George Schöpflin has presented a collection of new and previously published essays in which he examines the relationship between ethnicity, state and civil society. His basic argument is that democracy is built on all three of these dimensions (p. 6), and that only a balanced relationship between them can guarantee the proper functioning of democratic systems. Implied in this is the critique not only of Marxism, but also of liberalism, or more precisely of what Schöpflin terms the Anglo-Saxon universalist (p. 8) approach to the analysis of phenomena of ethnonationalism, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe.
          Schöpflin's analysis is based upon a number of categories and concepts taken from a variety of social science disciplines. The first of these is the assumption that there are certain normal and natural, or common sense, propositions that each society accepts without questioning, because, second, these propositions are sacralised. (p.7). The third concept is cultural reproduction (of communities) and its significance for social and political processes. The fourth concept is that of thought-worlds that give rise to particular, corresponding thought-styles, making communication between the thought-worlds, if not impossible, at least more difficult than Enlightenment rationality would lead us to believe. (p.7). Finally, Schöpflin assumes that we live not only in a concrete and palpable world of institutions and procedures, but also of symbols and rituals. (p.8). None of that is necessarily new, but the way in which Schöpflin brought these categories and concepts together seemed promising as a basis for a thorough reexamination of our understanding of the relationship he set out to analyze.
         To a large degree, Schöpflin delivers on that promise for what follows is the testing of his hypothesis against a variety of individual cases alongside a gradual further development of theoretical positions. In five parts, the book addresses closely related issues, beginning with the question What is the Nation?, then discussing the relationship between ethnicity and cultural reproduction, before turning to The State, Communism, and Post-Communism. The chapters in these three parts of the analysis I found somewhat weaker than what follows when Schöpflin discusses minorities and the ethnic factor. Part of the problem is that, while the individual chapters are united by a common theme, seven out of seventeen chapters in the first three parts of the book have been previously published in media (and for audiences) as different as Transitions, Nations and Nationalism, and the Brown Journal of International Affairs, as well as in a number of edited books. Thus, Schöpflin is not always able to follow all lines of inquiry, to exemplify all his claims, or to tease out all the details of his case. At its most extreme, this means that in a chapter entitled Language and Ethnicity in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 116-127) the reader does not learn what Schöpflin's own conception of ethnicity is. It was equally surprising that part one of the book, entitled What is the Nation does hardly ever address this key concept directly. However, this does not mean that Schöpflin does not make important points along the way and substantiates his argument well. For example, on the relationship between ethnicity, citizenship, and the state (the key relationship under investigation), Schöpflin observes the following: Without citizenship cultural reproduction is endangered, because of the unpredictability of power, even while without ethnicity consent to be ruled is hard to establish. And without the state, the framework of citizenship cannot operate. (p. 43) As noted in the introduction, this leads Schöpflin to argue that a threefold equilibrium between citizenship, ethnicity, and the state is a necessary condition for democracy (p. 43). Throughout the book, he then goes on to outline and richly exemplify the various failures, and their consequences, that can occur in the dynamics between the three dimensions.
          Further on in his analysis, Schöpflin turns to the question why ethnicity does not provide the necessary cement by which the polis can be brought into being (p. 111), and he argues that to expect ethnicity could fulfill this task is to fundamentally misunderstand what ethnicity is about. The role and function of ethnicity are aimed at regulating a different set of problems, those of the uncodified rules of the game, the implicit conditions of society, the tacit internalization of right and wrong and of the bonds of solidarity. (p. 111) This is important for a more thorough and better-founded analysis of the role ethnicity plays in state failure for reliance on ethnicity to determine the conduct of politics, a fairly widespread phenomenon when institutionalization is weak, turns out to be counterproductive, in as much as contrary to expectations, the security of the ethnic group is not guaranteed by ever greater emphasis on its reproduction. (p. 112 Schöpflin returns to, exemplifies, this key argument throughout the book, e.g., pp. 166-169, 231-232, 259-260, etc.)
