Dynamics of the particular and the common: Monuments and patriotic tourism in socialist Yugoslavia – a case study of Kosovo

Abstract

Dynamics of the particular and the common: Monuments and patriotic tourism in socialist Yugoslavia – a case study of Kosovo

This paper reflects on two case studies of monuments in Socialist Yugoslavia in Kosovo, commemorating World War II partisans in Mitrovica (1973) and Landovica (1963) and their performative functions as a part of the phenomena of patriotic tourism. Both examples refer to inter-ethnic (Serbian and Albanian) relations bound by the slogan brotherhood and unity. Boro and Ramiz, two figures present in Yugoslav collective memory and represented through monuments and orality, have become a symbol of unity in Socialist Yugoslavia. War memorials and monuments have been raised all over the territory of socialist Yugoslavia and created an invisible network of remembrance and identity. The most important sites, as those analyzed in this paper, have become destinations of patriotic tourism: they were visited by millions every year and were associated with huge print runs of tourist propaganda production such as maps, guide-books and postcards (apart from commercial tourist attractions, almost every postcard produced in socialist Yugoslavia presented a nearby monument or memorial).

Dynamika indywidualizmu i wspólnoty. Pomniki i turystyka patriotyczna w socjalistycznej Jugoslawii – przypadek Kosowa

Niniejszy artykuł prezentuje dwa studia przypadku dotyczące pomników socjalistycznej Jugosławii na terenie Kosowa, upamiętniających partyzantów z czasów II wojny światowej w Mitrowicy (1973) i Landovicy (1963) oraz ich funkcji performatywnych w ramach zjawiska turystyki patriotycznej. Oba przykłady odnoszą się do relacji międzyetnicznych (serbskich i albańskich) połączonych hasłem: braterstwo i jedność. Dwaj partyzanci obecni w zbiorowej pamięci dzięki pomnikom i historii mówionej – Boro i Ramiz – stali się symbolem jedności w socjalistycznej Jugosławii. Pomniki i miejsca pamięci upamiętniające walkę usłały całe terytorium socjalistycznej Jugosławii i stworzyły niewidzialną sieć pamięci i tożsamości. Najważniejsze miejsca, jak te analizowane w artykule, stały się celami turystyki patriotycznej i są odwiedzane przez miliony turystów każdego roku. Były one związane z prowadzoną na dużą skalę propagandą turystyczną: publikowanymi w dużych nakładach mapami, przewodnikami i pocztówkami, które oprócz komercyjnych atrakcji turystycznych prezentowały pobliskie miejsca pamięci i pomniki.

Full text

DOI:
10.11649/sm.1970 Slavia Meridionalis 19, 2019
Artcle No.: 1970
Citation:
Rogoś, A. (2019). Dynamcs of the partcular and the common:
Monuments and p atrotc tour sm n soca lst Yugoslava – a ca se study
of Kosovo. Slavia Meridionali s, 19. https://do.org/10.11649/sm.1970
s work wa s supported by a grant f rom Natonal Scence Ce ntre n Pola nd (project number 2016/23/N/HS3/00841)
enttled “Ideologcal-aesthetc transformatons of representaton systems n communst Albana”.
Competng nterests: no competng nterests have been declared.
Publsher: Insttute of Slavc Studes, Polsh Academy of Scences.
s s a n Open Access art cle dstrbuted under the term s of the Creatve Commons At trbuton 3.0 PL Lcense
(creatvecommons.org/lcenses/by/3.0/pl/), whch permts red strbuton, commercal and non-commercal,
provded that the artcle s properly cted. © e Author(s) 2019.
Agata Rogoś
Humboldt-Unverstät zu Berln
http://orcd.org/0000-0002-7417-3268
Dynamics of Particular and Common:
Monuments and Patriotic Tourism in Socialist
Yugoslavia – a Case Study of Kosovo
Introduction
The am of ths paper s to dscuss two research questons: how deologcal
and aesthetc patterns of representatons of war n Socalst Yugoslava confront
each other and n what way patrotc toursm has mpacted the commemora-
tve rtuals assocated wth strengthenng the offcal narratve of the com-
mon (nter-ethnc) struggle for lberaton. Thus, the paper focuses not only
on the clash between the analyss of two examples of materal cultural pro
-
ducton, .e. memorals n Mtrovca and Landovca that explore the relatons
between two communtes (Serbs and Albanans), but also the reconstructve
mechansms of elements of World War II representatons n the collectve

Page 2 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
memory, wth a partcular focus on nter-ethnc Serban–Albanan relatons
and the slogan of brotherhood and unity. Through analyss of the semantcs
of art and oral hstores, I wll pont out a functonalzaton of the deology of
socalst Yugoslava based on the dynamcs of particular and common. Thus,
the paper s focused on nterdscplnary analytc approaches whch wll help
to create a complete representaton model of the analyzed subject.
For the purpose of ths paper I apply a dualstc research methodology: 1) Hs-
torcal and source query based on archves whch allows the collecton of source
materals (ncludng vsual materal, so far unpublshed) and ther crtcal analyss.
2) The methodology of qualtatve research or n-depth ntervews wth narra-
tve ntervew elements, whch allows the belefs and vews of the respondents n
the followng areas to be recognzed: how deologcal and aesthetc transforma-
ton occurred n urban publc spaces; n what way the nhabtants of these spaces
contrbuted to the constructon of new systems of representaton.
Conductng research wth the use of elements of the bographcal method
allows the observaton of the transformaton of customs and ways of cultvatng
the dentty of Albanans n Kosovo n the framework of deology of brother-
hood and unity and nteracton wth the Serban (Yugoslav) cultural tradton.
Ths type of methodology also ntroduces the perspectve of pluralsm and
a synchronous approach to the past, whch can be perceved subjectvely by
dfferent socal groups.
The paper s ntended to complement the knowledge of the semantcs
of “the border space” through a new percepton and presentaton of cultural
models as an example of verfcaton of the deologcal and aesthetc transfor-
maton of the system of representatons of war and analyss of the mechansms
of ther promoton n the collectve memory. The analyzed monuments are
materal symbols of the cultural landscape of borders that are prmarly located
on the boundares of ethnc, cultural and poltcal contact ponts. Mtrovca
(north Kosovo) – as a border cty dvded currently nto two parts that are under
the jursdcton of two natonal states – s a partcular example of the confronta-
tve polces and urban symbolsms that exst and nteract n one border space.
Landovca, the second example, whch s stuated n the south of Kosovo near
the mult-cultural cty of Przren n a trangle between Kosovo, Albana, and
North Macedona, s an mportant landmark of the Yugoslav deology of broth-
erhood and unity. Secondly, the memorals I refer to n ths paper are unque
examples whch drectly express the socalst deals of transgressng boundares
and dvsons between dfferent (conflctual) cultural tradtons.

