ŠTO SE KRIJE IZA FRAZE „PRAVA STRANA POVIJESTI“?
WHAT IS HIDDEN BEHIND THE PHRASE „THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY”?

Summary/Abstract: In this paper, the author deals with the increasingly frequent use of the phrase „the true side of history“, whose meaning depends on the context in which it is uttered and the profile of the persons who are used. Although the phrase in its theoretical sense has significant and valuable historical, political, social, economic and geopolitical, conceptual and methodological definitions, its use in everyday and especially daily political discourse on the one hand has greatly expanded the circle of people who have started to use it. On the other hand, its content has become completely deconstructed. This gave this phrase an exceptional manipulative potential that leads to polarization and antagonism between people and societies and has negative repercussions on the global international community. All of this results in preventing further meaningful dialogue among participants. In this paper, through the presentation of 7 examples of the use of the phrase „the right side of history“, the basic hypothesis of the paper is confirmed, which states that this picturesque and rhetorically very powerful stylistic figure leads to increased social, political, geopolitical and economic risks, which has a serious destructive character on the relations between the interlocutors, regardless of whether it is an interpersonal, national or international level of communication. The provided examples come from dialogues that have taken place over the past thirty years among political actors from the former Yugoslav region, as well as very recent examples with broader international political and business implications. These include the military conflict in Ukraine, the recognition of the State of Palestine as an independent nation, and the issue of the European automotive industry due to increased competition in the electric vehicle segment from the People's Republic of China. The use of the phrase „the right side of history“ has shown to implicitly imply the moral superiority of the speaker, derived from an argumentation based on generalizations, simplifications, dogmatism, and an attitude of infallibility—all of which lead to deeper polarization within the communication process. In the continuation of the paper, the author seeks to address why participants in communication choose this inadequate form of interaction and offers four potential explanations: 1) those who use the phrase may be unaware of its negative connotations; 2) those who use it may be aware of these connotations but do not know how else to convey their message; 3) those who use such discourse do so for some form of self-promotion; and 4) those who communicate in this manner may aim to demean their interlocutor. In this context, it is essential to recognize that the consequences of such undesirable behavior and conduct arise from the use of an alleged historical argument—history itself becomes the core of the misuse. The author believes that awareness of this is crucial to avoid such manipulation as much as possible in the future. In conclusion, the author argues that using the phrase „the right side of history“ divides rather than unites people and nations, thus halting the communication process and any dialogue, which in today’s world can have disastrous consequences. History, in the author's view, deserves a far more refined approach.

• Details
• Contents