OLD MYTHS, NEW RITES?
Notes on the International Conference "Nationalist Myths and Pluralist Realities in Central Europe" at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, October 26-27, 2001

Andriy Zayarnyuk
and
Srdja Pavlovic

The international conference "National Myths and Pluralist Realities in Central Europe" took place at the University of Alberta (Canada) on October 26-27, 2001. It was jointly organized by the Canadian Centre for Austrian and Central European Studies (University of Alberta) and the Centre for Austrian Studies (University of Minnesota). As stated in the program: "the objective of this conference will be to re-examine some of the most persistent myths of Central European history in the light of new research and to invite a reconsideration of the confrontational view of the common past inspired by nationalist hostilities." Over two days in eight conference sessions, twenty-three participants presented research papers and essays. Before proceeding with an overview of a number of the papers delivered during the conference in Edmonton, we feel obliged to address the issues of the concept and setting of the conference, and offer our interpretation of the general framework within which the presentations and subsequent discussions took place.

Reflections on the Conference Setting: The Politics of a Title

Andriy Zayarnyuk

My first reaction upon learning the title of the conference, "Nationalist Myths and Pluralist Realities in Central Europe," was that it implied a juxtaposition of these two ideas, and I immediately wanted to challenge this opposition based on the assumption that the pluralist geography of Central Europe is masked and forgotten in nationalist historical myths. According to the organizers, these nationalist myths "remain a bitter impediment to the avowed pluralism and integration processes of the new Europe." Being a child of Gorbachev's perestroika and having some very concrete ideas about what pluralism means, I decided to challenge the title of the conference by showing that pluralism is something very different from heterogeneity. From this point of view, pluralism requires a common framework which makes dialogue possible. In my presentation, I wanted to show that nationalist myths were not impeded by but necessary for the establishment of this kind of pluralism.

However, when the conference was about to start and the programs were printed, I realized that there was also a subtitle: "Exploring the History of a Dangerous Dichotomy." At first I thought that my original assumptions were wrong and the conference was going to explore the dangers of juxtaposing nationalist myths and pluralist realities. However, the explanations of the title provided in the opening speeches of the organizers, Gary Cohen and Franz Szabo, made it perfectly clear that the task of the conference was not to explore the construction of this "dangerous dichotomy" but rather to concentrate solely on nationalist myths. That is why the meaning of the subtitle remains for me a mystery; the only explanation I have is that "dangerous dichotomy" was understood as imagined versus real, with imagined being false and irrational, to be found in national histories expressing "confrontational views of the common past" and "inspired by nationalist hostilities."

This is a good example for how certain categories of analysis can be abused and confused when transplanted from one intellectual framework to another that is in some ways antithetical to it. Is it just that words become too fashionable? Or maybe there is a certain strategy behind this - the strategy used by pluralists of all kinds: to pacify through alleged accommodation, to maintain the appearance of a dialogue where any form of dialogue is impossible? Was not construction of the national in this setting too often interpreted as the invasion of the dangerous and irrational regression to interpretations of nationalism as atavistic, precluding the development of "better" and "normal" states, political institutions, and eventually history?

Srdja Pavlovic

Indeed, the title chosen for the conference radiated with all too familiar flair: chiaroscuro generalizations and the attempts to re-examine the relations between them and us in the context of Central Europe. It was an unfortunate but commonly advanced juxtaposition of "bitter impediments" manifested through nationalist myths and "the avowed pluralism" reincarnated in the latest construction called "new Europe." I agree that what was needed was to make a clear distinction between pluralism and heterogeneity. Making such a distinction is particularly important in light of the fact that it is not difficult to elaborate on the heterogeneous character of the geographic region called Central Europe but addressing aspects of its "pluralist realities" is a far more daunting and rewarding project. Unfortunately, such discussion did not take place at the conference. The question of the nature of contemporary European integration processes deserves a separate study and will not be addressed here. However, I have to point out that the fairy-tale like image of European "pluralist realities" has been somewhat tarnished by the immigration laws and policies enacted in many European countries since 1990, and further blackened with the election of yet another government on an anti-immigration platform (i.e. Denmark). With this in mind, one could analyze the notion of a pluralist new Europe as yet another mythical construction.

