will pity the poor Roma,
for being victims of the racial attack (which is not true)”.59
I argue that it was due to the inability to appoint victimhood that there was no cultural trauma
generated. There was no psychological identification with the members of the family, who were
represented as target victims. On the contrary, the situation became symptomatic of a deeper
underlying trauma in the Slovak identity60. The majority of the decent ordinary citizens
constantly suffer by the inability of the state to guarantee and protect its rights. In the case of
shooting, the ordinary people suffered double suffering. The abuse from the polluted minority
and the inability of the state to cope with this minority due to a systematic pressure from the
human rights regulations of the European union on one hand, and the failure of the state to
protect its citizens during the shooting, which was a result of the previously unresolved drama
on the other hand. It was the police who failed to protect the innocent citizens.
Series of PerformancesTrauma is never a direct result of traumatic occurrence. It always has to be explained and built
up. It happens throughout the series of smaller narrative occurrences. It is by the aid of
ritualized repetition and systematic commemoration that the meaning of the situation settles.
The aim of this section is to reconstruct the narrative that explained the reasons of the
shooting. It strives to describe the struggle to represent the traumatic occurrence in terms of an
actual hole in the social fabric, as a traumatic event.
Almost immediately after the killings occurred, the media took up the situation and the
meaning race started. There were four important narrative moments that influenced the
meaning struggle. First, there was a spontaneous commemoration of the victims on the day of
the shooting. A few hours after the attacks one of the inhabitants created a Facebook invitation
for the candle lighting commemoration. Second, during the evening news, one of the most
popular commercial televisions screened a reportage about the victim family. It labeled the
victims as Inadaptable and problematic. This reportage almost immediately cathexed with the
cultural background and provided a widely shared definition of the situation. In reaction to the
59 Discussion quote (user Donatan, Pozostalí a zranení majú…)60 See Ordinary vs. Inadaptable section
44
screening, a Slovak NGO People against Racism issued a letter. This letter appealed to the
media to avoid nourishing the racial hatred evoked by displaying the ethnicity of the victims. A
few weeks after the actual accident, someone wrote glorifying messages on the walls of the
building, where most of the victims were killed.
In the beginning, there was no explanation, just emotions. It is abnormal to shoot on the streets
and threaten the safety of the people. The shooting caused insecurity and fear. The sacredness
of human life was put in jeopardy. This narrative had a great potential for defining the trauma.
It was within this narrative, that the Facebook event and spontaneous commemoration were
performed. Here, people expressed affection and compassion. There was a lot of emotions,
stress, fear and regret. The act was perceived as incomprehensible and shocking.
Sometime during the day, the first leaks about the identity of the family of the victims
appeared. The rumor said it was a Roma family. On the evening of the 31st august, one day after
the shooting, Markíza, the TV channel with highest watch ratings screened a reportage 61 that
symbolically defined the character of the victims. This reportage, subsequently proven
misleading, portrayed two Inadaptable women that were supposedly victims of the shootings.
It claimed that “bad neighbor is a catastrophe”. With one “Inadaptable family” in the house, all
the others “might go crazy”. It informed about the terror, everyday hell and suffering of the
ordinary people, who were dissolved and individualized by the everyday struggle and fear. The
co-opted psychologist claims that “the decent people might feel like being completely alone.
Although there is just the two of them (the Inadaptable women), the decent inhabitants are in
minority”. According to the expert it is impossible to stand against “an abnormal evil” . “A well
socialized person” facing a “pathological one”, does not have the necessary psychological
resilience and might be unable to fight for his rights. On the contrary, due to experienced “fear
for their lives and belongings”, the decent people might be “afraid to say anything in public”.
The Inadaptable, per contra, are not at all afraid to speak out, really loudly. The main message
of the reportage is that the police is unable to cope with the situation either. The women were
held in custody already couple of times, but were always released and came back to continue
the terror inflicted upon the ordinary people. Suddenly, the incomprehensible situation could
61 This reportage was screened in 2005 and was part of the series called Lampáreň. This series represented the final resort to receive complaints that were previously ignored. It was the “last stance when all other options failed”( Lampáreň, 05/04/2005)
45
make sense. This reportage, even if later shown inaccurate62, represents the most successful
narrative. It immediately achieved fusion with the prevailing cultural background where Roma
and the Inadaptable are the source of constant threat of pollution. And the sacredness of the
Ordinary citizens and their rights if put into jeopardy, not only by the presence of the thread
but also because of the inability of the responsible to deal with it.
As a response to the screening and Inadaptable narrative, one of the Slovak NGOs, People
against Racism, released an official statement, an appeal to the media63. Within this statement,
they reframed the situation, accusing the media from provoking racial hatred and reproducing
stereotypical information, based upon faulty claims. They labeled the reportage as inciting
racism and xenophobia, resulting in blaming the victims and excusing of the perpetrator. They
disagreed with the “representation of the perpetrator as a desperate, powerless introvert” who
is driven to commit an “act of justice” by the family of Inadaptable Roma. They did so, because
such a representation “justifies the murder and arouses the hate”. The ethnicity of the victims,
as Krempaska64 claims, “legitimates the inappropriate violent and malevolent encroachments
against Roma community.”
This narrative did not achieve fusion. The possible reasons might be the meaning loaded
connotation of the authors – human rights activists.65 To account for this explanation, I state
excerpts from the discussion threads underneath the appeal. People against racism evoked
many flames and passionate reactions. As I already mentioned before, there was a huge debate
and definition struggle about racism. Even here it was the case. Audience offered different
definitions. For example: “It is not racism, just negative experience with an ethnic group” . The
discussants accused the authors of being racist because of distorting negative reactions of
members of the Slovak public and generalizing them as racism. The human rights activists,
according to the reactions of the public, are discriminating the majority by fighting for
“unmerited rights” of the minority. It is actually the authors who were accused of provoking
negative public opinion by positively discriminating the gypsies. The human rights activists are
referred to as triggers of the racial hatred and violence. It is here, it the audience reactions, that
62 As we can see, nothing is true in itself. The explanation of a fact has to fuse with the present cultural background and thus, became relevant.63 (Výzva zástupcom televíznych…)64 (Devínska Nová Ves – rasová…)65 See the Attribution of Responsibility section
46
the critique of the system is most visible. “It is not a case of racism, but the helplessness of the
many against the irresponsibility of the few.”
