ISSN 2029-0225
e-ISSN 2029-8862
THEORIZING POST-SOVIET
VS EASTERN NATIONALISM:
IMPLICATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
MARHARYTA FABRYKANT
Belarusian State University, Minsk, assistant
E-mail: [email protected]
One of the main issues of nationalism studies throughout its history has been the search for
the justified position of the academic discourse on nationality with regards to the reality it
attempts to rationally explain. Not only was it difficult to abandon the overtly ideological
reasoning of the Fichtean kind1, but it was and remains to be almost impossible to completely avoid implicit conformity to the public opinion dictated by an agenda formed by key
relevant events. In the history of contemporary nationalism studies, one can see occasional
rise of condemnation of nationalism prompted by atrocities like those committed in the
ex-Yugoslavia2 or, adversely, cautious attempts of rehabilitation inspired by events like
“velvet revolutions”3, both lines of reasoning posed against the background of mild critical
disapproval of nationalism as such. It seems obvious that for any social science its active
distortion of and by the reality it studies is as ideological as tacit conformity to it. How­
ever, it remains unclear to what extent the objectivity, or constant self-reflection striving
towards objectivity, is impaired in the case of neither distortion nor conformity, but mere
confirmation of reality under scrutiny instead of constructing research subject following
the immanent logic of the academic field. In this article we analyze a case of such confirmation and its implications regarding the two alternative ways of studying nationalism in
a certain geographical part of the world.
Keywords: nationalism, post-Soviet nationalism, globalization.
Almost immediately after the first one-dimensional concepts of globalization it has been remarked that instead of mere post-national
unification it was likely to bring gradual and complicated relocation
103
Marharyta FABRYKANT
of power, legitimacy and loyalty from national to supranational, or
regional, and subnational, or local, unities.4 Consequently, it is inevitable that regionalization of the world increasingly gains popularity,
although the principles of this type of mapping remain unclear and
are hardly ever subjected to reflection, so as the use age of regionalist
terms is allegedly justified by mere repetition.
One of such not so obvious terms is “post-Soviet nationalism”.
The regional name itself is ambiguous, because in fact it relates itself
not only to space, but also to time, and to time primarily, considering
that the spatial borders to which the term refers have ceased to exist.
Moreover, nor do any temporal borders exist, because it is nowhere
stated or implied for how long the region in question is going to
remain post-Soviet and, specifically, if the post-Soviet space defined
by the shadow of a non-entity would eventually exist longer than did
the Soviet Union itself. One apparently logical answer would be that
the post-Soviet regional unity would remain as long as the current
situation would demonstrate the predominant influence of the Soviet
past and/or strong attitudes towards the Soviet historical period
would have decisive impact on the political and ideological agenda.
However, first, even if methodologically acceptable operationalization
of these parameters is done, research on the intensity of these indicators over time can only be discovered by empirical research. Although
such research is a necessary precondition for legitimate use of the term
“post-Soviet nationalism”, it has never been conducted, and therefore
the regional unity can be neither accepted as factually grounded nor
rejected. Second, it is universally acknowledged almost on the verge
of becoming a commonplace that in the past twenty years independent states that used to be parts of the Soviet Union have moved with
varying speed in very different directions. In view of these facts, but
contrary to them, the term “post-Soviet nationalism” presupposes
that all the countries covered by it experience, construct and reflect
on nationalism in the uniform regionally specific way without apparent quantitative gradation of its relevance. This presupposition cannot be supported by empirical evidence, because its rationale makes it
a necessary conceptual precondition for any empirical research.
104
THEORIZING POST-SOVIET VS EASTERN NATIONALISM: IMPLICATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
This rationale runs as follows. In order for an empirical research of
nationalism to move from mere illustration of some theory or a set of
theories to their testing, it has to involve more than one country and
place nationalism in a comparative perspective. However, for a comparison to be meaningful and interpretable, the countries selected for
a particular study must correspond to some criteria reflecting a significant common trait, which suggests an independent variable to be
tested with each of the possible others in search for interaction effects.