          The second half of the book is spent on applying these theoretical propositions on real situations, primarily on minority issues in the formerly communist states in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Here, Schöpflin is at his best, delivering sharp and comprehensive analyses enriched by a wealth of empirical material. More general chapters on ethnic minorities in Central and Eastern Europe (pp. 231-240) and on those in Southeastern Europe (pp. 253-276) are complemented by examinations of the impact of the communist era on minorities (pp. 241-252) and their situation since 1990 (pp. 277-297). Two chapters on Yugoslavia provide a compelling analysis, as do the final four chapters that look at the various dynamics involving Hungary and the Hungarians in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Schöpflin retains his firm grip on the analysis, operating largely within the theoretical framework provided earlier, thus making his argument for an equilibrium between state, ethnicity, and civil society overall stronger.
         Some minor problems nevertheless remain. Again, it is rather obvious that many of the individual chapters were conceived as exactly that freestanding contributions to other publications. Thus, for example, in chapter 19, Schöpflin tells the reader that a brief analysis of the impact of communism in this context is valuable here. (p. 259) After having just spent the entire preceding chapter on Minorities under Communism, this comes as a mild surprise. I also missed a concluding chapter bringing together the major findings of the analysis and returning to the key themes of the argument.
            Thus, Schöpflin’s volume Nations, Identity, and Power remains after all just a collection of essays, but as such it offers excellent insights and provides a wealth of thoughtfully analyzed material.

This book, rather a collection of loosely related essays, represents an important first step towards disentangling what the modern nation-state and all its institutionalized mythologies have confused, erased, desecrated and demolished over the last one hundred years. Ger Duijzings, a Dutch-trained anthropologist whose work in Kosova began late in the 1980s, represents a new generation of social scientist who clearly has good inter-disciplinary instincts. Actually, this is not a book in the classic sense, as suggested by the author himself. The author proposes that the seven case studies are really only linked by a concern over the "tension between conflict and symbiosis...and the role played by religion in the local, regional and national politics of identity" (x).  Herein lies the problem with this work.  There has been far too little effort to compose a coherent, interrelated narrative that deals with a very important issue to our understanding of Balkan history and current events.  The rare occasion when these chapters actually speak to each other does not do enough to justify reading this collection as anything other than just that, a collection of separate essays that vary dramatically in methodology and quality.
            That I have to resort to critiquing seven separate chapters is all rather disappointing since the ambitions here are of great value.  The introduction itself is an excellent example of a critical reading of the events and tensions that plagued Kosova over the last hundred years.  The central premise that Kosova is not a simple case of irreconcilably distinct communities but a complex, historically informed interchange between loosely defined "communities" on the basis of loosely defined notions of religious, linguistic and/or ethnic identity.  This is must reading for all undergraduate and graduate students.  I equally recommend educators of all colorations to include this introductory chapter in their reading lists.  The assertions that Kosova's population has a long history of sharing cultural traits which includes language, religious rites and spatial identifications will go a long way in dispelling the more crude fixations most authors of the Balkans like to assert.  That Duijzings so intently tries to demonstrate cross-cultural contact taking place in a number of localities is indicative of how much the notion that "Serbs" "Albanians" and "Roma" are distinct and largely antagonistic groups dominate the literature.  I applaud Duijzings’ intentions.  It is about time that such over-simplifications be put in their theoretical and empirical place, the garbage bin.  Unfortunately, it is only now that ethnographers and social scientists such as Duijzings have reached the productive stage of their careers where they can actually produce articulate challenges to these dangerous myths.  Duijzings’ introduction, therefore, is most welcome and by in large a finely argued piece. It provided for much excitement in this reader and after reading it, I was expecting something of similar thrust for the rest of the book.
            Unfortunately, things did not turn out that way.  For one, it is clear that, chronologically, the introduction was the last thing he wrote for this collection.  The pieces beyond the introduction go back twelve years in some cases therefore, the sophistication and intellectual maturity exhibited in the introduction is lacking in much that follows.  The underlying problem with the entire collection is with the methodological approach that seems to often favor a dependence on an unreliable body of secondary literature rather than a healthy combination of critical reading and extensive fieldwork.  This is strange since Duijzings (at least in the introduction) goes to such great lengths to articulate to the reader a dynamic at play in Kosova wholly at odds with what much of the literature of the past seeks to promote.  Inexplicably, the case studies themselves, with the exception of his work on Kosova's Croat/Catholic community, are largely based on empirical research and not the myth-breaking evidence from the field for which I was hoping. 
