Karin Roginer Hofmeister is a post-doctoral researcher and lecturer in Holocaust Studies at the Institute of International Studies at Charles University in Prague and coordinator of the Malach Centre for Visual History. She obtained her PhD from the Institute of International Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences at Charles University in Prague. Her dissertation, “The Serbian Orthodox Church’s Engagement in Memory Politics of Post-2000 Serbia: Memory of Suffering and Resistance,” was completed on September 15, 2022, from which the book “Remembering Suffering and Resistance: Memory Politics and the Serbian Orthodox Church” is derived.
Hofmeister argues that Eastern Christianity and its ecclesiastic institutions have been under-researched in general social sciences and memory studies. Despite their significant role in public memory production in predominantly Orthodox societies, churches are often treated as symbols and imagery rather than a source of mnemonic action. The complexity of Orthodox Churches, established through the millennial past of Christianity and the posterity of eschatology, makes it difficult to study multiple actors or objects. Studying Orthodox Churches as active participants in memory politics could encourage comparative research across the Orthodox world and other religious traditions and their ecclesiastic institutions. Hofmeister suggests that this approach may also be applied more universally, situating similarly complex public actors in various processes of societal reproduction.
The book is structured into four parts (Dynamics Between Religion and Memory in Late Modernity; The SPC Within the Mnemonic Fields in Post-2000 Serbia; Memory of Suffering; Memory of Resistance), each with many subheadings, as well as an introduction and conclusion. Hofmeister’s study explores the Serbian Orthodox Church’s (further: SPC) role in public mnemonic communication in post-2000 Serbia, focusing on the historical disjuncture of World War II memory. The Church’s activities, particularly concerning civilian suffering and resistance, are situated within the multitier terrains of memory-making in post-2000 Serbia. The Church’s public engagement has taken liturgical and non-liturgical forms, often merging into a hybridized fusion. The convergence between the SPC and Serbian political elites allows the Church to play a more prominent role in commemorative practices and memory work.
The analysis period after 2000 is divided into two phases when it comes to the development of the public sphere and the role of the SPC. These phases are characterised by a series of events that shaped and were influenced by Serbia’s changing socio-political landscape in the modern era. The research period began with the fall of Slobodan Milošević in October 2000. The second phase, post-2000, marked a shift in power in both the secular and religious domains. This decade witnessed the election of a new patriarch in 2010 and the establishment of the Serbian Progressive Party in 2012. This period concluded in 2019, signifying a new era of symphonic relations between the church and the state.
The author combines multi-sited ethnography, reconstructive and context-generating contemporary history, and close disciplines like sociology, memory, and religious studies to study the SPC’s mnemonic engagement and interplay in memory-making. Hofmeister relies mainly on a mixture of primary sources, such as documents, media representations, interviews, and participant observation, to gain intimate knowledge of complex processes in time and space. She points out that the SPC significantly increased its media presence after 2000. The official positions of the SPC are expressed in documents, statements, and decisions of the Holy Synod of Bishops, the Holy Synod of Bishops, and the Serbian Patriarch. Orthodox media, print and digital, also provide useful insight into the complex picture of SPC strategies in interpreting the past and presenting historical narratives in the public arena. The author regularly followed the Facebook accounts and YouTube channels of the SPC, its administrative units, and relevant specific church bodies, such as the Jasenovac committee, as a complementary but useful primary source. Karin Hofmeister notes that she had difficulty reaching the major church actors who drive the mnemonic activity within the church due to the church’s historic reservedness, the inaccessibility of high-ranking hierarchs, and the lesser clergy’s restricted autonomy. She was, however, able to interview two church officials participating in the relevant mnemonic processes, as well as additional actors with whom they had research interests. She also spoke with several scholars and members of non-church mnemonic groups who were actively involved in the generation of memories from WWII after 2000.