The title of the conference and the short explanatory note that accompanied it did indeed accomplish one thing. Both the title and the text pointed out in a most clear fashion who the foes of this new pluralist Europe are (or should be). Both illustrations on the cover of the Conference Program (Uros Predic's painting "Kosovska Devojka" and a photograph of a bullet-ridden street-sign in the Croatian town of Vukovar) are representations from the Balkan image-gallery of death and destruction. One would assume that they were put together on a page in order to highlight the contemporary fault-lines between Central European pluralists and Slavic tribal chieftains. But these images represent two events that took place some six hundred years apart (the Battle of the Kosovo occurred in 1389 and the onslaught on Vukovar in 1991). When they share a page on a conference program, one gets a clear message about the historical continuity of violence, irrationality and fratricide among the South Slavs.

As far as "the history of a dangerous dichotomy" is concerned, I believe this statement illustrates the perception of European history as a history of a permanent crisis in the European order of things and indicates a centuries-long struggle against being overtaken by the unwanted "other." Even though we fell short of hearing the full explanation of this term, it seems correct to assume that the conference organizers employed the phrase "dangerous dichotomy" as a reference to nationalist-minded histories.

Eight Stages of Separation: An Overview of the Conference Presentations

The opening session of the conference was entitled "Austrian Myths," and the first presentation was by Martin Moll. His paper "'German Bulwark in the Southeast': Reactions of Austrian Germans to Slovene National Emancipation in the Duchy of Styria prior to 1918" focused on the other side of the "national emancipation," on the construction of this process by the nation's "Other." In the course of his presentation, Moll explored ways in which this particular expression of nationalism was used by the other side, and on the manner in which it was interpreted. He also elaborated on the various images of "national emancipation" that had been constructed and that circulated among Austrian Germans. He argued that this process cannot be approached one-sidedly as a division between winners and losers, attackers and those defending themselves. According to Moll, the issue should be approached from a different perspective: that of the Slovene response to German pressure. He pointed out that the founding of the Slovenian Catholic Party and its activities can be seen as a manifestation of such a response. Recognizing the unwillingness on the part of Germans to accommodate the aspirations expressed by minority groups, he pointed out that myths about the Slovenian threat persisted in Austria after 1918. According to Moll, the same myths were revived after the end of the Second World War.

The Slovenian slant to this section was picked up by Tom Priestly, who analyzed the events leading up to the plebiscite ( Volksabstimmung) of 1920 in Carinthia (Austria). A pivotal event discussed in this presentation was the so-called "defense struggle" ( Abwehrkampf) of the Carinthians against the Yugoslavs, who had laid claim to and seized parts of Southern Carinthia. As Priestly pointed out, this miniature war (December 1918-June 1919) ended in defeat for the Carinthians and has been seen by many as decisive in the eventual conclusion of the Paris Peace Conference with respect to Carinthia. However, many historians assert that, despite insufficient documentary evidence to prove this argument, the "defense struggle" may only have had a secondary influence on the outcome of the peace talks. Priestly analyzed the most recent extreme, "mythological" version of this argument, as expressed during the last decade in writings of Germanophile-nationalist organizations, and traced its contemporary usage in constructing and initiating various anti-Slovene campaigns.