Several weeks after the shooting, someone sprayed a note on the crime scene wall. This
message praised the perpetrator66 and expressed gratitude. Although the writings met with
disapproval, they still reminded us of the ambiguity surrounding the character of the
perpetrator. The writings represented the narrative about the inability of the system to protect
decent citizens. They did so in a hardy acceptable manner. But the same narrative gained voice
by a political action of a newly established nongovernmental organization – Devinska inak.67 It is
this organization that raised official complaint against the messages on the wall. But it
immediately framed them “as the result of the inability of the local municipality to deal with
citizen problems”68. According to the NGO representatives, “this inability results in violent
conflicts”. Since “there was no official reaction to the tragic event and no suggested
improvement of the problematic situation”, the leader of the newly established organization,
an ordinary citizen69, takes the situation into his own hands. He offers to bring peace and safety
back to Devinska Nova Ves. To prove himself, he starts by “collecting reports on neighborly
disagreements”70 and resolving the situation of “the forgotten victims of the shooting”71. These
are the neighbors who “suffer from living next to the shootee family”72. They have had their flat
devastated by the mixture of water and blood of the victims. And “while the municipality was
dealing with commemoration plate”73, the aware citizen acted and helped the “forgotten
ordinary people74” (suffering from the pollutive75 proximity of the murdered family not only
before but also after their death). The verification of the local relevance and fusion of this
narrative might be the electoral success of Rastislav Tešovič76, who became the second best
mayor candidate and the most successful municipal representative77.
66 The sign said: “Harman, Hero.” and “Thank you Mr. Harman. Citizens of DNV.”67 Devinska differently. Citations from the official web page: http://www.devinskainak.weblahko.sk/68 Ibid.69 As he refers to himself in his CV. Ibid.70 Ibid.71 In the section Pomohli sme Vám – Škoda sposobená násilným činom72 Ibid.73 Ibid.74 Ibid.75 “They didn’t clean the corridor“, the neighbors complain, „there were five people lying dead here.“ They got interrupted by the granddaughter, looking for deposit books. The police had to intervene. (Fotky hrôzy, Šialenec…)76 The leader of Devínska differently.77 According to official results reports on the municipality web page.
47
The aim of this section has been to identify the evolution of the meaning making narrative. This
process varied from representing the shocking, incomprehensible occurrence towards speaking
about possible reasons and providing explanations of the causes of the tragic event. To
conclude, I present official reactions of politicians78. These reactions frame and sum up the
narrative stages underlying the definition process, they parallel the media and popular
narratives.
After the preliminary shock, the definition struggle for victimhood and innocence was
underlined by the statement of the Prime Minister, Iveta Radičová79. While expressing
compassion to the “innocent victims she asks: Will we distinguish the loss of life according to
the skin color? Those innocent people that the perpetrator killed consequently, how were they
guilty?... Is nervous breakdown an excuse for murder?” By referring to the consequent innocent
victims and the nervous breakdown, she directly supported the uncivility of the Inadaptable
victims. At the same time, she made a distinction between normal people, and the perpetrator,
who had a nervous breakdown. After the innocence of the Inadaptable/Roma victims slowly
fades, only the ethnicity and the contents related to it. To illustrate, the head of the police
department, Jaroslav Spišiak80, acknowledged that “at least one victim, shot in the flat had a
criminal record. It was mostly vandalism. But it is not important, even if they were severe
criminals, it does not authorize the murder.” He adds – “Their criminal record is relatively thin,
compared to other members of their and other similar communities in Slovakia”. This
statement, similar to many others provoked the appeal of the human rights activists. After their
reaction, the racial motivation of the act becomes subject matter. This version is soon
abandoned. It is in no one interest to consider the act as such. If we acknowledge the racial
motivation of the act, the situation would require a completely different solutions and public
reactions. To prove the failure of the human rights, antiracist narrative, we could see the
reaction of the official representative of the Roma minority – the plenipotentiary, Miroslav
Pollák81. „The shootings don’t demonstrate the attitude of the Slovaks towards Roma, but
a sole, individual crime of an insane person“. This person was „mentally deranged, at least
78 Official state representatives, who can be seen the second carrier group, and who spoke through the media (Eyerman, 2011)79 (Radičová: Streľba sa…)80 Video of the improvised press conference.81 (Napäté vzťahy s Rómami…)
48
during the actual shooting“. This act thus is not related to the relationship between Slovaks and
the Roma minority.
By concluding the character of the victims as Inadaptable, it is the perpetrator who becomes
the main focus. The victims are not considered to be the members of the collectivity, one of us.
The question remains whether perpetrator is. Was he an ordinary citizen? Or was he insane and
did this insanity drive him to commit the act? The plenipotentiary prefers the latter, but the
head of the police department identifies the perpetrator subsequently: “Harman was single,
coming from a decent family… was employed.. and seemed to be a superior, serious, honest
man, who fulfills his duties as expected”.
SOCIAL PERFORMANCE
I picked the movie to be one of the bases of my analysis because of its huge potential to
become the main narrative defining the events. Alexander suggests studying the trauma with a
temporal distance. I didn’t do that. On the contrary, I followed the meaning struggle from the
beginning. It was through series of previously disjointed little narrative chunks that Bratislava
shooting turned into a coherent version. This version is presented in the movie Devínsky
masaker. Within this movie, the authors claim to present what really happened. When media
reported about the movie, they usually evoked the feeling of reliving the situation. They
claimed that „there is another shooting in Devínska, but now, in the cinema“.82 Alexander
argues that for the ritual like experience, the performance has to replay the situation and
achieve such fusion, that it generates feeling of reliving the performed story83. I think that this is
exactly what the movie strives for. What makes the analysis important is the fact, that due to
the apparent interest of the authors as well as of the investors, the movie will make it to the
national level. It is planned to be screened on the official anniversary commemoration of the
shootings. This fact makes it a highly important performance to be studied and considered. It is
now, the decisive point about the situation remaining in the realm of traumatic occurrence or
gaining relevance for wider audience.
82 (Devínsky masaker sa…) and also (Harman ide do kín…)83 Thanks to Fillip for reminding me
49
I decided to analyze the movie by the aid of social performance framework. It allows me to
combine the focus upon structural background of the movie with its actual pragmatic form and
with the influence of social power that affected the movies creation as well as its distribution.
First, I introduce the background and the script, the story and the characters that the movie
presents. Second, I turn towards analyzing the mise en scéne, the actual shape of the
performance. And third, I present the means of symbolic production, as presented by the
authors and perceived by the press.
ScriptUntil this moment, the contents of this work were mainly describing the cultural background,
the actual setting present in the public discourse. By presenting the situation of the
Roma/Inadaptable in the civil sphere institutions and by showing the binary structures that are
used to describe the main actors in the shootings, I provided the reader with and insight into
the structure and the quality of the social fabric representing collective solidarity in Slovakia.
Then I presented the meaning struggle about the traumatic character of the situation and the
trauma process - the trauma script defining the situation. I now turn towards the way the
shooting drama was performed – re-enacted within factual/fictional movie Devínsky masaker.