            My own suspicion is that this is a testament to the problems Kosova experienced in the 1990s.  Duijzings’ ambitious project probably suffered from the accelerated bifurcation of Kosova during the Milosevic period.  There is, as a result, a major difference in quality of presentation and argument among the case studies, largely due to the fact that Duijzings was only able to do extensive field work in just one case, at the beginning of the Milosevic era.  In that case, we get a relatively straightforward ethnographic study of the Catholic/Croat community in Letnica in the second chapter (37-64), which served as an interesting example of how integrated and cross-sectional Kosova's population actually was before the resurgence of Serb nationalism in the late-1980s.  That Duijzings follows members of this community to their ultimate resettlement in Croatia provides him the ethnographic evidence to support his thesis on identity mobility.  This backdrop as a result, positively enriches Duijzings' much appreciated secondary research which results in a, if not on the whole confused, at least nuanced piece of history-writing on the Albanian crypto-Catholic community in neighboring Stublla (Chap. 4).  The minor historical issues I have about the 19th century Catholic Church in Kosova aside, I think Duijzings is at his best when he is informed by his own field work and then incorporates (hopefully in the future with more critical reading) and not depends on secondary literature.  
            I fear that with the exception of a few cursory examples of actual fieldwork, the rest of his case studies rely far too much on this problematic methodology of referencing previously published materials.  The cases in which Muslim Roma visited the Orthodox monastery at Gracanica, for example, was based on what can only be called passive observation.  Chapter three, therefore, is a missed opportunity and unrewarding.  It is clear from Duijzings' analytical style and his earlier work in Letnica that counting heads and taking touristy snap shots of subjects is not what the author himself would consider good ethnography.  Again, I am sympathetic to the difficulties Duijzing faced.  The unfortunate realities of the 1990s certainly, by force of the nature of identity politics alone, changed dramatically Duijzings' study.  But his attempt to compensate, for example with the case of the  "Egyptians" in Milosevic-era Yugoslavia (and Macedonia)-Chap 6-as well as his other example of shared religious sites in Zociste, in Rahovac Central Kosova, fails to break new ground.  In the last two chapters, Duijzings even attempts a comparative textual analysis of what he asserts are Albanian and Serb examples of how religious symbolism infiltrate “national” imaginations.  For the record, I am fully unconvinced one could take Naim Frasheri’s epic reproduction of the Battle of Kerbela, entitled Qerbelaja (Chap. 7) and situate it on comparative grounds with a post-war, state produced body of literature that recreates, and embellishes the Battle of Kosovo mythology in Serbia (Chap. 8).  This is not the place to try to debate this issue but I think the last two chapters are indicative of a general pattern of this book.  That is, the poor incorporation of chapters that do not speak to each other beyond the vague assumption that we are talking, in some way or another, about identity-formation using the symbolism of religion.
            To tell the story of Kosova where no longer the conditions permit for such a thesis to be studied on the ground is what Duijzings attempts to do with far little success.  He tries to does this, and here is where he is most at fault, by reading secondary sources (in the case of Stublla an interesting group of Catholic Church manuscripts which he does not properly cite).  After sifting through this body of work Duijzings then tries to force the material to fit his (in my view) correct suspicions about the nature of identity.  Unfortunately, this over-reliance on the work of both respected Balkan commentators such as Hasluck and Malcolm and veritable hacks is unhealthy.  Firstly, while I appreciate and respect their contributions, much of Malcolm and Hasluck's work in respect to the subjects Duijzings uses them for are based on secondary literature.  Being that much of their sources are problematic from the perspective of this Ottoman historian suggests the foundations of much of the rather important assertions made by Duijzings are equally vulnerable to criticism.  To assume authority on the basis of making unsubstantiated statements is a dangerous trap that Duijzings clearly understands, only I sense he is at a loss as to how to rectify the problem of sources.  Hasluck and Malcolm produced some of the more professional secondary resources one could hope to use for Kosova and I wholly support their being cited.  On the other hand, they should not provide the analytical foundation to what is ultimately an attempt to historicize a phenomenon that is difficult to monitor anthropologically today.  Duijzings is rightfully seeking to set new paths, therefore he should avoid redecorating old ones.
