1 Introduction

In the film The Last and First Men, while the narrator speaks on behalf of a dying human race desperately trying to contact its past from a faraway future, the viewer is guided through black-and-white landscapes of surreal structures depicting the architectural marvels of this futuristic race (Douglas 2024). But these seemingly futuristic buildings were not staged for the movie; they are mostly abandoned WWII monuments scattered across Yugoslavia’s successor states, locally known as spomenici (see Figure 1). Their otherworldly design was intentional, projecting a forward-looking vision of a society seeking to distance itself from its burdensome past.

View Full Size

The monument to the Battle of Sutjeska is the work of Yugoslav sculptor Miodrag Živković, built in 1971. Located in southeast BiH, Republika Srpska, it was erected in honor of the Partisans who died during World War II while trying to liberate Yugoslavia. photo by véronique labonté, october 2021

Citation: Southeastern Europe 2026; 10.30965/18763332-20262004

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

Today, very few viewers can readily situate the film’s scenery in the post-Yugoslav space not only because of the monuments’ convention-defying design, but also because the former Yugoslavia has become synonymous with violence and stagnancy rather than the sophistication of spomenici. ¹ Actors and processes promoting dialogue, peace, and unity before, during, and after Yugoslavia’s dissolution have been almost completely obscured and moving the region toward sustainable peace has become difficult to imagine (Fridman and Pavlakovic 2023). The most striking example of this is Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), where the marginalization and erasure of memories promoting unity have been strategically deployed to maintain the ethnically divisive status quo. The effects of mnemonic polarization throughout BiH have been thoroughly examined (Jeftić 2019, Moll 2013, Subotić 2015), but scholarship has also been shaped by mnemonic polarization. Research to date heavily focuses on political stagnation, ethnic polarization, and conflict, rather than the ways in which these dynamics are subverted. As a result, the postwar period is largely perceived as one of stasis.

In this article, we employ the concept of slow memory to examine how the accumulation of memories over time can serve as a tool for conflict transformation in postwar societies. Specifically, we explore how gradual shifts in non-elite narratives about the past influence commemorative practices, intergroup relations, and family memories in BiH and its diaspora. ² We analyze how slow memory, a gradual buildup of meaning and matter over time that challenges linear and cohesive conceptions of the past (Dybris McQuaid 2023), shapes social and relational processes at the meso- and micro-levels. Rather than studying change within memory itself, we examine how memory influences cross-ethnic, familial, and activist ties.

Drawing on extensive fieldwork in BiH and its U.S. diaspora between September 2021 and December 2023, this study is based on interviews and participant observation data that includes: (1) twenty-six memory activists across BiH; (2) fifty personal cross-ethnic networks of ordinary individuals living in BiH; and (3) twenty families from Sarajevo and BiH’s Chicago diaspora. Our study triangulates our three original data sources to yield unique insights that challenge the dominant view that postwar BiH is defined solely by intractability and demonstrate how ordinary individuals plant seeds of hope for conflict transformation in their day-to-day lives. In shifting focus beyond mnemonic polarization, we push beyond the epistemological frameworks that dominate scholarship and memory discourse on BiH.

In the sections that follow, we begin by developing the theoretical concept of slow memory, emphasizing its influence on relational processes rather than on its internal evolution. We follow by introducing the memory landscape of BiH, showing how mnemonic polarization has shaped the social and political reality in the country. Using our own empirical data, we then analyze how slow memory can foster slow peace through three key relational processes: memory activism, cross-ethnic relationships, and intergenerational memory transmission. In the conclusion, we discuss the broader implications of our findings, demonstrating how this relational approach can offer new ways of linking slow memory and peace. Our findings show that memories can support individuals, families, and communities in navigating mnemonically polarized environments and in cultivating relationships and initiatives that challenge elite-constructed divisions.

2 Slow Memory as a Catalyst for Peace: Seeing Beyond Postwar Mnemonic Polarization

Peace, conflict, and memory are inextricably linked (Fridman and Pavlakovic 2023). To better understand the processes of violence and peace, it is not only important to trace them but also to trace how they are remembered (Wüstenberg 2023). Unlike conventional approaches that focus on the most visible expressions of violence and peace—extreme bloodshed or moments of unity—a focus on their slow processes highlights less obvious yet equally significant dynamics. It shifts attention to everyday activities and interactions that, over time, may accumulate into a powerful force for change.

The dynamic relationship between memory, conflict, and peace is most evident in postwar settings characterized by mnemonic polarization, which we define as a state of fragmentation among different representations of the past based on mutually exclusive axioms. In mnemonically polarized societies, representations of the past exert authoritative power over their audiences and become ‘emancipated’ from other representations (Moscovici 1998). Mnemonic polarization diminishes the possibility of mutual understanding because polarized mnemonic communities rarely interact with one another, just like their distinct ‘floating narratives’ (Jeftić 2019). It also generates separate economic, social, and political lives (Palmberger 2016) and increases the possibility of renewed violence (Cairns and Roe 2002). Mnemonic polarization is, in fact, a continuation of war by other means (Fridman and Pavlakovic 2023).

