28 Jul When Violence No Longer Surprises
On July 11, 2026, a video was posted on Instagram in which Vladimir Arsenijević calmly announces that, just before the start of a planned commemoration for the victims of the Srebrenica genocide, he was beaten by a group of twenty to thirty people. Violence, it seems, is so embedded in our society that such news no longer causes as much shock as one might expect. During the past two years of the struggle for justice, we have been exposed to such an amount of violence and news of violence that we have almost grown accustomed to it – and that is when an even greater danger arises.
It was precisely the questions of the origin, forms, and normalization of violence that were addressed in the panel discussion on the research “Why Do You Say Love When You Mean War? 2.0,” held on July 4 at the Studio Stage of the XVIII KROKODIL Festival. The conversation was organized to mark the publication of the second edition of the publication, which deals with the hidden influences on the rise of violence in Serbia and the connection between contemporary violence and the failure to confront collective traumas resulting from the wars of the 1990s.
Milena Berić, a communications expert, executive director of the KROKODIL Association, and co-author of the research, opened the talk and introduced its participants. Alongside the other co-author, political scientist and researcher Srđan Hercigonja, the discussion included communications professor Snježana Milivojević, lawyer and founder of the organization IUSTICOM Olga Kavran, and researcher, anthropologist, and feminist Lara Končar.
The event, therefore, was not merely a presentation of research results – its findings served as a starting point for a conversation in which the culture of violence was examined from multiple angles: through media and political communication, the relationship toward war crimes and transitional justice, the shaping of national identity, gender relations, and various forms of social exclusion.
Streets as a Medium
Berić explained that the first research arose from the need to discover which hidden influences contribute to the rise of violence in society, what triggers them, which channels are used to disseminate them, and how they manifest. The starting point was observing graffiti and murals in Belgrade, among which are those that mythologize and glorify convicted war criminals.
The city walls are thus not neutral surfaces. They become a medium through which political and ideological messages are introduced into the daily lives of citizens. Through their constant presence, certain symbols, figures, and values become a common part of public space, even when citizens no longer notice them or think about the meaning they carry.
The first study was launched before the mass shooting at the “Vladislav Ribnikar” Elementary School, which occurred on May 3, 2023. That event influenced both the course of the research and the way its participants thought about the violence that had for decades permeated various areas of society, education, media, and mass culture.
The results of the first cycle showed generational differences in the relationship to messages on the streets. Young people noticed the graffiti and murals but generally did not attribute great significance to them. Members of the middle generation felt such content was unacceptable and that the state should remove it, while the oldest participants perceived it as an indicator of the catastrophic state of society.
The second study was conducted with the idea of determining if and how much the attitude toward such messages had changed. Berić highlighted as a significant positive shift that young people now much more clearly recognize the streets as a medium for placing certain messages. Not only do they notice them, but they can identify what they represent and openly state that they are bothered by them. A change was also noticed in the middle generation. Its members observe how their parents (members of the older generation) adopt vulgar narratives and expressions from pro-regime media. The second research cycle therefore went a step further than analyzing city walls and attempted to see how hidden and overt forms of violence are transmitted through different spheres of society.
From a Widespread Phenomenon to an Instrument of Rule
The research “Why Do You Say Love When You Mean War? 2.0” was carried out during 2025 and 2026, in the context of a major social and political crisis in Serbia and the mass student and civic protests that followed the collapse of the canopy at the Novi Sad Railway Station on November 1, 2024.
Compared to the first study, the findings indicate a shift in citizen perception. Violence was previously more often perceived as a diffuse and uncontrolled phenomenon, whereas now it is increasingly recognized as a systemic and politically produced mechanism, with specific sources and actors. The research points to a direct and “invisible” influence of the state and dominant media in maintaining a culture of violence. Aggressive public speech, the glorification and mythologization of war crimes, historical revisionism, media manipulation, and the instrumentalization of youth represent some of the practices contributing to its normalization. In such a context, urban space, the strictly controlled education system, and “kidnapped” institutions become parts of a broader system that sustains fear, violence, and democratic backsliding.
Snježana Milivojević, however, recognized reasons for optimism in the current social situation and the research results. Speaking of the last two years, she described them as a period of permanent rebellion, patient non-compliance, and disobedience. Young people respond to radical violence with a kind of radical pacifism, relying on creative forms of resistance and breaking through the apathy present in older generations. Their focus is on what is happening “here and now.” According to Milivojević, the priority for young people at this moment is to preserve their daily lives, which is why the connection to the nineties remains in the background. They may not currently have the capacity to deal simultaneously with both the past and the numerous problems directly affecting their lives.
Pacifist, Gandhian-style resistance is often perceived as too slow, raising the question of whether violence is the only way to provoke social change. The discussion participants rejected such a possibility. Milivojević emphasized that change does not happen overnight but accumulates, while Olga Kavran warned that a violent response would produce new problems and further radicalization.
The Past Shapes the Present
Special attention during the conversation was paid to the relationship toward the wars of the nineties. The second study starts from the link between the contemporary culture of violence and the refusal of the majority of society to confront the traumas and crimes of that period. This trauma is sustained through the glorification and mythologization of war crimes and a value system that once provided cultural support for the wars and today enables the denial of committed crimes.