In the next paper, Ramona Kirsch explored the dynamics of tourism as a leisure practice and conceptions of identity in Austria from the Dual Monarchy to the First Republic. She argued that the economic, social and political fashioning of tourism in Austria both reflected and shaped the tensions and conflicts between an emerging myth of Austrian nationalism and the pluralist realities inherited from the multi-ethnic monarchy. Kirsch traced the connection between tourism and the conception of Austrian identity back to the nineteenth century, to the time of increased travel and the building of railroads. She argued that as the Baedeker travel guides became the most popular travel mediators for the bourgeoisie, alternative mediators arose in response to the perceived narrowness and biases of Baedeker. According to Kirsch, exploration of the differences between various mediators of tourism can unveil the public discourse and tension between various sectors of an emerging national travel culture connected with social change. Thus, the new concept of working-class tourism was developed during the First Republic based on ideas about healthy leisure, collectivism, and planned vacations as a way of escaping the harshness of the industrial world and as a necessary periodic change in environment for the working class. The picturesque and "authentic" tourist experience of the bourgeoisie was discursively paired with the more utilitarian concepts of working-class tourism. Examining Baedeker travel guides, Kirsch successfully illustrated discourses about both internal and external tourism within Austria. Seeing these two different travel mediators as markers of modernity, she recognized the existence of clashing identities within the Austrian travel culture. Furthermore, Kirsch pointed out that these identities both reflected and shaped the social and political tensions in the new Austrian Republic.

Alison Rose presented the preliminary findings of her research project "The Transformation of Jews in Nineteenth-Century Austria." She concentrated on examining Jewish reactions to nationalist movements and their articulation of gender differences and the mediating role of the family as presented in the writings of Austrian Jews and women. Her primary focus could be defined as an analysis of the relationship between gender nationalism and narratives of Jewish emancipation and identity in the Habsburg context, as well as ideologies related to Jews and gender which defined these groups as "others." Memoirs, letters and diaries written both by Jews and women in the mid to late nineteenth century constitute the core of Rose's primary sources. As for the methodology she used, we should mention a questionnaire that Rose mailed to a number of Jews from the Habsburg monarchy still alive and living in the U.S. Their answers indicated that the Jewish position during the last few years of the Habsburg monarchy was neither rapidly deteriorating nor improving at a noticeable pace. Based on Rose's findings, it seems that many of the Habsburg Jews during the period (regardless of their political persuasion) displayed considerable loyalty to the Habsburg Crown and saw themselves as Austrian.

In the next session devoted to "Hungarian Myths," Ildiko Scilla Olasz analyzed the Hungarian mythic perception of history in Transylvania. She argued that the identity and self-perception of the Hungarians in Transylvania relies partly on the myth of the 1848-49 Revolution, in which the image of a dominated people (Hungarians in present-day Romania) is transformed into one of a people that were (and still are) culturally superior. This image rests on the construction of historical narratives that present Hungarians in Romania as being assigned a specific civilizing mission in the whole of Central Europe. While referring to the work of Keith Jenkins, notably his book Re-thinking History, Olasz concluded by expressing the hope that a more critical approach to history and its re-conceptualization will result in rooting out the sources of hatred and problematic inter-ethnic relations.

Tamas Stark elaborated on the topic "Hungary is the Bulwark of Europe," an idea first advanced in a Baroque epic written by Nicholas Zrinyi in the seventeenth century. This myth also reiterated Hungary's historical right to the entire Carpathian basin, a territory that was part of Greater Hungary before 1918. According to Stark, it was in the period between the two world wars that this myth became a central element in political discourse and a very powerful symbol in the aftermath of the Trianon treaty. He stated that this was the time when Hungary felt betrayed by the rest of Europe and that such feelings of dissatisfaction contributed greatly to its aligning with Nazi Germany. During the early 1990s this myth resurfaced in the Hungarian political arena, somewhat modified and refurbished with new signifiers. This modern incarnation of the myth presents Hungary as a rightful, equal member of the European Community and NATO. In conclusion, Tamas Stark pointed out that this myth could be analyzed not only as a reflection of the feelings of national pride and superiority but also as a manifestation of a nation-wide inferiority complex.

