DAS MODELL DER FRIEDLICHEN REINTEGRIERUNG UND MOGLICHKEITEN DES ZUSAMMENLEBENS

When differences in the language, religion, tradition and culture in general grow into an obstacle to the communication between nations, the possibility of living together becomes doubtful. The burden of historic heritage in the Croato-Serbian relationship has become intolerable due to Serbian rejection to recognise Croatian independence. Through violence, plunder, banishment and devastation of the Croatian villages and towns, the Serbs have declared against co-existence with the Croats. Can the Plan of Peaceful Reintegration convince the expelled Croats and other non-Serbs that living together is possible? The Plan offered administrative solutions that neglect essential characteristics of the area (historical prerogatives, migrations, wars, cultural differences). The displaced persons do not see the Plan as a humane, material and moral satisfaction, but rather as additional protection for the Serbs. They have formed their returnees\u27 consciousness mainly from the point of view of their everyday living needs and expectations, which so far have not approved or accepted all details of the Plan.Kada razlika u jeziku, vjeri, tradiciji ili kulturi postane zapreka u komunikaciji među narodima, tada je među njima suživot upitan. Ovakav teret povijesnog naslijeđa u odnosima Hrvata i Srba dobio je dimenziju neizdrživosti zbog srpskog neprihvaćanja državne samostalnosti. Nasiljem, pljačkom, progonima i pustošenjem hrvatskih sela i gradova Srbi su se izjasnili protiv suživota. Mogu li se planom mirne reintegracije uvjeriti prognani Hrvati i drugi ne- -srbi da je suživot moguć? Plan je ponudio administrativna rješenja koja zaobilaze bitne specifičnosti ovoga kraja (povijesno prvenstvo, migracije, ratovi, kulturne razlike). Prognanici u njemu ne nalaze humanu, moralnu i materijalnu satisfakciju, već prije svega zaštitu Srba. Oni su stoga svoju povratničku svijest više oblikovali iz obzora svojih potreba i očekivanja koja uvjetuje život, a koja nisu do sada u cijelosti potvrđivala prihvaćenost svih potankosti plana.Wenn Unterschiede in Sprache, Religion, Tradition oder Kultur zu Hindernissen in der Kommunikation zwischen den Volkern werden, ist es fraglich, ob ein Zusammenleben noch mogli ch ist. Die 8i.lrde des geschichtlichen Erbes in den 8eziehungen zwischen Kroaten und Serben wuchs bis zur Unertraglichkeit an, als die Serben es ablehnten, Kroatien als selbstandigen Staat anzuerkennen. Durch Gewalt, Pli.lnderung, Vertreibung und Verwi.lstung kroatischer Dorter und Stadte llefsen die Serben keinen Zweifel daran, dass sie gegen ein Zusammenleben mit den Kroaten waren. Kann der Plan der friedlichen Reintegrierung die vertriebenen Kroaten sowie andere Nichtserben von der Moglichkeit eines Zusammenlebens i.lberzeugen? Der Plan bietet administrative Losungen an, in denen wesentliche Spezifika dieses Raums (geschichtlicher Vorrang, Migrationen, Kriege, kulturelle Unterschiede) umgangen werden. Die Vertriebenen erblicken darin keinerlei humane, moralische und materielle 8efriedigung, sondern in erster Linie eine Inschutznahme der Serben. Die Einstellung der Vertriebenen im Hinblick auf die ersehnte Ri.lckkehr ist daher eh er von 8edi.lrfnissen und Erwartungen gepragt, die durch das Leben seibst bedingt sind, die sich je doch nicht in alle Einzelheiten des Reintegrierungsplans finden kčnnen

EUROPE OF MONETARY UNITY IN CONTRAST WITH THE EUROPE OF NATIONAL AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY

The history of Europe is riddled with conflict and disagreement between its nations and the present has not managed to erase their traces. The establishment of the European Union, although started as an economic project (EEC), has gained some other dimensions as well: monetary, political and cultural. Not all EU member states are equally interested in each of these dimensions. Old member states, for example, wish to maintain economic development, social and individual standard, their national and cultural identities. New members, on the other hand, expect faster economic development, raising social and individual standard, social security and stability. These differences call into question the functional unity of the EU which definitely requires a common European identity. Transnationalization and cosmopolitization of today's world suppress the European traditionally national orientation. In addition, the pattern of a European standard emerging through a consumption culture demands abandonment of national traditions. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean the emergence of a unitary Europe for an obvious reason: there is significant inequality between European nations. Can perhaps monetary unity be the first important step in overcoming historical differences, economic inequality and national and cultural self-sufficiency? Can common goals of monetary policy, its elastic organization and expansion to new countries contribute to this? These are some of the issues analyzed in this paper, together with the relationship between the Croatian currency kuna and the euro.monetary unity, European identity, functional unity, consumption culture, European Union

