Blesok no. 83, March-April, 2012
The Body and Institutions
(on Pirey, Nebeska Timjanovna and The Tunnel by Petre M. Andreevski)
Researchers in narratology believe that setting, location or ambiance is a reserved, hidden or independent character. Namely, that space determines human relations, and can qualify the literary character: “Space is a place or places where situations and events (surrounding, story, place) and the action of the narrative instance(s) are presented”. In The Poetics of Space, Gaston Bachelard differentiates two types of spaces, those that are wanted (desirable), and those that are feared, i.e., spaces of violence, hatred and struggle. Elizabeth A. Grosz writes something similar in Volatile Bodies, adding that violence is demonstrated in social institutions when re-educating or training, in hospitals and in psychiatric institutions. In Petre M. Andreevski’s novels, those three which are the subject of my interest (Pirey, Nebeska Timjanovna and The Tunnel) there are images of the ‘happy spaces’ – family homes. On the other hand, there are also spaces of violence, hatred and struggle. These are images when bodies find themselves in war, on the battlefield, in prisons, in camps, hospitals and institutions for the treatment of addictions.
According to French philosopher Michel Foucault, prison as a disciplinary apparatus has an effect over the body that is trapped in a system of force and deprivation, commitments and restraints. He reviews the correctional system, starting from the annulment of the death penalty and public torture, explaining that death needs to last for a moment and no torture should precede or follow on the corpse, since it is an “execution that affects life rather than the body”.
In Andreevski’s novels there are no specific examples of the death penalty, i.e. Nebeska and her friends are sentenced to death in Nebeska Timjanovna, but still serve out their sentences in several camps in the USSR. Moreover, the death penalty of Mirce and his friends in Pirey is later exchanged for a penalty on the first line of the front.
Foucault says that annulment of the death penalty is a humane act in the history of criminal law, because “it marks a slackening of the hold on the body.” The executioner, who is the direct connoisseur of the body during the suffering, is later replaced by an army of technical staff: supervisors, doctors, priests, psychiatrists, psychologists or educators. This occurs because “Physical pain, the pain of the body itself, is no longer the constituent element of the penalty. From being an art of unbearable sensations punishment has become an economy of suspended rights.” This analysis stresses that the body and its pain are not the ultimate goal of the penal action. According to Foucault, the prison as a system was created to enable re-education of the individual from all aspects possible. This includes physical training, daily conduct, moral stance, labor skills and affinities. Therefore, one can say that prison, or the deprivation of freedom, forced labor, ban of residence and deportation, which assume a significant spot in modern penal systems, are truly “physical” penalties, because unlike fines, refer to the body. This conclusion is confirmed through Nebeska’s experience, who copes with poor hygiene circumstances (cold, humidity, mould, bad odor, fleas, lice, centipedes) and bad food. She spends her time in work and meals in parallel. Hence, work and isolation are defined as generators of the individual’s transformation in prison.
In spite of the poor health, absence of appetite, vomiting, Nebeska is subjected to torturing “experiences” in the camps, torturing examinations that last from 23h up to five o’clock in the morning. During the examinations, Nebeska says “They do not beat you, but make you go insane”. After the examinations and compilation of the minutes from the investigation, Nebeska is sentenced to eight years in a forced labor camp. She is indicted of international espionage and group operations against the Soviet Union, as well as of being an agent of international imperialism. She is subjected to enforced signing, diverse confessions, transfers from one camp to another, hunger and the Siberian cold; namely, she is forced to adapt to the prison mentality and coexistence with criminals of all types, and the malice of the “black lesbians”.
After experiencing this, Nebeska transforms, decays, loses weight, clothes become too big for her, starts to lose her hair. In one of the prisons she accidentally sees herself in the mirror and realizes she has gone uglier. “My head is entirely bald. Only a few hairs appear from the top of my head. But they also drift apart: they cannot reach each other. And as if the head is a bit sideways from the body. My neck has become longer, as a string. My wax face is longer, my teeth have come to the front. Only my eyes are in the same spot. They glitter with fear from the holes. Even my skin is not the same: it is old and worn out, as if eaten by moths. It seems as if I am seeing a dog’s skull. The Plague.”