As a starting point, it can hardly be doubted that the common Soviet
experience of 70 years’ duration is quite likely to have profound impact
on every aspect of the public sphere including nationalism, especially
in view of thoughtful analyses of Soviet national policy undertaken by
Rogers Brubaker, Walker Connor, Alexander J. Motyl, Dmitry Gorenburg and Terry Martin, to name only a few of the most prominent
figures.5 However, once the subject of post-Soviet nationalism is defined, the next step, or, more accurately, shift, is the a posteriori justification of this formulation by finding the commonalities constructing an allegedly unique constellation of the post-Soviet nationalism.
Our own research based on the World Values survey database has not
found statistically significant differences in any dimension of nationalism between post-Soviet countries and the rest of the 88 countries
involved in the survey. Nevertheless, it is always possible to provide
the necessary justification at the stage of interpretation, for instance,
explaining away all similarities by the shared Soviet past and differences, by peculiarities of position each country used to occupy as a
Soviet republic with regard to the ruling center. Thus, the gradual shift
is made from instrumental definition to imposition of quest for conceptual legitimacy on interpretation of any empirical data.
The reason of the widespread use of the term “post-Soviet nationalism”, despite its exposed lack of conceptual legitimacy and narrowing
effect on the heuristic potential of empirical research, is the necessity
of regional identities prompted by globalization in view of no better
option. The latter statement, however, needs to be specially addressed
in order to examine its veracity. This can be done by bringing into the
105
Marharyta FABRYKANT
limelight the most widespread alternative to post-Soviet nationalism,
namely, the Eastern European nationalism.
The second term has a much longer and much more heterogeneous history, which can be traced back to the earliest attempts to
provide classification of nationalism regardless of geographical affinities, let alone regional boundaries. The author of the first typology
of nationalism that is historically recognized as such, Friedrich Meinecke, suggested that Kulturnation and Staatsnation were more or
less transitive states, not an essential attribute of any given nation, let
alone region.6 However, his unacknowledging follower Hans Kohn
did not hesitate to reestablish more or less the same dichotomy markedly based on geographical principle and imbuing both Eastern and
Western nationalism with pronounced evaluative meaning. In its contemporary version, both geographical and evaluative connotations
of civic and ethnic nationalism are subdued, but not eliminated, and
ethnic nationalism remains being considered typical for the East and
relatively undesirable.7 Although the attitude to nationalism as such in
the academic discourse after the Second World War is predominantly
negative, the evaluation of civic nationalism varies from mildly negative to reservedly positive, while the opinion on ‘Eastern’ ethnic nationalism is almost uniformly negative, which makes ethnic nationalism
appear somewhat more nationalistic than its counterpart and sometimes even makes it identified with nationalism as such.8 Consequently,
the East in nationalism studies is sometimes constructed as the areal
or, paradoxically, a metaphorical homeland of nationalism as such.9
This means that if nationalism is initially attempted to gain explanation or at least explicability by attaching it to the East, then in reality
the opposite effect is attained of explaining the vague meaning of ‘Easternness’ by its special prototypicality regarding nationalism. This stereotyping of the East is substantially different from orientalism, which
at once comes to mind, because in the latter case a certain territory is
stigmatized as Eastern, while the Eastern nationalism first suggest the
very meaning of the East, which can be used in the process of stigmatization regarding specific cases of mapping the Easternness.