Yet mnemonic polarization is not a constant nor all-encompassing. We recognize that change is perpetual when we examine memory slowly over long periods of time (Wüstenberg 2023). Old statues and memorials are commonly replaced with changing political regimes, ideologies, and sentiments. Taking on this processual perspective means “rejecting ‘moments’ of final completion or resolution to explore critical continuities of conflict beyond violence” (Dybris McQuaid 2023: 1). It means that we look beyond ‘eventful’ and ‘sited’ pasts to understand social memory in terms of its ‘temporal’ and ‘spatial’ shifts (Wüstenberg 2023). Tracing changes in remembrance slowly, or focusing on slow remembrance processes, gives memory nuance (Fridman and Pavlakovic 2023). Despite visible mnemonic polarization on the surface, for instance, it can reveal ‘forgotten solidarities’ that provide hope and opportunities for societies wishing to transition to peace (Fridman and Pavlakovic 2023).

Distinguishing between slow memory as processual and slow memory as a “gradual buildup of meaning and matter over time” (Dybris McQuaid 2023) opens new avenues for analysis. Unlike processual memory, which remains in constant flux, slow memory—understood as accumulated—can take on a time-bound and static form. This makes it possible to examine how remembrance at a specific moment in time influences other social phenomena. In other words, while memory evolves over time, certain defining characteristics emerge at distinct temporal junctures. Recognizing these moments brings scholars closer to understanding those they study, as ordinary people are rarely aware of memory’s fluid nature—an unawareness that shapes their experience of the world. Simultaneously, tracing the slow accumulation of memory helps make sense of the seemingly chaotic nature of personal memory, which both shapes and is shaped by the social and political environment. It helps explain how individuals can hold contradictory views of the past that simultaneously reflect and challenge elite-driven mnemonic polarization. Through this lens, everyday micro- and meso-level activities that help mend the social fabric of local communities can become more visible.

In addition to adjusting the temporal framework—from fast to slow memory—and unit of analysis—from elite-level to non-elite levels—attending to examples that counter mnemonic polarization also requires replacing the subject of analysis—conflict with peace. Peace is not simply a flipside of conflict, rather it is a social process that precedes violence, persists through it, and continues after it. Sustainable peace is often cultivated through slow peacebuilding practices involving less visible actors and activities (Lederach 2023). In divided spaces, these include processes that challenge mnemonic polarization, as well as polarizations of other kinds. Remembering the multivariate actors and approaches that contribute to slow peacebuilding in the aftermath of war is itself a form of memory activism, where the scholar takes on a decisive role in social transformation by shaping what is remembered (Rigney 2021). Focusing on more pleasurable practices of remembrance, such as remembering relationships of hope and care, serves as a counter-history that positions actions of local individuals and communities as instructive spatially and temporally much beyond their everyday reach (Rigney 2018).

3 Postwar Mnemonic Polarization in Bosnia and Herzegovina

The semi-autonomous entities of Republika Srpska (RS), Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH), and the District of Brčko were officially established by the signing of the Dayton Agreement on 14 December 1995. The division of BiH along the war’s fault lines had the effect of making permanent the brutal demographic changes carried out by armed groups. During the war, nearly 50% of the population was displaced internally or externally, and today nearly 90% of the BiH population now lives in a locality or neighborhood considered ethnoreligiously homogeneous (Hartmann 2016).

Over the years, the memory of the conflict has become a symbolic battlefield (Shaheed 2014: 7) and despite numerous initiatives in this direction, no truth and reconciliation commission has succeeded in coming to fruition, leaving civil society with the burden of carrying out the peacebuilding process. Majstorović and Vučkovac (2022: 88) observe that “irredentist nationalism inscribed in the constitution [that] has cemented ethnic over social justice.” At the macro level, BiH politics and public institutions are at an impasse. The ethnic-based power-sharing arrangement inherited from Dayton has led to political deadlock and hindered the country’s progress towards peace. As noted by Moll (2013: 930) “the memory landscape and public remembrance politics (is) split and paralyzed between dominant nationalist memory approaches that will not budge from their essentialist positions. Potential alternative memory narratives are currently too weak to really question and push back the dominant ethnonational approaches.”

In the few cases where ethnoreligious mnemonic communities must engage, such as when they share a physical and political space, mnemonic polarization is characterized by competition over whose social representation of the past will dominate. This is especially evident in larger cities where communities still coexist, such as Sarajevo and Mostar. On each side of the invisible border that divides Sarajevo, ³ there are tributes to the most famous war criminals. A plaque honoring war criminal MuÅ¡an Topolović ‘Caco’, responsible for killing many citizens of Serb origin, is installed in the courtyard of one primary school, while a few kilometers away a plaque in honor of Ratko Mladić convicted, among other things, of the Srebrenica genocide, is installed in the Vraca neighborhood of East Sarajevo (Golubović 2019: 1179–1180). In Mostar, the division goes beyond the separation of neighborhoods and celebration of war criminals as heroes. On the former front line stands the Gimnazija Mostar, a school where Croatian and Bosniak students rarely mix and where opposite narratives of the nineties war are taught in different parts of the building guided by separate ethnoreligious curricula. The ‘two schools under one roof’ concept, initially conceived as a peacebuilding initiative backed by international organizations, paradoxically evolved into a symbol of enduring segregation. Hromadžić’s ethnographic study (2015: 102) revealed that the lack of shared spaces within the school not only intensified ethnic divisions but also spurred creative responses from students. Her research uncovered how adolescents transformed secluded bathrooms into unlikely social hubs. In these clandestine spaces, conversations over illicit cigarettes fostered a “minimal but promising prospect for the acknowledgement of ‘the other.’”