            It is here that Duijzings’ scholarship runs into trouble because he not only relies on Hasluck and Malcolm, but cites heavily local publications--from period pieces, to periodicals to post-1986 Serb "social science"--which makes the reading of these case studies all terribly frustrating.  Frustrating because Duijzings uses quite often these politically charged and in my mind, useless propaganda, to substantiate realities that are central to his argument.  I refer in particular to his rather weak contribution on the "Egyptians of Yugoslavia" where Duijzings often references a blatantly biased body of literature (if we can call it that) that emanated from Belgrade since 1990.  Citing more often than health permits the dribble of such nationalists as Rade Bozovic, Lazovic, Petrovic and Prokic, all of whom contributed to state propaganda on “Egyptians” after 1990, reflects a dangerous process of legitimizing "points of view" when they are in fact scandalously false and contrived.  Duijzings himself is far too careful to outwardly subscribe to the premise of these theories that render half of Kosova's population Roma and the other half Serb by "ethnic" origin (i.e. the Albanians do not make up the majority population in Kosova).  Nevertheless, by incorporating this material so heavily into the content, the impact on his analysis gets blurred and confused.  For instance, Duijzings is unforgivably comfortable with concluding that "Egyptians and/or Roma" claim of association to one "ethno-religious" group or another in order to receive certain social and economic favors. (150-153) That sounds like a complicit adoption of the Belgrade line of the 1990s, namely, the majority of “Albanians” of Kosova are really Roma who were coerced into claiming an Albanian identity in the 1981 census due to pressures leveled by some unidentified Albanian political and economic elite.  
            With all due respect to anyone who finds this "plausible," the line flies in the face of realities in Kosova today as in the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrating a rather surprising lack of critical engagement with this issue on the part of the author.  Firstly, it seems that Duijzings cannot reconcile his thesis that communities are not as intact and boundary-conscious as previously thought in Kosova with the logic emanating from Belgrade that Kosovar Albanians were the hegemonic community in Kosova since the 1960s that exploited and abused everyone else.  There lies the danger of adopting this flawed literature to contribute to the issue of identity shifting and the politics of the census etc. for it implicitly accepts the foundation, if not the content, of highly distorted suppositions.  
            For the record, Albanians in Kosova, as Duijzings' instincts should remind him, were not a constitutive and monolithic group.  Therefore, to suggest “Albanians” collectively subscribed to an “agenda” to force “Serbs,” “Roma” and since the 1990s, “Egyptians” to claim Albanian identity, is classic nationalist mythology at its most dangerous.  More importantly, “Albanians” did not at any time in the period of Kosova's autonomous status in Yugoslavia have the power to "coerce" others to "claim" ethnic/national status other than their own.  The pressures of assimilation that is so often suggested by Serb fascists (especially Atanasije Urosevic who is all too often referenced in this book with no qualification) are accusations that have never been substantiated with documentary evidence and fly in the face of history.  As with much of this type of literature, these are assertions made by people whose authority lie in their political allegiance to nationalist projects.  "Albanians" neither at the height of Ottoman rule nor in the post-Rankovic period in Yugoslavia, had the necessary power to make such remarkable demands.  As the massacres of 1981 suggest, power in Kosova rested not in Prishtina (and certainly not in the hands of some monolith we can call "Albanians") but in Belgrade and the Communist Party.  That Duijzings so carelessly indulges a genre of nation and identity building that has led to untold pain and suffering for so many people in the Balkans is, to say the least, a major disappointment of this book.  There are far more productive and helpful ways of exploring the phenomenon of the modern census and the motivations of individuals to adopt one particular identity or another in that context instead of subscribing to charges of Albanian "hegemony" and "genocide" during the 1970-1989.