These presentations led to a lively discussion about the messages these myths convey and about the effectiveness of their impact upon society. Some participants suggested that the factual bases of these myths should be recognized and that a change of terminology was in order, that one should speak in terms of the reality/realities, in which peoples in these countries live, rather than address these issues as myths. Others suggested that a change of discourse was necessary in order to explain the themes presented by the speakers, and that introducing the term "ideology" instead of "myth" might be the best way of dealing with these issues, since ideology, among other things, implies manipulation, while myth suggests popular adherence. At this point we would also like to address the question of the character of Count Zrinyi's poem. It is not clear that the poem was intended and interpreted in the seventeenth century as an ethnically Hungarian piece of propaganda, not only because the author's family was bilingual (Hungarian/Croatian), but also because the symbolism of the poem played much more on the class-loyalties of the gentry to their Land than on ethnic exclusivism.

The next session was devoted to "Czech Myths," but it began by discussing Germans in Czechoslovakia. The topic of Dale Askey's presentation was "The German Minority in Czechoslovakia after the Expulsion," and the focal point of his essay was the myth about post-1945 Czechoslovakia being cleansed of all Germans. Following World War II, both German and Czechoslovak governments claimed that there was no German minority remaining on Czech or Slovak soil. The reasons for these claims had largely to do with the political expediency of the period. By denying the existence of a German minority, the Czechoslovak government was able to ignore the reality of the cultural and political needs and aspirations of this group. By claiming that the expulsion had been complete, the government of the Federal Republic of Germany was able to avoid the fact that the continued existence of a German minority in Czechoslovakia somewhat relativized the victim status attributed to the Sudeten Germans. Furthermore, in the context of the Cold War this issue played a major role in the relations between the two countries and their respective nations. Dale Askey proceeded to document the existence of this minority by examining and highlighting their literary output. The focal point of his research was the national German-language newspaper, Aufbau und Frieden (renamed Prager Volkszeitung in the 1960s). Askey elaborated on transformations in this circle of German intellectuals and their personal and literary connections with the GDR, and illustrated the decline of their activities. Askey presented not only a synopsis of "literary reclamation" work but also outlined the development of a cultural consciousness in the post-WWII German community.

In his paper "The Victorious Organic Nature of Czech History (Kulturni Politika-1946): Civil Pluralism and Political Unanimity in Czech Political Culture," Alfredo Laudiero analyzed a particular aspect of Czech political culture that he defined as "an administrative way of conceiving of politics," namely, the attempt to shield politics (high politics in particular) from the disrupting effects of political struggle and direct it towards the well-ordered and unanimous management of the common good. Laudiero went on to describe the origins of such a political attitude in the National Revival period and outlined its main features as they grew stronger in the second half of the nineteenth century. The central point of his presentation can be summarized as follows: Czech political experience in the nineteenth century varied between rather lively expressions of civil pluralism and the potent urge to maintain national and political unanimity.

Madelaine Hron explored the role of myth in post-communist Czech emigrant texts. She paid particular attention to the negative attitude in the Czech Republic towards emigrant writers, and to the fact that the issue of "national outsiders" rose in prominence after 1989. She attempted to analyze complex myths surrounding the figure of the émigré as they relate to the post-communist Czech Republic. Her paper was largely inspired by Milan Kundera's latest novel (La Ignorancia) and his efforts to address the manifold myths surrounding emigrants. Part of this mythical structure is the possibility of return, including the possibility of some practical and concrete claims that emigrants might make. In Hron's words it is the story of the transfer of emigrants "from the imaginary space of brotherhood to the inimical space of neighborhood." But such a journey is everything but pleasant, and Kundera points out that returnees should realize that they won't be welcomed as either heroes or victims. Furthermore, Hron illustrated the extent to which Czech emigrant writers (Kundera included) engaged with nationalist discourse and that the final product of such engagement was a display of "profound disillusionment with the idea of the nation itself."

