Dedicated to J\u00e1nos Harmatta<\/p>\r\n\r\n
<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n
Alexander\r\nKiossev’s infamous theory of self-colonization1<\/sup><\/a>\r\nwas published ten years after the collapse of the Eastern Block. The\r\nessay provides a fair description of the metaphor in use, as: "[…]\r\nself-colonizing cultures import alien values and models of\r\ncivilisation by themselves and that they lovingly colonize their own\r\nauthenticity through these foreign models," and clearly defines\r\nthe regions to which the theory could be applied.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n "From\r\nthe point of view of the modern globalisation of the world, there are\r\ncultures which are not central enough, not timely and big enough in\r\ncomparison to the ‘Great Nations’. At the same time they are\r\ninsufficiently distant, and insufficiently backward, in contrast to\r\nthe African tribes, for example. That ‘s why, in their own troubled\r\nembryo, somewhere in the periphery of Civilisation, they arise in the\r\nspace of a generative doubt: We are Europeans, although perhaps not\r\nto a real extent"2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n In\r\noutlining a region which doesn’t fit properly in the framework of\r\ntoday’s postcolonial discourse, being neither colonizer, nor\r\ncolonized in the strict meaning of the words, but navigating\r\nsomewhere in between, he points to the very heart of the main\r\ncultural dilemma of Eastern-Europe, more accurately, of the Post-\r\nsocialist countries. One cannot resist the feeling that it is hardly\r\naccidental, that the frustration raised from being trapped into two\r\nextreme categories, popped up in the Eastern part of the region,\r\nwhich nowadays most commonly named Eastern-Central Europe, since the\r\nso-called Central part is very busy defining itself as being\r\nessentially part of Europe, or at least closer to it. No doubt, this\r\nold-new identity construction of the latter is fueled by the euphoria\r\nof integration into the European Union. This latter part of the\r\nseemingly homogeneous region in the time of Soviet dominance – at\r\nleast as it was seen as such form the outside – started to separate\r\nitself from the others (the "real" Easterners and from the\r\nBalkans) parallel to the negotiation for integration, preferring the\r\nname Central Europe and stabilizing itself by establishing supportive\r\ninstitutional systems.3<\/sup><\/a>\r\nThe phenomenon, according to Larry Wolff, operates "as a\r\npolitical project in the way it always had: as a moral appeal and\r\nreproach addressed to Western Europe."4<\/sup><\/a>\r\nThere is even an urge from the "bravest" to get rid of the\r\nmildly differentiating prefix "central" in favor of just\r\nbeing "European," a notion encouraged by the simple act of\r\nintegration. On one hand, it provides the illusion of becoming an\r\nequal member of the community overnight, which would resolve the old\r\ndilemma of belonging immediately, which goes, of course, hand-in-hand\r\nwith helpful collective amnesia. On the other hand, there is a\r\nstrong fear of the price that has been paid: losing our own identity,\r\ncultural specificity, and cultural heritage. With the most current\r\nopposition of laudation and lamentation over integration, the good\r\nold dilemmas – universal versus national, global versus local,\r\ncentrum versus periphery -\r\nare back again in a new form, to which we can add the most up-to date\r\nnomenclature: standardization versus culture with local\r\nspecificities.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Concerning\r\nart and art history, the phrase "liberal lie of modernism",\r\nwhich was coined by Griselda Pollock regarding the women’s (as\r\nopposed to men’s) equal contribution to art in the name of universal\r\nvalues5<\/sup><\/a>,\r\ncould be easily transferred to the art of periphery (as opposed to\r\nthe center) of Western art, namely to Eastern Europe. The modernist\r\ndiscourse provided a framework in which an artwork from the periphery\r\ncould have been floating in the same sea of art as an artwork from\r\nthe center, if it was able to mask (i. e. transcend) properly its\r\ngender and nation relatedness. This was a game of balancing, like\r\ndancing on thin ice. From the critical position of "art history\r\nafter modernism," the European agent of the new art history\r\nwriting, Hans Belting, gives voice retrospectively to this imbalanced\r\npower relation. "For the greater part of the twentieth century,\r\nEast and West had no shared art history … We usually ignore the\r\ndegree to which we have imposed a Western view on the East by\r\nrecognizing only Western traditions and by writing art history such\r\nas to exclude Eastern Europe".6<\/sup><\/a>\r\nDespite the guilt-driven self-critical analyses, the chapter has a\r\nhappy ending, or rather, a dream-vision – fitting to the moment of\r\nthe enlargement of the concept of Europe – of the art history of the\r\nfuture, which would be written "from two points of view or, so\r\nto speak, with ‘two voices’ hopefully in harmony."7<\/sup><\/a>\r\nKeith Moxey, an American agent of the new art history, very much\r\naware of the post-colonial condition and of the criteria of the new\r\ncritical theory, being self-critical and self-reflected, proposes the\r\nfollowing for operating within the new cultural conditions.