The Public Sphere in Prishtina: Rhetoric, Relationships, and Urban Space

Prishtina City Centre

Since arriving in early June, I have been undertaking my fieldwork in Prishtina, Kosovo, on political rhetoric and urban mobilisation. I am interested in how rhetoric, as a “moving force” between culture and events, may influence how people form their relationships and how they mobilise. My research then inquires into the reasons through which political actions occur and how communities form and fragment.

Election poster"appropriated" by passersby

But what got me interested in this, you may ask, and why Prishtina? My fascination with Kosovo stems partially from my American childhood, when I viewed coverage of the war during the late 1990s. Being between 11 and 12 years old, that was one of the first military engagements I can remember. However, this reason remains in the background; in the foreground, I picked Kosovo's capital city as a case study due to the internal dynamics we can see happening in the country today. On the one end, you have an international community building the new country in its own image and, on the other, you have strong political divisions, as can be seen in the country's ongoing election drama. 

I was introduced to these dynamics when, as a Masters student in the Durham Global Security Institute's Msc Defence, Development and Diplomacy programme, I participated in a field trip to Kosovo in March 2013.As part of the programme, I was exposed to Habermas's theory of the public sphere through an essay on the anthropology of civil society. Armed with this concept, and inspired by the field trip, I decided to make Prishtina, Kosovo the case study for my Masters dissertation research, focusing on the impact of inter-group communication on Kosovo Albanian identity. 

I arrived in Prishtina for my month of fieldwork in July 2013, during which I carried out a collection of methods consisting of participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Through these interviews, I realised that, yes, the concept of the public sphere does have relevance for Prishtina. However, not in the way viewed by Habermas, of the existence or downfall of rational-critical debate. Instead, news, political ideas, and events were being discussed just as much in public spaces (such as cafes) as in the established media, either online, televised, or printed. In effect, my reading of Habermas, which focused on a more universal, classical view of the public sphere, did not prepare me for what I found.

Prishtina City Centre

Upon my return, my eventual conclusion from my Masters research was that communication within public spaces was acting alongside the media to bring groups together or split them apart, as indicated in differences in perception of national identity among the people I met. However, my month's worth of field data only provided sparse indications, and I knew that I needed more information in order to make stronger conclusions.

Theoretical confusion

After completing my dissertation, I embarked on a PhD programme at the same university, this time in the Department of Anthropology, but under the same supervisor and still affiliated with DGSI. During the first year of my PhD, I read heavily into the topics of civil society, political organisation, rhetoric, the public sphere, and urban anthropology, as well as the growing number of Balkan ethnographies. From my reading, I came to view the public sphere as a useful concept, in that it pinpoints a spatial location where discourses are communicated between actors. However, the theory, when presented by Habermas, is far too abstract and universalistic in order to be applied to everyday interactions. It assumes that the public sphere only occurs in locations where rational-critical debate occur and that its presence necessarily creates the conditions for democracy. Sociologists, such as Nancy Fraser and Michael Warner, have picked up on this flaw and have advanced theories of “counterpublics,” which acknowledge the existence of conflicting parties within the public sphere(s). However, these theories, while at least recognising discord, are still difficult to apply to everyday situations without losing their meaning.

But why use the public sphere as a concept at all, you ask, and how is it relevant for your research? Well, there is a stream of research within the public sphere field focused on rhetoric, introduced by Hauser, who argues that rhetoric creates collectively-held understandings, generates consensus on social issues, and ultimately forms the backbone of the public sphere. This focus is built upon by Michael Carrithers, who conceptualises it as “the moving force which connects that which is learned, culture, to what happens.” Rhetoric is a means through which actors (“agents”) persuade others (“patients”) and, as a result, viewing actions within the public sphere as rhetoric allows us to view everyday communication within its interpersonal context. Rather than an abstract forum, a theoretical focus on rhetoric and culture leads to a view of the public sphere as a meeting place inhabited by actors seeking to persuade, such as states, corporations, organisations, and people.

Prishtina City Centre

This discussion of people and groups gathering within a meeting place then leads to one of relationships, a topic frequently discussed within the academic literature. A strain of this literature focusing on civil society, a topic viewed in anthropology as referring to the variety of relationships between the state and the household, as well as the “moral codes” within communities This strain has relevance for Balkan ethnography, where Henig's account of religious life among Bosnian Muslims portrays the existence of networks of relations between neighbours, referred to as komsiluk. Indeed, these discussions also relate to Prishtina, where data from my previous fieldwork portrays the existence of networks of relationships and, for example, norms of hospitality and mutual help. Indeed, public spaces, such as cafes, seem to be meeting places for people within networks to discuss matters of concern in daily life, among other things. In my current fieldwork, the study of rhetoric and networks therefore goes hand-in-hand in an ethnography of public space.

The study of public space within a city then situates my fieldwork within the larger arc of ethnographies of life within urban areas (or “urban anthropology”). Specifically, the study of networks in Prishtina relates to Pardo's study of networks of elites in the Italian city of Naples, while the investigation of rhetoric within public space brings to mind Mollica's, for example, investigation of funeral parades in Northern Ireland. In Prishtina, public displays, such as advertisements, banners, and political gatherings, were visible two weeks ago during Kosovo's parliamentary elections.

Row of election posters and graffiti in the city centre.

At its core, my fieldwork then relates directly with ethnographies of politics and political mobilisation in urban areas. The focus on rhetoric, networks, and public space within an urban setting leads me to look into the forms of relationships, the influence of changes within the urban space on relationships, and the types and content of rhetoric found within public spaces. As stated at the beginning of this post, I am asking how rhetoric may influence the formation and maintenance of relationships, and how people within these relationships may then be mobilised for political action. To investigate these questions, I am conducting participant observation in Prishtina's public spaces and, after a couple months, I will begin holding a series of interviews.

Having flew in Prishtina on 4 June, I have only recently begun my fieldwork. Despite this, it has been filled with excitement already, such as the aforementioned election on 8 June, just a few days after I arrived. My time here has also had its share of confusion, as associated with getting situated within a different place and culture. However, I am also finding it to be a rewarding experience, where I am making new friends, gaining new experiences, and learning more about myself. The fieldwork has just begun, and I am excited to see what it brings!

Works Cited

Carrithers, M., 2005. Why Anthropologists Should Study Rhetoric. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 11(3), pp.577–583.

Fraser, N., 1992. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy . In C. Calhoun, ed. Habermas and the Public Sphere . London: MIT Press.

Hauser, G., 1999. Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres , University of South Carolina Press.

Henig, D., 2011. The Embers of Allah: Cosmologies, Knowledge, and Relations in the Mountains of Central Bosnia. Durham University.

Mollica, M., 2012. Political Manipulation: Death, Dying and Funeral Processes in Northern Ireland. In I. Pardo & G. Prato, eds. Anthropology in the City: Methodology and Theory. Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate, pp. 155–172.

Pardo, I., 2012. Exercising Power without Authority: Powerful Elite Implode in Urban Italy. In I. Pardo & G. Prato, eds. Anthropology in the City: Methodology and Theory. Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate, pp. 53–78.

Warner, M., 2002. Publics and Counterpublics . Public Culture , 14(1), pp.49–90. Available at: http://publicculture.dukejournals.org/content/14/1/49.full.pdf+html.