            Again, the unfortunate conditions for the author probably forced him to resort more to using secondary resources than he would like.  That said, one would hope to see more introspection.  It is clear that Duijzings is potentially a major voice in the field and has made an important initial contribution (in the introduction) to what is a much belated revision in how we understand Balkan identities.  There is no need to beat a dead horse here but it strikes me as an important point to emphasize in this review since Duijzings clearly deserves a place where he is considered an "authority."  I catch glimpses of a critical mind and qualified anthropologist in this collection, therefore I am comfortable with Duijzings' professional and intellectual aspirations.  It is only hoped that this heavy reliance on secondary material is quickly abandoned now that conditions in the field have changed.  I am sure events over the last year will provide a golden opportunity for Duijzings to return to the field in order that he ask the same questions in an equally, but now relatively unrestricted, dynamic in Kosova.  I expect the next book will be far more focused and integrated, resulting in a satisfying intervention into what Duijzings so rightly wishes to correct.  In this book, despite a wonderful conceptual foundation outlined in his introduction and his solid fieldwork with Kosova's Croat/Catholic community in the early Milosevic period, his reliance on secondary materials contradicted the analytical approach needed to finish the task.

This book summarizes numerous important perspectives related to one of the most important social movements if the last decade of the 20th century - the civil and student peace demonstrations which took place in Belgrade during the winter of 1996/97. The two events appeared almost simultaneously, emerged as a result of the electoral fraud committed by the ruling Socialist Party of Serbia in the second round of local elections in many of the large towns in Serbia. This "study of society calling for democracy" is based on interviews with over 1000 civilians and students. The whole research was carried out and completed while the demonstrations were still in progress and before the outcome of protest was known. This work, in which the authors attempted to develop a new sensibility in social science by reflecting the mass protest is divided into three integral parts, preceded by introduction.
          Starting from the understanding of historical background as an 'escalation of the crisis and a factor of limiting social transformation', Mladen Lazic fragmentary introduces us with elements of political sphere and economic reality in Serbia during the nineties. He links elements of economic, political and legitimacy foundation of the regime with the processes of the erosion of the regime legitimacy as a result of its refusal to at least start the structural adjustment of the economy. He presents the middle strata account for the majority of the population, which defended the stolen votes in public demonstration. Prompted by their position and the initiated delegitimation of the regime, through their own action, the middle strata simultaneously experience their own homogenization process, becoming the main proponents of the movement against the ruling group. In his analyses of the historical background, M. Lazic also included some factors that show the collapse of disintegration of the former Yugoslav state (SFRY). Whole framework for crisis resolution includes also the economic system, wars in the closest surroundings, previous elections etc. In the first thematic block Marija Babovic focused on the analysis of the protest as 'the potential for an active society'. She presented socio-demographic characteristics of protest participants, including sex, age, educational, professional, marital, residential, political and ethnic distribution. The socio-demographic distribution and political profile of protest participants clearly reveal that lawbreaking and the usurped victory of the democratic opposition directly provoked the urban and educated segments of civil Belgrade and other large towns in Serbia to wider civilian revolt. Mass participation in the protest, not only in terms of numbers but also in terms of quality confirms the assumed lack of homogeneity of participants with respect to numerous socio-demographic and political characteristics. Analyzing the general character of the protest and its prospects for democratization in Serbia, Slobodan Cvejic introduced us to the most important protest demands, indicated motives of citizens for joining the protest, interpreted participants' expectations of regime change, analyzed the time frame of the protest. The presented material leads to the conclusion that the protest was of a remarkably civil nature. In the situation where the majority lives at or below the poverty line, Cvejic concludes that universal ideals have equal value to economic interests, which is not surprising in a view of the strata composition of the demonstrators. The social structure of protest participants tells us that democratic, liberal and civic values could show an ideological reflection of their interest of the middle strata in an overall modernization of society. In his research Vladimir Vuletic reflected different aspects of demonstrators' presence in the protest, their behavior and perception of prospects. On the bases of analytical 96/97 observations the protests in Serbian towns may be described in terms of a modernization process according to the model already used in Eastern European countries. Vuletic offered a look into ideological preferences and the wider meaning of a practical political effort implying the use of two key analytical concepts: that of a vision of a desirable society (desirable direction of social change) and the perception of the public enemy (the most important obstacles to the intended practical objectives). By analyzing social and political consciousness of protest participants Vuletic provided us with the guidelines for establishing a number of important points: protest participants' social profile (consistency vs. confusion), including professional and socio-political consciousness (radicalism and pragmatism). The social and political consciousness of participants in the Belgrade protest appeared to be largely underdeveloped and controversial. This basic finding did not come as a surprise because actors of political events are rarely generally aware of the overall social meaning of their engagement and all its relevant consequences. The Belgrade protest appeared more rational than other similar social movements, with a clear motive - to challenge the obvious falsification of local election results in Belgrade and other Serbian towns. In the article titled "The Walk in a Gender Perspective" Marina Blagojevic addressed the gender issues in the Belgrade protest in different spheres, on various levels using different methodological procedures. Gender dimension is traced along the lines of participation behavior and attitudes of women protesters. She noticed that the protest successfully reflected the paradox of the women's position in the period of transition. On the one hand, women already have strong presence in the public sphere, no doubt attributable to the socialist era, that have, indeed, strengthened their positions in the private sphere ('self-sacrificing micro-matriarchy'). On the other hand, the patriarchal culture is becoming increasingly misogynist. These two facts: that of the real empowerment of women and that of an increase in sexism are logically connected and also successfully correlated with the examined phenomenon - the participation of women in the 1996/97 protests. The way out of the obvious division of patriarchy can only be sought in a new 'gender contract' - the kind of contract that would balance the position of men and women in private and public spheres, both in concrete daily life and the symbolic sphere. 
