Untitled

Slavica Srbinovska. Atðíirîbu telpa: tçlu radîðana multikultûru dialogâ
143
many, many mini–national projects that are enemies between them. In the Oxford
Dictionary of English language, Norman Paunds explains the term and concept of
„balkanization” as elimination or destroying the territory of one geographical region
through establishing the micro–national states that are usually in relations of the enemy.
In the Dictionary of Italian language „balkanization” means despotism, revolution,
contrarevolution, guerilla and attempting of one’s life. After the Second World
War the term balkanization was activated in connection with the process of
decolonisation. 9
Today this is concept with a specific interpretation. It is a term that points out to
the connotation of multicultural dimensions of a society, or it is used as a metaphor
of postmodernism or post–communism. Harold Blum used this term as a synonym of
dehumanisation, deestetization, or as a process of ruining the civilization. Out of his
explanations we have to accept the concept of balkanisation as a concept that always
refer to fragmentation, and it is too dangerous if it points out to the ideological fragmentation,
which always convey the process of consolidation of the external power
that usually dictates the construction or reconstruction of the model of existence in
these “kleinestaat”. 10
The opposite side of this process could be understood by looking for the
transnational perspectives or multifocal approaches to the world accepted as a text of
the culture, according to J. Lotman. It could be explained as a necessity of every
human being to make the projection of himself in the mirror of the universal community
as an equal person in the unity of many different persons that are included in it.
The problem of any person as an identity could be understood through the attempts
of integration his very close, but differ aspects: wide „ego” aspect and „the aspect of
the other as unconscious part of the mind”. But that problem of the human beings
according to our starting positions points out to the solicitation for differance as mark
of a subversion of every realm, which is fixed and bordered. Making the identity is a
process of constant deployment of human being, or rather of his ontological differences.
It is a confirmation of a specific thought that covey to the possibility of
conceptualising the differance. It is a process of making the marks of the transnational
and intercultural movement of this deployment.
It is easier to analyse the problem of differentiation, instead the possibilities of
intercultural integration or trans–national dialogue of cultures. Contemporary life corresponds
with the process of differentiation with many dilemmas about the new integration,
although the globalisation is constantly presence in all dialogues about the
power of the integrated capital in the trade system. The problem of the differences
could be shown through the specific movements in the contemporary life. The societies
in transition loose their epistemological coherence or pattern, although the start
point of our explanation is the ontological status of living in a society that has confirmed
its coherence through the power of integration of different cultural and national
traditions.
Each society or each culture has some epistemological coherence, says Rada
Ivekovic, where everything holds within the same logic: inter–communications, exchanges
between groups and generations, the transmission of knowledge, certain coherence
between a self–image and reality. When it is gone, the loss is ‘desperately’