In addition to this general mutually reverse, or so to say backfiring,
106
THEORIZING POST-SOVIET VS EASTERN NATIONALISM: IMPLICATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
definition of the East via the connotations of ethnic nationalism, two
specific issues must be noted here that are hardly ever recognized in
theoretical literature. First, one of the key features of ethnic nationalism is its orientation towards the past, both primordial atemporal
traditions ‘from time immemorial’ and commemoration of starred
events belonging to great narratives of national history. Accordingly,
the implicitly reconstructed Easternness of ethnic nationalism results
in perceiving the East as somehow belonging to the past. This feature
can be specified in the following three ways. On one hand, the East can
be seen as backward or, alternatively, retarded in its development and
therefore transitional. On the other hand, however, the Eastern nationalism, being past-oriented, can be understood as primordial, miraculously reproduced historical past of the West, suffused with mysterious ethnic symbolism. Thus, the East via the use of the theoretical
construct of ethnic nationalism becomes the spatial representation
of both historical and primordial past, not a realistically understood
region possessing irreducible continuity between the past, present and
future.
Second, constructing the East as the privileged zone of nationalism connects the East with yet another recognized attribute of ethnic
nationalism, namely, its irrationality. At the first glance, the triangle of
Easternness – nationalism – irrationality appears quite obvious and
introducing no theoretical novelty. What is more important, however,
is that alleged irrationality of the term might legitimize lack of precision in its definition. Thus, the geographical and conceptual borders of
the East with regard to Eastern nationalism, which are initially vague
due to artificiality of the term, retain its imprecision precisely because
it is expected. This permeability of outer limits allows easy labeling of
whatever nation as Eastern, but does not suggest clear criteria of the
complementary act of exclusion.
The undertaken theoretical analysis of the competing concepts
may lead to several conclusions. First, as we have tried to demonstrate, the two concepts, despite being mutually exclusive alternatives
applied to the same empirical reality, have very similar implications
and rationale. In both cases the reasoning starts with mere affirmation
107
Marharyta FABRYKANT
of objective geographical and historical borders and then unfolds
towards objectification and reification of attributed meanings. Furthermore, the problems for policy-makers that would, and do, rely in
their decisions on the concepts of either post-Soviet or Eastern nationalism arise not merely from objectification as such or predominantly
negative evaluations inherent to both concepts, but from their more
specific controversies. In particular, as we have shown, both Easternness and post-Sovietness are constructed as transitional and not quite
real, but, at the same time, geographically objective and unchangeable. The belief that “once post-Soviet, always post-Soviet”, therefore,
lacks theoretical cohesion and narrows chances of development for
Eastern / post-Soviet countries in practice.
One possible alternative to these two concepts of the type of nationalism in the area would be to abandon the attempt at classification
altogether and view the target set of countries not as a region, but
as a compendium of unique cases, each of which deserving in-depth
interpretation based on its own language and attitudes. However,
this program is not realistic, first, because of the increasing salience
of supranational affiliations and loyalties, second, because in the globalizing world the self-perception of nationalities in the area during
the past twenty years has been influenced by theoretical constructs of
Easternness and post-Sovietness to such extent that in the short run it
is almost impossible to distinguish their inner and outer layers.
A more realistic alternative would lie in providing a third alternative definition of the target region, the one that would be applicable
to specific traits of the regional type of nationalism. Indeed, the local
academic and public discourses in many post-Soviet states seek to
base alternative identities on bizarre subethnic or continental criteria,
such as Eastern-Slavonic or Eurasian projects, to mention only the
most popular cases.10 Unlike Easternness and post-Sovietness, these
projects are more openly primordialist, and sometimes even radically
so, which makes them more internally coherent or at least less ambiguous, but openly defiant of any demand for empirical evidence, not
to mention their primarily political, rather than epistemological role.
An interesting alternative to the listed options would be
108
THEORIZING POST-SOVIET VS EASTERN NATIONALISM: IMPLICATIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
introducing a European type of nationalism. It is interesting that the
term “European identity” usually refers to the supranational identity
of European countries that might lead to redistribution of individual
loyalties between itself and the prototypical national identities. This
issue of constructing a non-pragmatic emotionally appealing supranational European identity is frequently presented as the key task
for policy-makers in contemporary European studies. However, it is
strange that no attempts have been made to construct the notion of
the European type of nationalism, suggesting that varieties of nationalism in all European countries, despite frequent incompatibilities in
content, might have something in common regarding their structure
and logic of formation based on shared, albeit from different perspectives, historical experience. Such alternative might be not better than
Easternness and post-Sovietness insofar as it is similarly not theorydriven, but largely relying on common sense. However, as Europe in
its contemporary meaning is not a static geographic region, but an
emergent historical phenomenon, the ambiguity of criteria of belonging and possible implication for particular countries, would be in
this case justified, so that both the reality itself and the theory striving
to explain it would be future-oriented and open to historical change as
the prerequisite for freedom.