Page 3 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
War memorials’ typology and performative functions
The Latn meanng of ‘memorals’ s ‘thngs that remnd’, so we come to
the lnk between monuments (memorals) and memory that explores the ways
n whch monuments and our crtcal approach to them have evolved over
the course of twenteth century: “the ways the monument tself has been refor-
mulated n ts functon as a memoral, as a contemporary aesthetc response
to the past” (Young, 2003, p. 234). The man functon and semantc meanng
of monuments and memorals s to remnd. In recent decades – as have all art
practces – they have undergone a transformaton process n terms of aesthetc
forms and functons of socal nteracton n publc space; however, the memo-
ral has stll kept ts prmary functon, whch s to remnd.
Managng stes s based on decsons concernng what to say and what
to leave out –how to create the narratve. It s mportant to determne what
aspects of the past are beng gnored or under-represented n the nterpreta-
ton of the aforementoned memory stes. Sometmes, whole stes mght be
mssng from the publc conscousness as the publc n queston does not want
to remember the values assocated wth t. Memory stes (lieux de mémoire
[Nora, 1989–1992]) that harbor or embed memores of a group renforce the con-
necton wth the past and roots. James E. Young explans the contemporary
status of monuments n ths way:
For those n the modern age who nsst on such forms [tradtonal monumental-
ty], the result can only be a “pseudomonumentalty”, whch Gedon called the use
of “routne shapes from bygone perods… [But] because they had lost ther nner
sgnfcance, they had become devaluated; mere clchés wthout emotonal justf-
caton”. To some extent, we mght even see such pseudomonumentalty as a sgn of
modern longng for common values and deals (Young, 2003, p. 236).
These speculatons around fguratve and abstract or tradtonal and contem-
porary forms of monumentalty, .e. pseudomonumentalty, lead us to the pre-
sumpton that – due to the modern negaton of monuments and the dsappear-
ance of unversal shared myths and values n postmodern socetes – the pattern
of tradtonal monumentalty may trumph n ts comeback n publc art space.
Moreover, as seen n the recent hstory of publc art and the dsappearance of some
monuments, t mght be stated clearly that nether monuments nor ther meanngs
are really everlastng – they are both constructed n partcular tmes and places,
dependng on the poltcal, hstorcal and aesthetc realtes of the moment.

Page 4 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
James Young, referrng to Perre Nora (1989–1992) and Andreas Huys-
sen (1993), made a strkng remark: “f we once assgn monumental form
to memory, we have to some degree dvested ourselves of the oblgaton to
remember” (Young, 2003, p. 238). Ths brngs us to the hope of regmes that
emerge from the monumental deluson that they wll reman permanent as
they suppose ther monuments wll. Poltcally drven monuments should not
be analyzed only from the aesthetc perspectve, but as suggested by James
E. Young, “to explore not just the relatons between people and ther monu-
ments (on the bass of what Peter Bürger, 1983, calls ‘functonal analyss of
art’) but the consequences of these relatons n hstorcal tme” (Young, 2003,
p. 246), thus commemoratng the models they create and as a result the soco-
poltcal change they brng.
Memorals have many more functons n publc lfe than tradtonal monu-
ments, whch used to be mostly representatve remnders of heroes’ glory and
spectacular vctores. Memorals tend to envsage contrastng mages – vctms,
grevng, terror and volence. When analyzng memorals n ths context, one
should take nto consderaton several aspects of ther exstence and the dver-
sfcaton of forms that serve to create possbltes of dfferent performances.
There are three mportant ssues that appear when nvestgatng the perfor-
matve functons of memorals: (a) commemoraton; (b) producton of con-
flcted narratves; (c) exposure of volence n the frames of representaton of
war. They also have to be consdered n the overall context of vsual culture
and the sgnfcant changes n the art percepton of today’s publc, whch has
shfted from a passve vewer to an engaged spectator.
Memorals have started to perform as spaces of engagement where seeng
means experencng and nterpretng. However, they stll reman stes of actve
performances durng offcal ceremones and commemoratve events such as
trbutes, and durng ndvdual nterventons: both of the performatve models
create a personal connecton wth the ste on a collectve and ndvdual level.
In these terms, memorals are not just objects that are beng looked at, but ther
form and functonalzaton nsst that more efforts are made to nterpret ther
meanng; ths was rased by James E. Young, who clamed that monuments
and memorals are not only “past remnders” but they requre vstors to “look
wthn themselves for memory” (Young, 2000, p. 119).
The models of representaton (fguratve and abstract) mght be categorzed
n accordance wth what seems to be an offcal or an unoffcal monument.
Most abstract memorals and expermental forms of commemoraton whch

Page 5 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
are related to the lack of establshed and mposed systems of symbols are
rased as formal, state-funded memoral complexes that serve as a permanent
place to vst, remember and greve. However, tradtonal (fguratve) monu-
ments express a desre for the portrayal of herosm, mostly through the fgure
of a solder or fghter, wth a partcular model of gestures and attrbutes that
gve a sgnfcant source of meanng. Problems wth the meanngs of fguratve
memorals arse not from what s represented and how; nstead, they arse from
what s not vsualzed, as partcular audences recognze that certan relevant
meanngs have been excluded from the representaton model.
When dscussng the role of memorals, one mportant ssue should be empha
-
szed. The dynamc erecton of monuments and memorals as an act of remem-
brance of people s now a much broader and more dverse process than t used to
be n the past, when the man themes of memoralzng were based on herosm and
honor. Today, honorng extends to prevously unnotced elements such as the theme
of vctmzaton of a partcular ethnc group or a naton, whch can be called a shft
away from only heroc commemoraton (Young, 2000, 2003).
Another ssue that arses from studes of memorals concerns searchng
for approprate models of representaton/commemoraton of such events. Ths
starts from the queston of the format of the object and the form of the memo-
ral (fguratve or abstract); t then proceeds through the way of functonalza-
ton as a formal or nformal monument, and fnally asks for the best ways of
spectatorshp – from passve to partcpatory.
Building brotherhood and unity in art and space
– representations of war in Socialist Yugoslavia
In the post-World War II perod, the man dentty narratve of Socalst Yugo-
slava arose from the emphass of the common struggle for lberaton from fascsm,
class oppresson and underdevelopment, whch was expressed by the slogan of
brotherhood and unity as a product of trans-federal collaboraton and collectvsm.
Implementng the offcal narratves of the people’s liberation struggle was amed
at legtmzng the domnant socalst deology and creatng a unfyng symbolc
order expressed by new archtecture and monuments for a new nter-ethnc socety.
In ths new Yugoslavan project, dstnct natons/ethnctes were brought together
under the cover of the deology of brotherhood and unity (fg. 1.). Postwar Yugo-