Mnemonic polarization is also evident in localities that have experienced significant postwar return of populations into ethnically homogenized spaces, like Prijedor in the RS. ⁴ In these spaces, the denial of memory for civilian victims of war whose experiences question or contradict the dominant ethnoreligious narrative is prominent. While the crimes committed in the region have been recognized before various courts, denial is becoming increasingly institutionalized. For example, “while survivors are not allowed to have a memorial at the former Omarska concentration camp, a monument to Serb soldiers who lost their lives ‘for the creation of Republika Srpska’ was installed at the site of former Trnopolje camp, where no fighting took place” (Paul 2023: 358). This exemplifies how polarized narratives have over time evolved into a political instrument that is used by ‘memory entrepreneurs’ for reaping economic and political benefits at the cost of societal stability. The prevalence of mnemonic polarization is clearly visible in the multitude of commemorative activities that occur daily in public spaces across the country’s cities and villages. These activities, which Ricoeur terms ‘abuses of memory,’ are heavily invested in to assert control over historical narratives. Since the end of the Bosnian war in 1995, approximately 2,300 new monuments have been constructed, with 97% dedicated to a single ethnic group (Kukić 2021). These public displays and memory reactivations are widely echoed in the country’s media outlets.

The effect of mnemonic polarization in the public sphere is also evident through the political parallelism that dominates the media system. This phenomenon, as Voltmer explains (2013: 184), has “the potential to deepen intolerance towards those who do not share the beliefs of the in-group [… and] create a toxic public sphere that jeopardizes social and political integration.” De facto, there are two distinct media systems in BiH, since information rarely circulates outside of each regional entity. Thus, “the majority of members of a particular ethnic group continue to receive information about other groups through the news media which remains the crucial site for the dissemination of nationalistic ideologies” (Erjavec et al. 2012: 92). This trend is inevitably accentuated by access to various platforms and different news websites.

This rather bleak portrait of peace in BiH, viewed from the political and structural levels, may look like the status quo but is not representative of remembrance and peace processes at all social strata. Recent research has revealed that even though memory politics in BiH often focus on silo structures, these dynamics are also changing and presenting examples of efforts to build peace inclusively, considering different memories from the conflict and post-conflict periods, drawing from the archives and testimonies accumulated over the years (Mannergren et al. 2024; Labonté 2024). In the following three sections, we examine empirically the relationship between slowness, memory, and peacebuilding in our three sets of fieldwork data to shed light on the various meso- and micro-level relational dynamics and identify new opportunities for reflection on the long-term temporalities of the post-conflict period.

4 Activist–Memory Nexus: Strategies for Debunking Postwar Mnemonic Polarization

Exploring the link between memory activism and the slow accumulation of memories (archives, testimonies, photography, etc.) highlights practices that shift away from sporadic actions and public citizen gatherings linked to specific commemorations towards inclusive forms of remembrance. Memory activism is defined as the “strategic commemoration of a contested past to achieve mnemonic or political change by working outside state channels” (Gutman and Wüstenberg 2023: 5). It examines memory processes from below by focusing on memory activism by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and individual actors who propel those changes. Their objectives “can extend beyond mnemonic change to the large societal transformation of policy and norms through targeting the dominant perception of a certain past in the present” (Gutman and Wüstenberg 2023: 9). Memory activism is thus inseparable from possible lasting transformation of social ties. “[D]eploying memory as a practice is political—as activists engage in the symbolic change of meaning in the world” (Gutman and Wüstenberg 2022: 1075).

In BiH, we observe that the long postwar period affects the objectives and discourse of activists (Milan 2022). Whether it is their relationship to identity (language, ethnicity, religion) or to other actors (political, IO, NGO), their strategies have evolved with time and have been linked to the lived experience and knowledge of those who carry them out. Among the twenty-six memory activists we interviewed in BiH 2021 and 2022, most respondents were young children at the beginning of the conflict, while others were teenagers. Being from the 1.5 generation in BiH, they have a perspective that differs from both adult survivors and those who grew up in the postwar environment or in the diaspora (Paul 2024). ⁵ This position affects both their relationship to the conflict and the actions they choose to implement. Trevisanut (2016) identifies several counter-memorial strategies that have been used to mitigate memory polarization and conflict stagnation, namely re-membering, (re)appropriation, and polyphony. Collectively, they use different memories to challenge dominant narratives and promote transitional peace and justice.

In the first example presented in this section, personal experiences and accumulated memories prompted the creators of the War Childhood Museum (WCM) to use polyphony as a counter-memorial strategy and as a tool to transcend the ethnic identities of the perpetrators and victims of the war. In reaction to mnemonic polarization, the museum chose instead to try to establish consensus over ‘facts’ about the last war events, to dedicate its space to tell stories of children who grew up during the conflict, regardless of their ethnic origin. This polyphonic strategy materializes the moment you enter the museum; a collection of colorful objects and written stories contained in illuminated displays showcase precious personal artifacts that survived war and exodus. The visitor is guided through personal experiences that extend beyond death and destruction to include stories of first loves, first steps, first bicycle rides, etc. These stories related to the war have themselves evolved over the past 30 years in the minds and hearts of those who share them. For example, stories of interethnic friendship can reflect a desire to remind the world of the possibility of peace (Dragović-Soso 2025). On the information cards accompanying the objects, one can only read the owner’s first name and birth year, but not their identity. By turning away from the memory of the most well-known and antagonistic events of the war, the WCM offers a vernacular memory (Hess 2007) composed of fragments of the past derived from oral testimonies or collected on the web, that manage to arouse empathy and listen to the victims. Interest in the project surged rapidly; the small team leading the launch sensed from their very first call to the community that citizens were eager to share what they had experienced as children: “Before we had any funding or any space, we managed to get almost 2000 personal objects and their stories, and around 100 hours of oral testimonies. This was really going fast and it was a clear indication that this is what we needed at that moment in Bosnian society.” ⁶