The book uses postmodern social theories and religious sociology to investigate the connection between religion and ecclesiastical institutions in late modernity. Hofmeister relies on Slavica Jakelić who introduced the term “collectivistic religion,” to analyse Serbian Orthodox religious traditions and their impact on the SPC’s public realm. Karin Hofmeister claims that Serbian Orthodoxy meets the most significant features of the collectivistic form of religious affiliation and its late-modern public display. It has been understood more as an assigned attribute of collective identity than as a frame of individual spirituality manifested through observance and personal participation in the liturgical practices and doctrinal knowledge of Orthodoxy. It also remains highly institutionalized, making the SPC a vital and active public actor, mediating the emotional commitment to an imagined ethno-religious community and thereby moderating the adverse psychological effects triggered by a high level of instability in fluid societal realities. The author also employs Habermasian theory to define the realm of public interaction and spiritual discussion, exploring the concepts of identity, communal memory, and story as subjects of public mnemonic interaction and reproduction. The author integrates memory studies to synthesise the significant correlation between religion, ecclesiastic institutions, and memory, focusing on Danièle Hervieu-Léger’s concept of religion as a chain of memory. The book tries to uncover various layers of the study topic and provide ethnographically detailed examples to illuminate the research problem.
Chapter I presents a historical background of Serbia and the SPC, as well as a thorough examination of religion. Hofmeister contends that the SPC is a public organization with substantial physical and symbolic capital that represents the interests of a national community. However, it excludes the public from discussions about shared societal issues inside the church, state authorities, and other groups. This does not lessen the SPC’s public presence, which grows as it interacts with the media. Instead, the SPC employs this infrastructure to shape its public image and pursue certain narratives, especially in pseudo-public forums where actual discourse is an illusion. As a result, the church seldom participates in critical discussion capsules unless armed by transnational actors.
The author analyses mnemonic fields using post-socialist, post-conflict, and post-secular frames to understand how the SPC uses them to reshape World War II public memory. Hofmeister uses the typology of Michael Bernhard and Jan Kubik to examine the characteristics of a prominent mnemonic actor, a “mnemonic warrior,” and analyses the SPC’s mnemonic work, focusing on liturgical remembrance and ethnographic examples. The book explores the SPC as a collective force in forming group identity, rather than just a spiritual guide. It examines the SPC’s role in commemorating civilian casualties and resistance during World War II, focusing on key memorial sites like Jasenovac, Staro Sajmište, Jajinci, and Ravna Gora. The author emphasizes the church’s role as a keeper of memories and the idea of frames. Analytically, Hofmeister differentiates between the SPC’s liturgical remembrance and its broader mnemonic activities. Each chapter is divided into three sections: liturgical remembrance, non-liturgical remembrance, and ethnographically detailed examples of the SPC’s practices in memorializing Staro Sajmište and the memorial complex at Ravna Gora. She uses interdisciplinary scholarly works and fieldwork to address aspects of World War II memory in post-2000 Serbia. The book also examines the SPC’s interactions with other mnemonic players in the Serbian mnemonic scene at different stages of memory creation. The author discusses the SPC’s mnemonic focus on the suffering of Serbian civilians during World War II, particularly in the Independent State of Croatia (ISC). Post-2000, the SPC expanded its focus to include Jewish and Roma victims and became involved in the memorialization of Staro Sajmište, the ultimate site of the Holocaust in occupied Serbia. Post-2000 remembrance of World War II resistance highlights heroic victimhood, with the Serbian royalist armed forces, known as the Chetniks or Ravna Gora movement, portrayed as heroes defending Orthodox Christian virtues against fascists and communists. Since 2000, the Church has actively participated in revising World War II resistance, portraying the Chetniks as victims of post-war retributive violence by Yugoslav Communists. The SPC’s activities regarding the Ravna Gora memorial complex are scrutinized as a symbol of revisionist memory production in Serbia.
The SPC has been actively promoting a post-2000 mnemonic agenda, focusing on the suffering of civilians during World War II. It has explored various methods of engaging with memory, including research, education, museum exhibits, and media representation. The SPC has initiated national projects to include Serbian victims in transnational memory culture. The SPC’s interest in commemorating the Holocaust is understandable and justifiable to both national and transnational audiences, creating unity and continuity over time.
