Consensus and divergence concerning history teaching in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Interviews with history teachers

Study context

A brief overview of the historical and geopolitical context is essential for understanding how the process of separation, framed in terms of “us” versus “them,” is constructed and amplified in BiH (for more detailed discussions of the conflict and educational organization in BiH, see Jovanović and Marić, 2020; Plasto and Blagojević, 2023). The former state of Yugoslavia gradually collapsed during the 1990s, leading to the emergence of several new countries: Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, Serbia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Kosovo. One powerful mechanism contributing to the disintegration of Yugoslavia was the gradual intensification of ethnic and religious divisions. The resulting new geopolitical configuration in the Balkans was far from peaceful, leading to a complex and violent conflict among ethnic groups. Although the armed conflict ended in the 1990s, many latent and unresolved tensions persist to this day. Ethnic divisions are particularly pronounced in BiH, where the three main ethnic groups, Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Serbs, and Bosniaks, have sought to defend their positions and negotiate the future political, cultural, and social structures essential for a functioning society. In addition to the catastrophic consequences of war, ranging from human casualties to the destruction of infrastructure and economic decline, the post-war situation necessitated the establishment of clear boundaries in terms of ethnic self-identification and cultural heritage. These markers, rather than fostering unity around a shared national identity, often function as tools of separation. Consequently, large-scale depopulation processes, bordering on ethnic cleansing took place, involving the relocation of Bosnian citizens regardless of ethnicity, both within BiH and across the globe. The paradox of such forced migration is that all three ethnic groups essentially share a common history, having coexisted in the same geographical and temporal space for centuries (Greiff, 2020). Indeed, some authors have pointed out that the inhabitants of the former Yugoslavia could be described as “one people” in terms of cultural (Hromadžić, 2008) and even genetic (Marjanovic et al., 2005) origin, regardless of long historical divisions related to ethnicity.

As a result of complex political arrangements intended to safeguard ethnic rights, BiH’s educational system has become notoriously fragmented, with no fewer than 13 ministries of education. Thus, there currently exist a number of parallel educational solutions in BiH, usually guided by locally created curricula and based on the population distribution among Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs (see Clark, 2010). This fragmentation is perceived as a practical necessity in order to maintain the balance of power among the ethnic groups in question (Torsti, 2009). However, while such organizational division creates inefficiencies in terms of management, the more serious consequence lies in the development of parallel, and at times conflicting, understandings and interpretations of BiH’s past and recent history. Over time, there has been some progress in the sense that explicit “hate speech” has often been replaced by more implicit, “hidden” messages (Karge, 2008: 14). Moreover, BiH’s educational system has undergone a series of revisions aimed at adapting and softening potentially inflammatory or offensive content in history textbooks (Pingel, 2017, 2023). Nevertheless, the current curriculum still relies heavily on “us vs. them” categorizations (Kovač, 2025). This structure risks producing new generations of students who uncritically absorb nationalistic and religious doctrines while simultaneously devaluing the historical heritage of the other two ethnic groups. All of these factors portray the educational situation in BiH as not only peculiar but also deeply problematic, especially for those aiming to foster shared understandings of the country’s developmental future and to establish a unified direction for national progress. In sum, the organization of education in BiH is extremely complicated, yet logical from an ethnocentric point of view and reflective of the current divisions visible in nearly all segments of collective organization in the country.

Theoretical background

The current level of division in BiH among people who over centuries have occupied and shared a common geopolitical and cultural history and were once united under the post-World War II Yugoslavian paradigm of “brotherhood and unity” is astonishing. However, according to several theories within the umbrella of Social Identity Theory (Ellemers and Haslam, 2012), this outcome is not only possible but, under certain conditions, expected. These theories suggest that latent social categories, no matter how minimal the foundations for group division may be, can be easily activated and appear to represent a fundamental aspect of human nature. Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) posits that group self-definition is derived primarily from the perception of group membership and subsequent conformity to group norms. Tajfel (1978: 63) defines social identity as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from knowledge of membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value or emotional significance attached to that membership.” It follows that all group members seek cohesion and strive to maintain a positive social identity, which is associated with positive emotions and enhanced self-esteem (Hogg and Reid, 2006). One problematic source of such positive self-regard is the tendency to make favorable comparisons with other, often competitive or proximal, groups (i.e. “we are not like them; we are better”). This dynamic, where similar and comparable groups engage in unproductive comparisons, often results in cognitive distortions, biased inferences, and judgments that reinforce conformity to ingroup norms (Jetten et al., 1996). Consequently, intergroup rivalry fosters favoritism, feelings of superiority, and stereotyping (Scheepers and Ellemers, 2019).