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1
2
3
4
5
Fichte, J. G. Reden an die deutsche Nation. Hamburg: Felix mainer Verlag, 1978,
p. 27–32.
Kecmanovic, D. Ethnic Times: Exploring Ethnonationalism in the Former Yugoslavia. Westpoint: Praeger, 2001, p. 45–52; Miscevic, N. Nationalism and Beyond:
Introducing Moral Debate about Values. Budapest: Central European University
Press, 2001, p. 46–55.
Hübner, K. Das Nationale: Verdrängtes, Unvermeidliches, Erstrebenswertes. Graz,
Wien, Köln: Verl. Styria, 1991, p. 119–124.
Habermas, J. Die postnationale Konstellation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp,
1998, p. 13–46.
Brubaker, R. Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the
New Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 17–20; Connor,
W. The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy. Princeton,
New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984, p. 47–66; Motyl, A. J. Thinking
109
Marharyta FABRYKANT
Theoretically About Soviet Nationalities. NY: Columbia University Press, 1995,
p. 15–37; Gorenburg, D. Minority Ethnic Mobilization in the Russian Federation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 77–117; Martin, T. The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923–1939.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001, p. 402–423.
6 Meinecke, F. Weltbürgertum und Nationalstaat: Studien zur Genesis des deutschen
Nationalstaates. Frankfurt am Main: R. Oldenbourg, 1908, p. 134–137.
7 Kohn, H. Nationalism, Its Meaning and History. Princeton: D. van Nostrand
Company, 1995, p. 12–15.
8 Smith, A. D. National Identity. London: Penguin Books, 1991, p. 19–42.
9 Billig, M. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage Publications, 1995, p. 174–176.
10 Laruelle, M. L’idéologie eurasiste russe ou comment penser l’empire. Paris: L’Harmattan, 1999, p. 124–136.
SANTRAUKA
POSOVIETINIS VERSUS RYTŲ NACIONALIZMAS: IMPLIKACIJOS IR
ALTERNATYVOS
Reikšminiai žodžiai: nacionalizmas, posovietinis nacionalizmas, globalizacija.
Kuo objektyvesnės, metodologiškai pateisinamos terminologijos vartojimas
yra nuolatinis nacionalizmo studijų iššūkis. Straipsnyje analizuojamas ir lyginamas dviejų sąvokų – „posovietinis“ ir „rytietiškasis“ – euristinis potencialas empiriniuose nacionalizmo tyrimuose. Teigiama, jog pirmoji sąvoka –
„posovietinis nacionalizmas“ – neturi aiškaus empirinio turinio, kadangi
buvusios Sovietų Sąjungos respublikos vystėsi gana skirtingomis kryptimis,
nacionalizmo aspektu jų nesieja pastebimi vertybiniai ir viešosios erdvės
panašumai. „Rytų nacionalizmas“ akademiniame diskurse istoriškai įgavo
ganėtinai neigiamą konotaciją, jam priskiriamas etninis pagrindas (kaip
priešprieša pilietiniam „Vakarų“ nacionalizmui), primordializmo, iracionalumo atspalvis. Kaip galimos alternatyvios sąvokos nacionalizmui Rytų Europoje konceptualizuoti yra siūlomi subnacionalinis ir „europietiškasis“ nacionalizmai, pastarąja platesne sąvoka siekiant pabrėžti nacionalizmo fenomeno
Rytų ir Vakarų Europoje panašumą.
110