I present the script, as seen by the authors and as portrayed by the movie. The script of the
movie was written by the authors84. Without having the results of the official investigation, they
based the story upon the analysis of media documents that the medial partners of the project 85
provided. Although they claim complete objectivity, they acknowledge that most of the work
has been done in the cutting room. First I speak about the perpetrator, who can be seen as the
main character of the movie. Although authors deny the tribute character of the movie, the
perpetrator still plays the main role. Then I turn towards the way in which the victims are
portrayed. They are presented as an Inadaptable family and are considered to be the trigger of
the shooting. Last I analyze the message that the movie delivers. The authors intend to provide
the viewer with an explanation of the act86.
84 As they acknowledge in the interview.85 For further details see the Means of symbolic production secion.86As we can see, they perceive lack of such explanation: „It would be easy to get rid of it by saying it was a case of racism and that Harman was insane. But no one really deals with what drove him to commit the act”. (Author, in the audio interview, Devínsky masaker..)
50
PerpetratorThe movie, despite officially denying any kind of support for the portrayed action, still appears
to be almost a tribute. Already in the promotion, we can see that the perpetrator, portrayed on
the billboards, plays the main role. To prove, I present three examples. First, the movie
questions the motive of the perpetrator and tries to find explanation for his act. Second, it
presents a positive image. And third, it invites us to identify with the perpetrator.
The movie supports the narrative of the perpetrator being a decent man. Despite some few
claims of the relatives, who question his sanity and a remark from the neighbors of him being
antisocial, he is mostly portrayed in a positive manner. His close ones claim his “responsibility,
seriousness and quietness”. He is mainly presented by two people – his ex-colleague and the
chairman of the shooters club, where the perpetrator was a member. The ex-colleague refers
to him as “a honest, responsible, serious boy (our boy), not mean, who would not do any
harm”. The chairman, by describing an older competition, draws even more positive image. He
claims the perpetrator was “loyal, disciplined and respected the law, even in a situation, where
he had suffered injustice from it”. At one point during this description, there is the second verse
of the Slovak national anthem playing87. The storyteller presents the perpetrator as an
“introvert, who suffered, perceived the world as being against him”. He is referred to as a loner.
But his distance (underlined by the neighbors) is rhetorically questioned: “People were a puzzle
for him, but does it make him really dangerous?”88 While describing the perpetrator, the movie
invites us to identify with him: “Who dares to diagnose psychological state of Lubomir Harman
and who is to throw the stone? When we all often feel lonely and alienated? Was Lubomir
Harman really mentally disturbed? Didn’t the society or his close ones notice?”89 To underline
the excerpts from the movie, we could cite the authors, who while describing the movie for the
media refer to the perpetrator as to Mister Harman90.
While presenting the perpetrator, the question which puzzles the authors, the actors and the
storyteller the most is: “what made him do that, what caused him to take justice in his hands?”
The answer they provide might be found in succeeding section.
87 See the Ordinary/Inadaptable section in the first analytical chapter; Our Slovakia has been long asleep, but now…88 The storyteller, in the movie.89 Ibid.90 „There will also be some scenes with Mr. Harman still alive, which have not previously been published.” (Dezorz, Zabijak sa vracia…)
51
VictimsAccording to the authors of the movie, we are supposed to “realize the society and the
environment that the murdered people came from”. The victims are portrayed in a passive
manner, described by others. The final image is very negative. Their character is presented as
the source of the perpetrators suffering and the trigger to his action. To support, I first
concentrate upon the intention of the authors to present a certain type of people. Then I speak
about the portrayal of the ethnicity of the victims. The open reference to Romani identity is
almost absent. But I prove that the characteristics connected to it still remain relevant.
On various occasions91 the authors claim the intention to show “what kind of society and what
type of people the victims were”. They claim that they did not realize it themselves. But when
they faced the reality, when they “first spoke to the people and saw their behavior92, it all came
together”.(Devínsky masaker, ako to…) They spoke about the “people from the ghetto, real
hell”. And they even claimed that “suddenly you could understand why he did it. Nothing is as
innocent as it seems”.93 What type of society or what type of people it actually was is “left upon
the audience to figure out.” “After seeing the movie”, the audience is supposed to “know who
we are dealing with”94.To state example I quote the official movie trailer in which the chairman
of the shooters club presents the victims. He portrays them “as a collectivity – a big family,
people who were sitting in the hall, drinking, joking, picking on him (the perpetrator). They
were humiliating and terrorizing him”. The peak of the description is when the speaker states
that they “shit in front of his door and spread it all over his door handle.”
The movie describes the victims as Inadaptable. It avoids the usage of the word Roma. It only
does so by denouncing the Romani ethnicity of the victims. Nevertheless it still uses
expressive95 language to portray them as such. It ascribes generalized social and psychological
characteristics that refer to the widely shared stereotypes about Roma. “The neighbors
referred to them as gypsies although they were not Roma. It was a big family, akin with Roma,
connected. Other people considered them as Roma”96. As we already know97 if the majority of
your surroundings consider you a Roma, you are considered to be one. We don’t need an actual
91 In various media and also during the interview.92 Excerpts from the interview93 To read the full excerpt see the Attachment 394 Excerpts from the interview95 Romani music and other.. 96 The storyteller97 See the section on Problems with the definition of Roma in the first analytical chapter.
52
Roma ethnicity to be able to speak about typical ethnic signs. The typical ethnic signs are widely
present in the movie narrative. Despite the neighbors who describe the family as a decent one,
there is a voice98 saying “they were not so quiet as we present them”. The storyteller describes
the situation as follows – “there were many people living in one flat… The family was a poor
one, they were not Roma as majority of the neighbors thought. They maybe just lived a more
colorful social life”. The victims are then referred to as Inadaptable and problematic .The
“problematic members” of the family are described as “playing theater, running around the
streets, committing acts of vandalism, noisy, vulgar and not paying the rent, they went to work
to England”. When referring to the 12 year old victim, they speak about and portray him as
“having unexpected looks”, reminding us that the police, due to his long hair, confused him
with a woman. All these characteristics were mentioned without hearing the word Roma once.
MessageThe movie presents a story about an act of justice. It refers to the perpetrators act as to a
“revenge for continuous humiliation of ...(his)… human dignity”. To underline that this was one
of the main storylines of the movie, we could refer to one of the critiques99 which described the
act as a “big cleaning job”. (Devínsky masaker) According to the article, the movie reminds us
that: “intolerance, xenophobia, Roma problem, drugs, prostitution, poverty and unemployment
– create a soil that can drive more labile individuals towards unreflected acts.” (ibid)
The authors present the movie as a “nice package of facts” – package of information that
should serve the audience to make their own judgment. It is but during the interview that they
acknowledge a message included. Due to perceived impossibility to express ones opinion
clearly and openly100, the message of the movie is hidden within the gleams and glimpses.