When these basic psychological processes are applied to the socio-cultural, religious, and political context of BiH, it is unsurprising that dominant ethnic groups tend to emphasize their own positions while devaluing “others.” Ethnic groups in BiH are thus guided by cognitive processes that divide the social environment into distinct categories, presenting an idealized and often inaccurate image of the ingroup, while portraying the outgroup negatively and unfairly. This perception of distinct categories is a subjective evaluative process shaped by self-definition and/or self-categorization, further reinforced by cultural norms within a given society (Brown, 2000). In the case of BiH, these categorizing mechanisms literally divide society into thirds across nearly all aspects of life: civic (ethnically based decision-making), cultural (ethnic and religious celebrations), democratic (ethnic-based voting), infrastructural (ethnic symbols on buildings and religious institutions), and educational domains (three parallel educational systems). Over time, strong ethnic narratives are created and continuously reinforced through education. These narratives are strategically employed to foster a social identity in young generations that perceives nationalistic separatism as a normative and meaningful social arrangement (e.g. “this is normal because we are not like them”). Such a societal climate inevitably creates fertile ground for the demonization of others (Brown, 2008), which in times of conflict can be used to justify ethnic cleansing, depopulation, and other forms of forced migration. In sum, the danger of ethnically or religiously based societal divisions lies in the production of a paranoid atmosphere, one in which group differences are exaggerated, similarities are ignored, and intergroup contact is restricted. This prevents the emergence of a sense of community and shared reality. The process of social categorization, both categorizing others and self-categorizing, is not superficial but a fundamental ontological mechanism that shapes perceptions of reality (Hogg, 2003). The outcome is often the development of historical narratives of demonization, where all three major ethnic groups in BiH perceive themselves as blameless victims, and the others as “genocidal” aggressors (Wistrich, 2013).

Data material

This study adopts a qualitative approach based on 21 individual interviews with high school history teachers in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), with each group consisting of four women and three men. Given that the qualitative approach is based on a relatively small number of participants, no additional demographic information regarding age, location, school, or teaching experience is reported, in order to preserve the anonymity of the teachers.

Participants were recruited from three different geographic regions, each corresponding to one of the three major ethnic groups. Considering the geographic and ethnic diversity among participants, the recruitment process was based on a snowball sampling technique. Initially, a research assistant used personal communication and local knowledge to identify and access potential participants who functioned as “seeds” and helped establish contact with other teachers (Sadler et al., 2010). The recruitment process was particularly demanding for Serbian teachers, as it required contacting school principals in other regions of BiH and requesting their assistance. Thus, although the snowball sampling approach enabled access to relevant and information-rich participants, the present sample was not based on random or probabilistic selection. Consequently, the recruitment approach may have influenced the diversity of perspectives and introduced potential bias in the conclusions.

The interviews were conducted at locations chosen by the participants to ensure a familiar and safe environment (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). As the interviews took place during the participants’ free time, each participant received a payment of 20 euros. This symbolic monetary compensation is not considered to have affected the reliability or validity of the participants’ responses.

Each interview began with a brief introduction outlining the aims of the study, ethical considerations (e.g. confidentiality, informed consent, and voluntary participation), and relevant background information. The interview guide was designed to focus on the teachers’ experiences with teaching history, their views on textbook content, and their perspectives on the fragmented nature of history education in BiH. A more detailed presentation of the interview guide (i.e. specific questions) is included in the Results section. Due to the comparative objectives of the study, the interviews followed a structured format: all participants were asked the same questions in the same order, and no follow-up questions were included that might compromise the comparability of responses. Following this procedure, I aimed to increase precision by focusing on details that would allow for comparison within the group itself as well as across groups (Adhabi and Anozie, 2017). However, the term “structured” here does not imply a constraint on self-expression (Pettersen and Durivage, 2008), especially regarding issues of deep personal and collective importance, as was the case with some of the questions in our study. Indeed, all participants in the study, without exceptions, seemed to speak freely and appeared unconstrained by the procedure. More importantly, although we followed a structured approach, participants were nevertheless given the opportunity to elaborate on questions that required further explanation. As a result of this structured approach, the interviews were relatively short, typically lasting between 20 and 35 minutes, but rich in data. A preliminary analysis of the interviews, planned as seven per group, revealed that variation in responses began to decline, while repetition increased toward the final interviews. This indicated that data saturation was being reached, and further interviews were unlikely to yield new insights or themes.

