Written by Tomislav Marković
A few years ago, I wrote an article in which I reluctantly pointed out that there is a well-founded suspicion that reality may be far darker than it seems, even to the most radical pessimists. We may have found ourselves amid ruins—a completely devastated society, the collapse of humanity, morality, basic human emotions, and principles. Having reached a “zero point,” a “year zero,” we might need to start from scratch, rebuilding from basic concepts, much like after an apocalypse. Back then, it seemed logical to me that writers and poets who had experienced something similar could help guide us through this process—someone like Tadeusz Różewicz.
His poem In the Heart of Life reflects the experience of a man who has survived the horrors of World War II, the death of all beliefs and values, and now, he must relearn the very basics about the world and people, almost as if he were a child. Here are a few lines from the poem:
“After the end of the world / after death / I found myself in the heart of life / I created myself / I built life / people, animals, landscapes // this is what I said / this is what / on the table is bread, a knife / the knife is for cutting bread / bread is what people eat // one must love people / I was learning this / day and night / what to love / I was answering 'people' (…) I sat on the doorstep / that old woman who / pulls a goat on a rope / she is more needed / and more precious / than the seven wonders of the world / anyone who thinks / she’s unnecessary / is a murderer / this is a man / this is a tree, this is bread // people eat to live / I kept repeating / human life is important / human life is of great value / the value of life / surpasses the value of all things / created by man / man is a great treasure / I kept repeating insistently.”
A Return to the Dictionary
Since then, I’ve come to realize I was overly optimistic. Różewicz’s approach is far too advanced for our permanently post-apocalyptic state. We haven’t even reached the level of a basic school primer that would teach us elementary values: love for others, the understanding that even the old woman with the goat is more important than all human creations, no matter how perfect they may be. We still haven’t grasped the idea that anyone who views another human as unnecessary, redundant, or superfluous is, in fact, a murderer. And we certainly haven’t fully realized that human life is immeasurably valuable—that man is a great treasure.
Perhaps we should start by consulting the dictionary, as the meanings of words in public discourse have become increasingly detached from the concepts they’re meant to represent. The connection between the linguistic signifiers and what they signify has weakened. As the saying goes, “The signifier is in the forest, and the signified is on the road.” Let me offer one example that illustrates this shift.
Recently, the media reported on a troubling incident during a blockade in Čukarica. Both state-run and independent outlets ran nearly identical versions of the story, with minor variations in wording.
"Woman detained after protesting the traffic blockade with a knife in her hand during a protest in Belgrade," read the headline from RTS. Later, they changed it after a stir on social media. Independent outlets ran similar variations, but the core of the story remained the same—the woman was detained "for protesting the traffic blockade with a knife in her hand during a public gathering in the Belgrade municipality of Čukarica," or "Protesting the blockade of Požeška street with a knife in her hand," and so on.
Criticizing with a Bayonet, Objections with a Grenade
The Matica Srpska Dictionary defines the verb negodovati (to protest) quite differently. It states: Negodovati – to express dissatisfaction, disagreement with something, or to complain. The dictionary even provides a few examples: “He would turn into someone who thinks it’s his job to approve or protest, not to teach,” or “Some protested the absence of the abbot.” As we can see, there is no mention of protesting with a knife or any other cold weapon. A blade and protesting are simply not logically connected.
The media often presents a distorted view of reality, twisting and reshaping it beyond recognition. The connection between language and reality has become fragile, as weak as a willow branch or a frayed rope. If we were to accept the media’s version of reality, it would lead to some troubling conclusions. For example, suppose a woman holding a knife were to confront protesters. In that case, it might logically suggest that a parliamentarian could respond to a colleague’s disagreement by drawing a gun, just as Puniša Račić did years ago. Contrary to the awkward historical interpretation, he didn’t massacre a group of Croatian lawmakers led by Stjepan Radić—he protested their politics by shooting them.
In this new version of reality, protests are carried out with knives or guns, dissatisfaction is expressed with flamethrowers, and complaints are voiced with machine guns. We debate with katanas, voice disagreement with howitzers, criticize with bayonets, object with grenades, condemn with anti-tank guns, complain with airplane bombs, whine with maces, and share critical thoughts with semi-automatic rifles.
Confusing Concepts
If a woman pulls a knife on peaceful demonstrators honoring the victims under the Novi Sad canopy—16 minutes for 16 victims—that’s no longer a protest. Simply carrying a weapon, without using it, is illegal and can lead to fines or imprisonment.