Page 6 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
slava was desgned as a federaton of dstnct ethno-natonal groups. However,
the dynamcs between unty and partcularty have defned the restless construct
of the sx consttuent republcs and, snce the new consttuton of 1974, also the two
autonomous provnces n Serba: Kosovo and Vojvodna (Kulć & Thaler, 2018,
pp. 27–39; Jovć, 2004; Djlas, 1991; Shoup, 1968). As Vladmr Kulć wrtes when
dscussng the deology of brotherhood and unity n cultural terms:
(…) a certan homogenzaton of experence occurred as the majorty of Yugoslav ct-
zens for the frst tme came to enjoy a smlarly modern way of lfe, share a common
popular culture, and meet ther peers from other parts of the country through regular
travel – all of whch amounted to far more powerful factors for coheson than the o-
cally sanctoned deologcal proclamatons and rtuals (Kulć & aler, 2018, p. 29).
In the tmeframe of the “Yugoslava project”, long before the crss that
emerged n the 1980s, some poltcal tensons appeared, especally when con-
sderng Kosovo.¹ The bonds and networks created over the precedng decades
n the cultural and socetal feld of Yugoslava were dstracted by natonalst
movements n the 1980s. However, ths s not the man focus of ths paper and
n the course of further analyss I wll not refer to these occurrences.
Fg. 1. Mostar, remanng slogan on a destroyed buldng: “Keep brotherhood and unty
as the apple of one’s own eye”. https://commons.wkmeda.org/wk/Fle:Cuvajmo_
bratstvo__jednstvo_kao_zencu_oka_svoga.jpg
¹ e perod of the Aleksandar Rankovć regme and the years 1968 and 1981 consttuted
sgnfcant landmarks for the Albanan movement n communst Yugoslava, marked by mas-
sve rots by the Albanan people. At the same tme these perods wtnessed an ncrease n
the “Turksh” populaton, provng the exstence of dentty transformatons based on the fear
of further represson by the authortes (Rogoś, 2019, pp. 211–224).

Page 7 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
As underlned by Kulć (Kulć & Thaler, 2018), the shared commodtes of
everyday lfe have empowered a very strong noton of the homogenety of a dver
-
sfed (ethncally and culturally) Yugoslav socety. One of the results of ths pro-
cess wll be analyzed n the followng part of ths paper: (a) offcal narratves of
the Lberaton Struggle n Socalst Yugoslava based on Serb-Albanan reports;
(b) shared memoral stes and patrotc toursm n the years 1960–1986.
A hybrd construct of the Yugoslav cultural landscape – on the one hand
homogenzed through shared experences, condtons of lvng and everyday rtu-
als – was also hghly dversfed by local tradtons and ethno-cultural hertage.
Artsts and archtects face a bg creatve challenge: to desgn artfacts that com-
bne those two dentty contradctons. The bg spectrum of the realzed projects
makes them hghly dversfed n aesthetc terms as there was nothng untary
that could connect all these productons n one stylstc program. These projects
are also dverse n ther typology: ndvdual sculptures, memoral cemeteres,
parks, museums and hybrd spatal programs that ntegrate commemoraton wth
everyday lfe and lesure. On the other hand, “certan archtectural programs, such
as war memorals and toursm facltes, served as de facto generators of unty
as well; dstrbuted all over the country’s terrtory, they motvated and enabled
moblty, thus allowng Yugoslavs to get to know each other” (Kulć & Thaler, 2018,
p. 29). Ths n turn helped to buld patrotsm easly by mergng the experence of
travellng and commemoratng that was realzed n patrotc toursm and other
collectve actvtes that wll be descrbed n followng parts of ths paper.
Followng Vladmr Kulć (Kulć & Thaler, 2018), I would lke to refer to
two crucal examples that have drectly appled the slogan of brotherhood and
unity n cultural and artstc programs combned wth ndustry development.
The frst example s the modernst structure at the center of New Belgrade
known as SIV – Savezno zvršno veće (Federal Executve Councl) – whch
s also on a symbolc level the mplementaton of socalst Yugoslava’s deol-
ogy. There are two man decoratve elements of the artstc program of ths
buldng that lead towards the deology of brotherhood and unity. The frst
one s a massve mosac n the man hall that represents the legendary Battle
of the Sutjeska (1943), one of the most commemorated events of the People’s
Lberaton War of Yugoslava. The second component comprses sx ‘salons’
dedcated to the former consttuent republcs of Bosna and Herzegovna,
Croata, North Macedona, Montenegro, Serba and Slovena; each salon was
desgned by an archtect from the respectve republc and all of them express
the trans-federal but unfed dentty of Yugoslava.

Page 8 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
The second example of modernzaton of Yugoslava that refers drectly to ts
unfyng concept s the frst modern road named “The Hghway of Brotherhood
and Unty”, whch ntally connected Belgrade and Zagreb and then extended
further to Macedona and Slovena, thereby connectng sx consttuent Yugo-
slav republcs. Lke the majorty of the socalst ntatve, ths nvestment was
also bult by volunteer brgades of young Yugoslavs from all republcs who par-
tcpated n the constructon works. However, what makes ths example unque
and may let us relate t to Russan Constructvsm and the works of Vladmr
Tatln and Alexander Rodchenko was the fact that ths realzaton of deologcal
and ndustral concepts nspred two smultaneous exhbtons n Belgrade and
Zagreb n 1950, whose am was to promote and commemorate the completon
of the frst phase of the nvestment (Kulć & Thaler, 2018, pp. 31–33).
Models of commemoration:
from secular pilgrimage to patriotic tourism
In summer 1946 the Yugoslav government announced an annual two
weeks of pad holdays (Duda, 2010, p. 35; Baranowsk & Furlough, 2001,
p. 16). As Igor Duda clams, the man pont of ths state ntatve was to turn
workers nto toursts, therefore the annual pad leave of two weeks that was
avalable to everyone through subsdes had to be taken n a dfferent loca
-
ton than one’s place of resdence (Duda, 2010, pp. 33–68). In the mmedate
post-war perod, the state polces attempted to consoldate the newly bound
Yugoslav ethno-natonaltes wth a natonal and deologcal conscousness
that would dmnsh dvsons and unte the dverse socety. Nonetheless,
the Yugoslav authortes beleved that a specal patrotc format of toursm
could be used as a tool for reconclaton between communtes and create
a common dentty (Yeomans, 2010, p. 72). The dea of patrotc toursm that
was pervasvely present n the 1950s was abandoned at the end of 1960s n
an atmosphere of poltcal and natonal turmol; later, the dea of deologzed
toursm come back but n a softer form. Ths strategy was developed not only
wthn socalst Yugoslava, but the pont was to promote Yugoslava as an
deal holday destnaton for other socalst vstors. Tourst propaganda also
developed through the producton of gudebooks that were desgned to show
llustratons and photographs not only of the beauty of the homeland but also