Hence, Nebeska is isolated from the outside world, but is also isolated from the inmates. She spends a certain period in solitary confinement. Foucault believes that loneliness needs to act as a positive instrument for re-education of the individual because it urges a person to think and causes a guilty conscience. Loneliness enables a kind of self-regulation, spontaneous individualization of the sentence.
Zorica Mršević focuses in article “Women in Prison” on the female informal system of organization within the inmate community, which has proved to be structurally different from the one occurring in the penal institutions for men. She stresses there is no struggle for power in the world of female prisons, and the main motif in the organization of the inmate community is imitation of family relations for the purpose of help, support, and not a struggle for a sexual partner and domination, or leaving an impression with the administration for the purpose of gaining privileges or material benefits, which is seen in informal inmate communities in male prisons.
According to Mršević, there are three sub-systems among female inmates. The first is the so-called “the square”, which brings together inmates and aims at maintaining a conventional lifestyle by respecting the prison’s formal norms and commitments. The second is the so-called “the life” that brings together criminals of habit, mostly convicted of selling and possessing narcotics, prostitution and theft. This system pretends to be total, i.e. replace the outside world, the one beyond the prison’s walls. The so-called “cool” system brings together professional criminals, mostly convicted for robbery and falsification. It aims at easily serving time through diverse manipulations, i.e. not to endanger the possibility of earlier departure from the institution.
I believe that Nebeska finds her own system in prison, which resembles “the square” system. She respects the prison norms and activities, including labor, which according to Foucault, are generators of transformation and re-education of the individual. Nebeska works in a factory for ore processing, works in the field, and is part of the art section, thus having certain benefits, such as good food, weekend rest and excuses from the infirmary.
Having the clearest legal solutions, prison always includes a certain degree of bodily suffering. Foucault explains the effect on the body through the diverse deprivation, limitation and punishment of inmates (deprivation from freedom, hard labor, food limitation, sexual deprivation, solitary confinement, beating etc). Deprivation as a problem that women and men face with in prison is also tackled by Mršević, who makes the following classification:
1. Loss of freedom and autonomy, which is especially painful for women, because they cannot control the life of their own children. Nebeska, deprived of freedom, is hit the hardest when thinking she could die in prison, in a foreign country.
2. Deprivation from material benefits and services, which for most women is depressing due to the ban to own personal items, clothes, jewelry, make up and underwear. Three inmates take away Nebeska’s underwear, panties and vest made of red silk, given to her by the Macedonian society from Sofia.
3. Deprivation from heterosexual intercourse and deprivation from carrying out the family role, which can lead to frustration and depression among most women. The woman is deprived from the main function of a woman, mother, housewife through serious endangerment of her self-respect and status. Nebeska is faced with such type of deprivation because she is separated from son Ivan, her lover Mihajlo Goračinov and the surname of her late husband Abazovski. She contemplates: “It is for the better. Otherwise, if you have your deceased husband’s surname, his death can weigh as twice as much. Right? One could say his surname does not suit you if you have no house, no husband and no child. It does not stand beside you, it shows you nowhere”. In this excerpt, Nebeska puts the things she is deprived from according to gradation and importance. Thus, Nebeska is presented as “a rose that dies away”.
Mršević stresses that homosexual relations in female prisons are established voluntarily, without physical pressure, while danger, threat and violence is present in male prisons. Nebeska considers homosexuality a disease, she does not understand it, even is offered and threatened to start a relationship with a woman, but rejects it.