In her paper "The Plaster of Paris Street and the Cement of Anti-Semitic Myth," Cathleen M. Giustino traced connections between the creation/re-creation of urban landscapes and the politics of anti-Semitism in 1900s Prague. The central feature of her presentation was the myth that all Jews were inherently and unalterably enemies of the Czech nation; Giustino analyzed how and why the construction of important art nouveau designs in Prague contributed to the cementing of this anti-Semitic Czech nationalist myth. She chose to look into the process of the sanitation of Jozefov, the former Jewish ghetto, by Czech politicians in control of the municipal council and by its Jewish members. The urban modernization of Jozefow was conceived by August Stein, who was then in charge of the Municipal Urban Modernization Office in Prague, and was implemented through his project known as the "Finish Ghetto" Plan. By 1890 the ghetto was no longer dominated by Jews but rather had become one of Prague's worst slums, populated by poor artisans and wage-laborers. It was known as the "poor's quarter." By the time the project was completed, only 12 buildings in old Jozefov were left standing and "Paris Street" became the central avenue of the quarter. Paradoxically, the destruction of this Jewish historical site and of Jewish synagogues was interpreted as another "Jewish fraud."

In the section on "Romanian myths," Constantin Parvulescu discussed "The Image Question in Contemporary Romania" and analyzed the phases of development and change in the Romanian media between 1996 and 2001. He argued that exaggerated concerns over representations of Romania in the West, as expressed through the media, reflect the process of Romanians internalizing Western perceptions. Through the analysis of newspaper articles and television reports on events in contemporary Romania, Parvulescu tried to highlight the persistent efforts by the Romanian media to sanitize the image of this country in the eyes of the West. In an attempt to polish the image of the Romanian nation, the media often associate "unacceptable and criminal behavior" with various ethnic groups (the Roma being the group targeted most frequently), corrupt politicians and criminal organizations. Parvulesku placed particular emphasis on various connections between the discourse on image and the variant of the discourse on nationality corresponding to different class or group interests.

Ruxanda Trandafoiu spoke about the process by which national identity in Transylvania was breaking up and discussed the Romanian way of "imagining" and using conflicting national myths. The focal point of her presentation was the analysis of a fault-line in Romanian national mythology between Transylvania and the rest of the country. Furthermore, she elaborated on the contested cultural frameworks within Romania and pointed out earlier attempts to construct cultural patterns typical for Transylvania. According to Trandafoiu, these contesting myths in Romanian society (center versus periphery) took the shape of a modern debate about the necessity for the country to Europeanize.

Because of the number of presentations dealing with the Balkans, the conference organizers decided to divide the session on "Balkan Myths" into two parts. During the morning session, "Balkan Myths I," Oto and Breda Luthar spoke about reconstruction of the sites of memory and sites of mourning in Slovenia after 1991, analyzing examples of the ways in which resistance to Nazism and Fascism/collaboration with occupying forces in Slovenia during World War II had been reinterpreted. Their presentation focused on ways of recovering "authentic" Slovenian national history. The two presenters pointed out that what had started out as political revisionism after the "massive reorganization of political space along national lines" in the former Yugoslavian SFR, quickly took the form of reinterpreting crucial segments of the national past. According to their findings, this re-telling of the story in order to come up with a "true account of the past" manifests itself in a continuous marginalization of those who fought against the occupying forces, in the destruction of WWII monuments, and in the elevation of members of the Home Guard (an anti-communist organization that collaborated with the occupying force) to the level of national heroes and true patriots.

The second installment of the Balkan national disequilibria bore the title "Balkan Myths II." The first presenter in this session was Milan V. Dimic, who pointed out that the collective memory of the existence of the Serbian medieval state(s) directly influenced and shaped concepts of modern-day Serb nationalism. Dimic proceeded to argue for the presence of traces of Serb national consciousness among the subjects of the medieval Nemanjic dynasty, thus implying that during the eleventh and twelfth centuries the population in the region had thought of itself in national terms. Dimic's argumentation was carefully tailored towards reiterating the old nationalist myth about the temporal and historical continuity of Serb presence in the region.