Page 9 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
“mportant moments from the Natonal Lberaton Struggle” (Yeomans, 2010,
p. 102). The dea behnd these ntatves was that “through travel to other parts
of country, the natons of Yugoslava would learn to see each other as brothers
and attan a Yugoslav dentty” (Yeomans, 2010, p. 102).
Commemoraton remans the most crucal component of memorals’ perfor-
matvty and requres detaled examnaton of ts specfcs. In ths paper I nves-
tgate n partcular one of the commemoratng practces, takng a case study of
selected Kosovo World War II memorals and monuments related to the dea
of brotherhood and unity. Functonalzaton of memorals has developed several
soco-poltcal practces wth the partcpaton of a dverse publc focused on
war remembrance: annversary rtuals focused on mportant battles, collectve
and ndvdual actve performances at memoral stes, engaged spectatorshp of
the traumatc stes and, last but not least, constructng commemoratve narra-
tves both on the offcal (state) level as well as n oral hstores of war wtnesses
and survvors. Ways of commemoraton of the war mght be dvded nto three
groups: vstng and brngng trbutes, expressng responses to the event and
nteractng wth others and holdng ceremones.
Vstng memorals – stes desgned as places of honor for rememberng – s
focused on the act of grevng and performances (rtuals) assocated wth com-
memoraton and payng respects to the vctms and heroes of the naton. One of
the ways of actve performances related to vstng memorals s the act of rtual
markng of the ste, whch n most cases s represented by the phenomenon of
plgrmage – a journey to a sacred place – whch can be observed on the offcal
and unoffcal level. Offcal secular plgrmage s focused on the annversa-
res and grevng rtuals organzed by state agences wth the partcpaton of
poltcal actors, mostly n a cyclc, repettve perodcty based on mportant
state holdays and the process of mythologzaton of the lberaton struggle
for ndependence. Ths global phenomenon s also the case of monuments n
Yugoslava (Mtrovca, Landovca, etc.) and the post-Yugoslav monuments n
Kosovo that memoralze the war of 1999 (Adem Jashar Memoral Complex
n Prekaz, Kosovo) (D Lello & Schwandner-Severs, 2006).
Commemoraton of war s also recognzed n the actve performance of
socal and poltcal actors and ndvduals n the form of engaged spectatorshp.
Ths can be sgnfed not only by expressng responses to the commemorated
event and nteractng wth others, but also n more formalzed rtuals such as
offcal ceremones. In studes of contemporary memorals, a number of ways
of expresson (responses) have been recognzed as performatve acts of com-

Page 10 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
memoraton (D Lello & Schwandner-Severs, 2006; Logan, 2009; Santno, 2006;
Schellenberg, 2016; Young, 2000, 2003).
Another example of wrtten messages that consttute an mportant part of
a monument or memoral s a text placed on the foundaton of a monument
or as a freestandng nformatve plaque. In research of Kosovo war memor-
als, whch mght as well refer to general studes of publc remembrance, three
types of text messages that are assocated wth monuments mght be lsted:
(1) Memoral text as a hstory lesson – gvng comprehensve nformaton
about the event;
(2) Text representng names of places of traumatc events, whch s a knd
of mappng of volence and plays both an nformatve and a commemo
-
ratve functon;
(3)
Lstng vctms’ and solders’ names on memorals – ths s nherted
from the World War I tradton and underlnes the symbolc sgnfcance
n collectve memory.
All these models of passve and actve commemoraton brng new unantcpated
meanngs to memory stes. People (spectators and actve performers) draw meanng
from memorals by seeng and mentally ref lectng, occupyng, experencng and
actng these stes, whch consttutes the essence of publc rememberng.
Plgrmage s defned n ths paper as a vst to a place where both the jour-
ney and ts destnaton are beleved to empower ndvduals or groups to create
bonds wth a hgher state of beng and contemplate on matters of lfe, death and
beyond. There are three mportant components that defne ths knd of secular
plgrmage and that mght be observed n the context of the analyzed case study
of Kosovo monuments and memoral stes n relaton to the offcal narratve of
the people’s liberation struggle and the deology of brotherhood and unity.
The frst component s the great mportance of the locaton of a monument or
shrne. Many monuments have an unusual remote locaton that can be explaned n
dualstc way: as a pecularty of Yugoslava or, n general, as a partsan war exper-
ence or a demand that came drectly from the people and the desgners of the ste.
Remote locatons correspond to the expansveness of the surroundng landscape and
on the artstc level are expressed through overszed dmensons, new typologes of
monuments and the expansve use of form and materal. Therefore, the desgns of
Yugoslav archtecture and monuments – new utopan abstract forms of mposng
dmensons – dd not necessarly emerge from ndvdual artstc exhbtonsm, as
clamed by Sanja Horvatnčć (2018, pp. 104–111), but n response to thematc and

Page 11 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
contextual condtons. The abstract forms of the Yugoslav monuments have allowed
them to establsh more unversal meanngs and tmeless aesthetcs that do not refer
exclusvely to a certan tme frame or socalst deology. On the contrary, they over-
came ther tme and leave more space for nterpretaton of unversal natonal values
such us herosm, struggle, freedom, or nter-ethnc relatons n multnatonal socetes.
The second component that defnes secular plgrmage s assocated wth
approachng the state as an object of relgosty (n some cases replacng rel-
gon wth secular heroc cults). Secular plgrmages may nvolve vsts to publc
buldngs, the graves of natonal heroes, or stes of battles that fgure mpor-
tantly n natonal hstores. These performances were assocated wth a person
or a place of great mportance to the Lberaton Movement and served as a knd
of trbute to fallen heroes, but most mportantly they served as an establshment
of the offcal narratve that ntended to cultvate and construct a culture of
remembrance. Centered on the most mportant days n the socalst Yugoslav
calendar (annversares of deaths, brths or battles) the commemoraton was
ntated wth a long-dstance march of at least 20 klometers, as n the case
of the analyzed monuments n Mtrovca (1973) and Landovca (1963), Vt-
romrca (date of erectng unknown) and one of the most conc monuments
of Sutjeska Battle n Tjentšte (1971). All these examples have served as stes
of patrotc toursm for ndvdual and organzed groups that vst the most
mportant venues commemoratng the Lberaton Struggle of Yugoslava.
Last but not least, the experence of travellng tself may be seen as a practce
that transforms socal denttes. The process of transformng dentty brngs
us to the defnton of patrotc toursm that n many ways mght be used n
a place of secular plgrmage. Treated as a naton-buldng effort, patrotc
toursm n the Yugoslav case acqured an addtonal dmenson amed at eth-
nc reconclaton through drect encounter.
Shrines to the Fallen Serb and Albanian Partisans:
Mitrovica and Landovica memorials
The man task of memorals, monuments and war museums s to rep-
resent problematc and volent memores of conflct and war, and they are
expected to transfer ths content to the publc n a responsble way, but ths
remans a very dffcult task. All of the alleged typologes of monuments and