The approach by WCM contradicts the usual mode of collective remembrance that dominates public spaces and discourses about the war in BiH and in the entire region. In Sarajevo and more broadly, the assertion of a collective identity without regard to ethnocultural markers is sometimes viewed as a form of relativism: “It has been 30 years [since the beginning of the war]. If things were being done gradually after the war, I think people would now be ready to hear more about the facts, but now I think the only projects that can hope of more reach [in our society] are the ones that have an approach similar to the museum, i.e. those with a more personal character and not this chronology, timeline, factual approach.” ⁷ This strategy enables a departure from elite discourses and official party narratives, creating space for those who have rarely had the opportunity to articulate their diverse yet legitimate experiences of war—memories carried for two to three decades before it became possible or desirable to share them publicly. Despite criticism, the project initiators refuse to change their curatorial strategy. They even seek to become an example for other conflict-affected societies, such as Ukraine, where a local team is working on opening a permanent space dedicated to children of war.

In a second example, we observe a re-membering counter-memory strategy where activists will gather to carry the voice of excluded communities to reinsert them into the history of a place or country. This strategy contains the idea of repairing a dislocated narrative through memory. ⁸ To achieve this, some create new alliances that extend beyond national borders by engaging other memory communities whose accumulated memories reinforce strategic action. Paul (2023) suggests that diasporic actors attempt to elude the BiH state and interact directly with local communities, resulting in trans-local activism. One of the most compelling examples of commemorative solidarities (Athanasiou 2017; Fridman 2022) in BiH is the mobilization surrounding the recognition of crimes committed in the Prijedor region. The local activist demand has been to build a monument in the city center honoring the 102 children killed during the war. In omitting the children’s ethnic origin, they promote a more inclusive approach to addressing the past by emphasizing the universal human suffering caused by the conflict (Dragović-Soso 2025; Fridman and Ristić 2020; Paul 2023). Carried out jointly with the Association of Parents of Murdered Children of Prijedor, this initiative has continuously come under attack by not only Serb authorities but also Bosniak nationalists.

Edin Ramulić, an event organizer and a former officer in the BiH army, explains the refusal to highlight the ethnic identity of the victims as follows: “In a way, we kill these people again by reducing them to their collective identity, which we don’t even know they would choose if they were alive” (cited by AhmetaÅ¡ević 2015). While attending White Armband Day in Prijedor on May 31, 2022, we witnessed Ramulić refusing the microphone to an official of the Party of Democratic Action (SDA), traditionally associated with the majority Bosniak population. This gesture was considered by many as courageous because it challenged the status quo of memory politics in BiH: “He is not compromising his principles saying: this is not a political issue, we are talking about victims of genocide, no political parties will be involved, taking credit for the commemorations or bashing it, we want none of that. We are not letting this be used as a political tool.” ⁹ This kind of position allows commemorations to remain in the realm of counter-memory, facilitating activists of all backgrounds to participate in remembrance and paves the way for reconciliation.

Bringing together different memories also helps to envision forgotten solidarities within a peacebuilding perspective. Whereas the idea of transnational memory was brought to the forefront of collective memory studies in the 2010s, to explain how memory processes transcend the national framework (Rigney 2016), the concept had not been previously applied to describe the particularities of a shared memory between neighboring countries. By proposing the study of ex-Yugoslavia as a region of memory, Fridman (2022) opens new ways of understanding alliances between activists in the region. Regarding memory activism, Fridman emphasizes that “allowing for agency in various forms and establishing networks for commemorative solidarity, the actions of memory activists from below position the post-Yugoslav region as a ‘region of memory activism’” (2022: 161). It is through processes like these that important regional platforms such as the Youth Initiative for Human Rights (YiHR) have successfully developed ‘bottom-up’ memory activism by rejecting dominant memory politics. YiHR activists come from all countries in the region and jointly participate in various commemorations, brandishing their banner ‘Too young to remember, determined never to forget’ at the most conflictual memory sites.

Another YIHR campaign, #NisuNaÅ¡iHeroji (#NotOurHeroes) was launched in opposition to the glorification of war criminals in the region. Activists from Belgrade, Pristina, Zagreb, Sarajevo, and Podgorica, rallied to remind people on their social media networks that “ICTY convicts are not, and cannot be, the heroes of their generation” (ibid: 139–140). Former Yugoslavia as a region of memory allows for building connections between communities, but it also facilitates certain actions that depend on local authorities who are not interested in financing or supporting alternative forms of remembrance. Even for activists working on local initiatives, it appears important to maintain strong links with other mobilized groups in the region to advance reconciliation: “We do work primarily in Bosnia, but we have several regional programs as well because we’re very much aware that what has happened in Bosnia was not an incident of one country. The whole region was involved… The only way to really move forward is to move forward as a region.” ¹⁰

This last sentence exemplifies the re-appropriation strategy suggested by Trevisanut, which proposes a reclaiming of symbols and ideas from the past to unify histories or groups that have been divided or set in opposition by the past. These activists draw upon the potential of Yugonostalgia to reassert the values of brotherhood and unity associated with the socialist period, framing it as a “discursive common ground that can foster social interactions across ethno-political divisions” (Golubović 2025: 42). Their efforts are directed toward the (re)appropriation of shared spaces and cultural affinities as a means of transcending the rigid divisions entrenched by recent history and nationalist discourses, while simultaneously providing a platform from which to articulate critiques of the region’s political elites.