4. Deprivation from safety – although there is no violence in female prisons compared to the male ones, women still feel insecure and threatened as a result of mistrust, hearsay, spreading lies, exploitation, whimsicality of other women…Here one can again place the insecurity and fear by Nebeska from the surrounding, lesbians…
Mršević’s text “Women in Prison” also focuses on the homosexual cluster (gathering), comprised of original lesbians who were such before going to prison (and are treated by the rest of the inmates as sick and perverse), and inmates who accept the homosexual behavior as temporary adaptation to prison, or the so-called “turnout”. In the novel, Nebeska Timjanovna, the black lesbians can be put in the category of authentic lesbians, since they are treated as sick or perverse, although there is no information whether they had been committed as such before going to prison.
On the whole, the phenomenon of pseudo-family in prison is explained as a non-pathological response to institutionalization, a response specific only for the female prison population. This is why the female prison society differs from the male, although there is a thesis that due to exposure to the same prison conditions, one should expect women and men to have the same reactions when in prison. At the core of family relations we find the pseudo-married and pseudo-parental couples, around whom other family relations spread in concentric circles. The main roles in this cluster are the ones of a husband and wife, i.e. the role of a married couple. In many cases, these are not real, fully realized homosexual relations, but only an imitation of the roles of a husband and wife, and there is a consistent insistence on the symbols in the male and female function. “Men” accept stylized symbols of manhood, such as short hair, absence of makeup and cream, no jewelry except for a male ring and religious symbols. They cover their breasts and periods, dress like men, do not take part in hearsay, control their emotions, have an aggressive role in the marriage, whereas women are mainly feminine in a stereotype-like way. Through these changes, women try to adapt to the conditions in prisons, which carry out a re-education of the individual through such transformation.
In order to successfully present the body’s position in the hospital, I start from the doctor-patient relationship, which Foucault also assesses. A change in this relationship indicates the birth of the clinic, i.e. hospital as an institution.
Foucault explains that the so-called clinical/hospital experience presents individuals through the language of rationality. According to Foucault, the eye becomes the source of clarity in modern medicine, it possesses the power to present the truth. Therefore, to see means to perceive, i.e. notice. The question – What is up with you? Is replaced with Where does it hurt?, or the structure of the hospital and the principle of the entire discourse is altered between the doctor and the patient. Hence, the entire relationship between the marker an the thing marked is again divided between the symptoms that are marked and the disease that is marked, between the description and the thing described, between the event and the forecast, between the lesion and the pain it causes etc.
There are always certain marked things that need to be said and the marker always has too many questions. Therefore, the marker and the thing marked can exist without one another, but at the same time they develop a complex mutual relationship. The marker should not “translate” without leaving certain reserve for the thing or person marked. This commenting in medicine, says Foucault, means to formulate what is said, but one has to reformulate what has never been said. This is an attempt to present an old, uncompromised discourse into another, more extended discourse that is more archaic and contemporary at the same time.
This new discourse in medicine is also noticed through the relationship of doctor Petris and Nebeska. According to the doctor, Nebeska’s two bones are broken under the knee, the leg is hit by gangrene, and the cure is to amputate. He tries to persuade Nebeska into agreeing for the amputation. Nebeska notices Petris’ dissatisfaction from her decision through his face: “Petris shrinks his eyebrows, folds his forehead, wrinkles all over his face”. Despite all of this, Petris, being “a marker”, leaves certain freedom of choice to Nebeska. He continues to take care of her, respecting her decisiveness. One example is an excerpt from the dialogue between Nebeska and Petris:
“– How are you Nebeska?
– I felt sick yesterday, today it is even worse.
Petris laughs, but in a forced kind of way. Even his smile is poor, resembling a lean lunch in the village”.
In hospitals, doctors try to protect the human organism through the correct relationship with the patient. Accordingly, Foucault stresses that the hospital is an institution immanently tied to the preservation of the body.
Jon and Nebeska are treated in military hospitals, on the edge of the conscious and unconscious, in a space between life and death. They say that the hospital smells like medicines, denatured alcohol, iodine, brandy, chloroform. Nebeska looks in front of her stretchers with injured people, bloody bandages around their heads, body, legs and arms. She is surrounded by people without eyes, arms, legs…Amputated human parts are carried on a cart: “Wounds are opened, pieces of iron are extracted, and then sown back again. Arms and legs are amputated from others. With saws, like sawers. People scream, moan, lose their voices and wails.
