The author builds on the idea that during the 1980s the process of detachingthe Slovenian from the Yugoslav took place in the Slovenian public. An extensivehistorical and discourse analysis should be carried out in order to verify thistheory and especially in order to better understand this phenomenon. Neverthelessthis thesis is well-supported by the very texts written during the 1980s. Inthat period the production of articles, papers, essays, elaborates and programmetexts dealing with the issue of the Slovenian national question or the problem ofnationalism/nations was very prolific. Memoirs, the press, as well as the majorityof historiography underlined the role of individual personalities and theirinvolvement in the political system. The author believes that due to methodologicalreasons we should temporarily »forget« who wrote a certain text (whattheir functions, connections and reputation were) and ask ourselves what thetexts themselves can tell us. Not in order to disregard the political and socialcontext – quite the opposite, with the aim of understanding this context better,as well as to better comprehend the importance of these texts for the nationalistperception of social relations.According to American historian John Pocock the main task of the historianof political ideas is to identify and reconstruct the political language. Slovenianintellectuals, active in the context of various forums (e.g. Slovenian Writers’Association, Nova revija magazine, Plenum of the Liberation Front CulturalWorkers, etc.) used specific cultural-political language or terminology. A strongawareness of their own importance is evident. The intellectuals act as the nation’sspiritual leaders. The style of writing is usually highly intellectual andrefined, even intentionally hard to understand, but still personal and controversial. In order to present arguments for ambitious theories about the nature andcharacter of the Slovenian nation, the authors of these texts would frequentlyresort to history. However, they would only take what suited them out of thehistorical context. Thus Slovenian national theorists were not neutral and theyused what are in principle impartial philosophical or sociological theoreticaltools for »national purposes«. All the problems of the late socialist society areassociated with the position of the Slovenian nation (i.e. inflation, technologicallag, international relations). Original mixing of various levels is a characteristicfeature. Detailed analyses of theoretical discussions reveal that these are intertwinedwith personal experience and anecdotes, and historical examples blendwith the descriptions of the problems of the socialist society.What is the role of Yugoslavia in these texts? To be a Slovenian patriot butcritical towards Yugoslavia gradually became fashionable. Certain negativegenerally human traits are seen as typically Yugoslav (lack of success, laziness,ignorance), and certain positive characteristics are deemed as typically Slovenian(diligence, development, culture). Nevertheless, what is most surprising isthe absence of Yugoslavia. In these texts Yugoslavia is only mentioned whenabsolutely necessary. As if the authors were ashamed of it. Slovenian Yugoslavismgradually »peels away« like an old street poster, it »detaches« from Slovenianismprecisely by means of absence. Rather than on Yugoslavia Slovenianintellectuals focus on themselves. Their homeland is Central Europe, Europe,the world, the Western civilisation, »republic of literature«, Christianity, andabove all Slovenia, by no means Yugoslavia. Of course, there are exceptionslooking for a place for the Slovenian nation within the Socialist Federal Republicof Yugoslavia through strengthening and clearly defi ning the right to nationalself-determination (e.g. Janko Pleterski) or through redefi ning the relations betweenthe republics of the federal Yugoslavia (i.e. France Klopčič).