When asked for direct wording, the authors pointed towards the closing scenes. These scenes
inform, in an objective and neutral manner101, about extremist web sites. They literally quote
them. For example – “people are already sick of multiculturalism, and if he did not shoot
sideways from the main target, many would consider him a hero”. The chairman of the
shooting club adds – “he just wanted to live where he lived, he always helped everyone, we
98 Computer modified silhouette99 This critique is stated and linked to the official web page of the movie100 Excerpts from the interview: “i still want to be able to walk in there (in Devinska Nova Ves)” or “we could not say anything direct, because it would be speculations”101 “By reporting in a neutral tone, the media not only strengthen the latent racism that is virtually genetically fixed in the thinking of mainstream society, but even help create the basis for racial hatred and intolerance..” (Cangár, 2002:264)
53
never had any problems with him”. Then the closing gradates into final lines, presented by the
computer modified voice of a black silhouette: “many people think that there were others to
die. Not those who were killed in the flat. Blankly, many people said, that there was at least one
more person supposed to die – Stano Putik”102. For the final subtitles, there is a song playing.
And as much as we know that music bears a political message within it (Martiniello, Lafleur,
2008), it is important to note, that the title song is a rap song called “by the eyes of the killer”.
This song collects the suffering of a frustrated individual, who decides to resolve matters
himself, taking the gun and silencing the ones who cause his frustration. The song in itself could
be considered another performance and be analyzed as such.103
PragmaticsThe idea of cultural pragmatics is based upon combining the analytical focus upon structures
with studying the agency of social actors. It claims, that it is not only important to focus upon
the narratives and roles that the performance contains, but it is equally necessary to see how
these structures “walk and talk in front of us” (Alexander, 2004a:530). This section analyses the
pragmatic part of the movie. It studies the actual mise en scéne. It also concentrates upon the
actors and the audience reception.
Mise en scéneTo study the mise en scéne, we focus upon how the movie was actually put together, how was
it shot and where was it staged. The main interest lies in its character. I first concentrate upon
the narrative style. I discuss the perceived authenticity of the scenes that were used in the
movie. Then I connect this authenticity with its declared documentary character. It is the
objectivity and the content of the dramatized part that are object of the analysis
The authors present the movie as a genre documentary. It consists of four types of scenes, four
important types of discourses. It first has a narrative figure, the objective, omnipresent
storyteller, who introduces comments and guides the viewer through the story. It then uses
archive material footage, from the personal archive of the perpetrators relatives. It also works
with archive material from the direct witnesses of the shooting. Third, there are the talking
heads. These are the authentic actors, the relevant people that were given voice, to express
their opinion. It is the neighbors, the relatives of the victims and those of the perpetrator, the
police officers and official state representatives that speak out. Last it supports the presented 102 One of the victims relative103 See Attachment 4
54
story by the aid of acted scenes. These scenes portray the actual shooting, or as the movie refer
to them, the massacre.
The perceived authenticity level could be represented upon a continuum104:
Inauthentic Authentic
Acted scenes Talking Heads Archive footage Narrator
The deepest source of the authenticity of this movie lies in its proclaimed documentary
character. It implies the authenticity of the actors. The critics claim that the “authors don’t
pretend anything, they just ask and record”. (Devínsky masaker) For them, the movie “provides
an objective and complex image” (Devínsky masaker recenzia) where “all sides get their space
to speak”(Devínsky masaker, document…) It is this documentary character that allows the
authors to claim objectivity and neutrality. From analytical perspective, it is important to note,
that no one disagreed with them. The objectivity and neutrality of the narrator were never
impeached. Nor anyone questioned the way in which the talking heads were portrayed. We
could say, that the message and the story that the movie presents were accepted by the public.
It was only the acted scenes that were questioned.
The acted scenes were target of critique. The way in which the featured scenes were enacted
seemed to be problematic. The reconstruction of the massacre was seen as highly unlikely and
improbable. Moreover, the expressive figures were considered inappropriate. The scenes were
criticized for being underlined by rock music and because of consisting of blood, stop motion
like footage of empty shells falling to the floor and victims begging silently for their lives. The
inauthenticity can be demonstrated upon the media critique, which claims, that the scenes “are
shot in a contemporary criminal series way and their aesthetic points towards action movies.
The scenes in themselves do not illustrate the atmosphere but lead it astray towards the
stylized world of fiction.” (Devínsky masaker masakruje…)
104 Continuum between factual – fictional media.
55
There is only one aspect of the acted scenes that was successful. It is the authenticity of the
stage. The authors wanted to first shoot the stylized scenes of the movie on the crime scéne.
Due to the apparent controversy of the idea they decided to move to other residential parts of
Bratislava. Even in these parts of the city, there were several reports to local police department,
in reaction to the shooting. People supposed it was another real case. Media did not question
the ethical character of such conduct. On the contrary, the most courageous commended the
authors for the authenticity of the buildings which served better than the actual “saddest panel
building which was already repaired by the workers in the reconstruction process”. (Devínsky
masaker sa zopakuje..)
It is important to underline the fact, that the narrative presented by the movie was accepted on
the documentary level. It was only the obvious interpretation implicated within the acted
scenes that were criticized by the media. The interpretative character of the documentary
scenes was never questioned.
ActorsOne of the important elements of the performance are the actors and their ability to become
the roles they perform. In this particular case it is the documentary character of the movie that
ensures fusion. Since the movie itself is always a certain type of representation, it is important
to focus upon the way in which the real actors are portrayed. Then it is also important to see
whether this portrait was accepted by the critique. I first concentrate upon the talking heads
representing the relatives. I focus upon the perceived authenticity of their portrayal. They are
supposed to just speak for themselves. It is important to note that there was almost no critical
reaction questioning the way the victims or the relatives of the victims represented. Almost no
one questioned the authenticity of the actors, since, they are being portrayed the way they are.
It is only within the scenic scenes that the actors perform. Therefore, second, I concentrate
upon the character and performance of the scenic actors.
I wondered how the authors perceived the relatives of the victims, to be able to understand the
way they were portrayed in the movie. The authors referred to the relatives as to a certain type
of people. When asked directly to explain what type of people they mean, the authors
explained that they had a certain perception. They knew about the people. But to really show
and prove what kind of people it was, it would require a bit more time. Literally, “you need to
fuck with them for a bit. You need to become their friend and to drink with them to be able to
56
show them in the bad manner (To show they are evil). You come there and you see, you feel
what kind of type they are, but you have to show it!”105
During the interview there was a point when we started talking about the character of the
relatives of the victims. I asked the authors about the level of cooperation and their perception.