Page 12 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
memorals show that “war narratves are hghly poltczed narratves that can
be easly manpulated by those n power, those prvleged members of socety
who want to drect hstorcal percepton n a certan way and who attempt to
shape collectve memory accordngly” (Schellenberg, 2016, p. 14).
In socalst Yugoslava and more partcularly n ts autonomous prov-
nce of Kosovo², the offcal narratves of the Lberaton Struggle supported
the process of legtmzaton of domnant deology and created a unfyng
symbolc order for a new socety. In ths sense, commemoraton had a strong
deologcal connotaton n order to conflate the memory of cvlan causaltes
wth the people’s liberation struggle and the socalst revoluton, thus creatng
patrotc dscourse was ntended to bnd the country together (Duda, 2010).
War memorals and monuments of dfferent types appeared all over socal-
st Yugoslava and created an nvsble network of remembrance and dentty.
The most mportant stes have become destnatons of patrotc toursm – vs-
ted by mllons every year and assocated wth huge prnt runs of tourst pro-
paganda productons such as maps, gudebooks and postcards (almost every
postcard produced n socalst Yugoslava, apart from commercal tourst attrac-
tons, presented a nearby monument or memoral). The wdespread creaton
of memoral centers further ndustralzed ths culture of commemoraton.
The great mportance of these stes and ther commemoratve functon made
ths a poltcal project of preservng the cultural memory of the antfascst
struggle to antcpate partcpatory practces and strateges that were dscussed
n the prevous parts of ths paper.
Parallel to the development of patrotc toursm – wth ts frst peak at
the end of the 1940s and the revval of applyng the deology of brotherhood and
unity agan n socal and cultural felds n the 1960s and 1970s – mght be seen
as the process of buldng new memorals and monuments. New commssons
to commemorate stes of mass kllngs or guerrlla warfare were contracted n
the 1960s and 1970s. As I found out through comparatve analyss of the collected
materals, most of them are characterzed – n collaboraton wth archtects – by
a central sculptural object that s usually assocated wth urban desgn.
In ths paper my man nterest s the deologcal noton of Albanan–
Serban partsanshp and brotherhood and ts expresson n the vsual and
² In the ntervews I conducted durng my research, most of the nformants confrmed
the unfyng functon of the Lberaton Struggle commemoratve practces, underlyng
the mportance of the fgures of Boro and Ramz – partsan heroes from World War II.

Page 13 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
popular culture of Yugoslava, n partcular Kosovo. The chosen memorals n
Mtrovca and Landovca are the man monuments that relate drectly to Alba-
nan–Serban relatons³. However, we could menton some more monuments
n the terrtory of Kosovo that are the materal representaton of the deology
of brotherhood and unity and have been named as such (Uroševac/Ferzaj,
Prshtna, Peć/Peja, Karagač, Lpjan). Most of these monuments were toppled
mmedately after the war n Kosovo n 1999 as an expresson of rejecton
of Yugoslav hertage. For these reasons, I wll refer to two case studes that
entrely fulfl the nterpretatonal model of commemoraton and cultvaton
of Albanan–Serban brotherhood n Yugoslav deology.
Shrine to the Fallen Serb and Albanian Partisans
(1960–1973) in Mitrovica
In 2017, I vsted Mtrovca (n the north part of Kosovo on the border wth
Serba) relatvely late – fve years after my frst study vst to Kosovo. I started
my feldwork by contactng the Museum of Mtrovca, whch s located n
the south part of the cty. My man nterest was related to the war monuments
of 1999 as I was developng my research on the last war n Kosovo, as t s called
n general Kosovo–Albanan dscourse. However, my attenton was attracted by
an uncanny concrete structure that s vsble from all parts of ths hybrd cty
(fg. 2.). The frst confuson about ths object comes wth the namng problem
that appears n both parts of the cty: Albanan and Serban. Whenever I tred
to talk about ths monument among the ctzens of Mtrovca, I was faced wth
dfferent terms defnng ts symbolc functon and meanng. It was precsely ths
namng problem that made t so strongly appealng to me. Ths s how – through
mult-layered percepton of a monument – one can unleash the whole hstory of
a cty that s abundant n nter-ethnc and nter-cultural components. It shows
the process of dvsons between natve populatons and the dynamcs of par-
tcular and common values that were transformed durng dfferent perods and
power systems. Ths s also how the magned sense of ethno-natonal dentty
has been communcated on both sdes of the rver.
³ Boro and Ramz have also been commemorated not just wth smaller monuments and busts
but also through the namng of the Palace of Sport and Culture n Prshtna wth ther names.

Page 14 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
Fg. 2. Shrine to the Fallen Serb and Albanian Partisans (1960–1973), Mtrov ca.
https://commons.wkmeda.org/wk/Fle:Kosovska_Mtrovca_monument.jpg
When referrng to hs monument n Mtrovca, whch was bult between
1960 and 1973, Bogdan Bogdanovć clamed:
s was one of my most complcated projects. It took some ten or twelve years from
the frst sketches to realzaton. e monument s dedcated to the Partsans. e two
pylons were oen nterpreted as a Serb and an Albanan fgure. In my nteractons
wth the local clents, Serbs and Albanans seemed to work well together; later, I found
t very panful when the trouble n Kosovo began. I wanted to symbolze a gateway
or entrance. e man generator for the form was space – the enormous open space
wth fantastc depth overlookng the cty. I explored many derent drectons before
I came up wth ths verson, whch stands ts own ground aganst the vast empty
space. As t turns out, t now sts precsely on the border between the Serb and Alba-
nan parts of the cty (Kulć & aler, 2018, p. 60).
The Shrine to the Fallen Serb and Albanian Partisans (1960–1973) that
was desgned for Mtrovca (Kosovo) n the oral narratves of the ctzens of
the cty s nowadays usually referred to as the Mners’ Monument, the Monu-
ment on the Hll, or Partsans’ Hll. In a gudebook promotng Kosovo that
was publshed n 1982, t s descrbed as a memoral ste of Partsans, whle
sometmes the names are merged and t s referred to as the monument of
Mners-Partsans. However, n contemporary dentty dscourses the org-
nal name gven by the author of the monument barely appears. Accordng
to data gathered by Vladmr Kulć (Kulć & Sterl, 2018) and publshed on
the occason of the exhbton n MoMA n New York (Toward a concrete
utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948–1980, 2018–2019), the monument
of Mtrovca s dedcated to the fallen ethnc Albanan and Serb Partsans,
members of a mners’ platoon. As the author explans, “They successfully