Analytic approach

The first phase of the analysis aimed to uncover underlying patterns in the responses and to capture the essential meanings within participants’ statements. This phase followed the traditional iterative process in qualitative research, where ongoing integration of new insights led to continuous revisions of the emerging analytical structure. While the analysis was guided by the predefined aims of the study, it was also important to maintain an open-minded approach in order to identify unexpected patterns in the data.

Specifically, the analysis proceeded through the following steps:

The first two themes were aligned with the study’s objectives and were the result of confirmatory content analysis. The third theme emerged unexpectedly and was thus the product of a more exploratory approach to the material. Additionally, the technique of flexible pattern matching (Bouncken et al., 2021) was used to align patterns found in the literature with those emerging from empirical data. This logic was applied both within and between the ethnic groups to compare each new interview with prior ones, allowing the identification of consistent themes, emerging differences, and evolving patterns (Dessingué and Wagner, 2025). Given the sensitivity of the topic, special attention was paid to the possibility of social desirability bias, the tendency of teachers to offer “polished” or politically correct responses due to their professional roles and responsibilities.

Common issues and perspectives across groups

Given the shared professional identity of the participants as history teachers, the first goal of the analysis was to identify common perspectives regarding the practice of history teaching. This was a logical starting point, as all teachers were educated under the former Yugoslav system of teacher training. Participants across all groups emphasized the importance of history as a “magistra vitae,” a teacher of life, and underscored its role in shaping not only individuals but also national identities. For Serb and Croat teachers, this meant building an ethnic nation, while for Bosniak teachers, it meant building on a mixture of the Bosnian and Bosniak national identity. Despite these differences in interpretation, there was a consensus around the educational and moral value of history, often framed as learning from the past to build the future. Most participants across all three groups claimed they do not avoid controversial historical topics and stated that they enjoy a relatively high degree of autonomy in shaping the curriculum. They also reported being able to independently select up to 15%–30% of the teaching content, provided it is based on credible historical sources, while the remainder is prescribed by the Ministry of Education. All groups reported using diverse teaching methods, including traditional lectures, group work, debates, discussions, critical thinking exercises, multiperspectivity, and video presentations. When asked whether anything was missing in current textbooks, especially concerning local history, approximately half of all teachers expressed a desire for more content about the 1990s war period. However, this opinion did not vary significantly across ethnic groups and seemed to reflect individual preferences rather than group-based perspectives.

There was broad consensus among teachers on several other issues:

One particularly surprising finding was the lack of parental involvement or concern regarding the content of history education. Despite the sensitive nature of certain historical topics, particularly those related to ethnic identity and the recent war, none of the teachers reported parental interference or expressed interest from parents about the curriculum. Another point of agreement across all three groups was the idea that BiH should adopt a single, unified history textbook, ideally written by independent scholars from abroad. Teachers believed that such a textbook could foster a shared historical understanding among students. However, they also expressed skepticism about whether such a project could be realistically implemented in the near future. Also contrary to expectations, virtually all teachers denied having any significant dilemmas when it comes to teaching history. While a few hinted subtly at ethnically biased narratives, the dominant stance was that they felt confident and unconflicted in their teaching practice. This is surprising, especially given the central premise of this study that children in BiH are presented with three diverging versions of the same historical events depending on their ethnic group. Perhaps the most unexpected finding of all was that almost none of the teachers were familiar with the content of history textbooks used in the other two educational programs. Considering that three distinct curricula are currently in use, each shaping national narratives differently, this lack of curiosity appears striking and suggests a kind of normalized separation in professional awareness.