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n "What\r\nmight the implications of what I have called a poststucturalist\r\npoetics of history have for the conduct of art history in Eastern\r\nEurope. What relevance would it have for the project of giving\r\nsignificance to the past in this part of the world. …. it is up to\r\nyou to try to think this through for yourselves. There is no doubt in\r\nmy mind, for example, that the history of Eastern European art has\r\nsuffered from the shadow of the master narrative of the West. … The\r\npoint is not necessarily to attempt to set the record straight by\r\nadding or inserting local events into the framework of the western\r\nnarrative, for there is no way in which one set of events can be\r\nconceived of as equivalent to the others".8<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n In\r\nthe optimistic midst of a new kind of liberal utopia, one is still\r\nhaunted by the suspicions and doubts as to whether unmasking the myth\r\nof modernism and uncovering the hierarchical structure of it would\r\nactually result in a compensated, revised art history eliminating the\r\nold contradiction of the center and the periphery, for which one has\r\nto only rely on the new critical discourse. To put it differently,\r\nto what extend does the basically anglo-saxon poststructuralist\r\ntheoryenable the articulation of the experiences of former\r\nperipheries? Even though the new theory claims the need to "bring\r\nmore diversity to the discussion," a "kind of cacophony of\r\nvoices" rejecting hierarchies, the theory itself is a product of\r\ndeconstructing the mainstream and canon of Western art and theory.\r\nEven its case-studies refer to the context of the center, in which\r\nthe "torturous and tortured art history" of Eastern Europe\r\n(using Hans Belting’s expression), has not been included. Thus, the\r\nnew theory is not a perfect fit for the deconstruction of this\r\nmarginalized part of modernist discourse. The paradigm of modernism\r\norganized around pure notions of style, sterile categories, and the\r\nproduction of innovation and originality could not accommodate all\r\nthe local expressions, variations, "reworkings," "belated\r\nphenomena," mixed categories, and overlapping phenomenon which\r\nlie beyond the known, well-trodden paths.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n It\r\nis not easy to avoid the pitfall of the controversy implicit both in\r\nmodernism’s universalistic claim and even in its criticism. From a\r\ncritical position, Hans Belting is against adapting Western values.\r\nYet he states, that "The attraction of Western culture in the\r\nEast, where for a long time it was inaccessible, proves irresistible,\r\nas long as people are not enough acquainted with it to realize how\r\npoorly it fulfills their overblown expectations."9<\/sup><\/a>\r\nHis attitude is twofold: being skeptical with the "western\r\nwonder" from a critical position and, at the same time, being\r\npaternal to the East from a deep-seeded control position. One just\r\nwonders, what is than the real reference against which the region’s\r\nart is to be measured, while it still could be treated as "Compared\r\nwith the West, art in Eastern Europe in retrospect mostly appears\r\nretarded in the general development and at another stage of\r\ndevelopment which means that it was performing a different social\r\nrole, two conditions that result from its historical lack of contact\r\nwith Western modernism10<\/sup><\/a>"\r\n– which echoing the neglecting standing point of western modernism.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n One\r\nfrom outside of traditional Western boundaries could absolutely\r\nsalute the subtle analyses of different paths taken by Eastern and\r\nWestern modernisms: "The interrupted success of modernism in\r\ncountries like Russia, whose avant-garde once had also stirred up the\r\nWest, gave rise to the erroneous idea that modernism had taken place\r\nonly in the West, as if it had not repeatedly been suppressed in\r\nEastern Europe (and as if its development had not greatly differed\r\nfrom one Eastern European country to another). In this part of the\r\nworld, modernism, soon had become an unofficial culture and, as an\r\nunderground movement, was therefore denied public access".11<\/sup><\/a>\r\nHis elaboration of the