Isa Blumi discussed ways of understanding the margins of Albanian history and elaborated on events following the Berlin Treaty of 1879. He pointed out that the process of constructing geographical boundaries between so-called Muslim and non-Muslim states had a profound impact on how interchange took place between local populations and the states involved. He suggested that the process of local and imperial exchange is informed by the defining acts of how locals adapted to these new frontiers. Blumi argued that different Albanians had very specific regional interests that could not be reduced to a universalized "national" character or political unit, and that the frontiers imposed by the European powers and by the educational and economic reforms thought to have solidified post-Ottoman identities prove confused at best. Furthermore, he suggested that the social infrastructure that emerged in the region after the Tanzimat might have been the key factor in creating the social context necessary for the construction of modern forms of ethnic identity. These local interests, according to Blumi, undermine the cohesiveness of national histories. His findings and analysis aimed at rendering problematic both the obsolete nationalistic historiography of Albanian nationalism, which is characterized by monocausal explanations of phenomena that is undergoing continuous modification, and the relatively small number of external histories of the region. According to Blumi, both kinds of historiographies represent an uncritical reading of the ethnic and sectarian dynamics that existed at the time, and the lack of historically grounded and sociological scholarship is an impediment to a better understanding of the social realities in regions such as the Balkans.

Vladimir Ortakovski analyzed the current political situation in Macedonia in light of contesting Serbian and Albanian nationalisms. While discussing aspects of both nationalisms, Ortakovski defined a set of "seven rules of nationalism," which are applicable to most nationalist movements:

With the example of their attitude towards Macedonia, Ortakovski presented how the simple logic of nationalist hatred can be revealed behind the shell of the rhetoric used by politicians.

Presentations on "Slovak, Polish and Ukrainian Myths" followed. Tibor Pichler presented his findings on the issue of the populist/plebeian myth in Slovak history. He described the content and function of this myth and tried to show the existence of a strong correlation between "mythological political ideology and the extra-institutional origins of national movements which embrace it." The point of departure for his analysis was the assumption of a difference between an institutional or state myth and a populist myth. He also recognized the possibility of the state intervening as a destabilizing factor or as one that encourages the process of new construction. Pichler distinguished between myths related to institutions and myths related to peoples, in other words, between two categories of political myths, and he positioned the populist/plebeian myth in the second category, elaborating on these myths as patterns of a national ideology and as signifiers of the process by which a nation is "conceived outside of existing political institutions and is without representation in existing state institutions."

Agnieszka Nance spoke about nineteenth-century Galicia as a part of the Polish literary imagination. She pointed out that Galicia had played a special role in constructions of Polish identity and culture in the nineteenth century, stating: "Its citizens created their own kind of Polishness and became the dominant 'imagined community' (Benedict Anderson) of the Polish nation-without-a-country." Nance elaborated on Galicia as being a mythical land of relative independence for many Poles. There, "Polish political, cultural and social life was still cultivated and 'old' structures along with Polish habits were maintained." Her essay presented an "imagined Poland" as seen through the works of the Polish writer Jan Lam, juxtaposing his Galicia with the exotic Galicia of Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach. While providing diametrically different political evaluations of events, both use a very similar set of images of Galicia, which allows for one to speak about a certain "multi-ethnic Galician literature."

The last session was entitled "Old and New Pluralisms in Central Europe: Myths and Realities." Peter Urbanitsch elaborated on various elements of the myth of the emperor from the time of Francis II (I) up to 1918. His analysis included an assessment of the emperors, the bureaucracy of the Habsburg Monarchy, its military and school system, as well as public buildings, monuments, literature and arts. Urbanitsch contrasted these elements of myth-making with the political and social reality in the Habsburg Monarchy of the nineteenth century, a contrast which "becomes evident when looking closely at the Kaiserjubiläumsfestzug of 1908." Urbanitsch also analyzed the ways and means by which the emperor's myth was instrumental in creating an identity which aimed at encompassing as much of the population as possible.

