Call for submissions to Forum AI: Ukraine and the Crisis of “Russian Studies”: Participant Observation of History in the Making (net.abimperio.net/node/3320) Besides enormous political and economic consequences, the events of the past year in Ukraine have tremendous importance for historians and social scientists – specialists in the region of the former Soviet Union and participants in various national branches of former Russian Studies. This multidisciplinary community, split into self-isolated clusters has, with a few exceptions, proved itself professionally unprepared to predict and explain the unfolding events. Both Maidan and the well-prepared Russian aggression in Crimea and in Eastern Ukraine were totally unexpected by political scientists, for whom “analysis of political trends” and “policy recommendations” are the main content (and validation) of scholarship. Still worse was the performance of historians, who indulged themselves in debating the question of “who should possess” Crimea or Donbass “on the grounds of historical justice.” Together with ethnographers and anthropologists, for almost a quarter century now, historians of the region have sustained and promoted within society an exclusively nation-centered (i.e., essentially ethno-centered and, as has become clear, practically racist) understanding of human groupness. Social scientists know for sure what it means to be a “Russian” or “Ukrainian” (a “Jew,” an “Uzbek,” a “Georgian”) not only today but they also knew back in the nineteenth or seventeenth century. They know exactly what the borders of “national territory” are, what the “traditional religion” of the region is, what the “national” language is and what its legal status should be in a multicultural society. The discipline formerly known as “Russian Studies” in all its disciplinary and national offshoots, has contributed to preparing public opinion and making political decisions that made possible the tragic developments in Ukraine and Russia. All over the world, specialists in the region – historians, political scientists, anthropologists – have been practicing basically the same type of research within a common methodological framework, so personal political biases (either “Ukrainophile” or “pro-Russian”) have not affected the general outcome. Contrary to the popular cliché, history does give us a second chance. Of course, nothing in the past can be changed, but we all become participants in the grandiose “master class” that gives us an opportunity to observe with our own eyes the processes that hitherto we had to study through archival documents or in very different countries and cultures. The collapse of the state and revolution, the rise of a fascist society and staging of annexationist wars, self-organization of the population into citizens, and the transcendence of internal restraints in order to unleash violence – these are just some of the topics covered by this “master class of history.” Many of our colleagues had to take a most active part in this master class. To a scholar, the evolving multifaceted tragedy also presents a historical experiment of paramount significance – we just need to formulate the initial hypotheses and analytical criteria that allow us to correctly interpret the results. Unfortunately, as often happens in a classroom (or in any experiment), not all the participants and observers understand what they have an opportunity to learn. Some professional communities of historians censor attempts to discuss ongoing events in online discussion groups as “irrelevant”: historians are expected to discuss the revolutionary proletariat in 1905 and the social structure of Muscovy in the seventeenth century, not the birth of a new understanding of citizenship and new social structures in Ukraine. Many anthropologists today prefer to study texts rather than practices. Therefore, they see no difference between the slogan “Glory to Heroes!” as chanted on Maidan in 2014 and in Volyn in 1943, and therefore they make no attempt to discover new meaning behind the old words. Many Ukrainian and even more Russian social scientists have given in to the temptation of simple ideological schemes, self-identifying with the UPA or NKVD. European left intellectuals somehow believe that they are fighting fascism by glorifying imperialist foreign policy, oligarchic regimes, and counterrevolution. The reason is not their personal ideological and political biases but their fundamental blindness to the “master class of history.” The editors of Ab Imperio and the Web portal Historians.in.UA (HIU) appeal to those who have become witnesses to and participants in that “master class of history,” who have seen the making of history with their own eyes, who have participated in the production of “primary sources” by the very fact of registering the events and reflecting on them following the procedures of their disciplines. We invite you to take part in the forum “Ukraine and the Crisis of ‘Russian Studies’: Participant Observation