different path taken by the East continues\r\nwith very important statements, which strike right into the heart of\r\nthe recent situation: "Where [in the East] it did not join the\r\npermanent crisis of modernism, art – the author of this present essay\r\nwould add to that theory – remained in a state of innocence, as it\r\nwere, especially since it could easily justify itself by its\r\nresistance to official state art … official and subversive, there\r\nwas still conviction in the power of art, something that had vanished\r\nlong before in the West … Progressive art, which was cut off from\r\nany public impact, in the meanwhile has become as official as state\r\nart once was…." The author of this essay further elaborates\r\non this phenomenon in her lecture "Who is afraid of a new\r\nparadigm12<\/sup><\/a>"\r\ndelivered in 2001.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n However,\r\ncoming from the region, I can not share the opinion, which almost\r\nseems as wishful thinking, that "the loss of modernism was\r\ntraumatic for countries for which it had served as the door to\r\nEuropean culture13<\/sup><\/a>",\r\nsimply because I don’t see the loss of modernism in region. In\r\ncontrary, it is almost as valid as it was with the enforced bastions\r\nin the institutional system.14<\/sup><\/a>\r\nRegarding the criticism of the canon and the new critical theory –\r\nat least in the Hungarian case – we are definitely not at the end of\r\nthe age of innocence, as our art history is far from being after\r\nmodernism. While the shift – detected precisely by Belting – made by\r\nEastern modernism is crucial to my view as well, I would counter,\r\nthat the consequences of this "oddly reversed position",\r\nusing Anna Szemere’s phrase, are still haunting us as one of the\r\nobstacles of joining into international discourse.15<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n An\r\nunavoidable theory of "self-colonization," emerging from\r\nthe framework of post-colonial theory, was born in the region, and\r\nsoon became quite popular as a catchphrase, especially among those\r\nfew for whom the new theory was not alien.16<\/sup><\/a>\r\nAnikó Imre attributes this theory\r\nwith symptoms of postcolonial nationalism, which claims itself to be\r\n"good nationalism."17<\/sup><\/a>\r\nI myself wouldn’t simplify the phenomenon to be a mere new\r\nappearance of nationalism, claiming that the position and implication\r\nof it is much trickier. No question about it that the theory is\r\nhome-made and – using a metaphor of its own – is a self-exposure,\r\nwhich was not forced from the outside. However I would propose that\r\nthe pitfall it falls into is dug within the very structure of the new\r\ncritical theory. I would use a psychoanalytical framework, with\r\nrespect to Kiossev, who sees the origins of the symptoms of self\r\ncolonization in a trauma. "This is the precondition for a quite\r\npeculiar identity and a quite peculiar modernization. They arise\r\nthrough the constitutive trauma that: We are not Others (seeing in\r\nthe Others the representatives of the Universal), and this trauma is\r\nalso connected with the awareness that they have appeared too late\r\nand that their life is a reservoir of the shortcomings of\r\ncivilization".18<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n I\r\nwould rather additionally clarify, that those who were allowed to\r\nwrite history have treated the culture of the region in this way.\r\nHowever we can’t take for granted the view that the historians give\r\nus. The result is a double mechanism, and the oft repeated vision\r\nhas been internalized by the population of that culture. And, of\r\ncourse, the process is followed by of lowering self-esteem and the\r\ndevelopment of a cultural inferiority complex. In the shadow of this\r\npsychological construction, looms a hidden suspicion that believes\r\nthat the whole mechanism is generated for the sake of the\r\ncontrollers. Consequently, the trauma, in my view, emerges from this\r\nuncertain and opaque position of "in betwenness," – which\r\nnamed by Stephan Tötösy\r\n"inbetween peripherality,"19<\/sup><\/a>\r\n– from the constant shift of being included or excluded, or, at\r\nleast, from the mental sensation of this pendulum, and definitely not\r\nfrom a clear-cut position of the colonized. And, as it is, all kinds\r\nof trauma make one pay twice for the suffering, wherein post\r\ntraumatic disorder, at its worst, is the second turn. I don’t want\r\nto go so far in our case, but wish to direct our attention to some\r\nside effects of the trauma.