They consider the relatives to be simple people. The cooperation with them was perceived as
good. The people “were accommodating, willing to cooperate, almost professional, almost as if
they were born for the media”. In fact authors state, they were even “too professional, too
distant. The people were not emotional. It seemed almost as if they already coped with the
situation. They did not express any emotions.”106 This lack of emotions appears to be important.
First of all if there is no suffering or emotional pain of the relatives, how can the collectivity
identify with them? How can the pain of the victims be felt by the majority, if their closest ones
do not feel it? Second, this lack of emotions, as explained by the authors is related to the
simplicity of the people. As authors explain, they consider the victims and their relatives to
“have different register of those things. The perception of time for them is like for children. It
has already been yesterday, three months ago, back then. It is different now… so money were
the question ...how much money will you give us? They asked.” For the authors the relatives
were either very simple, with minimal emotional scale, or even money driven107.
To analyze the performance of the actual actors representing the victims and the perpetrator, it
is important to note that the victims have only a very passive role in the movie. They just
represent mute dying bodies. They do not speak or act. The victims are not an important part of
the movie. Although it is their character in question, they don’t get any space. The perpetrator,
on the contrary, is present and active. The authors tried to reconstruct the exact process of the
shooting by putting the actor into positions according the video material from the witnesses108.
The presentation of the movie is also based upon the character of the perpetrator and it is his
face that made it to the official billboards. Thanks to the unfamiliarity of the actor, he was
perceived as authentic. The critics often identified the actor with the real perpetrator. “The
saddest role of the killer was portrayed by Pavol Vrabec who had something in common with
105 For the whole excerpt from the interview see attachment 3106 Excerpt from the interview.107 Struggle for civility of the intention – who was actually doing it for money, the authors, scavengers or the victims who are not ashamed to ask for money to commemorate their relatives?108 "The staff had lots of material from the witnesses, shot by mobile phones. They always positioned me according to them, to be as it really was.“ (Devínsky masaker sa zopakuje..)
57
the perpetrator. He also loved the nature” (Herec z Devínskeho…). This identification might be
problematic, since it always works both ways, especially when the actor claims “that he is a
pacifist and a vegetarian, who had terrible problems when he was supposed to shoot the child”.
Two questions remain – Why did the actors who represented the victims not get any space to
reflect their emotions? And how come no one asks about them?
AudienceOne last element of the pragmatic part of the social performance is the audience. First, it is
important to know, who was the intended audience and how did they perceive the movie. It is
also necessary to see whether the audience believed the story presented by the movie. At the
same time we ask about their level of identification with the main actors. Since we started this
analysis by focusing upon collective trauma, the fusion of the performance should be
considered on two levels. First, whether the event affected and put into question widely shared
values. Did the drama cathex with the present cultural background and become recognized as a
case of suffering? And second, did the drama affect a concrete collectivity? Did the members of
this collectivity identify with the suffering presented? And did it trigger the redefinition
process?
It is difficult to evaluate the fusion of the movie right now. Alexander suggests studying the
performances and trauma with a temporal distance. It is only time that shows which version
and which narrative becomes true and definitive. And it is only time that provides us with the
ability to evaluate fusion. With the movie, I can only state some assumptions based upon the
analysis of the press reception. It is nevertheless important, for if there will be a nationwide
screening of the movie, the information provided by this thesis might help to establish
indicators that could serve to evaluate the fusion after that.
As I already mentioned, there was no critique of the movie narrative. No one questioned the
authenticity of the script. The ordinary people believe the story about the inability of the state
to protect its citizens from the uncivil minority who pollutes their environment or from the
labile individuals who threaten their safety. It was only the way in which the story is
represented that was questioned. There are many people who do not wish to identify with the
perpetrator. “I do not wish to plea for the shooter”, he was insane. It is not the person of the
shooter, but the suffering of the majority, of the ordinary people, that is the key. These
ordinary citizens are the ones who suffer, "either by glorifying the murdered family with
58
doubtful dignity or by showing the perpetrator as a tortured victim”. (Devínsky masaker,
document…).
Means of symbolic productionThis section concentrates upon the influence of social power. It explains how the power
relations are perceived by the authors and how they manifest in the actual shape of the movie.
The power relations can be analyzed by the aid of one of the social performance elements -
means of symbolic production. In this section, the description of the means of the symbolic
production consists of three parts. It is important to focus upon the production process – how
was the movie created, by which means. Then upon the process of distribution – to see who
took part, who were the partners and how did it get diffused. And finally we should see about
the reception of the final product – to analyze the critics. All these three parts are closely
related and represent the aspect of social power that plays role in the performance.
The authors of the movie are Gejza Dezorz and Jozef Palenik. The movie is a piece-work. It was
completed on order. Authors stated: “if there was no request and no money, there would be no
movie”. When I was doing the interview, they pointed out there was no personal interest
behind the movie: “No obsession, just a product ordered, investors and the professionals who
put it in reality”. One of the main partners of the movie was the media: Slovak commercial
television JOJ, daily press SME and a tabloid journal PLUS JEDEN DEN. The aim was to create
“commercially interesting and successful movie, which will attract audience to the cinemas”109.
The intention was to fill up the market hole, a void period after Christmas. So the movie had to
be produced very quickly – one month for the script, few days of shooting and 16 days of post-
production. The materials that served as the basis of the script were obtained from the partner
media. Other materials were hard to get. As the authors stated: “There were media fights. You
could not get or use anything from the other side. Everything was bought, like on the market,
we have apples, you have pears…” After collecting the materials, author themselves made the
selection process of what was “interesting enough”, and produced a script.
The success of the movie depends on the quality of the PR campaign. One of the main reasons
for the movie to be produced, according to the authors, is self-promotion. The investors –
media and a marketing advert firm gorilla.sk took care of the promotion. There were lots of
billboards and posters hanging around Bratislava. These were provided for free, in exchange for
109 The full wording of the order, in the interview.
59
logo publication. Authors believe that the topic is a very good marketing campaign and pulls
attraction of the public. They suggest that the commercial interest was strong since the “topic
drags attention. There is going to be so many people watching. It is nothing else, then a piece of
advertisement”110. The intention was clear, to address the people and give them what they
want. What is most important about the distribution is the fact that the media partners have
the intention to spread the movie. Since it is commercially interesting, the movie is going to be
in DVD distribution. There is a plan to screen it on the nationwide level during the first event
anniversary. It has thus huge potential to become the official version of what happened, where
and to whom.