Olga Kavran, who deals with international criminal law, legal responsibility, and work with victims and communities affected by war crimes, reminded the audience of Gregory Stanton’s ten stages of genocide. The final stage is denial, which can become a prelude to a new genocide or war. The research highlighted that during 2025, government representatives, state bodies, and pro-regime media participated in various ways in the denial and relativization of war crimes, the glorification of convicted war criminals, and the promotion of a narrative in which the Serbian people are the greatest or only victims of the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Such practices were also used to attack student blockades and protests. Convicted war criminals appeared on television shows as analysts and experts, using public space not only to deny crimes but also to attack students and critics of the ruling regime in general.
Kavran also pointed to a different attitude of younger generations toward the past. Young people often do not recognize the direct link between the wars of the nineties and today’s social problems; instead, they try to make a break from that period and distance themselves from the values their parents believed in. Although murals glorifying Ratko Mladić are still found on the streets, Kavran believes that young people generally do not accept these war criminals as their heroes. They do not fully adopt the offered matrices, despite the systematic insistence on the victim narrative and the distortion of historical facts. She sees a positive shift precisely in this break by the new generation from earlier patterns.
However, distancing oneself from the past is not the same as confronting it. If young people do not receive enough knowledge about the wars of the nineties through the education system, they remain exposed to conflicting identity narratives, political manipulations, and attempts at radicalization. The first study warned that young people find themselves between ethnonational and cosmopolitan identities, while graffiti, murals, media, and other tools can be used to promote retrograde policies, hate speech, and violence.
Who Belongs to the Imagined “Ideal Nation”?
Lara Končar considered the research findings from a feminist perspective. According to her interpretation, when analyzing a mural, it is not enough to ask only who it represents. It is necessary to examine what values and messages it conveys and what kind of image of society it supports.
National identity is built through relationships of connection, but also exclusion. To be solidified, those who belong to the community are defined, as are those who must be removed from it. In nationalist contexts, women are assigned a specific role, primarily in the family and the reproduction of the nation. Violence against LGBTQ+ individuals is linked to their refusal to conform to such an image of the “ideal nation.”
The figure of Ratko Mladić on a mural, therefore, does not just represent one person but carries a whole range of values. Hidden forms of violence appear when violent practices are so normalized that we no longer even recognize them as violence. Structural forms of violence, although not always immediately visible, create the conditions for normalizing direct violence.
In an interview after the panel, Končar explained that young people’s national identity is not shaped by just one sphere. Education represents one of the important sites, especially regarding the revision of the past and the content of textbooks, but it is also influenced by family, culture, subcultures to which young people belong, and religious narratives. When national identity is linked to gender identity, a collision of different values and norms occurs. Nationalist discourses and right-wing politics have a clear idea of a woman’s position in the family and the labor market. From these perceptions, political ideologies and strategies are developed that keep women in an unfavorable position, while various gender identities are excluded. The consequence of such exclusion is precisely violence.
When asked what first steps should be taken so that in 10 years we live in an “ideal” society—meaning a better situation than today—Končar stated that there are two possible directions. She believes the first direction of change involves the reform of media, institutions, and laws—spaces that largely reproduce violence. However, she highlights the second direction as a more inspiring task: reimagining a society set on different foundations—building new political principles and strategies that strive for a society of equals, as well as devising a different organization of society.
Between “Here and Now” and Confronting the Past
One of the most important changes brought by the student protests is the increased awareness among youth about what a society looks like when violence is used as a tool of rule. Instead of responding with the same means, they choose disobedience, creative actions, and persistent refusal. Young people are trying to deal with the present because they live in circumstances where it is necessary to “save daily life.” However, for change to be deeper and longer-lasting, it is necessary to systemically change various areas of society. This includes confronting the past, as well as educating young people about the wars of the nineties, because the present cannot be fully understood without knowing the processes that shaped it.
The Absence of Shock
Violence in Serbia has long not been an exception, but a pattern. It is so built into the system that, as citizens, it increasingly rarely causes us wonder. At a moment when the beating of a man just before a commemoration for genocide victims is news that no longer causes as much shock as it must, the sentence placed at the beginning of the second research “Why Do You Say Love When You Mean War?” gains additional weight: “When cruelty becomes normal, compassion seems radical.”
Although we live in a society where violence is present at almost every step, we must not allow ourselves to walk past murals glorifying it with bowed heads, nor to shrug our shoulders indifferently at another headline about a violent event. It is necessary to be aware of the depth of the problem but simultaneously focus on the bright examples and small shifts that were highlighted several times during the conversation. The student movement has shown that changes are possible without violence, through persistent non-compliance, solidarity, and creative forms of resistance. Change does not happen overnight; it begins when an individual recognizes the senselessness and danger of violence and decides to no longer comply with it.
This year’s, eighteenth in a row, KROKODIL Festival is titled “Disobedience,” with the explanation: “Literature is disobedience in its purest form precisely because it cannot be forced to trivialize reality, fall silent before force, or submit to injustice.” That is why literature, conversations, discussions, theater plays, cultural events, and festivals are important: they ask questions and open space for dialogue when social and political problems seem to have become too large and complex for us to oppose.
To be disobedient, therefore, means not complying with violence and its normalization. It means not going through life with a bowed head, but believing in the possibility of living in a different society – a society based on responsibility, empathy, solidarity, and love.
Text by: KROKODIL’s journalist for a day Sofija Lapčević
Photos: Marija Piroški and Jovana Pantelić
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.