Jon’s toe is amputated, or as he says – “they picked it out like a hollow apple”. They want to amputate Jon’s leg just like Nebeska’s, but he does not allow them. “…but I didn’t let them. And they might not be allowed by one of the French doctors”.
Foucault designates the hospital like a temple of death, because patients, sick people are separated from their home and loved ones in this space. They feel lonely in the crowd, surrounded only by sick people. According to Nevena, the very entrance in the hospital for addicts is like entering with Goran in another world.
“There is a park with marigolds, petunias, begonias, chamomile and irises in the yard. (…) Amongst them, people with empty eyes and not a spark of light in them. They walk and mumble, quarrel with someone. Some unfit people who you think are ready to kill someone at any minute. Or do any type of damage that a normal person cannot foresee”.
While in hospital, Goran thinks he is in a morgue, begging Nevena to come back home, because as he explains – “We come close to death every day, she says, and no one sees its proximity. We die each following moment, she says. And something alive from our worthless lives gives up every next moment”.
In spite of the fact that Goran fails to cure his addiction, Nebeska and Jon leave the hospital healthy. “As if the big pain is gone. The swelling on the leg recedes, it scratches, it peels around the bandage. My skin plucks and falls on the bed like peeled mortar”.
All characters of Petre M. Andreevski treated in a hospital share the fact they refuse to face the illness they have. By facing it, they would lose authority over their own body, with the hospital assuming this authority. Therefore, the development of doctor-patient relationship represents an attempt for the body not to feel threatened by the clinic, but on the contrary, to preserve its freedom and independence.
The cemetery is another space that Andreevski depicts in novels Pirey and Nebeska Timjanovna, but not in novel The Tunnel, despite the fact that death is a motif.
According to Foucault, the cemetery is undoubtedly another place with regards to common cultural spaces. It represents a space still in relation with the multitude of sites of the city, society, village, since every individual, every family has parents at the cemetery. As Ljupčo S. Risteski says, the cemetery is the backbone of the community of the living, history and memory that bears witness about the rural history through the tradition of oral transmission of information.
Foucault stresses that cemetery in western culture has always existed, but had gone significant changes. By the end of the 18th century, the cemetery was located in the town’s yard, next to the church. The cemetery located in the church’s sacred space has acquired different regime in modern civilizations, i.e. the period when civilization had become “atheistic”. Foucault recalls that people used to believe in the resurrection of the body and the soul’s immortality.
“On the contrary, from the moment when people are no longer sure that they have a soul or that the body will regain life, it is perhaps necessary to give much more attention to the dead body, which is ultimately the only trace of our existence in the world and in language.” Foucault explains that by individualizing death and the bourgeois adoption of the cemetery, the obsession of death as “a disease” was born. It was believed that the dead carry the diseases of the living, and because they used to be buried next to the houses, churches, it was believed that the proximity spreads death itself.
“This major theme of illness spread by the contagion in the cemeteries persisted until the end of the eighteenth century, until, during the nineteenth century, the shift of cemeteries toward the suburbs was initiated. The cemeteries then came to constitute, no longer the sacred and immortal heart of the city, but the other city, where each family possesses its dark resting place.” Hence, the ambivalence of this space is quite obvious, or as Risteski explains, as much as this space is marked as “own”, it is as much “else’s”. The cemetery as space brings within the connotation of death.
Unlike Michel Foucault who focuses on the cemetery in the western culture, Ljupčo S. Risteski uses ethnographic and folklore materials, writing about the cemetery as a complementary and integral part in the perception of the entirety of the Macedonian rural community. According to folklore representations, the cemetery always assumes a central spot in the organization of the rural space, because it accommodates, “resting eternally”, the largest part of the rural community members. Therefore, the cemetery is considered “a big village”, “eternal village”, the foundation of the rural community, where an enormous number of the rural community members are located.