As for the critique, the media mostly perceived the authors as scavengers who want to profit
from the severity of the tragedy.111 About the actual critique – the main problem with the
movie was seen as the inauthenticity of the intention of the authors. The commercial interest
prevailed and the authors were widely criticized for doing “advertisement and marketing to
tragedies”112. The fact that they could be making money on suffering was inacceptable for most
of the critics. The authors disagree with such opinion and claim that the commerce is
everywhere. It is upon the critics to cooperate with the authors to “create audience space”
instead of “audience depression” (a phenomenon of the lack of interest in Slovak movies. They
see the reason of the critique solely in the “Slovak mentality, which considers everything
wrong, no matter what you actually do”.
To sum up it is important to note the inner fragmentation of the character of the movie
reception. It was criticized on two bases. First, for the inauthenticity of the authors, who were
perceived as scavengers, interested only in the commercial profit. This critique points towards
the inability to fuse upon the level of means of symbolic production. Second, it was perceived
inauthentic due to the mise en scéne. The critics mostly disapproved with the character of the
scenic part of the movie. These were considered inappropriate. This might point towards the
inability to achieve fusion on the level of mise en scéne. However, there was no critique
questioning the authenticity of the presented narrative, nor of the presented script. The story
as such was fused. It was just the expressive language used that was perceived as problematic.
In other words despite the fact that the expressive part of the movie didn’t achieve fusion, all
110 Excerpt from the interview.111 See Attachment 5112 Reaction from the Czechoslovakian film database web site.
60
the other parts were perceived as more or less authentic. The story about the Inadaptable
victims and Ordinary suffering seems to be credible.
Conclusion
Once we understand how social processes create appearances of truth… we will grasp that we, as analysts, can have the effect of helping groups and actors separate themselves from an
unthinking fusion with social performances. At the same time, we also know that the process of separation usually happens only when people are already committed to something else. So, you
do not just sit there as an isolated intellectual without any pre-commitments or presuppositions. You are applying reason but in a non-rational manner.
(Alexander in Carballo, Cordero, Ossandón, 2008:528-9)
The existence of this thesis is the result of several accidents. I first studied this topic in
December. Back then, there was silence prevailing around the events. In February, upon arrival
back from my travels, I was greeted by an email113 with a picture portraying the perpetrator. It
was how I learned about the movie. Due to previous interest, I was curious to see the way in
which it represented the situation and the character of the victims and the perpetrator. So I
went to see it. It was fascinating to follow how the previously unexpected occurrence of
Bratislava shooting gained autonomy and became recognized as Devínsky masaker.
What puzzled me, when I first learned about the situation, was the lightness and speed of the
emergence of open expressions of hatred. The internet discussion servers were flooded by
them, the moment we learned about the possibility of the victims being Roma. It was even
more puzzling, since despite that we learned the Roma ethnicity was a misinformation, the
prejudiced opinions and expressions of hate remained present. The word Roma disappeared
from the discourse, but the stereotypical traits that served as basis for the victim blaming
received the Inadaptable designation and are still in place today.
Both the transformation of the meaning struggle and the position of the Roma minority in
Slovakia were subject of this research. They were the two areas covered by the research
113 Thanks to Gabor, for letting me know.
61
questions. Within this conclusion I account for them and sum up the answers. I do so by first
summing up the theoretical background I used for the analysis and the theoretical implications
that this analysis brought. Then I examine the analytical findings. I directly answer the research
questions. Last, I present the importance of the findings and suggest possible follow up.
Within this thesis I analyzed the absence of a cultural trauma resulting from the Bratislava
shooting. I did so by focusing upon the process of meaning struggle that took place after the
event. To accomplish the intended goals, I used three analytical frameworks of the cultural
sociology paradigm. These were the civil sphere, the cultural trauma theory and the social
performance framework. I argue that while studying cultural trauma process, it is highly
convenient to combine the scope of these three research projects. Ron Eyerman (2011), while
studying cases of political assassination, claims that to fully understand the process how the
trauma emerges, we should not only study the cultural trauma script but also the way it is put
into action. He suggests combining the cultural trauma framework with cultural pragmatics to
account for the transformation of the potentially traumatic occurrence into a traumatic event. I
agree, and add, that if cultural trauma is to generate questions about the character of the
collectivity that it affects (Alexander, Eyerman, Giesen et al, 2004), then it is also necessary to
focus upon the social fabric underlying this collectivity. We can do so by the aid of civil sphere
framework. This allows us to study the binary codes that define the civil and uncivil character of
social groups. It also accounts for how social collectivities hold together by the aid of social
solidarity. I argue, that the state of the civil sphere, the binary oppositions and the regulative
and communicative institutions within it enables us to grasp the character of the present
collectivity and thus to capture the cultural background of the trauma performance.
In the first analytical section, I used the civil sphere framework to portray the fragmentation of
the civil sphere in Slovakia. I presented the binary opposition of ordinary versus Inadaptable.
This binary code underlies the character of the present social fabric. The term Inadaptable can
be seen as a euphemistic designation of Roma ethnicity. It is symptomatic to what Vašečka
(2010), refers to as the ethnization of the civil sphere. I argued, that despite seemingly dropping
the ethnic designation, by not referring to the ethnicity of the victims, the socio-psychological
characteristics, stereotypically ascribed to the Roma minority, still remain in place. I
demonstrated that their uncivility might still be referred to by the aid of the Inadaptable
euphemism.
62
I then focused upon the trauma drama and the representation of the suffering. By the aid of
cultural trauma framework, I followed several narratives that defined the victims and the
perpetrator. I accounted for the uncertainty of victimhood ascription, showing that there were
three different types of victims represented along the media reports: the target victims114, the
random victim and the perpetrator115. It was the civil and uncivil character of these victims that
was object to meaning struggle. Their civility was questioned and they were defined by the aid
of the ordinary/Inadaptable binary code. The meaning process took place throughout the series
of smaller narrative occurrences. I argued that it was due to the misleading 116 reportage of the
TV Markíza, that the target victims became referred to as Inadaptable. This Inadaptability
prevented psychological identification of the wider collectivity with the victims suffering. On the
contrary, the uncivil character of their perceived Inadaptability became symptomatic of a
deeper fragmentation already present in the Slovak society. It was the majority of the ordinary
people that were represented as suffering.
