834707443

critics and to develop criticism as an indispensable approach to creative work: »For this reason criticism, both of creators and those who pass a judgement of their works. must not intcrfcrc with freedom and the right to individuality: it must not be based on particular inlerests of specific social groups, but rather upon universal, humanist principles, and on the basis of specific criteria in specific fields of culture.* (p. 6).

A review of all the papers, however useful, would nevertheless be superfluous. This will mean injustice to some papers - e. g. those by Nikola MiloSević, Duro Susnjić, Taras Kermauner, and Pavle Novosel - whereas it will be a service to some others.¹ However, it would not be amiss to take a look at two morę papers. In his paper entitled One Prerenuisite of $ elf-Management in the Field of Culture, Esad Ćimić asks the following questions: »Can self-management develop in any sphere of public life if it is not developed (neither as an idea, nor as a system, nor as a practice) at the global social level? Can we reasonably refer to the develop-ment of self-management in one sphere while there is stagnation or a complete ab-scnce of dcvelopment in another. Does self-management as a concrete practice mean the elimination of hired labour if its subjects work on poor materiał prereąuisites which are supposed to engander this Treeri social relationship? Can there be talk at all about self-management in those spheres which, at least for the time being, are incapable of providing materiał prerequisites for their activities? Is it self-management at all if it is ’introduced\ ^łinstalled’ rather than organically grown out of man’s and society’s internal needs?* (p. 1). Unfortunately, Ćimić did not attempt to answer these questions, which appear to be exceptionally significant. (It is good that they have at least been asked.) He views culture as a collective responsibility toward development and calls for an integral self-management in culture. Ćimić discusses three forms of establishing materiał prerequisites for cultural activities: the market, financing through public funds and financing by means of system of autonomous agreement, but at this moment he does not favour any of the advanced forms, but rather suggests a mixed model of financing: »It would not be very hard to show (and prove) that discussions about the materiał position of culture tend morę to reveal its difficult situation than to conceal its failures, It is in the interest of culture that we should readily opt for a mixed model of financing. In a combin-ed model - depending on the level of economic and cultural development - these sources of financing should be evaluated differently. This seems to be almost the only way to attain a rational as well as humanist organization of cultural life«

(p. 6).

Recalling that 72 per cent of this country’s population still belong to rural culture, Vojislav Durić revealed the outrageous treatment of the peasantry in Yugo-slav society as seen in their Iow incomes, Iow social prestige and power. There is a tcndency to deny a rural background. Is it not an insult to tell someone that he is a peasant, asks Durić. In the process of interaction between rural and urban cul-tures, he stresses the following important points: (1) the spreading of village-to-city migration; (2) the spreading of the media of mass Communications; (3) the spreading of tcchnical innovations; and (4) the spreading of a uniform generał education. Durić analyzed the effects of this interaction, referring to urban outskirts as an »cxtension hand of the village« and to the housing and financial hardships of the peasant coming to the city.

The debate virtually centred on Josip Żupanov’s paper. In a livelv and interesting polemics. Żupanov's paper was criticized from opposite positions, critical-humanist and positivist. The discussion was opened by Vojin Milić, who pointed out that Żupanov failed to show the basie social relationships in which culture is engender-ed. Milić s objections can be summarized as follows:

(1)    In Yugoslav society there havc already been attempts to identify egalitarian-ism with Cominformism, and we all know how wrong this is. Any talk of egali-tarianism must bear in mind the social circumstances in which it is taking place. How incorrect the above-mentioned comparison is is shown by the fact that we had a desire for independence, and opposition arose as a criticism of bureaucracy. Measures were taken to abolish bureaucratic privileges. Milić himself was resolutely in favour of the principles of egalitarianism.

(2)    Żupanov on the one hand impoverished the concept of egalitarianism, while on the other he wrongly attributed to egalitarianism certain properties which it cannot claim. The greatest bourgeois revolution had at its base liberty, fraternity

662

1

This primarily refers to papers od some rather modest empirical investiffationj.