Constructing Croatian National Identity: Language, Religion, Memory, and the Role of the “Other” Anastacia M. Maruccia

 

Constructing Croatian National Identity: Language, Religion, Memory, and the Role of the “Other”

Anastacia M. Maruccia

UCOR 1400 Eurovision, Nation & Identity

Dr. David Green

February 1, 2026

 

 

 

 

Croatia came to be as an independent nation-state in 1991 following the breakup of Yugoslavia, which catalyzed the idea of national belonging and how its understood and represented in Croatia. Croatia’s national identity is constructed through shared culture, collective memories, and symbolic boundaries that define who belongs to the country and who doesn’t. This paper will examine Croatia’s national identity as a social and political idea stemming from language, religion, and historical narratives of sovereignty, and proven through comparison with both external and internal “Others,” particularly Serbia and ethnic minorities in order to reveal tensions between civic and ethnic models of belonging.

Triandafyllidou defines national identity as something that is constructed both “from, within, namely from the features that fellow nationals share in common, but also from without, that is, through distinguishing and differentiating the nation from other nations or ethnic groups” (Triandafyllidou, 1998, p. 593). In this perspective, national identity is relational as it gains meaning not only through shared language, culture, or history, but rather through comparison with significant Others. This definition is particularly useful for analyzing Croatian national identity against external and internal Others that also stem from the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Core Aspects of Croatia’s National Identity

The Croatian language acts as a key symbol of national distinctiveness. After the breakup of Yugoslavia, Croatia emphasized the standardization and “purification” of the language to assert political sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness from neighboring nations. (Langston & Peti-Stantić, 2014). This process involved promoting lexical choices, grammatical norms, and orthographic conventions that distinguished Croatian from Serbian, despite their linguistic similarities (Greenberg, 2008). The importance of linguistic distinction lies in symbolism as language, as it functions as a boundary-making tool that signals national identity and belonging, especially during the post-Yugoslav era. Even when speakers can easily understand each other, the insistence on linguistic distinction reinforced the idea that Croats established a distinct nation with their own historical and cultural heritage. In this way, language operates not as a neutral medium of communication, but as a symbolic resource where Croatian national identity is constructed and maintained (Greenberg, 2008; Langston & Peti-Stantić, 2014).

Religion, particularly Roman Catholicism, functions as a powerful cultural marker of Croatian national identity despite not being a legal requirement for citizenship or formal national belonging. Although the Croatian constitution guarantees freedom of religion, Catholicism has historically been a large part of Croatian culture, morality, and collective identity (Ramet, 2006). Research shows that Catholic affiliation in Croatia operates less as a matter of individual belief and more as a symbol of national belonging, distinguishing Croats from neighboring groups associated with Orthodoxy or Islam (Perica, 2002). As a result, identifying as Catholic can show an alignment with dominant narratives of being Croatian. This demonstrates how national identity is reinforced through cultural associations rather than legal mandates. As such, religion contributes to a boundary of inclusion, where one can legally be Croatian without being Catholic, but Catholicism acts as a powerful marker of who is perceived as fully belonging to the nation.

Collective memory is a key component in the construction of Croatian national identity, particularly through narratives of resistance, suffering, and independence. Historical memory in Croatia operates as a selective and symbolic framework in which national belonging is defined (Assmann, 2011). The Homeland War of the 1990s acts as a foundational piece of this memory, it serves as a moral narrative of national survival and legitimacy. Public commemorations, memorial sites, and state rituals continue to frame the war as a defensive struggle against oppression, which reinforces a collective self-image of resilience and victimhood (Pavlaković, 2010). Through these practices, the nation is seen as having endured historical injustice, yet it has achieved independence. In this way, memory is used as a tool of national identity formation, as it establishes shared meanings, delineates who belongs to the community, and validates political and cultural claims without needing constant reference to historical details.

Othering and Croatian Identity

Triandafyllidou states that national identity as a relational construct that is shaped through comparison with what she calls “significant Others.” These Others may be external, such as neighboring nations, or internal, such as minority groups within the nation. According to this, national identity is not solely through shared cultural traits but through differentiation that establish boundaries between “us” and “them.” External Others help define the nation’s position in an internation and historical perspective, whereas internal Others show how the nation policies belong within its own borders. Triandafyllidou argues that these Others become significant when they are perceived as threatening, contrasting, or fundamental to the nation’s self-understanding. This approach is useful for understanding Croatian national identity, which is shaped through both external comparison with neighboring countries and internal distinctions between the ethnic majority and minority groups. 

Serbia functions as Croatia’s primary external “significant Other,” playing a key role in the construction of Croatian national identity. Differentiation from Serbia occurs in language, religion, and political history. Though similar, linguistic distinction between Serbia and Croatia is significant as it asserts national separation and sovereignty (Greenberg, 2008). Additionally, Croatia is a strong Roman Catholic nation versus Serbian Orthodoxy, which acts as a powerful cultural distinction, reinforcing perceptions of civilizational and historical differences (Perica, 2002). These differences are emphasized through narratives surrounding the breakup of Yugoslavia and the Homeland War, where Serbia is positioned as an aggressor and Croatia as a victimized yet resilient nation. Through this comparison, Croatian identity is reinforced by defining what it’s not, which allows the nation to articulate itself as Western, European, and distinct from its Balkan neighbors.

Along with external Others, Croatian national identity is also shaped through the treatment of internal Others, specifically ethnic groups like Serbs, Roma, and other national minorities. Despite Croatia providing formal legal protections for minority rights, social perceptions and cultural narratives often place these groups as marginal to the national identity. Inclusion within the national community is often condition upon conformity to dominant ethnocultural norms, like linguistic usage, religion, or expressions of loyalty to Croatian historical narratives. This dynamic reveals tensions between Croatia’s civic identity and its ethnonational understanding of belonging, this is consistent with Brubaker’s argument that citizenship and cultural membership often are not followed through. As a result, internal Othering exposes the limits of civic inclusion, where minorities may be recognized legally, they’re not always integrated into the national identity. The existence of internal Others emphasizes questions about who can fully belong to the Croatian nation.

Conclusion

Croatian national identity is best understood as a multi-layered and relational construct shaped through shared cultural markers while defined through contrast with significant Others. Language, religion, and collective memory provide internal understanding by establishing symbols of belonging, yet these elements gain much of their meaning through differentiation and Othering. Othering in Croatia is structural rather than coincidence, as external comparison with Serbia has played a large role in distinction, while internal differentiations between the ethnic majority and minority groups reveal continuous tensions between civic inclusion and ethnonational belonging. Croatia demonstrates how post-conflict states attempt to balance the demands of sovereignty and memory by offering insight into the challenges faced by nations seeking to achieve democratic inclusion in a diverse social platform.

Word Count: 1191

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sources

Assmann, J. (2011). Cultural memory and early civilization: Writing, remembrance, and political imagination. Cambridge University Press.

Greenberg, R. D. (2008). Language and identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and its disintegration. Oxford University Press.

Langston, K., & Peti-Stantić, A. (2014). Language planning and national identity in Croatia. Palgrave Macmillan.

Pavlaković, V. (2010). Croatia, the International Criminal Tribunal, and General Gotovina as a political symbol. Europe-Asia Studies, 62(10), 1707–1740.

Perica, V. (2002). Balkan idols: Religion and nationalism in Yugoslav states. Oxford University Press.

Ramet, S. P. (2006). Religion and politics in post-socialist Central and Southeastern Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.

Triandafyllidou, A. (1998). National identity and the ‘other’. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(4), 593–612.