Drawing a knife while “protesting” against demonstrators or opponents is an even more serious crime, as weapons are typically drawn with the intent to use them, or at the very least, to instill fear. Protesting is something else entirely—or at least, it used to be. By definition, protest is the expression of dissatisfaction, disagreement, or complaint, typically through words. Once a knife is drawn during such an action, it ceases to be a protest. A knife is drawn to threaten someone's life, not to express discontent.
This example might not need such a drastic interpretation. Perhaps the journalist simply misrepresented the report, and the media blindly passed it along without questioning its content or wording. Editing has become an overlooked concept, with the focus now on quantity—pumping out more articles, posts, and clicks, keeping the machinery running non-stop, burying readers under an endless stream of so-called information. However, this is not as harmless as it seems; it’s a symptom of a widespread problem that can be called linguistic distortion: the separation of language from reality, or the erosion of the ability to describe reality accurately.
The Separation of Language and Reality
For decades, those in positions of political, ideological, and discursive power have fed us nothing but lies in place of reality. When society accepts that a convicted war criminal—someone responsible for the deaths and suffering of tens of thousands—can be seen as a hero, it marks the beginning of the separation of language from reality. What nationalist ideologies have long been forcing upon us is propaganda: a false narrative, denial, and outright deceit.
For propaganda purposes, ideologues have created an entirely new language that has replaced the old one, where words had clear, fixed meanings. If a mass murderer is portrayed as a hero, a massacre is celebrated as a heroic act, and a lie is presented as truth, then pulling a knife becomes a "protest." This isn’t anything new; the Nazis used similar manipulations of the German language, as linguist Viktor Klemperer described in his book LTI – The Language of the Nazis.
Protest didn’t just appear alongside the knife. Recently, a mentally unstable woman in Niš attacked the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, Natalija Jovanović, by slashing her arm. The dean received medical treatment, the wound was stitched up, and the attacker was arrested. But the incident didn’t end there. Serbia’s president, Aleksandar Vučić, in one of his numerous television appearances, downplayed the attack, practically justifying it.
Chopping Onions, Deans, and Cucumbers
“The injury is about the same as when you cut a cucumber or an onion. From what I’ve heard, it’s not even serious—just a superficial wound,” said the notorious liar. The former radical scoundrel also claimed it was “obviously a mentally unstable older woman” who had “bought the small knife that morning,” and when she saw Jovanović walking toward her, she took out the “little knife.”
By the way, Natalija Jovanović wasn’t randomly attacked. While the attacker had mental health issues, she didn’t lash out at just anyone—she specifically targeted the dean with a knife. This was no accident. The target had been marked by none other than Aleksandar Vučić, who had branded her a criminal and part of an “evil trio” supposedly plotting against Serbia, a narrative his loyal tabloids have been pushing for months. The attacker was arrested, but Vučić remains free, as do all the other instigators of the attack.
Once again, the president has performed a linguistic inversion: the attacker isn’t to blame, but rather the victim. He lied, claiming the dean approached the attacker, implying that the victim was about to strike the armed woman from Niš. The diminutive “little knife” is another manipulation of reality, making the weapon seem almost harmless. His message is clear: "It’s no big deal, the woman just scratched the criminal with a little knife." This is the message from someone involved in a criminal conspiracy, who just happens to hold the position of president instead of serving time in prison.
A Kitchen Experiment
Chopping onions, deans, and cucumbers—these are just everyday kitchen tasks for the president, nothing to get worked up about. However, there’s another linguistic twist here that the old radical seems to overlook. Chopping onions and cucumbers doesn’t end well for the vegetables exposed to the knife—it’s not as innocent or harmless as he suggests. Chopping turns them into pieces, something anyone who’s ever chopped anything in the kitchen can attest to.
The president could test this himself if he thinks chopping a hand is as harmless as chopping vegetables. He could go to the kitchen, take a knife, and cut his finger the way he would chop a cucumber, then report back on how the experiment went. As we've already noted, in the manipulative vocabulary of nationalists, language is detached from reality.
That’s why we must return to the dictionary, to the basic meanings of words, relearn the alphabet, practice spelling, and rediscover the connection between language and reality. Once we master that first lesson, we can move on to more complex subjects, like reading the poetry of Tadeusz Różewicz. In light of the events discussed in this article, some of his verses no longer seem so simplistic, harmless, or self-evident. Take these lines, for example: “on the table is bread and a knife / the knife is for cutting bread/bread is what people eat.” Let’s not even get started on onions and cucumbers.
Komentari (0)
POŠALJI KOMENTAR