With regards to spatial setting, a cemetery can be located in the village center, where, together with the church they comprise the main sacral center of the village, at the periphery of the village community, where with or without the church it creates an additional sacral space. In such cases, the cemetery’s position is usually determined at a location with special traits – higher place, a hill, where it acquires space domination along with the church and cult trees.
This setting is confirmed by Foucault’s explanation of the beginnings of the cemetery’s location, namely, at the outer boundary of cities or towards the periphery. It is almost identical with the Skopje cemetery, which is located far from the central area, at the boundary between the urban and rural environment. In most cases, the cemetery is structured in line with the family system already existent in the village. Each family has several dozens of graves concentrated in one space.
In novel Pirey, Velika buries her children one after the other, and later she will be buried by her own son, but further from Jon, according to her wish, because as Ulja had said – “…I spent this century without him, she said, let this one pass without him too.”
Risteski writes that the cemetery is space, micro-space, separated and clearly marked from the space of the other part of the rural community.
“According to the logic of perception of the cemetery’s space as an independent entity, a world of its own, a microcosm, an eternal village, the graves are homes, eternal homes where all deceased ancestors of the rural community continue to live”.
Risteski stresses that representations of the grave as an eternal home are quite archaic and because the dead had remained to live in their new eternal homes, the graves had been built as a home, an eternal home. Andreevski too tackles the perception of the eternal home, i.e. the deceased (the body) remains in the grave’s location, and the soul leaves for another reality.
“– What home are you preparing for Kapinke, my scalded drop. (…) That house is plugged, fenced in with cold soil and water. How will you stand so much weight with your fragile strength?” Velika digs a grave for daughters Rosa and Kapinka, makes a bed for her children. Both for Velika and Nebeska Timjanovna the grave represents the only concrete form and opportunity for establishment of certain contact between the living and the dead.
“Some slobbery snow. Cold and deep. I barely can step on it in order to reach Angele’s grave. To light a candle, talk to his new home. To mourn him a bit”.
On the other hand, Nebeska does not know where Nikifor is buried, because nothing of him is left on earth. That is why she wants him to have a space, a grave where, as she says – “…I would leave flowers, light a candle”.
Accordingly, as Foucault concludes, the cemetery is truly a highly heterotopic place, because it begins with the strange heterochrony, which represent the loss of life for an individual, and the imaginary eternity where it does stop to decay and disappear.
The house is obviously a privileged creature, says Bachelard, under the condition we perceive it in its unity and complexity, trying to integrate all of its separate values in one basic value. One should not forget that the house is an item with strong geometry.
According to Bachelard, the image of the house gives us the true principle of psychological integration. It seems that the image of the house is becoming a topography of our intimate being. Bachelard concludes there is a sense in taking the house as an instrument for analysis of the human soul.
The internal space of the houses is presented in novels Pirey, Nebeska Timjanovna and The Tunnel, but I will go beyond the descriptions of the houses, regardless if it is objective or subjective, in order to put emphasis on the body and corporality. I see the house as a space where the body is located, primarily of the leading female characters.
For Velika, the house is her entire universe, or as Bachelard says: “It helps the individual during heavenly storms and life disasters. It is a body and soul. It is the first world of the human being”. In the family house, Velika learns how to live with Jon, does numerous chores, organizes the household, takes care of cleanliness, gives birth, mourns, dreams…The house is Velika’s focus in life. She creates new life in the house, her children are conceived and born there. Velika treats her sick children there, and ultimately they die in this space.
In the most difficult moments, when she loses her offspring, Velika says – “I sit and watch as death enters my home, my heart crumbles, my liver splits”. In those moments of despair, when she has no strength, and says, “there is no soul left in me”, Velika prays to God not to take everything away from her so that her house is not destitute. “Lord, do not take away anything more, Lord, I plead, I beg. Stop Lord, do not take away anymore, I whisper. Will You leave my house destitute, will You dampen all my wounds with soil. Oh Lord, do not take only from me, take from another place, I defile my mouth”.
