PART I
MODERNIZATION
1
A Relic of the Past, Fast Disappearing
Until the end of the Second World War, Prishtina was a typical Oriental town, with small one-story houses and narrow streets. Only after the Liberation has Prishtina passed through strong economic, cultural, and social developmentâand grown into a completely new modern town.
ESAD MEKULI AND DRAGAN ÄUKIÄ, EDS., Prishtina
Anything about which one knows that one soon will not have it around becomes an image.
WALTER BENJAMIN, âThe Paris of the Second Empire in Baudelaireâ
War by Other Means
In the mid-1960s, the Yugoslav government published a number of books on the progress of socialist modernization in their country. Many books were published in 1965, the twentieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War. This was a war in which the Communist Party of Yugoslaviaâs Partisan forces, under the leadership of Josip BroĆŸ Tito, defeated Yugoslaviaâs German and Italian occupiers, along with their domestic allies. Soon after establishing Yugoslavia as a socialist state, with Tito as its president-for-life, the Communist Party set out on an ambitious program of modernization. Publishing the results of that program on and around the twentieth anniversary of the warâs ending placed modernization in the history of war: in Yugoslav socialism, modernization was staged as a war of its own.
One such account of socialist modernization was Kosovo i Metohija, 1943â1963 (Kosovo and Metohija, 1943â1963).1 In socialist Yugoslavia, Kosovo was a province of Serbia, one of Yugoslaviaâs six constituent republics, just as it had been in prewar Yugoslavia and in Serbia before Yugoslaviaâs founding. Kosovo i Metohija, 1943â1963 was published by Kosovoâs provincial government for its constituents. The bookâs many photographs frequently visualized modernization with images of architecture. One photograph, from the city of Gjakova/Äakovica, showed, in the foreground, a half-destroyed group of mud-brick houses and, in the background, a tall, white apartment block (Figure 1.1). Architectural oppositions between the houses and the apartment block behind them are manifoldâI have already emplotted some of them in my description of the photographâand the caption of the photograph foregrounded several. These oppositionsâmodern versus historic, high versus low, concrete versus tiledâsuggest, in turn, still another opposition, that between the intelligible (here, modernization) and the sensible (here, architecture). In this sense, the photograph represents the manifestation of modernization in, among other things, architecture.
The force of this representation was its status as documentation: a representation of a reality prior to and outside the scene of the photograph. Architecture, as well as the photograph that represented it, would be an apparent effect or product of modernization and therefore evidence of the latterâs very existence. But the impossibility of modernization, whether as concept, ideology, or object, to manifest itself simply as such suggests that representation did not only reproduce an aspect of modernization but also produced its aspectâits otherwise absent or obscure appearance. Here, architecture, as well as its subsequent photographic representation, comprised a performance of modernization, a visualization of modernization that was inscribed in modernizationâs very concept. As such, photography and architecture are less ex post facto depictions of modernization than practices within modernization, reconciliations of concepts of modernization with material actuality that reciprocally form and transform both in that process.
In socialist Yugoslavia, the performance of modernization engaged architecture in two guises. In one guise, architecture was an object of construction, the âmodern constructionsâ that manifested what modernization was; in another guise, architecture was an object of destruction, an abject heritage of premodernity that made manifest what modernization was not. Construction and destruction thereby comprised conjoined architectural supplements of modernization. Each supplement added onto modernization, comprising a mediation or effect of it, but at the same time, âthis addition is a floating one because it comes to perform a vicarious function, to supplement a lack on the part of the signified.â2 This lack was the very incompleteness of modernization as a concept, the incompleteness that required this concept to be supplemented by architecture in the first place. The dichotomizing opposition of modern and historical architecture, staged in the photograph from Gjakova, thus led to the mutually constituting relation of modernization and architecture.
According to humanist theories of modernization, however, modernizationâwhether as historical process, economic mode of production, or cultural ideologyâis taken to be separate from its âmanifestations,â architectural or otherwise. As simple mediations or effects, modernizationâs architectural manifestations can thereby be reduced to modernization-assuch. Humanist theorizations of modernization rely, in particular, upon an underlying historicism: history comprises time unfolding as progress, itself figured by such terms as peace, prosperity, freedom, equality, or democracy. Architecture thereby emerges as a manifestation of one or some of these figures. In capitalist contexts, modernist progress takes the form of âdevelopment,â which is furthered by the âcreative destructionâ that opens up new opportunities for capital accumulation and sustains economic growth. In socialist contexts, like that of the former Yugoslavia, modernist progress took the form of ârevolutionâ and destructionâs creativity lay in its status as a motor of revolutionary change. In the Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels famously proclaimed that, in modernity, âall that is solid melts into airââbut the destruction that this transience implied was redemptive, a necessary phase in the social evolution that would lead to communism. In either case, however, construction and destruction are reduced to a mere acting-out of a progressive modernization that stands conceptually apart from its architectural mediation.
In this context, Walter Benjaminâs account of Baron Haussmannâs mid-nineteenth-century modernization of Paris is distinct in its refusal to recuperate modernist destruction. Haussmannâs architectural modernization of Parisâone of the first great urban modernization projectsâwas posed by the French state as a necessary transformation of the city and of society itself. Benjamin quoted Maxime Du Camp on the perceived âuninhabitabilityâ of pre-Haussmann Paris, in which âthe people choked in the narrow, dirty, convoluted old streets, where they remained packed in.â3 Haussmannâs broad boulevards were to bring light and air into previously dark and claustrophobic working-class neighborhoods, the slums of those neighborhoods were to be cleared, and the working class was to be provided with the civic amenities previously accessible only to the bourgeoisie.