Since 2000, Serbia has aimed to rewrite World War II resistance as a major mnemonic goal, but the divisive nature of the topic in the former Yugoslav space has made it difficult to penetrate transnational mnemonic platforms. The mnemonic field is highly fragmented, with inconsistencies, incompleteness, semi-officiality of action, and spatio-temporal discontinuities. The SPC has capitalized on the clericalization of death and promoted liturgical remembrance as reconciliation among the dead. However, the SPC has not developed a centralized and institutionalized platform of mnemonic action beyond the liturgical plane of remembrance. Most activities have remained individualized and take place in a semi-official zone.
Hofmeister sees the Church’s remembrance work as a perpetual regeneration of Serbia’s ethno-religious legacy. The SPC has protected the Serbian community’s existence, and its ecclesiastics have acted as bridges between the past and the present. The re-emergence of religion and religious institutions in the public arena following the collapse of state socialism has been strongly related to the desire to re-establish and validate the lineage destabilized by ontological uncertainty, as well as to fill the utopic space left vacant by the failure of communist ideology. The SPC has carried and reshaped the lineage’s memory beyond the community of religion, encompassing the group defined primarily in ethnoreligious terms. Since 2000, the SPC’s mnemonic participation has taken numerous forms. The liturgical form of remembering is the essence of religious memory, with the space for liturgical practices expanding with the construction of memorial churches and sacral buildings.
The author focused on the efforts of Slavonian Bishop Jovan (Ćulibrk), whose diocese is located in the Republic of Croatia. In her opinion, he was a crucial figure in the development of recollections of suffering during the Second World War in Serbia after 2000. He handled several positions, including research, memorial design, and representing Serbia in the International Holocaust Memorial Association. He adeptly transitioned between liturgical and extra-liturgical practice and participated in public performances at the Genocide Victims Museum. Regrettably, numerous inquiries remain unresolved about Bishop Jovan despite the considerable role he plays in the mnemonic endeavour. His eparchy is situated in Croatia, a country with distinctive remembrance approaches compared to the SPC; the specifics of these disparities are regrettably undocumented. Recognizing the SPC’s authority over its dioceses in the former Yugoslav region—now comprising multiple independent states—highlights the imperative for the SPC to engage with the historical memory of World War II and its relevance within these nations. Consequently, ascertaining the position of Bishop Jovan in the Republic of Croatia and understanding the dynamics of his connections within the SPC is fundamental. It is noteworthy that Bishop Jovan, being just one among the SOC’s bishops, does not independently dictate decisions, which are instead determined at a higher echelon. A more comprehensive analysis of the diverse memories across former Yugoslavia may afford valuable insights into the regional political framework within which the SPC operates.
Hofmeister’s analysis reveals that the SPC has a significant mnemonic influence beyond religious memory, thanks to historical connections between Orthodox churches and state institutions. However, due to increased reliance on state authorities, the SPC has lost much of its autonomy, resulting in a higher authority in public discourse compared to non-state mnemonic actors. The Church has gained support from conservatives and ethno-nationalists, increasing its public visibility. The SPC has also taken a firm stance against liberal and left-leaning mnemonic actors, particularly in the period following Milošević’s rule. However, the SPC has adopted a more nuanced approach, seeking to improve its public image as an ethno-nationalist warrior and becoming a credible advocate for locally relevant mnemonic issues. By leveraging its authority as a custodian of tradition and continuity, the SPC has unified fragmented memory politics related to civilian suffering and resistance during World War II.
The book is well organized with a strong conceptual and theoretical foundation, supported by an extensive and impressive collection of references (239–265). In addition to her clear and direct style, Hofmeister’s writing is characterized by academic precision. The book by Hofmeister enhances South-eastern European collective memory research and the SPC’s role in Serbian society. It explores religious history, public sphere reflections, late modernism, mnemonic actors in Serbian historical narratives, and identity politics. While more balanced than some recent books on SPC,[1] this book still has certain limitations.