ZNANOST U DRUŠTVU „POST-ISTINE“: NOVI MEDIJI I DRUŠTVENA PERCEPCIJA ZNANOSTI

The public has always had an ambivalent attitude towards science. Science has brought new knowledge and has made life easier, but the power of knowledge has always provoked doubts about ethics of scientific endeavours. Among other factors that might be attributed to contemporary postmodern society, various characteristics of media production lead to the communication errors and negative public attitudes towards science. However, the advent of the new media has exacerbated such issues within the relationship between science and the media, taking into account that non-selective information sources on the Internet destroy the role of "gate-keeping" residing in traditional mass media and journalists. Although at first sight such a process implies potential for information demokratization, it also entails possibilities of presenting completely false and unfounded opinions, especially those concerning science. In this paper, the authors show a detailed analysis of the socio-cultural changes and media production characteristics that cause misunderstandings, but they also indicate useful principles that could lead to the more successful communication and social understanding of science. The role of scientists as communicators of science is indispensable in this respect, but there is also a need to abandon the traditional and idealized concepts of science as an isolated and self-sufficient human endeavor.Odnos javnosti prema znanosti uvijek je bio ambivalentan. Znanost je donosila nove spoznaje i olakšavala život, no moć koju spoznaja nosi sa sobom izazivala je i dvojbe u pogledu etičnosti znanosti i rada znanstvenika. Uz druge čimbenike vezane za obilježja postmodernog društva, razne zakonitosti medijske produkcije dovode do šumova u komunikaciji i negativnih stavova javnosti. Međutim, s pojavom novih medija dolazi do posve promijenjenog odnosa znanosti i medija, s obzirom na to da neselektivnost izvora informacija na internetu ruši funkciju klasičnih masovnih medija i novinara kao „gate-keepera“. Iako takav proces na prvi pogled implicira demokratizacijske potencijale, on za sobom povlači i mogućnosti iznošenja posve pogrešnih i neutemeljenih mišljenja, osobito kada je znanost u pitanju. U ovome se radu detaljno prikazuju sociokulturne promjene i obilježja medijske produkcije koja pridonose skepsi i nesporazumima, ali i izlažu korisna načela koja mogu dovesti do bolje komunikacije i uspješnijeg javnog razumijevanja znanosti. U tom se pogledu osobito ističe uloga znanstvenika kao komunikatora znanosti, ali i potreba da se napuste tradicionalna i pretjerano idealizirana poimanja znanosti kao izolirane i samodostatne ljudske djelatnosti, odnosno da se komunikacija o znanosti odredi kao dvosmjerni proces

Capitalism, meritocracy and legitimacy: Croatian society thirty years after

Starting from the System Justification Theory, the aim of this paper is to explore levels of general system legitimation, inequality perception and meritocracy perception among Croatian citizens, as well as to determine whether there is a difference between social groups of lower and higher social standing in this regard. Survey research on a sample of the Croatian general population (N = 353) revealed that on balance the respondents do not perceive the Croatian social system as legitimate, equal and meritocratic. Regression analyses showed that retired persons express a substantially higher level of system legitimation and meritocracy perception when compared to employed persons, while higher religiosity was also a significant predictor in this regard. When it comes to the inequality perception, only female gender was a significant predictor. The results are discussed within the framework of the contemporary theories of meritocracy and system legitimation, as well as with reference to specific social and economic characteristics of the Croatian society, such as the Croatian War of Independence, transition to capitalism, welfare state development and labour market situation. Overall, the study results provide only a partial confirmation of the System Justification Theory

Europäertum als Entwicklungsidentität – Recht oder Privileg?