Although their strategies differ, the activists in question rely on the accumulation of different memories and their restitution in the public space for conflict transformation. The activist strategies discussed in the previous paragraphs have all developed in reaction to elite-level mnemonic polarization that dominates the official memory discourse and hampers conflict transformation and peacebuilding. All three strategies observed challenge mnemonic polarization by making use of this slow accumulation of memory, meaning, and experience over time. Arguably, this reflection would not be possible without the luxury of temporal distance from violent conflict, as well as the accumulated wisdom about activist approaches that can and cannot facilitate conflict transformation. Memory activists dedicated to peace in BiH provide an example of paths that can be taken long after the ceasefire. The slowness of the conflict transformation process thereby becomes an asset for building the future. Activists engaged in these initiatives make a conscious daily choice to reach out to others despite a hostile environment. Ordinary citizens do the same, though in far less visible ways, as peacebuilding is likewise negotiated on a daily and individual basis, as will be discussed in the following sections.

5 Daring to Bond: Cracking the Wall of Postwar Segregation and Mnemonic Polarization

While it is undeniable that ethnonational narratives of the past in BiH have an apparently cascading effect from the elite to lower levels, causing mnemonic polarization among distinct mnemonic communities (Jeftić 2019), a closer look at the meso- and micro-levels makes visible the cracks in these narratives’ hold on society. This is also evident when examining how relationships between ethnic others in BiH are established and maintained, and especially the existence or absence of discourse about the 1990s war in interpersonal cross-ethnic relationships. While the framing of discourses about the past often replicates the political parallelism of elites and mainstream media among ordinary people (Psaltis 2016), a closer look at their views reveals greater nuance.

We evaluated the role of memory in cross-ethnic interpersonal relationships by asking participants what they perceive to be important obstacles to cross-ethnic interactions in BiH and discussing the ways in which these obstacles have shown up in their relationships with ethnic Others. One respondent described it in the following way: “I mean, we can see it every day that people, in the worst scenario, have no desire to communicate with individuals of another religion or another nationality, or other ways of thinking, which is very sad.” ¹¹ It comes as no surprise then that most respondents could nominate on average only three individuals of another ethnicity with whom they had an important relationship, and those nominees rarely made the respondent’s list of top ten closest social ties. Even after overcoming obstacles of spatial and institutionalized segregation (Enos 2017; Palmberger 2019), respondents struggled to establish and maintain relationships, especially close ones, with individuals of other ethnicities.

Crucially, the passing of time since the 1990s war has enabled distance from wartime ethnonational narratives in a way that was not possible amidst ongoing violence, when holding complex positions carried greater personal costs and, sometimes, had deadly consequences (Bergholz 2019). The absence of violence and the presence of the rule of law in the postwar period, however flimsy, has created space, however narrow, for some degree of critical thinking. Even while polarizing ethnonational narratives are never altogether discarded, new information and the possibility to engage with it have infused a degree of complexity in how the current situation in BiH is perceived and, by extension, how the events leading up to and during the 1990s are interpreted. One respondent’s comment aptly illustrates this point, when describing the role of the past in their relationship with a dear person of another ethnicity: “I think we could have a much better-quality relationship if we could openly talk… But, when you have such painful sores…, she doesn’t have a father either, they also left their city, they had to start anew, those kinds of things, I think you learn you simply can’t change anything, can’t change their mind.” ¹²

The respondent’s statement might at first glance suggest a resigning attitude regarding the possibility of coming to shared terms about the past with their friend, but it likewise points to the possibility of carrying on the relationship without discussing the past. ¹³ Moreover, in recognizing their friend’s pain, the respondent demonstrates an ability to distance themselves from the polarizing ‘victim-perpetrator’ narrative to commiserate with their friend’s loss. This position is crucially grounded not just in the knowledge they have about their friend’s personal life but also in their new understanding of the war and cross-ethnic relations, as shaped by intergenerational transmission, public education, and political discourse, but also the passing of time (Mazzara and Leone 2001).

The ongoing political turmoil in BiH has also injected among ordinary people a certain degree of frustration—not just with other constitutive peoples’ political leaders but also with one’s own. The accumulation of memory related to the political process has made people increasingly doubtful of both the intentions and narratives presented by their political leaders, as some more clearly see their intention to foment division among ethnic groups in society (Kalyvas and Sambanis 2005). The ongoing revelation of corruption at the elite level has demonstrated the extent to which political opportunism dominates politics in BiH. This has provided opportunities for budding solidarity based on shared disenfranchisement in a perpetually dysfunctional political system. One respondent describes it as follows: “Again, we’ll all agree on politics – that politicians are all thieves (laughs), but we often avoid topics about war… generally everyone avoids talking about that in social settings where there is a ‘mixed’ group of people… because everyone is under the influence of their nationality, and the version of history believed by their nation.” ¹⁴

The sentiment is echoed by other respondents, who likewise recognize that forcing discourse on the past is not conducive to productive relations: “I can only speak from my experience, but in many cases, we couldn’t establish a common ground on the topic of wartime events.” ¹⁵ In an atmosphere of mnemonic polarization where divisive ethnonational rhetoric about the past is perpetuated by political elites and mainstream media, not discussing the sensitive past in relationships with ethnic others may be understood as a subversive political act, wherein ordinary individuals choose to prioritize relationships over the ‘right’ version of the past and, in so doing, illustrate acts of slow peacebuilding that could be instructive for elites (Lederach 2023).