In a wider context, we could consider examining the mnemonic practices of various churches in the region, such as the Catholic Church in Croatia and Slovenia, the Islamic community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other Orthodox churches in Eastern Europe. How have religious communities in other post-socialist (especially post-Yugoslav) societies either aligned with or contested dominant historical narratives? Is the Serbian Orthodox Church (SPC) particularly influential in shaping memories compared to the Catholic Church or the Islamic community in neighbouring countries? Is the SPC an exception in this respect, or does it adhere to a pattern? What is the situation in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, and Russia?
The Yugoslav state had a carefully planned system for commemorating the Second World War, in which political and ideological opponents of the government were completely excluded. One such opponent was Nikolaj Velimirović, who died in exile without any intention of returning to communist Yugoslavia. The writer does not mention Bishop Nikolaj’s imprisonment by the Germans during the war or the longstanding doubts about his authorship of the book Words to the Serbian People through the Dungeon Window. [2] When foreign authors write about the SPC, they primarily rely on John Byford’s and Predrag Ilić’s works [3] without extensively referring to more recent research. [4] According to Hofmeister, Velimirović’s ideas were sidelined in socialist Yugoslavia but became popular again in the 1980s. However, she does not mention that during that period, the regime started to portray him as an anti-Semite, a state enemy, and a close ally of Dimitrije Ljotić and the right-wing movement Zbor due to his increasing popularity in conservative circles. Of course, there was a strong basis for that portrayal. But Nikolaj Velimirović is a more complex figure and cannot be reduced to just those elements. It remains a fact that the patriarch of the SPC, Gavrilo Dožić, and Bishop Nikolaj were among the leading figures of the March 27, 1941 coup against the Tripartite Pact and that both of them spent most of the war in captivity, including a short time in the Dachau camp. The former Yugoslav regime and the SPC today exaggerate and distort memories of the Second World War. It is important to present a more balanced perspective and make comparisons based on as many different pieces of information as possible.
Radmila Radić, PhD, Retired Principal Research Fellow, Institute for Recent History of Serbia
[1] Radmila Radić. “The Serbian Orthodox Church in Western Historiography: Maria Falina, Religion and Politics in Interwar Yugoslavia: Serbian Nationalism and East Orthodox Christianity, (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2023). Tokovi istorije, 3/2023 DOI https://doi.org/10.31212/tokovi.2023.3.rad.279-296
[2] Srećko Petrović. “Is Nicholai Velimirovich the author of the book Words to the Serbian People Trough the Dungeon Window?” Philotheos 20, no. 2 (2020): 260–303; Rastko Lompar. Dimitrije Ljotić– učitelj ili farisej. Zbor, hrišćanstvo i verske zajednice 1935–1945. (Beograd: Catena Mundi, 2021); Vladimir Cvetković. “Nationalism”, “Fascism” and “Anti-Semitism” of Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović.” In: Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović: Old Controversies in Historical and Theological Context, Vladimir Cvetković and Dragan Bakić, eds. 211-254 (Belgrade: Institute for Balkan Studies, Los Angeles: St. Sebastian Press, 2022).
[3] Jovan Byford. Potiskivanje i poricanje antisemitizma: Sećanje na vladiku Nikolaja Velimirovića u savremenoj srpskoj pravoslavnoj kulturi. (Beograd: Helsinški odbor za ljudska prava u Srbiji, 2005); Jovan Byford. Denial and Repression of Antisemitism. (New York: Budapest: CEU Press, 2008); Predrag Ilić. Srpska Pravoslavna Crkva i tajna Dahaua: mit i istina o zatočeništvu patrijarha Gavrila i episkopa Nikolaja u koncentracionom logoru Dahau. (Belgrade: Predrag Ilić, 2006).
[4] Radmila Radić. “Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović as an ʻEnemy of the Peopleʼ.” In: Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović: Old Controversies in Historical and Theological Context, Vladimir Cvetković and Dragan Bakić, eds. 255-292 (Belgrade: Institute for Balkan Studies, Los Angeles: St. Sebastian Press, 2022).