The suffering of the ordinary was seen as twofold. It is not only that the innocent majority of
decent people suffer from the polluting threat of the uncivil minority, but their security is also
threatened by perpetrator’s act. His motives and his character are strived for within the self-
proclaimed documentary Devínsky masaker. This movie was presented as an objective
summary of the Bratislava shooting event. Therefore I considered it as a case of social
performance. I analyzed its narrative, its pragmatics and the power relations affecting it. I did so
to be able to account for the way in which the movie strived to represent the events. It refers
to the target victims as Inadaptable. It literally designates the random victim as the only
innocent one. It presents the uncivil character of the victims as possible source of the suffering
of the perpetrator. As I have shown, it is he who represents the main character. He is portrayed
as a decent man and as an ordinary citizen and the audience is invited to identify with him.
To sum up, there were two main questions that this thesis strived to answer:
Why did the meaning struggle triggered by the events not result in generating
collectivity and collective solidarity?
114The labels were selected to underline the designated character of the different types of victims.115 Who was also listed among the victims.116 The reportage supposingly presented the victims of the shooting. It was only afterwards, that we learned that the identity of the Inadaptable women did not correspond.
63
The victims were first represented as Roma. Their ethnicity served to provide explanation of the
perpetrators act. Roma are the most negatively perceived minority group in Slovak society.
They represent the ultimate Other. The information about their ethnicity provoked an outburst
of racial hatred. The victims were represented as members of an abusive social group;
collectivity. They were seen as the primary source of the attack. Their “problematic” character
immediately justified the perpetrators action. The ethnicity of the victims can in no democratic
society be considered as explanation for murder. Blaming the victims, especially based upon
their ethnic belonging, is seen as uncivil. As such, it was spoken against by the human rights
watchdog, People against Racism. As we could see, their appeal was unsuccessful. Despite that
the ethnic designation was dropped, the uncivil character of the victims remained present.
They were just relabeled from Roma to Inadaptable. This relabeling allowed the de-ethnization
of the discourse. Their uncivility was no longer defined in terms of their ethnicity, but in terms
of the inherent cultural and/or psychological -Inadaptability. It was in nobody’s interest to
represent their suffering. There was no more space for racism accusation, since there no longer
was any Othering based upon racial traits. There was no carrier group to represent the victims.
It was nobody’s agency to re-narrate the story. The victims, defined as Inadaptable were in no
case to be considered one of Us (Ordinary ones) and there was thus no space for psychological
identification.
Could there be an explanation for the absence of cultural trauma in the actual state of
the present collectivity?
According to the results of my analysis, it is not only because of the inability to appoint
victimhood, but also because of the inability to represent the character of the victims as civil,
that prevented the generation of cultural trauma. Since the Inadaptable victims are not see as
legitimate members of Slovak collectivity, their suffering does not generate identification. There
is no cultural trauma present, since the situation became symptomatic of a deeper underlying
fragmentation present in the Slovak civil sphere. This fragmentation, represented by the binary
opposition of ordinary versus Inadaptable, became the explanatory framework of the traumatic
occurrence. This became understood as the double suffering of the ordinary citizens, who
64
suffered from the attack as much as they suffer from the polluting influence of the uncivil
minority that lied at its heart117.
This thesis, with its findings, is important for defining the character of the civil sphere in
Slovakia. It is because it questions the civility of Slovak collectivity and point towards its already
mentioned ethnization. It also questions the level of incorporation of the Roma minority into
the Slovak collectivity. It demonstrates the widespread acceptance of the perceived
Inadaptability of the members of the minority group. It points towards the problematic
depiction of the character of the minority within Slovak media as much as towards the absence
of political representation that would question the authenticity and legitimacy of such
depiction. It points out, that Roma serve as the Inadaptable Other to contrast the Ordinary
character of Slovak Citizens. The question remains, who are these ordinary citizens and what
are they like?
There are several things that could serve as a follow up to the findings of this thesis. To support
the argument about the problematic representation of the character of the victims and the
perpetrator, there could be an analysis focusing upon the iconicity of the expressive language,
used along the meaning struggle. This would mean to analyze the visual materials that
accompanied the articles, the pictures from the crime scéne and the material that was brought
along. It would also require thick analytical description of the visual and musical language of the
movie.
It is also necessary to focus upon the audience reception. The result of the meaning struggle
can’t be analyzed without necessary temporal distance. It also requires analytical tools that
allow capturing the public opinion and studying the prevailing narrative resulting from the
meaning struggle. This thesis could serve as the analytical background for operationalization
and construction of indicators that would allow public opinion polling before and after the
anniversary and the movie screening. The results of such polling could serve to validate the
findings of this thesis or to prove their inadequacy.
And last, but not least, this thesis opened a wider question about the fundamental cultural
codes defining the character of the Slovak collectivity. It is the ascription of civility, connected
to the Ordinary citizen status that generates questions. The bottom line of this research, that
117 The victims are blamed to be the trigger of the perpetrators act.
65
remains open, is: Who are the Ordinary citizens? And what are the characteristic traits one
needs to bear to become one?
66
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1984. “Three Models of Culture and Society Relations: Toward an Analysis of Watergate“. Sociological Theory, 2:290-314.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1992. “Citizen and Enemy as Symbolic Classification: On the Polarizing Discourse of Civil Society“, in Michele Lamont and Marcel Fournier (eds.) Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, pp. 289–308. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 1998. “Civil Societies Between Difference and Solidarity.“ Theoria 45 (92):1-14
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2002. “On the social construction of moral universalism: The Holocaust from war crime to trauma drama.“ European Journal of Social Theory, 5(5):5-85.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2003. The Meanings of Social Life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2004a. “Cultural Pragmatics: Social Performance between Ritual and Strategy“ Sociological Theory 22(4): 527–573 .
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2004b. “Toward a Theory of Cultural Trauma.“ In: J.C. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Giesen, N.J. Smelser & P. Sztompka (2004). Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity. pp. 1- 31. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2005a. “Why Cultural Sociology Is Not ‘Idealist’: A Reply to McLennan.“ Theory, Culture and Society 22(6):19–29.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2006. The Civil Sphere. New York and Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2006a. „Ústřední solidarita, etnická okrajová skupina a sociální diferenciace.“ In: Marada, R. [ed.]. 2006. Etnická různost a občanská jednota. pp. 16-48. Brno: CDK.
67
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2006b. “Performance and Counter-Power (1): The Civil Rights Movement and the Civil Sphere“ Culture, Winter: 1–6.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2007. “ On the Interpretation of the Civil Sphere: Understanding and Contention in Contemporary Social Science“ Sociological Quarterly, 48(4): 641–659.
Alexander, Jeffrey C. 2010. The Performance of Politics–Obama's Victory and the Democratic Struggle for Power. Oxford University Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C., Breese, Elizabeth B. Forthcoming. “Introduction: On Social Suffering and Its Cultural Construction,” Jeffrey C. Alexander and Elizabeth Butler Breese in Narrating Trauma: On the Impact of Collective Suffering.