          In the second part of the book, Bora Kuzmanovic offered some overview of participants' value orientations and their political attitudes. His survey showed that the largest number of participants accept democratic changes, prefer individual freedoms to equality and overwhelmingly reject extreme egalitarianism. Further more, they display low authoritarianism and lack of inclination toward conformist behavior. The students demonstrated high degree of openness to the world, but many of them simultaneously attached importance to their national identity. In most cases this identity did not imply national exclusiveness, but rather a kind of national self-awareness. Dragan Popadic offered comparative analyses of 1992 and 1996/97 protests. The two student protests seam highly similar, compared at the subsequent event, largely beyond the influence of the students that will determine whether the future will consider them winners or losers. As valuable three-month 'school of democracy', the protest of 1996/97 formed their own identity and established links between themselves and with the world. Andjelka Milic, Ljiljana Cickaric and Mihajlo Jojic made a complex analysis of socio-demographic characteristics of young generations and their families. They reflected the student protest using the concepts of 'political generation' and from the perspective of 'generation mission'. The second important theme of their survey includes the relationship of the students toward their own engagement in the protest through their identification with the specific element and contents. The authors concluded that the student protest provided irrefutable evidence of the constitution and evidence of political generation of the youth but the 'mission' this generation is taking upon itself is not the work of the whole generation, but rather of the parts thereof which, in the process of political socialization within their families, acquired the readiness, need and consciousness for social and political engagement. The third part offered an analysis of protest as an urban phenomenon. 'Belgrade is the world!' was a slogan of the 1996/97 protests. In his sociological presentations Sreten Vujovic deals with the urban character of the civil and the student protests. His attention is focused on Belgrade as the brain and heart of the country (Serbia). Civic disobedience, which has been manifested in Belgrade and other large towns in Serbia, was a public, nonviolent conscious political act. In contrast with 'the happening of the people' characteristic of the populist movement of the late 1980s in Serbia, this time it was a 'happening of the citizenry'. Vujovic uses 'moveable feast' as metaphor for Belgrade protest for a walking theater in the round. As a public place par excellence squares and streets in Belgrade became a synonymous of a carnival, spectacle, festivity, play, laughter and noise. The symbolism if the public movement may also be interpreted as a spectacle, a magnificent showy resplendent scene in a public place, aiming to attract as many people as possible. It is analyzed as complex phenomenon, which is both art and entertainment, a place where these are performed, the audience and the social act of attending the performance. The book 'Protest in Belgrade' is also provided with an appendix - the full chronology of the protest including systematically collected evidence of the stormy events in Serbia in the winter of 1996/97. One will find also a sample design and the questionnaire. This book recommends itself by the topicality of the examined issues, including the knowledge of the problems research and documented by the interesting data. An obligation of sociologists to follow the structural changes in society is applied in a proper way. The publishing of the book 'Protest in Belgrade' became a real sociological event. Written without the historical distance this book represents a piece of scientific evidence of important social destiny of the collective movement and an unique experience of hundreds of thousands of individuals. This study applied solid reflection and adequate theoretical approach to the understanding and interpreting of authentic and provocative empirical results.