Page 15 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
sabotaged the extracton of znc and lead ore from the Trepča mnes, whch
the occupyng German forces needed for weapons producton” (Kulć & St-
erl, 2018, p. 58).
Ths oral dsparty of the seemngly unmportant shfts n the name of
the Mtrovca monument presents the wdespread phenomenon of the denal of
the hertage of Yugoslava (mostly among Albanans) and the strengthenng of
partcularsms above the commons. Moreover, ths s followed by more radcal
acts of topplng the unwanted hertage of Yugoslava and ts man brotherhood
and unity slogan as a consequence of the traumatc war experences n Kosovo,
whch are exemplfed n the dsplacement of monuments n recent years n
the publc space of Kosovo.
The reason for ntroducng the monument n Mtrovca lays n complement-
ng the knowledge of the semantcs of “the border space”. Its complexty and
symbolc contextualzaton go far beyond the remembrance of World War II,
as referred to by the artst Bogdan Bogdanovć, and was ntended to ndcate
nteractons between Serban and Albanan communtes n the form of a gate
or entrance. Thus, more than any other ths partcular monument can be per-
ceved an example of verfcaton of the deologcal and aesthetc transforma-
ton of the system of representatons of war and analyss of the mechansms
of ther promoton n the collectve memory.
Memorial of Boro and Ramiz in Landovica (1963)
An example that I would lke partcularly refer to n my analyss of perfor-
mances of patrotc toursm crowned by the slogan of brotherhood and unity
s the story of two partsans: Boro Vukmrovć (Serban of Montenegrn or-
gn), the Regonal Commttee Secretary of the Communst Party of Yugoslava
n Kosovo, and Ramz Sadku (ethnc Albanan), member of the Bureau of
the same Commttee. Both were captured and executed n Landovca by Ital-
an Fascsts on Aprl 10, 1943, whle they were on ther way from Gjakova to
Przren to meet Belgrade’s envoy Svetovar (Tempo) Vukmanovć. In socalst
Yugoslava they became a symbol of Albanan and Serban brotherhood and
ther story was explored n many ways n materal and non-materal culture
n both the Serban and Albanan languages (oral hstory, poems, novels, busts,
monuments, buldngs, etc.).

Page 16 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
As an example of the deology of brotherhood and unity, fgures of Boro and
Ramz have been present n a great number of patrotc poems, two of whch are
worth mentonng: “Boro and Ramz” by Adem Gejtan, whch s mostly acces-
sble n the Serban language, and “Ramz, Comrade” by Esad Mekul, whch
was popularzed n school books untl late 1980s n the Albanan language. Most
nterestngly, durng my feldwork n Kosovo when researchng the cultural pres-
ence of Boro and Ramz, most of my ntervewees stll remembered the lnes of
the poem that was oblgatory to learn by heart n prmary school n the 1980s.
Moreover, despte the negatve atttude towards Yugoslav hertage n today’s
Kosovo, the myth of Boro and Ramz stll brngs rather postve memores.
Fg. 3. Memoral of Boro and Ramz n Landovca (Kosovo), 1963.
Courtesy of Archve of the Republc of Kosovo
 Jedno smo nebo / dva lsta s ste grane / dva kamčka z ste rjeke / čste Bstrce / dva
tjela z ste krv / prečste krv Dukađna / prst sa ste ruke / jedna smo lasta / ja desno krlo
njeno / t njeno ljevo krlo / oč moje tvoje trepavce / tvoj nabor moje čelo / prčaju o pute-
vma u budućnost / prčaju o putevma ka slobod / Pušketaše nas / od stog smo metka pal – /
jer šta sam ja bez tebe / šta je jedno krlo / bez drugog krla. (Adem Gajtan). Lteral transla-
ton made by the author: We are one sky / two leaves from the same branch / two lttle stones
from the same rver / the clear Bstrca Rver / two bodes of same blood / pure clean blood of
the Dukadjns / fngers from the same hand / together we are a brd (swallow) / I am ts rght
wng / you are ts le / my eyes, your eyelashes / your crnkle, my forehead / they speak of roads
to the future / they speak of roads to freedom / ey gunned us down / we fell from the same
bullet / because, what am I wthout you / what s one wng / wthout another wng.
 Landovcë, a  pe dy trma? / Landovcë, a të rrok shungullma? / A pe, oj, në prtë – /
në luën që s’e ndanë, / nën plumbat e tradhëtart / Boro e Ramz kur ranë? / Me ty lulzo
vllaznm, / dora dorës u shtr… (fragment, Esad Mekul). Lteral translaton made by the author:
Landovca, have you seen those two heroes? / Landovca, have you been struck by a thunder?
/ o have you seen them n ambush – / the fght that they ddn’t leave apart / under the bullets
of a trator / Boro and Ramz when dd they de / Wth you brotherhood s n blossom / they
led down hand n hand…

