Da bismo mogli da steknemo što potpuniju sliku toga kako jedno društvo zapravo funkcioniše, nužno je da u obzir uzmemo perspektive njegovih najneposrednijih učesnika i učesnica: mase običnih ljudi. Analizirajući jugoslovenski samopravni sistem u prethodnim sekcijama izložbe, najvećma smo mogli da steknemo uvid u različite vidove sistemske perspektive, manje ili više samokritične. Čak su i izjave neposrednih učesnika sistema – njegovih titulara, samoupravljač(ic)a – koje smo prethodno naveli, bile na neki način „propuštene“ kroz filter nosilaca samoupravnog sistema. Granice nametnute tim okvirom arhivske građe neizostavno ograničavaju i sveobuhvatnost perspektive na sistem koju ovde možemo da predstavimo.
Stoga ovaj odeljak izložbe posvećujemo glasovima samih titulara sistema. Kao što smo nastojali i ranije, tako i ovde prikazujemo protivrečna iskustva samoupravljanja: afirmativna i kritička; „mirnodopska“ i štrajkačka. Sva ona predstavljaju radnike i radnice kao svesne aktere u društvu, sa slojevitim tumačenjem procesa u čijem stvaranju i odvijanju učestvuju. Njihova raznolika i složena gledišta o načinu funkcionisanja sistema pobijaju revizionističke teze o „zavedenosti“ nesvesne mase radnika u Drugoj Jugoslaviji, dok istovremeno ne daju povod ni za preoptimistične zaključke o stvarnoj težini radničke klase u društvenom odlučivanju.
Ovim odeljkom želimo da približimo stvarnost jugoslovenskog društva iz ugla društvene istorije i sociologije svakodnevnog života. Premda državni arhivi mogu biti vredan izvor i za ove istraživačke pristupe, nužno je uvek biti svestan njihovih ograničenja u ovom pogledu. Oni uglavnom čuvaju dokumenta koja su proizvele državne institucije, fokusirajući se na probleme iz perspektive vladajućih struktura, te su društveni procesi i perspektive nevladajućih ili marginalizovanih klasa i slojeva često samo posredno predstavljeni u dokumentaciji. Moguće je izvući mnoge zanimljive uvide iz njih, ali za potpuniju sliku, treba ih koristiti kritički i u kombinaciji sa drugim izvorima, kao što su štampa, alternativne arhive, lična dokumenta, usmena istorija i audio/vizuelni materijali.
In order to get the most accurate picture of how a society actually functions, it is essential to take into account the perspectives of its most immediate participants – the masses of ordinary people. In analysing the Yugoslav self-management system in the previous sections of the exhibition, we were mostly able to gain insight into various forms of systemic perspectives – more or less self-critical. Even the statements of the system’s direct participants – its titular figures, the self-managers – which we cited earlier, were in a way “filtered” through the lens of those upholding the self-management system. The limitations imposed by this archival framework inevitably restrict the comprehensiveness of the perspective on the system that we can present here.
That is why this section of the exhibition is dedicated to the voices of the system’s own titular figures. Just as we have attempted before, here too we present contradictory experiences of self-management: both affirmative and critical; both in “peacetime” and in strike. All of them depict workers as conscious actors in society, with layered interpretations of the processes in which they participate and which they help shape. Their diverse and complex views on how the system functioned challenge revisionist theses about the “manipulated” and unconscious masses of workers in the Second Yugoslavia, while at the same time offering no grounds for overly optimistic conclusions about the real power of the working class in decision-making.
With this section, we aim to present the reality of Yugoslav society from the perspective of social history and the sociology of everyday life. While state archives can be a valuable source for these approaches too, it is always necessary to remain aware of their limitations in this regard. They mostly preserve documents produced by state institutions, with a focus on problems from the viewpoint of ruling structures, and so the social processes and perspectives of non-dominant or marginalised classes and strata are often only indirectly represented in the documentation. Many insights can be drawn from them, but for a more complete picture, they should be used critically and in combination with other sources such as the press, alternative archives, personal papers, oral history, and (audio-)visual materials.
Archer, Rory. “‘It was better when it was worse’: blue-collar narratives of the recent past in Belgrade.” Social History 43, no. 1 (2018): 30–55.
Archer, Rory, and Goran Musić. “Approaching the socialist factory and its workforce: considerations from fieldwork in (former) Yugoslavia.” Labor History 58, no. 1 (2017): 44–66.
Bernard, Sara. Deutsch Marks in the Head, Shovel in the Hands and Yugoslavia in the Heart: the Gastarbeiter return to Yugoslavia (1965–1991). No. 28. Harrassowitz Verlag, 2019.
Bonfiglioli, Chiara. “Feminist Translations in a Socialist Context: The Case of Yugoslavia.” Gender & History 30, no. 1 (2018).
Duričić, Milinka. Drugi kongres samoupravljača Jugoslavije. Sarajevo, 1971.
Kongres Radničkih Saveta Jugoslavije. Rad, 1957.
Maleš, Čedo and Mile Nedeljković, Treći kongres samoupravljača Jugoslavije. Radnička štampa, 1981.
Luthar, Breda, and Maruša Pušnik, eds. Remembering utopia: the culture of everyday life in socialist Yugoslavia. New Academia Publishing, LLC, 2010.
Musić, Goran. “Provincial, Proletarian, and Multinational: The Antibureaucratic Revolution in Late 1980s Priboj, Serbia.” Nationalities Papers 47, no. 4 (2019): 581–596.
Petrovic, Tanja. “‘When we were Europe’: socialist workers in Serbia and their nostalgic narratives.” Remembering communism: Genres of representation (2010): 127–53.
Spasić, Vanja. „Samoupravljanje u kulturi: Opera narodnog pozorišta u Beogradu (1970–1990).“ PhD diss., Singidunum University (Serbia), 2022.
Vukliš, Vladan. “Writing social history of socialist Yugoslavia: the archival perspective.” Archival Science 17, no. 1 (2017): 55–77.