Event Highlights: Works in Progress Meeting – Ethnic Cleansing: the Term, the Practice
On January 24th, Boston University’s Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies proudly continued our Works in Progress series with a talk by Vlado Petrović, Senior Researcher at BU’s Center for the Study of Europe and a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Contemporary History in Belgrade, and Visiting Professor at History and Legal Department of Central European University.
Petrović unpacked the term “ethnic cleansing,” ranging from its origins to its use and its practice, as part of a global debate about the violent term.
While the first use of the term in its complete form was in the Romanian language (purificare etnica) in an address by Vice Prime Minister Mihai Antonescu in 1941, the term “ethnic cleansing” is often attributed to the Balkans, who have had tensions with other parts of Europe, since the term entered their common vocabulary at a tumultuous time in Balkan history.
“Common knowledge and common perception say that ethnic cleansing became global vocabulary in the 1990s,” says Petrović, referencing the Yugoslav wars. “The outcome of that war was manifold. What used to be one country is now seven successor states, but more importantly, the ethnic landscape of the Balkan peninsula changed tremendously.”
“We have an enormous amount of evidence, written evidence, evidence from the court, visuals, and footage of this supreme violence and we are able to show what ethnic cleansing looks like,” adds Petrović, sharing a troubling photo depicting three soldiers from the Yugoslav wars. “It’s easy to show what ethnic cleansing is. It’s much more difficult to give a direct definition.”
Breaking down the two-word phrase, Petrović focuses on the “cleansing” part of the term. “It’s been used in different contexts,” he notes. “I was shocked to see that in almost every language that my friends and I know the word ‘cleansing’ is typically used to mask political violence,” Petrović shares. “It is used as a legitimator of mass violence.”
“It’s not all genealogy,” Petrović notes, “these stories do not necessarily influence one another. It seems like there is an underlying structural dichotomy of purity and dirt that is integral to any sort of community.” With these dichotomies as their base, society then builds upwards by defining what is pure and what is not.
“These structures are enormously important for contemporary societies as well because they haven’t withered away or disappeared. These structures are all too visible in the 20th century as well,” Petrović adds, backing up his argument by pointing the dichotomy of purity and impurity that is present in the French national anthem. “If we go closer to our times, we see that some of the most repressive systems of the 19th century not only make use of the word cleansing, but indeed the notion of cleansing was central to their ideology and their political practice.”
The word “ethnic” carries its own weight as well. “It’s an issue of identities,” Petrović states. “War is a huge renegotiation of identities. When the war knocks on your door, you are forced to choose your identity or someone is going to choose it for you. The war applies extraordinary pressure—a threat level of life and death—that simplifies their identity to the bone.”
But where does that leave us now? Currently, the term’s obscured origins contrasted with its notorious revival in the 1990s has left scholars and academics puzzled as to whether or not to use the term. “We can’t stop these micro-processes,” Petrović shares regarding the use of the term. “But what we can do is try to recognize and understand how they work. We do have the choice to decide how we talk about it.”
– Toria Rainey ‘18