Page 17 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
In November 1963, as stated before wth an atmosphere of a recurrence
of the offcal narratve of Lberaton Struggle, on the 20th annversary of
the death of Boro and Ramz, the Yugoslav authortes – thanks to the lob-
byng of local government and veterans’ assocatons – decded to erect
a monument and memoral ste at the entrance to the vllage of Landovca
(fg. 3.). The monument was created by 3 artsts: Modrag Pecć, Svetomra
Arsć Basara and Hlmja Qatovq. The monument was offcally unveled
to the publc on November 30th, 1963, an event whch was attended by Josp
Broz Tto and ncluded a readng by Albanan poet Adem Gajtan of hs
work dedcated to the two comrades, enttled “Boro and Ramz”. The altar-
lke memoral, wth ts ten-meter-tall concrete sculpture of a stylzed two-
headed fgure, suggests relgous devoton, n ths case the cvl relgon of
the “actve vctmhood” of the partsans, n the words of Mranda Jakša
(2015, p. 17).
Certan sources (mostly oral and photographc) recount that when ths
monument stood n ts orgnal condton, t bore an nscrpton that was
engraved drectly onto ts concrete façade:
[whle] holdng hgh ther ag of the Communst Party of Yugoslava (KPJ) n com-
bat aganst occupers and domestc trators for natonal and socal lberaton, for
brotherhood and unty of our peoples, here, n Aprl of 1943, natonal heroes Boro
Vukmrovć, [KPJ] secretary, and Ramz Sadku, member of the KPJ Dstrct Com-
mttee for Kosovo and Metohja, gave ther lves.
In greetng postcards from Przren, the Landovca memoral comes to
be also a sgnpost for the cty as much as other older or more urban stes
(fg. 4.). The memoral also appears alongsde the post-war motels and res-
taurants Vllazrimi, Liria, and Sputnik, both of whch are modern but modest
buldngs n style and sze – n harmony wth Przren’s small scale (Return
to Sender, n.d.)
 In 1999 memoral of Boro and Ramz was demolshed and replaced wth the Martyrs’
Cemetery (Varrezat e Dëshmorëve), a bural place where the remans of Kosovo Lberaton
Army (KLA) solders who ded durng the Battle of Jeshkova are bured.
 Photographc collectons from the Archve of the Republc of Kosovo (Arkv  Repub-
lkës së Kosovës) and oral sources based on unstructured ntervews I conducted durng my
feldwork n Kosovo n 2018–2019. See also: Nebyl (2018).

Page 18 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
Fg. 4. Postcard from Przren wth Boro and Ramz memoral n the central part.
Photo of postcard by Kenneth Andressen.
http://oralhstorykosovo.org/return-to-sender-second-world-war-memorals-and
-the-ctes-n-postcards/
One of the most spectacular performances that s worth mentonng as an example
of the offcal narratve of brotherhood and unity n practce was a march organzed
n May 1986 to commemorate the remembrance of Josp Broz Tto by the Youth of
Yugoslava. Ths explct example of combnng the dea of secular plgrmage and
patrotc toursm took a route from Belgrade to Landovca and Vtromrca n Kosovo.
It was assocated wth the 26th meetng of poneers of Yugoslava n Landovca; there
were offcal rtuals characterstc of socalst states, fanfares of vctory, the rasng
of the flags of the organzaton, large mages of Josp Broz Tto and, n a gesture of
unty, a crcle surroundng the monument of Boro and Ramz was created (fg. 5.).
Fg. 5. e meetng of Poneers.
Source: Rlndja Newspaper, 20.05.1986.

Page 19 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
Conclusions
Through a functonal analyss of art, the presented paper ams to explore
relatons between communtes and ther monuments and the consequences
of these relatons n the hstorcal perspectve. I amed to present a selecton of
commemoratng models and the soco-poltcal changes they brng as a result.
When analyzng the hstorcal context, the deologcal aspects, and the socal
practces bound by offcal narratves of socalst Yugoslava, my goal was to
present the performatve functons of monuments wth a specal focus on
the shrnes to fallen Albanan and Serb partsans. I referred to two crucal
examples of the memorals of Mtrovca and Landovca, one on the north
and the other on the south of Kosovo, both of whch are confronted wth
the narratves of borderlands and conflcted areas. Fnally, I wanted to show
how poltcally drven narratves and rtuals can establsh a knd of engaged
spectatorshp for ther own purposes, .e. to buld an magned sense of ethno-
natonal dentty.
Publc commemoraton has transformed the publc from a passve aud-
ence nto actve partcpants. Memoralzaton or commemoraton s dffer-
ent than performatvty (the ntent to effect, to make somethng happen or
go further – events that attempt to cause socal change). The omnpresence
of the brotherhood and unity slogan n Yugoslav publc space has been nten-
sfed, as I show n ths paper, not just by materal culture (monuments and
memorals), whch are vanshng from the publc gaze n today’s Kosovo or
are beng covered wth representatons of the last war (1999), but also by oral
manfestatons and collectve memory, mostly n the generatons that grew
up n Yugoslava.
Examples that I refer to n ths paper underlne the far more complex nter-
play between offcal and personal memory n how these memorals have been
utlzed snce ther constructon. They can also serve as a startng pont for
the further analyss (also n other geographes) of the evoluton of memorals
and how the treatment of gref and the representaton of war has developed
over the course of tme. Moreover, they gve an nterestng nsght nto per-
formng monuments – the way n whch monuments assocated wth rtuals
and ndvdual or offcal performances appear n the publc gaze.

Page 20 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baranowsk, Sh., & Furlough, E. (Eds.). (2001). Being Elsewhere: Tourism, Consumer Culture and
Identity in Modern Europe and North America. Mchgan: Unversty of Mchgan Press.
Bürger, P. (1983). Zur Kritik der idealistischen Ästhetik. Frankfurt am Man: Suhrkamp Verlag.
Connerton, P. (1989). How societies remember. Cambrdge: Cambrdge Unversty Press.
D Lello, A., & Schwandner-Severs, S. (2006). Sacred Journey to a Naton: The Constructon of
a Shrne n Postwar Kosovo. Journeys, 7(1), 27–49. https://do.org/10.3167/146526006780457315
Djlas, A. (1991). The contested country – Yugoslav unity and communist revolution, 1919–1953.
Cambrdge: Harvard Unversty Press.
Duda, I. (2010). Workers nto Toursts. Enttlements, Desres, and the Realtes of Socal Tour-
sm under Yugoslav Socalsm. In H. Grandts & K. Taylor (Eds.), Yugoslavia’s sunny side:
a history of tourism in socialism (1950s–1980s) (pp. 33–68). Budapest: Central European
Unversty Press.
Gedon, S. (1958). Architecture, You and Me. The Diary of a Development. Cambrdge: Har-
vard Unversty Press.
Horvatnčć, S. (2018). Memoral Sculpture and Archtecture n Socalst Yugoslava. In V. Kulć
& M. Sterl (Eds.), Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia 1948–1980
(pp. 104–111). New York: MoMA.
Huyssen, A. (1993). Monument and Memory n a Postmodern Age. The Yale Journal of Criti-
cism, 6(2), 249–261.
Jakša, M. (Ed.). (2015). Partisans in Yugoslavia: literature, Film and Visual Culture. Belefeld:
Transcrpt-Verlag.
Jovć, D. (2004). Yugoslavia: A State That Withered Away. West Lafayette: Purdue Unversty
Press.
Kulć, V., & Sterl, M. (Eds.). (2018). Toward a Concrete Utopia: Architecture in Yugoslavia
1948–1980. New York: MoMA.
Kulć, V., & Thaler, W. (Eds.). (2018). Bogdanović by Bogdanović. Yugoslav Memorials through
the Eyes of Their Architect. New York: MoMA.
Logan, W. (Ed.). (2009). Places of Pain and Shame. Dealing with ‘Difficult Heritage’. London
and New York: Routledge.
McCallum, C. E. (2018). The Fate of the New Man. Representing & Reconstructing Masculinity
in Soviet Visual Culture 1945–1965. DeKalb: Northern Illnos Unversty Press.
Nebyl, D. (2018). Spomenik Monument Database. London: Thames & Hudson.
Nora, P. (1989–1992). Les lieux de mémoire (Vol. 3. Les France – traditions). Pars: Gallmard.
Return to Sender: Second World War Memorals and the Ctes n Postcards. (n.d.). Retreved
July 17, 2019, from http://oralhstorykosovo.org/return-to-sender-second-world-war-
memorals-and-the-ctes-n-postcards/