Different patterns between groups

Given that the participants teach history according to three different educational programs, the second aim of the study was to explore potential group-level differences in perspectives and experiences among Croatian, Serbian, and Bosniak teachers. Distinct patterns began to emerge even in response to introductory questions about the role and importance of the history subject in education. Initial analysis revealed that Bosniak teachers explicitly emphasized “our country and the history of BiH,” while this focus was notably less pronounced among Croatian and Serbian participants. Furthermore, some Bosniak participants tended to conflate Bosniak and Bosnian perspectives. For example, one Bosniak teacher stated: “To me as a Bosniak, it is not acceptable that someone emphasizes the history of Croatia and Serbia. I think the Bosniak educational program operates differently compared to the Croatian and Serbian ones. I also think that children in BiH should learn one history, not three histories—but unfortunately, this will never happen.” By referring to BiH as a whole, yet implying that the Bosniak version of history is the correct one, the teacher indirectly equates the Bosnian national perspective with the Bosniak narrative. While this position was rarely stated outright, several responses from Bosniak participants implicitly conveyed this equivalence. However, one Croatian teacher directly contradicted this interpretation, emphasizing her identification with BiH: “The aim is to love our hometown, where we come from, and then our country, BiH.” This pattern of miscommunication or conceptual divergence recurred throughout the data, revealing deep-seated antagonisms between groups. For example, one Bosniak teacher denied the historical legitimacy of Serb and Croat ethnic identities within BiH: “The other two groups were assimilated by neighboring Croatia and Serbia and only became Bosnian Catholic Croats and Bosnian Orthodox Serbs some 150 years ago.” Such statements, echoed in some Bosniak history textbooks, are understandably provocative to teachers from the other two groups. A Serbian teacher expressed frustration at such narratives: “When I heard the stupid claim at a conference that Serbs in BiH didn’t exist a few hundred years ago, I was irritated.” These quotes demonstrate the existence of competing historical narratives that can be inflammatory and serve to delegitimize outgroups.

Another major point of divergence concerned teachers’ views on the nature of history as a subject. All participants were asked identical questions: (1) Is history, in your opinion, about facts or interpretations—or both?(2) Do you believe both aspects are equally important?

While some balance was evident across responses, Bosniak teachers predominantly viewed history as a matter of objective fact and truth, whereas Croatian and Serbian teachers tended to view history as a blend of fact and interpretation. Bosniak teachers provided statements such as:

In contrast, Croatian and Serbian teachers made statements like:

This emphasis on establishing “facts” was a recurring theme in Bosniak teachers’ responses. For instance, when asked whether they use personal opinions in class, Bosniak teachers unanimously said no, while several Serbian and Croatian teachers acknowledged occasionally sharing personal viewpoints. On the question of whether local historical themes are missing from their textbooks, a majority of Bosniak teachers expressed a desire for more detailed coverage of the 1992–1995 war:

This sentiment was less pronounced among Croatian teachers, and largely absent among Serbian participants. When asked whether local history is accurately portrayed in their textbooks, most Bosniak teachers, with one exception, expressed strong confidence in the accuracy of the materials they use:

In contrast, Croatian teachers expressed greater doubt, and Serbian teachers were even more skeptical. One Croatian teacher summarized: “All three programs are ethnically colored—and that is our history. We cannot be naïve. We all turn toward our own group.” A similar pattern appeared in responses to questions about the possibility of a unified history textbook:

While all groups expressed theoretical support for the idea, Bosniak teachers were more optimistic. One Bosniak teacher said: “It can be done—but I state that only Bosniaks would accept it. We don’t have a second homeland.” This suggests a perception that Croatian and Serbian teachers in BiH may have stronger emotional ties to Croatia and Serbia, respectively.

Croatian and Serbian teachers were more skeptical, though not hostile, toward the idea. One Serbian teacher summarized this attitude: “It might be possible—but whether the books would be accepted is another issue.” Ultimately, the tone across all three groups reflected a kind of resigned pragmatism, a passive acceptance of the current situation. This was expressed poignantly by one participant: “I perceive the current situation as our reality. It’s inevitable, and we’ve made peace with it.” Another teacher added: “We could have one unified version of history. We could even have different versions running simultaneously—but they should complement each other, not divide us or cause conflict.” These interviews reveal a complex mixture of hope and skepticism: while many teachers acknowledge the absurdity of the current system and express a desire for change, there remains little faith in the likelihood of transformation in the foreseeable future.

