CREES hosts roundtable on Ukrainian history (05/11/97)

CREES hosts roundtable on Ukrainian history

by Andrij Kudla Wynnyckyj
Toronto Press Bureau

TORONTO - As time ticks away, events in Ukraine since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 are beginning to acquire the tint of history, rather than that of mere political science.

The recent North American visit of Dr. Yaroslav Hrytsak, a young historian from Lviv who has emerged as a leader in scholarship in the newly independent country, provided a golden opportunity to further the academic debate with local academic community.

Dr. Hrytsak has been causing waves in the historical establishment by critically reassessing traditional interpretations of Ukrainian history. Dr. Marta Dyczok, currently a resident fellow at University of Toronto's Center for Russian and East European Studies (CREES), had met Dr. Hrytsak during her five-year (1991-1996) sojourn in Ukraine, and decided to organize the "Roundtable on History in Post-Soviet Ukraine" to coincide with Dr. Hrytsak's stay in Toronto. It took place on April 4 on the University of Toronto's downtown campus.

Dr. Zenon Kohut, director of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Alberta in Edmonton; Dr. Frank Sysyn, director of the Peter Jacyk Center for Ukrainian Historical Research (PJUHR) also at the University of Alberta; and two CREES members specializing in Ukrainian history, Prof. Paul Robert Magocsi, Chair of Ukrainian Studies at the University of Toronto, and Prof. Orest Subtelny of Toronto's York University, agreed to join the discussion. The roundtable was chaired by CREES Director Prof. Robert E. Johnson.

CIUS director offers context

Dr. Kohut began the discussion by presenting an overview of the status of Ukrainian historiography before 1991 in a paper titled "Burdens of the Past."

He outlined the context in which Ukrainian historiography developed, noting the difficulties faced by scholars who constantly struggled against dominant interpretations of history, such as purveyors of "the Russian grand narrative" and Polish thinkers who dismissively considered Ukrainians to be a "peasant" subset of their own superior civilization.

Dr. Kohut pointed out the important link between the writing of history and nation-building (citing historian and Ukrainian National Republic President Mykhailo Hrushevsky as an example), and briefly examined the generational divide that currently exists among historians in Ukraine (pointing to Dr. Hrytsak and colleague Natalia Yakovenko as members of a young vanguard).

The CIUS director referred to a recent essay by fellow panelist Prof. Subtelny in which the York historian cautioned against the hasty abandonment of Marxist models. Dr. Kohut said that, paradoxically, the superficial switch away from Marxist dogma simply resulted in wide-ranging (and largely unthinking) adherence to nationalist-statist dogma.

"A real multiplicity of views will likely emerge only after Ukrainian statehood is more secure," Dr. Kohut concluded, pointing out the ongoing threat presented by the Russian neighbor to the north.

"History without bromides"

Dr. Hrytsak, the founding director of the Institute of Historical Research (IHR) at Lviv University, was the roundtable's main attraction.

The Lviv-based maverick asserted that he was not original, but a revisionist who aimed to rescue Ukrainian history from bromides - the well-worn platitudes and truisms of national suffering, the martyrdom of Ukraine's people, and stupidity or short-sightedness of its leaders.

Instead, Dr. Hrytsak posited that the Ukrainian state-building project was one of the most successful in history, even in traditional Western terms. He argued that the changeability of Ukraine's borders and permeability of cultures that produced a multicultural society on Ukrainian territory are strengths rather than weaknesses of the Ukrainian national movement. The IHR director said that, thanks to a "miraculous glue which has held different regions of Ukraine together," the movement had created a viable modern state.

Concerning the scholarly debates in Ukraine, of which he is a vigorous participant, Dr. Hrytsak said that members of his field were largely isolated from Western thought (as opposed to Polish historians who frequently traveled to Paris and points West) and this has left its scars. He also disputed contentions that Ukraine's scholars benefited from the legacy of Marxism's accent on social history, saying that the Soviet establishment's rigid channeling or outright repression of thought left no coherent body of work in this area.