Page 21 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
Rogoś, A. (2019). Cross boundary denttes of the Albanan Muslms n Socalst Macedona.
In J. Telbzova-Sack & Ch. Voss (Eds.), Islam auf dem Balkan: Muslimische Traditionen im
lokalen, nationalen und transnationalen Kontext (pp. 211–224). Berln: Peter Lang.
Santno, J. (Ed.). (2006). Spontaneous Shrines and the Public Memorialization of Death. New
York: Palgrave Macmllan.
Schellenberg, R. (2016). Commemorating Conflict: Models of Remembrance in Postwar Croatia.
Oxford: Peter Lang.
Shoup, P. (1968). Communism and the Yugoslav National Question. New York: Columba
Unversty Press.
Yeomans, R. (2010). From Comrades to Consumers. Holdays, Lesure Tme, and Ideology
n Communst Yugoslava. In H. Grandts & K. Taylor (Eds.), Yugoslavia’s sunny side:
a history of tourism in socialism (1950s–1980s) (pp. 69–106). Budapest: Central European
Unversty Press.
Young, J. E. (2000). At memory's edge: after-images of the Holocaust in contemporary art and
architecture. New Haven: Yale Unversty Press.
Young, J. E. (2003). Memory / Monument. In R. S. Nelson & R. Shff (Eds.), Critical Terms of
Art History (pp. 234–247). Chcago: The Unversty of Chcago Press.
Dynamika indywidualizmu i wspólnoty. Pomniki i turystyka
patriotyczna w socjalistycznej Jugoslawii – przypadek Kosowa
Nnejszy artykuł prezentuje dwa studa przypadku dotyczące pomnków socjalstycznej
Jugosław na terene Kosowa, upamętnających partyzantów z czasów II wojny śwatowej
w Mtrowcy (1973)  Landovcy (1963) oraz ch funkcj performatywnych w ramach zjawska
turystyk patrotycznej. Oba przykłady odnoszą sę do relacj mędzyetncznych (serbskch
 albańskch) połączonych hasłem: braterstwo i jedność. Dwaj partyzanc obecn w zborowej
pamęc dzęk pomnkom  hstor mówonej – Boro  Ramz – stal sę symbolem jednośc
w socjalstycznej Jugosław. Pomnk  mejsca pamęc upamętnające walkę usłały całe
terytorum socjalstycznej Jugosław  stworzyły newdzalną seć pamęc  tożsamośc. Naj-
ważnejsze mejsca, jak te analzowane w artykule, stały sę celam turystyk patrotycznej  są
odwedzane przez mlony turystów każdego roku. Były one zwązane z prowadzoną na dużą
skalę propagandą turystyczną: publkowanym w dużych nakładach mapam, przewodnkam
 pocztówkam, które oprócz komercyjnych atrakcj turystycznych prezentowały poblske
mejsca pamęc  pomnk.
Słowa kluczowe: braterstwo  jedność, mejsca pamęc, pomnk, serbscy partyzanc, albańscy
partyzanc, Kosowo

Page 22 of 22
Agata Rogoś Dynamics of Particular and Common: Monuments and Patriotic Tourism…
Dynamics of the particular and the common: Monuments and
patriotic tourism in socialist Yugoslavia – a case study of Kosovo
s paper reects on two case studes of monuments n Socalst Yugoslava n Kosovo,
commemoratng World War II partsans n Mtrovca (1973) and Landovca (1963) and ther
performatve functons as a part of the phenomena of patrotc toursm. Both examples refer
to nter-ethnc (Serban and Albanan) relatons bound by the slogan brotherhood and unity.
Boro and Ramz, two fgures present n Yugoslav collectve memory and represented through
monuments and oralty, have become a symbol of unty n Socalst Yugoslava. War memorals
and monuments have been rased all over the terrtory of socalst Yugoslava and created an
nvsble network of remembrance and dentty. e most mportant stes, as those analyzed n
ths paper, have become destnatons of patrotc toursm: they were vsted by mllons every
year and were assocated wth huge prnt runs of tourst propaganda producton such as maps,
gude-books and postcards (apart from commercal tourst attractons, almost every postcard
produced n socalst Yugoslava presented a nearby monument or memoral).
Keywords: brotherhood and unty, monuments, memorals, Serban, Albanan partsans, Kosovo
Notka o autorce
Agata Rogoś (rogosaga@hu-berln.de) – post-doc na Unwersytece Humboldta
w Berlne, gdze pracuje nad projektem dotyczącym dyskursów pograncza
w Alban  Macedon Północnej pod kerunkem prof. Chrstana Vossa.
Obronła doktorat na temat słowańskej  albańskej pamęc zborowej oraz
dyskursów współczesnej tożsamośc w Macedon Północnej na Unwersyte-
ce Adama Mckewcza w Poznanu. Jej badana dotyczą nterfejsu kultury
wzualnej, antropolog oraz badań pamęc  koncentrują sę na pogranczach
połudnowosłowańsko-albańskch. Publkowała na tematy dotyczące pamęc
zborowej  dyskursów dotyczących tożsamośc na Bałkanach.
Agata Rogoś (rogosaga@hu-berln.de) – a post-doc fellow at Humboldt Unver-
sty n Berln where she s developng a project based on borderland dscourses
n Albana and North Macedona, led by prof. Chrstan Voss. She defended her
Ph.D. thess on Slavc and Albanan collectve memory and contemporary den-
tty dscourses n North Macedona at Adam Mckewcz Unversty n Poznań.
Her research addresses the nterface of vsual culture, anthropology and memory
studes and focuses on the South Slavc–Albanan borderlands. She has publshed
extensvely on ssues of collectve memory and dentty dscourses n the Balkans.