Intrapersonal inconsistencies and contradictions

While the first two themes (i.e. common ground and intergroup comparisons) directly align with the study’s objectives and were guided by the interview questions, a third prominent theme emerged spontaneously: internal inconsistencies within individual interviews. These contradictions were not related to differences between groups, but rather appeared within the statements of individual participants across all three groups. In several interviews, participants expressed conflicting views. For example, one Bosniak teacher firmly asserted, “The most important historical source in this subject is the written source that we historians use, so historical facts are the most important in this profession. . . I do everything according to historical facts.” However, the same participant later lamented the lack of adequate textbook coverage of the 1992–1995 war. When asked if she supplements the curriculum with local events, she responded: “Yes, I talk about the war in our town from ‘92 to ‘95. It is a local history that pupils simply must know, considering that the town was under siege.” This shift reveals a clear contradiction; while initially stressing the primacy of documented facts, the participant later relies on personal experiences and accounts, which introduces subjective elements. For instance, another participant stated, “The books we use are correct, at least these that I use,” but later admitted the same books would not be acceptable for all educational programs: “No, I must be honest.” This teacher, along with the majority of other participants, also claimed to have no dilemmas regarding the teaching of history in BiH, despite the clear contradictions evident in her responses. Indeed, very few participants acknowledged facing any dilemmas in their teaching, which is striking given the nature of their responses containing often clear didactical or thematic ambiguities. One Bosniak teacher remarked, “I maintain that the Bosniak educational program is operating differently than the Croatian and Serbian,” yet later admitted, “No, I am not familiar [with the content of the other programs].” This indicates the presence of prejudicial thinking about how the “others” teach and interpret history, accompanied by low level of critical reflection concerning their own curriculum. Similarly, a Croatian teacher began the interview by pointing out the existence of derogatory language about Serbs in her textbooks, yet later claimed, “The books I use could be appropriate” for all groups. Another Croatian teacher, when asked if it would be possible to write a shared textbook, hesitantly said, “I don’t know, perhaps yes,” but then immediately answered “No” when asked whether such an effort should be made. Similarly, one Bosnjak teacher in the same interview first stated that “of course it is possible (to write a unified curriculum) because it is based on historical evidence,” but later also remarked, “No, never, we live in a setting where it is not possible to do that,” when asked whether efforts should be made to write textbooks suitable for all three educational programs.

A Serbian teacher claimed to “merely communicate what is in the books and avoid hurting anyone’s feelings.” However, given the consensus in scholarly literature that BiH history textbooks are heavily ethnonationalist and prejudicial, this assertion raises questions. Teachers generally did not express overtly nationalistic views themselves, yet subtle blame narratives appeared throughout the interviews. For example, one participant noted, “They present BiH as Croatian and Serbian. We can see this in weather maps used by tourist agencies—our town, which is in BiH, is shown as part of Croatia.” One of the most evident self-contradictions was that many teachers admitted to knowing little about the content of textbooks used in other programs while simultaneously expressing strong, often negative, opinions about them. Moreover, those who said their own textbooks were suitable for all groups often denied having any professional dilemmas, despite acknowledging the existence of multiple, conflicting interpretations of local history.

In sum, although teachers on some level were aware that the textbooks they use might be biased or ethnically influenced, they tended minimize these tendencies when evaluating the general history curriculum. Put simply, participants in all three groups exhibited high levels of insensitivity when other groups were unfairly portrayed, and high levels of sensitivity when their own group was potentially misrepresented. Perhaps the most profound contradictions emerged at a meta-analytic level. On one hand, a number of participants from all three groups categorically stated that united history teaching should be practiced based on a common curriculum. On the other hand, these same participants often maintained that (1) the textbooks they currently use could be suitable for all children in BiH, and (2) expressed subtly ethnocentric views during the interviews (i.e. their ethnic background could be inferred from the content of their responses). It appears that the teachers in the study were conflicted between recognizing the abnormality of the current situation and simultaneously attempting to normalize their own actions and worldview.