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n In\r\npost-colonial studies and even in every day psychology it is a basic\r\ntenet that people who experience colonization or violence suffer from\r\nwhat is known as "mental colonization." When an ideology\r\nor behavior is used to oppress or weaken an ethnic or national group\r\nor a family member the behavior is internalized by the victims of\r\nthat ideology or behavior, and is accepted as valid. This transfer of\r\nthe aggression towards others could be even turned backwards,\r\nbecoming a tool of further self-torturing. Victimology and\r\nrape-studies demonstrate through different statistical polls, that\r\none can encounter the "blame the victim" attitude even if\r\nthe victim is male, let alone if the victim is a woman.20<\/sup><\/a>\r\nAs a further consequence of the trauma, this attitude shakes the\r\nvery trusting foundations of the subject, including trust in the self\r\nand trust in the others. The shadow of suspiciousness transcends all\r\nrelations afterwards.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n In\r\nthe early phase of the, so called, wild capitalism after the\r\npolitical changes in Hungary, there was a great willingness to\r\nattribute blame to the losers of the financial and positional\r\nrestructuring of the scene. Much of this blame came from those who\r\nwere able successfully fish in troubled water and became nouveau rich\r\nand powerful overnight, and wanted to possess eagerly even moral\r\nsuperiority. The effective psychological tool of "blame the\r\nvictim" served well for covering moral dilemmas and guilty\r\nfeelings. If the system blames the victim, there is no need for\r\nfurther questioning or analyses. And this is not even the end.\r\nSelf-blaming strategy as a coping process for sexual assault victims\r\nin the aftermath of rapes is well known for psychology.21<\/sup><\/a>\r\nIn my view, precisely this process is imitating itself in the theory\r\nof self-colonization. The victim of trauma cannot shake the limits\r\nof self-blame and goes so far as to accept responsibility for the\r\nsituation. Colonialism, or any kind of control position, consciously\r\nor not, depends structurally and politically on the assertion of\r\nclear differences between the controller and the controlled.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The\r\ntheory of self-colonialism serves exactly this differentiation on a\r\nsilver platter, and could be the best-fit fantasy of dominant\r\ntheory-makers of today. Or, put otherwise, falls into the pitfall of\r\nthe new critical theory. This strategy offers a policy of burying\r\none’s head into the sand, and cuts off any possibility for entering\r\ninto the discourse and subverting it. Rallying the metaphor of\r\ntrauma, self-colonization theory actually doubles the trauma by\r\nessentialising and fixing the binary opposition, closing the door at\r\nthe more nuanced critique and analyses. At the same time, it\r\nreinforces the old stereotypes of the region, cultures being\r\nself-destructive and masochistic getting pleasure from pain and\r\nsufferings.22<\/sup><\/a>\r\nI am proposing that this essencialising dual system should be\r\naltered along with eliminating old stereotypes. I am very concerned\r\nto get beyond the victim\/agent dichotomy.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n .<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n I\r\ndo not want to speak against the new critical theory, since I am\r\naware of the end of theoretical innocence and the framework of\r\nmodernism leaves very limited mobility for mapping the terrain given\r\nfor the "in-betwennerrs" or for those, on the margins of a\r\ndominant category. However, we should realize, that to these days,\r\nnew critical theory, let alone the discursive practice23<\/sup><\/a>,\r\nremains most comfortable where the postcolonial power dynamic between\r\nthe center and the periphery most closely resembles the former power\r\ndynamic even though it declares the elimination of such opposition,\r\noffering instead many local centers. According to this in-between\r\nposition, not so much mapping dependency is at stake, but rather\r\nmapping ignorance, so to speak, and the anxiety of getting into the\r\nblind spot of the new discourse and the remnant of imbalanced power\r\nrelations. There is an urgent need to make this spot visible, since\r\nit will be further obscured by the physical act and psychological\r\nillusion of integration. There is another postcolonial relationship\r\nthat should be noticed and studied: the\r\nconnection between nations of former periphery, whose solidarity is\r\ngreatly corrupted by the selective system of European Union which\r\nprovides them the privileges of getting into, or denying access to\r\nit. The psychological price paid by the new insiders, is the loss of\r\nany solidarity and sensation of common experiences with those of who\r\nremained outside.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n A\r\nspecial thanks goes to my dear friend, Barbara Dean for her\r\nassistance in editing the English version.