Some emphasize the futility of such discourse or the inevitable discomfort that discussing the past would bring. When one respondent was asked if they feel comfortable talking about any topic, including the 1990s war, with their friend of another ethnicity, they reluctantly answered: “Maybe we were both a bit restrained about that, maybe we were afraid that the other would misunderstand us… maybe so that we don’t damage the good relationship we have…” ¹⁶ Once more, respondents demonstrate that while the past matters, it is not as important as relationships. Moreover, it is this very decision to prioritize connection over the past that might eventually open space for the past to be honestly discussed. This act of personal restraint, applied broadly, may bear the potential to fundamentally transform ethnic relations in BiH, making an incremental but valuable contribution to peacebuilding (Lederach 2023). Undoubtedly, the ability to take corrective action in the form of such restraint comes from long observing the nature of memory discourse at the elite level and the kind of outcomes of slow violence and conflict that it has generated (Nixon 2011). Instead of dismissing this choice of action in favor of seemingly bolder forms of memory activism, we can recognize it as one of many acts of resistance through which ordinary people engage in and promote peace.

At their best, cross-ethnic relationships provide a unique space for mnemonic discourse where the past can be safely discussed without judgment. When asked if discussing the past was contentious in their relationship with their long-term partner of another ethnicity, one respondent said: “I think it was exactly the opposite, that this was a person with whom I could talk about those topics because with others I couldn’t. I couldn’t talk to those people of another ethnicity that I don’t know well, or people of my ethnicity that I did know well.” ¹⁷ The respondent’s statement illustrates that it is precisely close cross-ethnic relationships, such as friendships, romantic partnerships, and familial ties, that make it possible for participants to broach the subject of the sensitive past most freely. Furthermore, the ability to openly discuss painful experiences, as well as to receive acknowledgement and sympathy from the other person, plays a fundamental role in the experience of closeness with the other person.

Another respondent described their close friendships with two individuals of different ethnicities: “…when people simply click… this is a matter of finding each other… we get each other.” ¹⁸ It is evident that these relationships generate for our respondents not only deeper connections but also a broader sense of catharsis, crucially shaping the participant’s trust in the power of bonding and the possibility of a shared future. Describing their multiethnic family composed of all three major ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina, one participant warmly characterized their bickering with their brother-in-law: “My sister and husband get a headache from the two of us”, we argue, argue… We debate… We have known each other from High School and before… My husband and he are childhood friends—this one is a Muslim and he a Serb—they were together from elementary school, and even today they sometimes fight. So, those relationships are unbreakable, no matter the nationality. ¹⁹

The powerful message projected from this statement suggests that the promise of peacebuilding lies not only in the accumulated knowledge about the harms of mnemonic polarization at the elite level but also in the accumulated confidence in the ability of close cross-ethnic relations to persevere as islands of solidarity and support despite all odds.

6 Intergenerational Memories: Voices from Below Defying Mnemonic Polarization

The intergenerational transmission of memories in the families is a key micro-level process in slow peacebuilding, one that can either soften or intensify mnemonic polarization depending on how families narrate, contest, and ritualize the past. As these narratives evolve across generations and longer time spans, subtle shifts in tone, emphasis, and moral and memory framing accumulate—changes that may be palpable within families yet remain invisible in the broader public or institutional memory. Family memories often diverge from institutional narratives because of loyalties and emotional ties (Erll 2011; Jacobs 2016). Through storytelling, families curate privileged intergenerational knowledge that accumulates across experiences and conveys moral lessons and socializing values (Merrill and Fivush 2016). Transmission unfolds not as a fixed chronology but through ongoing communication, stories, and rituals that can also open spaces for peacebuilding. These recollections are frequently inconsistent and contested, yet their central function is to construct meaning and identity for individuals and families (Pratt and Fiese 2004).

We explored family memory transmission among Bosnians and Herzegovinians to assess the generational implications of mnemonic polarization considering each generation’s historical, political, and sociological conditions, as well as their needs and priorities. In so doing, we gained important insights into how social and geographical contexts impact memory transmission, especially the distinctions (and connections) between memories transmitted in the homeland and in the diaspora. Situating our analysis within slow peacebuilding, we examined generations who directly encountered violence (Hirsch 2008; Pohn-Lauggas 2021; Welzer 2010) alongside those born during and after it, showing how family memories are incrementally transmitted and reshaped over long time horizons through everyday practices—storytelling, silences, small acts of activism, and short family narratives. In this intergenerational process, memories may be silenced, kept private, reactivated, or reframed as they move across different generations, producing subtle shifts that accumulate within families even when they remain invisible in the public sphere (Bloch 2018). Often operating as counter-memories to official accounts of the wartime past, these family narratives are negotiated and sometimes contested across generations, a micro-level dynamic that can gradually reduce mnemonic polarization and cultivate more inclusive, relational understandings of the past—core outcomes of slow peacebuilding.