After Velika is left alone, with an empty bed, only having the cow, the donkey and the dog Cako, she still does not leave the family home. She knows that Jon brought her to that house, left her in that home, and that she could be taken away dead from it – this is her stance.
Bachelard explains that the house as a loved space, happy or celebrated space, is one of the biggest forces of integration for a person’s thoughts and dreams, as well as the binding principle of daydreaming. Nevena’s home also protects her and gives her a chance to peacefully daydream of becoming a mother, but it is also a space for suffering due to the alcoholism of her husband.
According to Nevena, children fill the house and give sense to life. “I truly transformed the house, but still it is empty. It is empty if there is no child to cry in it”. She dreams of feeling a child in her womb and take it in her arms. Without a child, she believes that her life does not belong to anyone, except to Goran, and feels useless, as a dried up river basin.
On the other hand, Nebeska Timjanovna and Nikifor Abazovski have no house (permanent residence) because they constantly travel as fighters in the Greek democratic army. Each truly populated space contains the essence of term house, and therefore, the smallest shelter and all places they stay in is for them their house.
Bachelard also refers to term native house that is populated, which is physically engraved in every individual even without the memories. It represents more than a housing space, which is proven by the memories of Jon, Velika, Nebeska and Nevena.
Jon has engraved the memory of his native house – a village house with a veranda and a shed. Nebeska remembers her native house, the yard and the big pear tree in front of the house. “First, I run to see the pear tree in the yard. Without it, the stockyard seems a bit empty”. Nebeska is overjoyed when she visits her home, thinking that everyone has a place that he/she cannot abandon. There is little information about Nevena’s native house. After the Skopje earthquake, their house was marked for demolition, although, according to her, it could easily have been patched. Afterwards they lived in wooden barrack settlements.
According to Bachelard, the house is envisaged as a vertical and concentrated being. Verticality is secured by the polarity of the basement and the attic. The basement is a dark being of the house, a being that is part of the underground powers. In novel Pirey, the basement is presented as a forbidden and dark place, where Jon spends time with Levterija. In a moment of passion, Jon sees parts of her body that had been previously unknown and forbidden to him: “I have not seen so much femininity even in my wife”.
The basic function of the house – protection, is most powerfully expressed by Velika, and partially by Nevena. In the most difficult times (war, disease, natural disasters…), the house protects Velika and her children. Velika dedicates her entire life to the family and the house. Therefore, I can conclude that Andreevski sets the house as the center of Velika’s existence. The house is the focal point of all human activities and the core of family developments. This goes entirely for Nebeska Timjanovna, i.e. the house represents the starting point in the development of her character. For Nevena, the house is a space of existence, a space where she tries with all of her strength to establish order and harmony with her husband, as well as realize her maternal function.
1. Andreevski, M. Petre. Pirey. Skopje: Tabernakul, 2007.
2. Andreevski, M. Petre. Nebeska Timjanovna. Skopje: Tabernakul, 2007.
3. Andreevski, M. Petre. Tunel. Skopje: Tabernakul, 2007.
4. Bashlar, Gaston, Poetika na prostorot. Skopje: Tabernakul, 2002.
5. Gros, Elizabet. Nedofatni tela: za telesniot feminizam. Skopje: Makedonska Kniga 2002, 2003.
6. Kočov, Stojan. Po magistralata na zloto: Vija Kostur-Irkutskaja oblast (Navrakjanje na romanot Nebeska Timjanovna od Petre M. Andreevski), Sovremenost, br.3 (maj), br.53 (2005): 119-122.
7. Mršević, Zorica. “Žene u zatvoru”, Ženske studije (časopis za feminističku teoriju) br.1 (1995), http://www.womenngo.org.yu/sajt/sajt/izdanja/zenske_studije/index.htm/, [Last Accessed: 18.03.2009].