Alexander, Jeffrey C., Eyerman, R., Giesen. B, Smelser, N.J., Sztompka, P. 2004. Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press
Alexander, Jeffrey C. and Smith, P. 2003. ‘The Strong Program in Cultural Sociology: Elements of a Structural Hermeneutics’, in J.C. Alexander (ed.), The Meanings of Social Life, pp. 11-26. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Alexander, Jeffrey C., Smith, P. 2010. ‘The Strong Program: Mission, Origins, Achievements, Prospects,’ in J. Hall et al. (eds), Handbook of cultural sociology, pp. 13-24. London: Routledge
Bancroft, A. 2005. Roma and gypsy-travellers in Europe: modernity, race, space and exclusion. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bednář, V. 2011. Internetová Publicistika. Praha: Grada.
Cangár, J. 2002. „Rómovia a ich obraz vo verejnosti (Mediálny obraz Rómov)“ In: Vašečka, M.(ed.) Čačipen pal o Roma. Súhrnná správa o Rómoch na Slovensku. Bratislava: IVO.
68
Carballo, F., Cordero, R., Ossandón, J. 2008. “Performing Cultural Sociology: A Conversation with Jeffrey Alexander.“ European Journal of Social Theory 11: 523-542. doi:10.1177/1368431008097010
Czwitkovics T., Kollár M. 2007. “Médiá” In: Bútora, M., Kollár, M., Mesežnikov, G. (Eds.)Slovensko 2006: súhrnná správa o stave spoločnosti. Pp.581-606. Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky.
Czwitkovics T., Kollár M. 2008. “Médiá“ In: Bútora, M., Kollár, M., Mesežnikov, G. (Eds.)Slovensko 2007: súhrnná správa o stave spoločnosti.pp.549-580. Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky.
Czwitkovics T., Mistríková, Z. 2009. “Médiá” In: Bútora, M., Kollár, M., Mesežnikov, G. (Eds.)Slovensko 2008: súhrnná správa o stave spoločnosti. Pp. 581-606. Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky.
Clifford, J. 1986. “Introduction: Partial truths“ In: J. Clifford, G.E. Markus. Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography. pp. 1- 27. Berkeley : University of California Press.
Eyerman, R. 2004. “Jeffrey Alexander and the Cultural Turn in Social Theory“. Thesis Eleven 79:25-30.
Eyerman, R. 2011. The Cultural Sociology of Political Assassination: From MLK and RFK to Fortuyn and van Goth. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gallová Kriglerová, E. 2009. Odpoveď je na Slovensku, nie v Bruseli. Bratislava: Výskumné centrum Slovenskej spoločnosti pre zahraničnú politiku (RC SFPA).
Gallová Kriglerová, E., Kadlečíková, J., Lajčáková, J. 2009. Migranti – Nový Pohľad na Staré Problémy. Bratislava: CVEK.
Geertz, C. 1973. “Thick description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture.“ In. C. Geertz. The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. pp.3-30. New York: Basic Books.
69
Giesen, B. 2004. “Trauma of the Perpetrators“ In: J.C. Alexander, R. Eyerman, B. Giesen, N.J. Smelser & P. Sztompka (2004). Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity.pp.112- 154. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goldberg, Alan Ch. 2007. “Reflections on Jeffrey C. Alexander’s The Civil Sphere“. Sociological Quarterly, 48(4):629-639.
Heins, V., Langenohl, A. Forthcoming. “A Fire That Doesn’t Burn? The Allied Bombing of Germany and the Cultural Politics of Trauma“.
Hojsík, M. 2009. "Rómovia a my: kam priaznivé zmeny nedorazili.“ In: Bútora, Martin - Kollár, Miroslav - Mesežnikov, Grigorij – Bútorová, Zora (eds): Kde sme. Mentálne mapy Slovenska.pp. 223- 240. Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky & Kalligram
Jakoubek, M., Budilová, L. 2008. “Mandel poznámek k současnému stavu výzkumu Cikánů/Romů v ČR.“ Biograf (45): 25
Lerner, Melvin J. 1980. The Belief in Just World. A Fundamental Delusion. (Perspectives in Social Psychology). New York: Plenum Press.
Martiniello, M., Lafleur, J.M. 2008. "Ethnic Minorities’ Cultural and Artistic Practices as Forms of Political Expression: A Review of the Literature and a Theoretical Discussion on Music." Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34:1191-1215.
Markus, G. E. 1986. “Afterword: Ethnographic Writing and Anthropological Careers“ In: J. Clifford, G.E. Markus. Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography.pp. 262- 267. Berkeley : University of California Press.
Mikuš, M. 2007. Diskurzívna formácia kolektívnej identity: súperiace obrazy „Rómov“. Praha: Univerzita Karlova. Filozofická fakulta. Ústav etnologie.
70
Morris, A. 2007. “Naked power and the civil sphere.“ The sociological Quarterly, 48(4): 615-628.
Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage Books.
Sztompka, P. 2000. “Cultural Trauma: The Other Face of Social Change.“ European Journal of Social Theory 3:449
Vašečka, M., 2009. "O vzťahoch i iným a k sebe: O diverzite v krajine pod Tatrami.“ In: Bútora, Martin - Kollár, Miroslav - Mesežnikov, Grigorij – Bútorová, Zora (eds): Kde sme. Mentálne mapy Slovenska.pp. 241 – 260. Bratislava: Inštitút pre verejné otázky & Kalligram.
71
Name Index
Alexander, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 30, 31, 37, 38, 50, 55, 59, 62, 63
Bancroft, 31, 32, 33Bednář, 28Breese, 19Cangár, 54Carballo, 8, 11, 23, 62Clifford, 25, 26Cordero, 8, 11, 23, 62Czwitkovics, 27
Eyerman, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 30, 37, 48, 63
Gallová Kriglerová, 31, 32, 33, 72
Geertz, 26Giesen, 16, 18, 19, 63Hall, 17Heins, 19Hojsík, 33Kadlečíková, 33Lafleur, 54Lajčáková, 33
Langenohl, 19Lerner, 16, 37Marcus, 25Martiniello, 54Mast, 17Mikuš, 33, 34Ossandón, 8, 11, 23, 62Smith, 11, 12, 13, 14Turner, 21Vašečka, 32, 63
72
![THESIS TITLE A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE MIDDLE EAST ...ii.metu.edu.tr/system/files/documents/thesis... · [SAMPLE 1] Approval of the thesis: THESIS TITLE Submitted by STUDENT NAME](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/6019035f39977162fc4f0b03/thesis-title-a-thesis-submitted-to-the-middle-east-iimetuedutrsystemfilesdocumentsthesis.jpg)