Dr. Hrytsak concluded by saying that some of the more fruitful debates currently being undertaken in his country revolve around the question of whether Hrushevsky's approach is still relevant.

Hrushevsky's relevance

This conclusion provided a neat segue to the presentation offered by Dr. Sysyn, who also heads the English-language translation project of Hrushevsky's 10-volume masterwork, "Istoria Ukrainy-Rusy."

Dr. Sysyn said the "return" (after its suppression under the Soviets) of the first three volumes of Hrushevsky's work would be crucial for a revival in the studies of Ukraine's Kyivan Rus' and medieval periods, both in Ukraine and, thanks to the work's imminent availability in English, abroad. Dr. Sysyn added that the medieval and early modern eras are likely to cause the longest and most heated debates between Ukrainian and Russian historians.

The PJUHR director also outlined the effect of the Soviet period's "noxious atmosphere" that devastated the field of history in Ukraine, and gave brief accounts of some typical scholarly careers. These accounts ranged from description of those who showed civic courage and were thus marginalized (Fedir Shevchenko), to those who were more timid but worked inside the system to produce works of relative quality (Yaroslav Isaievych), to those who now provide a benchmark for slavishly "Little Russian" defenses of the old, Great Russian order (Petro Tolochko).

Dr. Sysyn said that despite the ravages of the past 70 years, there is reason for optimism, as there are areas of research that are covered nowhere but in Ukraine. "Now I go to Ukraine to learn," Dr. Sysyn said, "not to tell them things."

Strengths and weaknesses

Next, Dr. Dyczok presented a paper, providing a "management-minded" analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats that face history as a discipline in Ukraine today. Based on her five years' experience in Ukraine (which included a teaching stint at the University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy), Dr. Dyczok said that the country faces a shortage of competent professional historians, that curriculum and quality of teaching remain distant from internationally recognized norms, and that education continues to be centrally controlled, stifling efforts at reform.

The CREES fellow added that increasing exposure (by way of the Internet and other media, as well as through exchange programs) to the international intellectual community has created opportunities for reform-minded historians, supporting new initiatives and grass-roots reform, as well as introducing new ideas for students currently studying in the field. However, Dr. Dyczok said the economic crisis is causing a lack of employment opportunities and research funding for historians, causing many to leave the field and threatening the devaluation of history as a subject for study.

Prof. Subtelny, author of the popular 1988 work "Ukraine: A History," placed current developments in the field into the broader context of international historiography. He pointed out the disillusionment with the study of history is occurring globally, and provocatively asked whether Western historiography had anything to offer for Ukraine, even suggesting the generalized confusion reigning in the West should be studiously avoided.

The York University scholar suggested that although increased travel would serve to fill in the factual gap and present a framework of intellectual trends, innovative ideas in Ukrainian historiography will come from individuals. Prof. Subtelny pointed out that the status of intellectuals in society is rapidly dropping in Ukraine, and that the field of history was being bureaucratized.

The presentations were concluded with comments by Prof. Magocsi who challenged points raised by earlier speakers. In particular, the author of "A History of Ukraine" (1996) dismissed the very notion of a "nation" as specious, and stated that "to think of these things as problems any more is to be mired in old problems."

The holder of the University of Toronto Ukrainian Studies Chair also noted that, despite Prof. Subtelny's alarms about a crisis in historiography, more students than ever are flocking to the discipline, and said the relatively large audience in attendance for the roundtable (the location was changed to accommodate a greater than expected number of listeners) was a testament to the enduring interest the field commands.

In fact, Prof. Magocsi said the problem is that too many scholars are publishing works, so that it is virtually impossible to keep up with developments in thinking.

Also present at the roundtable was Petro Jacyk, a well-known patron of Ukrainian studies, who once again demonstrated his support for new trends in Ukrainian scholarship by presenting Dr. Hrytsak with a grant to enable him to continue publishing new works on Ukrainian history in Ukraine.

| Home Page |