Memories of wartime experiences are heavily shaped by stories shared within the family. Family stories and messages convey fundamental principles and ideas and provide road maps for comprehending how the world functions and ought to function (Fivush et al. 2019). Yet, family wartime experiences are rarely passed on in a coherent manner. Instead, parents frequently share snapshots of their experience to protect their children, and themselves, from questions that might follow. Sharing stories is often precipitated by a greater purpose such as, for example, transmitting moral messages and family values to the next generation. In many cases, these stories reflect elite narratives, but sometimes they serve to counter dominant narratives that are not representative of one’s own experience. In this way, parents play an active role in their children’s understanding of the past. A respondent from Sarajevo ²⁰ described it this way: “I would tell my daughter some stories from the war period about how we helped each other and how, no matter what religion we were, we were sharing some food. For example, with my neighbor from the floor, who was an Orthodox Serb, we shared with her food.” Stories shared within the family’s private sphere can aid reconciliation and contribute to slow peace without publicly countering mainstream narratives, thus playing a critical role in the processes of conflict transformation that appear largely out of sight.

Processing the wartime past is challenging, especially for those who directly experienced or witnessed violence. Most of our respondents indicated that they tried to forget the siege of Sarajevo immediately following the war. Their new life presented a sense of hope, prompting them to seek a forward trajectory. This also meant that they generally avoided talking about the past extensively, recounting war memories solely through anecdotes shared exclusively with fellow veterans or occasionally with their adult children. This has led to silencing and repression of memory within family units. The following statement resonates with the sentiments expressed by many others: ²¹ “Generally, I refrain from discussing it; my friend and I would only share certain memories from our wartime hospital experiences, as we were nurses who supported one another. I wish to prevent my child from harboring fears of potential conflict.”

The burden of passing on the correct messaging to their children is heavy for parents who experienced the war. They realize that sharing recollections of violence experienced or witnessed can be shocking for the children, whose life contexts are significantly different. Moreover, they are aware that sharing only those recollections while omitting others can significantly shape the children’s thoughts, attitudes, and even behaviors in unintended ways, and the parents feel a great responsibility for that. After all, parents’ accumulated memories of ethnic relations are far more robust than that of their children, and they include not only periods of division between groups but also those of a shared life. Uncertainty regarding the appropriateness of conveying violent experiences to their children often results in the intergenerational transfer of memory being accompanied by silence in everyday contexts (Jaramillo 2014). Not wanting to share stories of violence that confirm dominant ethnonational narratives can be seen as a form of resistance to mnemonic polarization, another small act that may offer pathways to reconciliation and the slow development of peace.

Beyond challenging silences, intergenerational dialogue over the past can also serve to challenge memories passed on within the family. Some respondents report having been questioned by their children or questioning their parents about the prewar period. Since many older respondents are Yugonostalgic, recalling greater social and economic security in their youth and better interethnic relations, they will often pass on to their children the idyllic images of the prewar past. But younger generations have been challenging this nostalgia with questions regarding how Yugoslavia could collapse, and ‘brotherhood and unity’ fail, if it was so great. One younger participant in his late twenties argued: “I am sick of my parents’ nostalgia. Once I confronted my father and asked why it failed if it was such a strong country. Why did your uncle become an officer in the Serb army?”

As demonstrated by this example, the slow memories can also result in divergent perspectives on the past and the present. The social and political reality of the generation born after the collapse of Yugoslavia is distinct from that of their parents, who resided in the Yugoslav state. It also appears that the following generation is shattering silences about difficulties that have not been spoken or have been masked through nostalgic stories. These confrontational conversations in daily life have the potential to result in peacebuilding. These everyday confrontations—around kitchen tables, in cars, through visiting museums—force families to revisit claims, weigh counter-evidence, and renegotiate moral and memory frames. Younger members sometimes press for acknowledgement and introduce cross-group stories; older members can revise, defend, or set new boundaries. When accompanied by attentive listening and acknowledgment, such frictions progressively pluralize family narratives and attenuate undifferentiated attributions of blame. So, regular challenges act as a small-scale way to build peace over time, slowly reducing memory polarizations within families.

With young people having a critical part in their family’s memory generation, the idea of ‘inheritance’ in memory is not passive but active (Mendoza Romero 2012). Younger family members often develop their perceptions of historical events by incorporating both their own postwar conditions and their parents’ incomplete narratives. Sometimes, intergenerational transmission of memories within families can prompt memory activism within the second generation. Transnational peace activism among the second generation seems to be especially motivated by accumulated memory of trauma. Having witnessed the destruction and damage caused to their parents by experiences of war and violence, some younger respondents choose to channel that energy towards positive participation in other major global political events, such as opposing the genocide in Gaza. ²² Younger generations often participate in activism on social media and university campuses, as a way to help others who, in their mind, are experiencing things similar to what their parents lived through. These are the thoughts of one respondent in her late twenties: ²³ “I am aware of my parents’ silence. I can no longer bear this silence. I want to get an answer, and I am educating myself. I want to help people in Gaza. They are having massive injustice, and no one cares; as for Bosnians, no one cares.” The connection she perceived between the injustices of Bosnians and Palestinians were the catalyst that helped break that silence, simultaneously leading her to become more engaged and emotionally involved. The example shows how the ruptures in the continuity of silence also provide opportunities for learning and connection outside the immediate environment, leading to direct and active engagement with peacebuilding efforts not only within BiH but also far beyond its borders. Crucially, “the conversion of violence into collective solidarity for our shared world is potential history and potential peacebuilding” (Azoulay 2019: 57).