Fred Stambrook's presentation dealt with "pluralism in action." He elaborated on the ethnic strife in Bukovina and argued that it had been confined to manageable bounds "by compromises by the leaderships of the various ethnic/national communities." He applied the concept of multiple identities and multiple loyalties in order to illustrate that, contrary to the interpretations of nationalist historians, there had been a multi-ethnic pluralist society in Bukovina prior to 1914, very viable and managing to compromise with the various ethnic interests. According to Stambrook, a high percentage of the elite in Bukovina displayed an attachment to the idea of Austria and "the allure of being citizens of a Great Power in which civic rights prevailed." In conclusion, Stambrook stated that in the years prior to 1914, a sense of a distinctive Austro-Bukovinian identity developed.

This final session of the conference ended with the presentation by Karin Liebhart on "National Identities and European Identity in the Process of EU-Enlargement." She went on to reconstruct political identities and the underlying patterns and nationalist myths which influence the process of EU enlargement. Hungary, Slovakia and Austria served as examples upon which Liebhart built her argument. Her paper was based on the initial results of a multidisciplinary comparative research project, coordinated by the Department of Social Sciences of the Austrian Institute for East and Southeast European Studies. Her presentation concerned the questions of how the respective national cultures are constructed and which symbols, nationalist myths and cultural patterns serve as means of identification for Hungary, Slovakia and Austria. Moreover, she addressed the question of which elements from the historical archives of these three countries are used and which traditions are reinvented in the respective political cultures. Finally, she spoke on the impact that the process of constructing European identity has on the construction of national identities.

Concluding Remarks

We think that the conference proved that explaining events through the prism of nationalist myths is a futile exercise. Those who tried to analyze nationalist myths in the context of a clear distinction between real and mythical (tertium non datur) had difficulties in applying such a procedure of verification to the myths they analyzed. Moreover, analyzing myths as coherent structures proved to be a not particularly exciting or challenging undertaking. Most of the Central European myths in question appeared to be very much alike. From our point of view, the most interesting presentations were those not adhering to a single definition of mythical but trying to show how these so-called myths were constructed. According to these interpretations, myths were not set in opposition to but rather were weaved into the complex matrix of reality. These presentations showed that coherent and myth are oxymorons, that the mythical is located at the multiple intersections of the social, political and ideological. Thus, quite often the best way of "explaining" myths was to avoid using the term altogether, since reiterating the word myth only reconfirms its vitality and reinforces its presence in the contemporary setting. From these presentations it was clear that the enchantment of the national belongs not to the realm of the irrational and the tribal but to that particular aura generated by modernity.

We presume that readers of this report have realized how densely packed these two days of the conference were. Because of the numerous presentations, the reviewers decided neither to argue over specific points raised by individual presenters nor to engage in a thorough evaluation of particular essays, but rather to present an overview of all that was said during the conference. Commenting on individual presentations in more depth would have resulted in a separate study, and that is not our intention at present. We hope that this review might induce further discussions on specific points raised during the conference, and we encourage participants to pursue this opportunity. We consider further debate necessary because commenting on individual presentations was difficult during the conference itself. While trying to unveil nationalist myths, the presentations were partitioned, sorted out into national boxes with the hierarchy of nations well preserved (perhaps also reflecting new pluralist realities). In spite of the restrictive nature of the sub-section divisions, the topics discussed and issues raised in particular presentations often undermined the classification imposed upon them. This proves that no matter how restrictive the overall framework of the conference, it did not prevent lively scholarly engagement and intellectual exchange. We would like to encourage the participants of this conference to continue these discussions at spacesofidentity.net.