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n First\r\npublished: Trans_European Picnic: The Art and Media of Accession.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n Futura\r\npublikacije, Novi Sad, 2004; pp. 42-44.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Published\r\nunder Creative Commons licence<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike\r\n1.0<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n 1<\/a>\r\nAlexander Kiossev (1999). Notes on Self-colonising Cultures. In B.\r\nPejic, D. Elliott (ed.) Art and Culture in post-Communist Europe.\r\nStockholm: Moderna Museet. pp. 114-118.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 2<\/a>\r\nIbid. p. 114.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 3<\/a>\r\nSee Central European University (CEU), Budapest; magazines like\r\nCENTROPA published in New York; Central European Cultural Institute,\r\nBudapest and its periodical European Traveller published in\r\nBudapest; Praesens. Central European Contemporary Art Review,\r\npublished in Budapest etc.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 4<\/a>\r\nLarry Wolff (1994). Inventing Eastern Europe: The map of\r\ncivilization in the mind of the enlightment. Stanford, California:\r\nStanford University Press. p. 156.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 5<\/a>\r\nGriselda Pollock (1996). Inscription in the Feminine. In M. C. de\r\nZegher (ed.) Inside the visible: an elliptical traverse of twentieth\r\ncentury in, of, and from the feminine. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 6<\/a>\r\nHans Belting (2003). Art History after Modernism. Chicago: Chicago\r\nPress. p. 54.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 7<\/a>\r\nIbid. p.61.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 8<\/a>\r\nKeith Moxey’s lecture "Art history today: problems and\r\npossibilities" was delivered at Central European University,\r\nSummer University Course, Budapest, "History and Theory of Art\r\nafter the cultural turn" (course director: Margaret Dikovitsky)\r\nBudapest, 2001.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 9<\/a>\r\nBelting op. cit. p.56.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 10<\/a>\r\nIbid. p. 57-58.\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 11<\/a>\r\nIbid. p.54<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 12<\/a>\r\nThe concept first developed: Edit Andr\u00e1s\r\n(1999) "Exclusion and Inclusion in the Art World". <\/b>In:\r\nMoneyNations Magazine. The Correspondent. Zürich: Shedhalle.\r\npp. 51-52. Further development: Edit Andr\u00e1s\r\n(2003), Who is afraid of a new paradigm? The old practice of art\r\ncriticism of the East versus the new critical theory of the West.\r\nVienna: Selene, pp. 96-105.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 13<\/a>\r\nBelting op. cit. p. 54<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 14<\/a>\r\nÁgnes Berecz (2003), "The\r\nHungarian patient: Comments on the Contemporary Hungarian Art of the\r\n90s". Artmargins online, www.artmargins.com<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 15<\/a>\r\nAnna Szemere (2001), "Western influence and the discursive\r\nconstruction of postmodernity in the cultural debates of\r\npostsocialist Eastern Europe". Paper presented at the 27th<\/sup>\r\nmeeting of Sicoal theory, politics, and arts. Golden Gate\r\nUniversity, San Francisco<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 16<\/a>\r\nS\u00e1ndor Hornyik (2003), "Art\r\nhistorian on the Post-Comecom market". Praesens No. 1.\r\npp.24-29; Katalin Tim\u00e1r (2002), "Is\r\nyour Pop our Pop? The history of art as a self-colonizing tool".\r\nArtmargins online; Iara Boubnova (2000), "From defects to\r\neffects. self-colonization as an alternative concept to national\r\nisolationism". European Institute for Progressive Cultural\r\nPolicies. http:\/\/www.eipcp.net\/diskurs\/d01\/text\/ib01.htlm<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 17<\/a>\r\nAnikó Imre (2001), "Gender,\r\nLiterature, and Film in Contemporary East Central European Culture".\r\nCh. 3. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture:P A WWWeb Journal\r\nhttp:\/\/www.clcwebjournal.lib.purdue.edu<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 18<\/a>\r\nKiossev op. cit. p. 114.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 19<\/a>\r\nImre op.cit. Ch. 3.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 20<\/a>\r\nPatrick C. L. Heaven, john Connors, Annelie Pretorius (1998),\r\n"Victim characteristics and attribution of rape blame in\r\nAustralia and South Africa". The Journal of Social Psychology\r\n138. pp. 131-3\r\n<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n 21<\/a>\r\nGulotta, G. and de Cataldo Neuberger, L. (1983) A systematic and\r\nattributional approach to victimology. Victimology, 8, pp. 5-16.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n