Europska postsocijalisti~ka dru{tva svoju su tranziciju u proteklom desetlje}u obilje`ila orijentacijom prema efikasnom tr`i{nom gospodarenju i politi~koj demokratizaciji. Sva su ta dru{tva otpo~ela s novom modernizacijom koja im daje nov identitet. Koliko se pri tome razilaze naslije|ene vrijednosti i obrasci dru{tvenoga `ivota (identitet naslije|a) s onima zacrtanim orijentacijom na tr`i{nu ekonomiju i demokratizaciju politike (identitet razvoja), razli~ito je od dr`ave do dr`ave. Ve}a ili manja neuskla|enost naslije|a i razvojnih ciljeva ne smije postati nepremostiva zapreka uklju~ivanju u europski prostor. Koliko se, pak, europski prostor otvara pojedinim tranzicijskim dru{tvima, toliko se pojedina dru{tva opisuju kao perspektivna ili ne. Posebno je pitanje koliko se perspektivnost nekoga dru{tva ti~e njega samoga i njegove spremnosti na transformaciju identiteta, a koliko dobre volje europskih mentora i transformacije koju su propisali. Jer, biti u europskom prostoru, a ne sudjelovati i u europskom vremenu raspodjele mo}i i bogatstva, sudbina je europskog Istoka, dok je Zapad Europe posebna Europa. Kod onih prvih europejstvo se i dalje shva}a kao slu`enje, dok je za one druge europejstvo pozicija gospodarenja. Stoga je ukupan napor oko uklju~ivanja u europske integracije za jedne rezervirano pravo i privilegij, a za druge i dalje samo pravo na `elju. Antiglobalisti bi to ocrtali kao novi vid kolonijalizma.The transitions of European postsocialist countries have been marked in the past decade by an orientation towards efficient market economy and political democratisation. All of these societies started new modernisation processes which have rendered them new identity. However, what varies from state to state is the gap between inherited values and patterns of social life (inherited identity) on the one hand, and the targeted orientation to market economy and democratisation of politics (development identity) on the other. A greater or lesser incompatibility of heritage and aims of development should not become an insurmountable barrier to being included into the European family. In as much as Europe opens up to particular transitional societies, they are then described as promising or not. It is quite another matter whether the promising prospects of a society have to do with that very society and its readiness to transform its identity, or how much this depends on the good will of the European mentors and the transformation prescribed by them. Furthermore, to be yet a part of Europe and not participate in the European time of distribution of power and wealth, is the fate of the European East, while the West of Europe has a privileged position. With the former, Europeanism is still understood as servitude, while for the latter, Europeanism means being in the position of those who rule. Thus the overall effort of joining the European integrations is for some a reserved right and privilege, while to others it just represents the right to wish. Antiglobalists would describe it as a new aspect of colonialism.Die Transition der europäischen postsozialistischen Gesellschaften war im Laufe des letzten Jahrzehnts durch die Ausrichtung auf eine effiziente Marktwirtschaft und politische Demokratisierung charakterisiert. In allen diesen Gesellschaften sind Modernisierungsprozesse in Gang gesetzt worden, die ihnen eine neue Identität verliehen haben. Inwieweit nun tradierte Werte und Grundmuster des gesellschaftlichen Lebens (Identität des Überlieferten) abweichen von Werten und Lebensmustern, die durch die Ausrichtung auf Marktwirtschaft und politische Demokratisierung bedingt sind – das unterscheidet sich von Staat zu Staat. Eine in größerem oder geringerem Umfang bestehende Nichtübereinstimmung zwischen Überlieferung einerseits und Entwicklungszielen andererseits darf nicht zu einer unüberbrückbaren Barriere werden, die die Involvierung in den europäischen Raum verhindert. In dem Maße jedoch, in dem sich der europäische Raum einzelnen Transitionsgesellschaften erschließt, erweisen sich diese entweder als perspektivenreich oder aber als das Gegenteil. Es ist eine gesonderte Frage, inwiefern der Perspektivenreichtum einer Gesellschaft die Angelegenheit ebendieser Gesellschaft und ihrer Bereitschaft zur Identitätstransformierung ist und inwiefern sie angewiesen ist auf den guten Willen europäischer Mentoren und die wiederum von dieser Seite vorgeschriebene Transformation. Denn es ist das Schicksal des europäischen Ostens, auch weiterhin dem europäischen Raum zuzugehören, ohne jedoch auch an der europäischen Zeit der Verteilung von Macht und Reichtum teilzuhaben, während der Westen des Kontinents ein gesondertes Europa darstellt. Für Erstere bedeutet Europäertum auch weiterhin Dienstbarkeit, für Letztere eine Herrscherposition. Daher ist die gesamte Anstrengung um den Anschluss an die europäischen Integrationsprozesse Recht und Privileg für die einen und lediglich das Recht auf einen Wunsch für die anderen. Globalisationsgegner würden dies als eine neue Art von Kolonialismus bezeichnen