8. Prins, Dzerald. Recnik na naratologija. Skopje: Sigmapres, 2001.
9. Risteski, Ljupčo S. Kategoriite prostor i vreme vo narodnata kultura na Makedoncite. Skopje: Matica Makedonska, 2005.
10. Michel Foucault; Jay Miskowiec, Of Other Spaces. Diacritics, Vol. 16, No. 1. (Spring, 1986), pp. 22-27.
11. Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New Work: Vintage, 1995.
Translated by Ivan Kolekevski
1. For the purposes of this paper only, I have translated into English (my own translation) the excerpts from Prince, Bachelard and Grosz in reference, by relying on the published Macedonian translations of their respective works. (translator's note)
2. Dzerald Prins. Recnik na naratologija (Skopje: Sigmapres, 2001), 104.
3. Gaston Bashlar. Poetika na prostorot (Skopje: Tabernakul, 2002).
4. Elizabet Gros. Nedofatni tela: za telesniot feminizam. (Skopje: Makedonska Kniga 2002, 2003).
5. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage, 1995), 12.
6. Foucault, 1995, 9.
7. Foucault, 1995, 11.
8. Petre M. Andreevski, Nebeska Timjanovna (Skopje: Tabernakul, 2007), 276 (my own translation).
9. Andreevski, Nebeska Timjanovna, 273-274 (my own translation).
10. Zorica Mršević. “Žene u zatvoru”, in Ženske studije (časopis za feminističku teoriju) br.1 (1995),
11. Andreevski, Nebeska Timjanovna, 256 (my own translation).
12. Stojan Kočov. “Po magistralata na zloto: Vija Kostur-Irkutskaja oblast (Navrakjanje na romanot Nebeska Timjanovna od Petre M. Andreevski)”, Sovremenost, br.3 (maj), br.53 (2005): 122 (my own translation).
13. Andreevski, Nebeska Timjanovna, 164 (my own translation).
14. Andreevski, Nebeska Timjanovna, 164 (my own translation).
15. Petre M. Andreevski, Pirey (Skopje: Tabernakul, 2007), 277 (my own translation).
16. Andreevski, Pirey, 277 (my own translation).
17. Andreevski, Pirey, 277-278 (my own translation).
18. Petre M. Andreevski, The Tunnel (Skopje: Tabernakul, 2007), 81 (my own translation)
19. Andreevski, Tunnell, 95 (my own translation).
20. Andreevski, Nebeska Timjanovna, 287 (my own translation).
21. Ljupčo S. Risteski. Kategoriite proctor i vreme vo narodnata kultura na Makedoncite. (Skopje:Matica Makedonska, 2005). (my own translation).
22. Michel Foucault; Jay Miskowiec, Of Other Spaces. Diacritics, Vol. 16, No. 1. (Spring, 1986), pp. 22-27.
23. Foucault, 1967.
24. Ljupčo S. Risteski. Kategoriite proctor i vreme vo narodnata kultura na Makedoncite. (Skopje:Matica Makedonska, 2005). (my own translation).
25. Andreevski, Pirey, 15 (my own translation).
26. Ljupčo S. Risteski. Kategoriite prostor i vreme vo narodnata kultura na Makedoncite (Skopje: Matica Makedonska, 2005), 211 (my own translation)
27. Andreevski, Pirey, 256 (my own translation).
28. Andreevski, Pirey, 92 (my translation).
29. Andreevski, Nebeska Timjanovna, 187 (my translation).
30. Gaston Bachelard, The Poetics of Space (Skopje: Tabernakul, 2002), 39 (my translation).
31. Andreevski, Pirey, 254 (my translation).
32. Andreevski, Pirey, 255 (my own translation).
33. Andreevski, Tunnel, 33 (my own translation).
34. Andreevski, Nebeska Timjanovna, 99 (my own translation).
35. Andreevski, Pirey, 222 (my own translation).