The blood feud phenomenon often is seen as an exotic feature of a society trapped many years back in time, sometimes is perceived as a strong symptom of self-governing practices beyond the rule of law and rarely is analyzed in its historical and sociological depth.
“Blood Feud: between Kanun and State”, the most recent publication of the Albanian Institute for International Studies, addresses the question of defining and analyzing the problem of blood feud as well as cautiously proposing some recommendations to tackle it. The book goes beyond the superficial probing techniques by making use of multiple research techniques and a lot of field work.
Coming both in its English and Albanian version, the publication is easy to read and a true academic asset for any serious scholar of Albania and for any person wishing to know the truth about a phenomenon that is often obscured behind exotic tales.
“…One is usually astonished that the Code has managed to outlast time, political, economic and technological development and arrive almost in its original form in the XXI century. How could it be that a Code originating from time immemorial is still accepted as a valuable behavioural guidance? How can one explain the fact that blood feud, as part of the Code, has endured for so long as a suitable solution for certain conflicts, while other alternative solutions (especially those proposed by the state) have not been preferred?
We believe that several factors internal to the legal system have contributed to this. Despite their differences, these factors have one thing in common: they hindered reflexive communication. This is the kind of communication that allows for raising questions about what has been communicated, therefore opening up the possibility of modification and/or correction. Viewed this way, reflexive communication forms the basis of all critical thinking.
The first factor precluding reflexive communication was the fact that the Code was unwritten. It circulated orally among the highlanders, while utterance and speech fused into an effective unity, compensating for the lack of information with persuasion, and synchronising speaking, hearing and accepting of communication in a rhythmic and rhapsodic way, leaving literally no time for doubt. Communication is the synthesis of three selections; it is the unity of information, utterance, and understanding. In other words, in every communication always is implied a selection of the source and content of information, a selection of the form and manner in which the information is expressed, and a selection of understanding that has excluded all other possibilities of making sense about the way the information has been expressed through utterance. It is precisely the difference between information and utterance that is very difficult to distinguish in the spoken language. On the other hand, in writing there is a clear distinction between information and utterance. Moreover, via printing (as an extension in time and space of writing) the suspicion increases that the utterance (the form in which information is expressed) is specially prepared for producing certain effects, that it follows its own motives and that it is not merely a servant of information. Only writing and printing suggest reaction to and consideration of communication not as a unity but as a difference of utterance and information: for example, processes for controlling truth and articulating suspicion. The oral tradition of Albanian highlanders reflected in the Code reduced the probabilities of raising doubt about the real value and suitability of the Code’s laws and customs and made it practically impossible to think about better alternatives. This should not be misunderstood. We are not claiming that spoken language impedes reflection about communication (i.e. tradition); but only that tradition, precisely because it was communicated orally, entered the discussions in a form vague enough to disallow for critique and modification. Moreover, unlike modern Civil or Criminal Codes, the language of the Code of Lek롄ukagjini was highly metaphorical, which contributed to increase the level of vagueness. ”
Excerpt from “”Blood Feud: between Kanun and State”, Albanian Institute for International Studies (Tirana: 2007)