Ethnic identification and the role of teachers in divided education

Despite the relatively tolerant attitudes teachers expressed toward other ethnic groups, the results clearly demonstrate that participants remain divided along ethnic lines, consistent with Tajfel’s (1978) concept of social identity—defined as “knowledge of membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value or emotional significance attached to that membership” (p. 63). Both social categorization (i.e. perceiving outgroups) and self-categorization (i.e. identifying with the ingroup) appear to be powerful psychological processes that emphasize divisions and hinder the prioritization of shared identity, community, or intergroup collaboration. The interview data does not reflect the ideals of a civic and citizenship education model envisioned for post-conflict contexts (Quaynor, 2012), in which educators discuss societal dilemmas to establish common ground and promote social cohesion. Moreover, although the teachers came across as thoughtful and professionally committed, they did not exhibit signs of struggling with their professional identity, or engaging in reflective development, as highlighted in previous studies (Clarke-Habibi, 2023).

BiH’s political landscape, defined by ethnic democracy, reinforces ingroup-outgroup divisions based on ethnicity and religion, rather than on values, competencies, or civic ideals. In such a setting, education in general and history teaching in particular, has the potential to counteract ethnic segregation and foster pluralistic values. Unfortunately, the findings of this study suggest the opposite: history education in BiH functions as a mechanism that perpetuates the “us vs. them” narrative, not only through textbooks but also via teachers who appear to normalize or accept the current situation without critical reflection. While overtly nationalistic rhetoric was largely absent, many participants across all three groups nevertheless expressed blame toward other groups without recognizing their own potential biases. Thus, although Bosniak teachers expressed a stronger desire for a unified curriculum, it is fair to say that all teachers in the study acknowledged ethnic divisions as problematic but appeared to accept the status quo as unchangeable. Despite claims of fairness or neutrality, none of the groups displayed significant interest in challenging the segregated system or adopting multi-perspective teaching practices. Overall, the interviews reflected three separate and largely isolated teacher groups, each with its own interpretation of history and the recent past. The segregated structure of the education system clearly extends its influence to teachers themselves, who continue to act, intentionally or not, as transmitters of ethnic division. They seem to be couth in a state of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962) where they are aware of, and even acknowledge, that the existence of tripartite versions of postwar historical events is unfortunate, yet they reduce the resulting tension through rationalization and/or resignation in order to make the worldview more consistent.

The present findings, which describe teachers’ resignation and acceptance of the situation, also contrast with evidence from other divided societies, where educators “reflect critically, indeed almost agonize, on their actions and possible consequences” and view their work as “preparation for a more inclusive, peaceful and just society” (McCully, 2006: 63). The teachers in this study did not demonstrate such reflective or aspirational engagement. There was no evidence of efforts to negotiate competing narratives or reconcile differing perspectives of the past. In fact, the majority reported having no dilemmas regarding their professional role, and many claimed that the textbooks they use are accurate and appropriate across all three educational programs, despite never having reviewed the content of books used by other groups. This suggests an avoidance of what Jovanović and Marić (2020) refer to as “risk-taking behavior” in educational practice. Rather than challenging dominant narratives or promoting critical thinking, most teachers appear to adopt a safe, conventional approach that preserves ingroup cohesion and indirectly sustains outgroup prejudice, consistent with Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). This behavior seems to reflect individual choices, shaped by a broader system that offers little institutional support for pluralistic teaching, whether from teacher education programs, ministries of education, or school leadership. This is a deeply concerning finding. Teachers, alongside parents, are key agents in shaping how children perceive their social realities. As Clarke-Habibi (2018) argues, they stand “on the front line of peace learning” (p. 162). In divided post-conflict societies like BiH, teachers are essential actors in the democratic peacebuilding process. The current state of affairs calls urgently for a shift toward critical pedagogy as a foundational educational philosophy (Kasumagić-Kafedžić and Mulalić, 2024). Ethnic democracy, while perhaps allowing cultural transmission within groups, does not lay the groundwork for building a cooperative and pluralistic society. The persistent absence of initiatives aimed at societal reconciliation reflects a troubling shortfall in civic and pedagogical responsibility. While strong ingroup identification may foster internal cohesion and emotional security, research suggests it can also give rise to xenophobic attitudes (Brown, 2000: 748). Arguments for reunifying education and promoting cross-group contact through desegregation and decategorization (Brewer and Miller, 1984) are not just moral appeals, but also are strategic responses aimed at securing a viable, cooperative future. In short, the current system is not only ethically questionable but also functionally unsustainable; it represents unintelligent solution to a real problem. The mutual cancelation of opposing ethnic narratives contributes to a societal paralysis in BiH, where progress is perpetually stalled.