of History in the Making,” in a variety of formats. We are interested in research articles, essays, sketches, in which personal experience and observations are reflected in the context of the author’s professional expertise (in history and linguistics, ethnography and anthropology, sociology and political science). We are eager to publish documents (including photographs) with proper commentaries andanalysis. Finally, we invite you to participate in a virtual roundtable by sending us your answers to the questions listed below (those that you perceive as relevant and correct). Ab Imperio publishes texts in English and Russian, and HIU is ready to publish texts in Ukrainian. Submissions will be accepted until October 1, 2014, for publication in in issue 3/2014 (produced in late November). For the roundtable, we offer six themes in clusters of subtopics: I. The end of “no-time” (2013) How did political demobilization end? Did anything suggest the possibility of a new Maidan? What political prognoses for the future were made by experts and opposition leaders? How did people perceive the prospects of the Yanukovich regime? How did the “map” of society look (main social layers, groups of interests, cultural and political identities)? II. Maidan (winter 2013−14) How is the historical genealogy of Maidan as a political phenomenon viewed from within the Ukrainian society? How can we explain the phenomenon of self-organization on Maidan? Are there any parallels and precedents for this self-organization in the everyday realities of Ukraine (in the private sphere, at work, in the cultural sphere, etc.)? What was the mechanism of the spontaneous political process on Maidan (emergence of leaders, criteria of legitimacy, the moral economy of citizenship)? The economy of Maidan: how much does civic protest cost and how is it possible to survive without a salary? III. Reset of the state (spring 2014) Can modern society survive in the situation of a collapsed state? Who compensates for the vacuum of state power, and how? The anatomy and evolution of the revolutionary authority. How did different regions of Ukraine solve the problem of the legitimacy of authority? The problem of crystallizing informal power structures “from below” meeting the process of state-building “from above.” IV. Revolutionary war (spring−summer 2014) The dynamics of breaking the taboo on deadly violence in Ukrainian society. Motivations of members of volunteer battalions. Prosopography of “field commanders.” The volunteer movement for supply of the army. Ideology, rhetoric, and historical allusions of the 2014 war in Ukraine. How crucial was the role of Internet social networks for crystallizing and developing the Ukrainian revolution? Was the “armchair army” (of Internet users) of any use? The first “Facebook War”: erasing the boundary between the frontline and the rear. How does media war change the position of an expert? The evolution of attitudes toward Russia and Russians (russkie). Formation and dynamics of the image of the enemy or enemies. V. Forming a new nation Why should different cultures and regions live together? The phenomenon of Russian (russkii) Ukrainian patriots and nationalists. Evolution in the perception of the role of the Russian and Ukrainian languages in Ukraine. The problem of bridging “the split regions” and forging a new mental geography of Ukraine. The reflection in society of the annexation of Crimea and its role on processes throughout the rest of Ukraine. How did the image of Donbass and the topos of “Eastern Ukraine” in general change, from the first referendums for secession to the beginning of the war and its escalation? The rhetoric of “wholeness” (sobornost’) vs. the idea of getting rid of the “burden” (Crimea and Donbass) over the course of six months from March to August. The search for a federal model without formal federalization. Scenarios of new Ukraine and Ukrainians. Are different understandings of Ukrainianness tied to certain social, educational, or demographic groups? How did Ukrainians succeed (or not) in finding common grounds? VI. Significance of Ukrainian events for social sciences What role does the past play in the Ukrainian society today, and what is the role of historical memory and professional historiography in shaping public ideas about the past? Will contemporary events encourage revision of the main canons of historical narrative in Ukraine and the dominant model of national history? What should the new history of the new Ukraine look like? How can Ukrainian experience contribute to ongoing discussions of postcolonialism, imperial turn, and the history of violence? Who is to be blamed for the fact that all stages of the Ukrainian drama have been a total surprise to mainstream Ukrainian and Russian studies? What can new Ukrainian Studies teach international “Slavic Studies”? Contact email: [email protected]
Posted on: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:26:22 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015