Witnessing current wars has altered the perspectives of both generations, allowing them to discuss experiences that were previously silenced, omitted, or not fully processed. In a way, facing what they perceive to be like experiences of others in the world, some respondents have chosen to break their silence over the past and play a more active role in both public and private memorization. In turn, the first generation, inspired by their children, became more conscious of their unresolved traumatic memories and silences. As one first-generation respondent in her late forties expressed: “I never thought I’d have this again; I’m thinking of shelters, bombs, and fear. When the situation in Ukraine broke out, I was unable to say anything. After that, we went to see some cities with special meanings for me; slowly I could speak about some memories.” ²⁴

Intergenerational sharing of memories within families allows for the preservation of wartime stories and experiences. In some cases, it can also inspire memory activism. Our research shows that slowly accumulated memories always contain gaps resulting from omission and silencing of traumatic wartime experiences among the older generation. When these “forgotten” experiences are reactivated, they can be channeled into solidarity with transnational others whose current experience mimics one’s own. As such, intergenerational transmission of memory within families can play a role in promoting peace not only locally but, however modestly, even globally.

7 Discussion

Almost 30 years of scholarship on post-war BiH has focused overwhelmingly on the enduring ethnic polarization that continues to plague the country and inhibit peacemaking efforts and reconciliation. Mnemonic polarization, although not by that name, has dominated scholarship largely because it significantly shapes the social and political realities of ordinary people living in BiH. Political elites—most dedicated memory entrepreneurs—have successfully dominated public discourse of the past and shaped narratives that empower them to wield control over a divided population. Aimed to foment fear and division, these ethnonational narratives have left little space for individual experience that deviates from hardliner positions, but their narratives are not always readily accepted by the people they intend to consolidate. Some individuals and collectives counter the prevailing narratives in the public sphere, while others counter them in their private sphere; both refusing to accept the reductionist approach that reinforces ethnonational identities and places responsibility for the past squarely on others. While these may very well be small acts of resistance that cannot generate a collective transformation, we base our article in the premise that a peace scholars’ role in the field of memory politics is one tasked with uncovering social contexts and interactions where mnemonic polarization fails to dominate, because it is these subversive practices that may hold the key to reconciliation and sustainable peace that in BiH is increasingly considered to be only a pipe dream.

More than simply locating spaces and instances that allow opportunities for seemingly adversarial mnemonic communities to think and engage peacefully, our article identifies the underlying mechanisms that make their (un)intentional resistance to mnemonic polarization possible. By revealing these mechanisms, we help imagine how they can be replicated in other spheres to support conflict transformation and bolster peacebuilding on a larger scale. Most importantly, our approach is unique in examining how existing postwar conditions and the role of memory can contribute to peacebuilding from the grassroots through various relational processes. In treating memory as a slow buildup of meaning and matter over time (Dybris McQuaid 2023), we show how individuals’ and communities’ complex, and often incoherent, narratives of the past help them incrementally move beyond postwar liminality caused by ethnonational mnemonic polarization. Moreover, we exemplify how these actions—sometimes intentionally subversive but, more often, unintentional and invisible—contribute, on the small scale, to reconciliation.

We show how activists in BiH and across the region use different strategies to reinsert marginalized communities into discourses about the past, reappropriate past symbols and narratives to establish cross-ethnic and transnational solidarities, and practice polyphonic memory by including diverse experiences from the past without reference to ethnicity. We also show how ordinary individuals who maintain cross-ethnic relationships in BiH, despite painful and burdensome disagreement over the past, can extend sympathy and understanding to others while firmly holding on to one’s own narrative. Some even find reprieve in these relationships as unique spaces where they can honestly share their internal conflicts about the past without pressures imposed by their own group. Above all, they exemplify that it is possible to place greater value on people and relationships than on ‘correctly’ remembering the past. Lastly, we show how parents take responsibility within their families by choosing not to share stories that perpetuate mnemonic polarization, and how breaking long-standing silences within families can present new opportunities for solidarity that transcends identity and borders, binding people through shared experience.

Through connecting across our respective fieldworks with different target grassroots populations, we were able to move away from the mnemonic polarization that characterizes postwar BiH as observed primarily at the elite level and discern different dynamics at work at the meso and micro levels. We show that memory can be a resource with which individuals and communities can navigate divided spaces to deepen relationships and solidarities. Our interdisciplinary approach allowed us to apply slow memory both as a methodology and academic practice (Wüstenberg 2023), incorporating extensive fieldwork, oral histories, and co-production to honor slow practices of remembering. Above all else, we provide a glance at what peace and memory scholars can contribute to the past, which is to make it more complete in both narrative and sentiment.

Conflict features in all societies, with violence manifested in various forms and degrees of intensity. Although we are rightfully weary of its violent streak, conflict is not only destructive but also generative; it can force progress in spheres of social life where change is much needed and desired (Lederach 1999; 2005). In our analysis of postwar BiH at the micro and meso levels, we find evidence that postwar mnemonic polarization has sparked changes within society that are visible when looking past the public discourses about memory and remembrance. These transformations become evident when examining how ordinary individuals and communities grapple with accumulated memories that include, but also extend beyond, wartime experiences—in their everyday lives and relationships. Paying attention to the voices from below reveals the ‘eventfulness’ of everyday life, where peace may be cultivated and expanded, allowing us to recognize how “the grass grows” over time (Lederach 2023).