Virtual Nationalism

Ivana Volf and Branislav Trudić are youth workers who implement the digital world into their work with young people. Ivana tackled the subject of digital violence through projects, while Branislav commits himself to youth work based on peace education, seeing himself online as a “promoter and defender of the culture of dialog, non-violent communication and human rights”.

In what way does the virtual world change our perception of national borders?

Branislav: I have a dilemma as to what a “national border” is. Borders can be interpreted in many ways – imaginary, abstract, geopolitical etc. If we take the geopolitical context, social networks and modern technology definitely relativise these borders.

Ivana: Yes, it should be that way, although in reality more often than not it happens that physical borders get transferred online, to social media and sites where there’s a possibility of commenting. That appears to promote national identity more than it erases borders.

How can national identity survive in the “global village” that we’ve become?

            Ivana: When we talk about the global village it usually affects younger generations. Internet, especially on the Balkans, is still not something older people use to a great extent. My parents, for one, aren’t aware that they can check something up on the Internet. Electoral campaigns confirm this – candidates that promoted themselves on the Web didn’t reach some niches of society that don’t use it. I think it’s a question of what is served on the Internet and how big the digital divide is between people who use the Web actively and those who don’t use it. When it comes to young people sometimes they seem to need support in learning how to acquire information and critically analyze what they’re served.

Branislav: The global village and globalization in general are much older than the intercultural learning that started with social networks. Social media, the virtual world and Internet itself overcomes a barrier that is physical space. But what’s interesting to me, on a human, individual level, is when, if and why it comes to the self-questioning of one’s values that the virtual world allows.

Ivana: Can allow, but often times doesn’t. Regardless of the fact that people can reach certain information online, they often remain in their own little world that’s much more precious to them than that virtual world – their families, their peers, I’d say even formal education and the values it promotes. The Internet serves as a place where they can show their opinions, perhaps even more openly than in the offline world. The Web offers a world of opportunities but then it’s a question of what you do with it – if you use it to hear something new and different and let that change you, or just promote your own viewpoint and refuse to hear the other side.

Branislav: For me the next logical question is how we measure this change, how to be sure to which degree the change was (or wasn’t) made. Starting from myself, even though I’m quite open for my own self-questioning, I can be stiff, sometimes even extreme in defending my values and beliefs. However, when I read a well-argumented fact that carries a message of value it often leads me to self-questioning. I think it’s natural to have a defense stance when we’re confronted with questioning ourselves. In the virtual world it’s much easier for this to remain without effect, but how do we know if it actually made a difference, if it stuck?

How does virtual communication differ from live communication?

            Ivana: I think there’s a difference between whether you know the person or not. You read into a person much differently if you know them, while you see anonymous comments through the stereotype of the nation, the stereotype of the language they use. You read into a person being a “Croatian”, and you “can’t” agree with them. Then people start clinging to details. I even witnessed people who have measured opinions getting attacked simply because of where they’re from. “How dare you talk about Serbia if you’re from Bosnia or vice versa, talk about any country if you’re not native”. If you’re not a part of that nation you have no right to critique the policies of that country, even if they have nothing to do with national identity, but with the general critique of society or the political system. When the communication is anonymous people are more prone to writing all sorts of things, probably much more so than they would be in real life. There’s no holding back because you don’t see the person, flesh and blood, who you would otherwise perhaps get by way of non verbal communication, so you might actually reach a common resolve.

Branislav: I think this can be overcome by a culture of dialog. The way we talk can influence someone to change their mind, to really question themselves, to relativize the national aspect of someone, make them more than just an ethnicity. I think formal education, working hand in hand with non formal, should promote a different kind of dialog, anonymous or otherwise, even in the virtual world.

This text was written as a part of Divided Past – Joint Future project and it does not represent nor reflects attitudes and viewpoints of the European Union, its institutions and bodies. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the text lies entirely with the author.