Yet, for Benjamin, this all comprised âstrategic beautification.â While Haussmann relied upon the perceived reducibility of architectural transformation to social transformation, his modernization of Paris actually served, for Benjamin, as a substitute for and preemption of social change. Class antagonisms and social suffering were, for Benjamin, concealed rather than eliminated in Haussmanization, with the Parisian working class dispatched to the cityâs periphery and their former neighborhoods, though shot through with grand avenues, depleted of âtheir characteristic physiognomy.â4 Haussmannâs modernization thereby secured Paris against the workersâ uprisings that, for Benjamin, provided the sole chance for actual social change: its destruction did not reduce to modernization-as-progress but to a preventive war against organized labor.5 Haussmannization, then, was war by other means, so that, for Benjamin, it was profoundly related to other forms of political violence. The end of the failed 1871 Paris commune in the âburning of Parisâ was âa fitting conclusion to Haussmannâs work of destruction.â6 And, as Susan Buck-Morss has observed, Benjamin also described the urban battlefields of cities in the Spanish Civil War by reference to the destructive technology developed in Haussmannâs Paris. âHaussmannâs activity,â Benjamin wrote in 1935, âis today accomplished by very different means, as the Spanish Civil War demonstrates.â7
The destruction that Haussmannization at once instrumentalized and obscured was, for Benjamin, the key to its violence. Yet Kosovoâs modernization does not simply offer itself for reinscription in Benjaminâs text as another instance of modernizing violence; it enables, rather, a historical relation to be drawn between itself and that text. Benjamin posed the conjunction of modernization and war as a critical insight, a revelation of a crucial aspect of modernization, but one concealed by its architectural constructions. To figure Haussmannization as war was thus to disclose its violence. But the figuration of modernization as war was explicit and operational within Kosovoâs modernization. Just as Benjamin described Haussmannâs boulevards âcovered over with tarpaulins and revealed like monuments,â so was the destruction of Kosovoâs abject heritage the subject of visual and textual representations that revealed this destruction, too, as a monument of modernist progress.8 Kosovoâs modernization attempted to recuperate precisely the destruction that, according to Benjamin, was disavowed in Haussmannization. While Haussmannâs constructions comprised ideological justifications for and physical concealments of the destruction that preceded and motivated them, the destruction in Kosovoâs cities was specifically enfolded in a modernist narrative of war by other means: war was figured as both representation and instrument of historical progress. In Kosovo, this war was carried out against a debased heritage whose destruction manifested modernization. Supplemented, in the strict sense, by destruction, modernization made of Kosovoâs history an architectural phenomenon and its politics an architectural praxis.
We Destroyed on Sundays
Yugoslaviaâs modernization after the Second World War was a form of reconstruction, a reaction to the warâs thorough devastation; it was a form of socialism, a response to capitalist underdevelopment; a form of industrialization, an attempt to insert Yugoslavia into wider European and global economies; and a form of historical progress, a means of propelling Yugoslavia forward on the teleological trajectory that would led to communism. Each of these formulations invoked a prehistory, the premodern, against which modernization appeared. Though this premodernity was temporally âbeforeâ modernization, it emerged as a concept with, in, and by modernization. Modernization, therefore, involved the production of the premodernity that would be âdiscarded,â âreplaced,â âabandoned,â âovercome,â or âdestroyedââto cite but a few names the process was given in socialist Yugoslaviaâby modernization. Premodernity was just as much a product of modernization as the industrialization of production, the reconciliation of city and countryside, secularism, public education, social welfare, and other such goods that modernization claimed for itself. Modernization also was, that is, a form of historicism, stipulating both what was inside and outside of it according to a continuous and linear temporal trajectory.
Many empirical histories of socialist modernization stage their object against an inherited and objective premodernity, which is then emplotted as an obstacle to modernization.9 With some of Yugoslaviaâs republics and provinces emerging from an âadvancedâ Austro-Hungarian empire (Croatia, Slovenia, Vojvodina), some from a âbackwardâ Ottoman empire (Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia), and some from both empires (Serbia), many histories pose premodernity as the source of the âinequalitiesâ in Yugoslavia that modernization had to overcome. Other histories pose premodernity as a âresistanceâ to modernization where premodernity existed âin surplus,â as in places formerly under Ottoman rule. Still other histories pose premodernity as a cover term for other phenomena, such as Orientalism, Eurocentrism, or racism, which were themselves objectively present and causal on modernization. These histories therefore repeat, in the guise of analysis, a concept produced within modernization itself. They are histories of modernization that are themselves modernist. They fold premodernityâs âorigins,â âsigns,â âsymptoms,â âproducts,â and âfailuresâ into the concept of premodernity, a second-order reification of a concept that was already reified in and by modernization.
One of the primary examples of the reification of premodernity in socialist Yugoslavia was architectural. This reification possessed a double aspect. One aspect was defined by âcultural monuments,â or heritage that was named as such, valorized, studied, and protected. This process produced premodernity as an inheritance to be âpreserved,â with the very concept of preservation reproducing the ideology of p...