Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T18:51:01.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Questioning the Hegemony of the Nation State in Belarus: Production of Intellectual Discourses as Production of Resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Alexander Pershai
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Katherine Verdery writes that “[i]n the modern period, nation has become a potent symbol and basis of classification within an international system of nation states”; in turn, nationalism “is a political utilization of the symbol nation through discourse and political activity, as well as the sentiment that draws people into responding to this symbol's use.” However, the idea of “nation state” and its functioning can be seen as a part of the larger hegemonic constructions that operate on the level of “common” beliefs that legitimize existing social hierarchies and divisions of economic resources, and on the level of relationships between states and nations.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , November 2006 , pp. 623 - 635
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Association for the Study of Nationalities 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Katherine Verdery, “Whither ‘Nation’ and ‘Nationalism‘?,” Daedalus, Vol. 122, No. 3, 1993, p. 38.Google Scholar

2. The author of this paper speaks from a personal perspective on the intellectual nationalist debate in Belarus. Born, raised and educated in Minsk, the capital city of Belarus, I identify with urban intelligentsia; at the same time, I completed my further education abroad, and thus became aware of how the reconstitution of Belarusian national identity is situated within its larger geo-political context. Inevitably, my critical perspective here reflects the particular, intimate dynamics between my identities and the problematic formation that is Belarusian nationality.Google Scholar

3. See insights into this metaphor in Elena Gapova, “Kroia kraia Evropy,” in Elena Gapova, ed., Zhenshchiny na kraiu Evropy (Minsk: EGU, 2003), pp. 7–11. Here and onwards author's translation from Belarusian and Russian.Google Scholar

4. See, for example, David Marples, Belarus: A Denationalized Nation (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1999), pp. ix-x; Jan Zaprudnik, Belarus: At a Crossroads of History (Boulder, San Francisco and Oxford: Westview Press, 1993), pp. 229–245.Google Scholar

5. See for details: Elena Gapova, “The Nation in Between; or, Why Intellectuals Do Things with Words,” in Sibelan Forrester, Magdalena J. Zaborovska and Elena Gapova, eds, Over the Wall/After the Wall: Post Communist Cultures through a Western Gaze (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2004), pp. 65–79; Gapova, Elena, “Bielorusskie intellektualy: mezhdu klassom i natsiyei?,” Topos, Vol. 1, No. 10, 2005, available online at <http://belintellectuals.com/discussions/?id=44> (accessed 12 June 2006).Google Scholar

6. Elena Gapova, “The Nation in Between,” p. 70.Google Scholar

7. Elena Gapova, “On Nation, Gender, and Class Formation in Belarus … and Elsewhere in the Post-Soviet World,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 30, No. 4, 2002, pp. 639–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. “The Great Patriotic War” stands for “World War II” in the territory of former Soviet countries, including Belarus, which was under the Nazi occupation for about three years, between June 1941 and July 1944.Google Scholar

9. See, for example, Nechama Tec's publications on the Jewish partisan movement in Belarus, in particular, her essay “U partisan: sud'ba zhenshchin,” published only in 2003 in an alternative collection on women's history in Belarus. Tec mentions cases where the Soviet partisans of the Belarusian or Slavic origin raped Jewish women who ran to the forest in afford to escape the Jewish ghettoes in the cities. This vision of war as Belarus' un-glorious past is highly censored by the government and political propaganda. Nechama Tec, “U partisan: sud'ba zhenshchin,” in Elena Gapova, ed., Zhenshchiny na kraiu Evropy (Minsk: EGU, 2003), pp. 168–187. See also Tec, Nechama, Defiance: The Belski Partizans (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).Google Scholar

10. Elena Gapova, “On Nation, Gender, and Class Formation,” pp. 646–647.Google Scholar

11. The discovery of Kurapaty, the place near Minsk where Stalinist mass murder occurred in 1939, is crucial for the re-evaluation of the Soviet past in Belarus. See, for example, Pazniak, Z. S., Kryvaltsevich, M. M. and Iou, A. V. Kurapaty: [spravazdacha ab arkhealahichnykh raskopkakh (ekshumatsyi) pakhavanniau va urochyshchy Kurapaty (Brod), Minskaha raiona, Baraulianskaha selsaveta] (Miensk, NY: Belaruski instytut navuki i mastatstva, 1993). See also corresponding sections in Jan Zaprudnik, op. cit., pp. 131–132; David Marples, op. cit., pp. 54–58.Google Scholar

12. David Marples, op. cit., pp. 50–52.Google Scholar

13. Graham Smith, Vivien Law, Andrew Wilson, Annette Bohr and Edward Allworth, Nation-Building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identities (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 46.Google Scholar

14. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983), p. 104.Google Scholar

15. Ibid., pp. 41–42, 66–67, 106–108, 122–123, and elsewhere.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., p. 122.Google Scholar

17. See Hegel, G. W. Friedrich, “The Philosophy of History,” in Vincent P. Pecora, ed., Nations and Identities: Classic Readings (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), pp. 128–131; Wilhelm von Humbolt, “The Character of Languages,” in Linguistic Variability and Intellectual Development (Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press, 1971), pp. 126–159, and elsewhere.Google Scholar

18. Aleksandr Adamiants, “Intellektualy i ih yazyk (Otvet Vitaliyu Silitskomu),” <http://belintellectuals.com/community/community.php?id=35> (accessed 12 June 2006).+(accessed+12+June+2006).>Google Scholar

19. On the controversy surrounding the language question in Belarus, see Ioffe, Grigory, “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language,” Europa-Asia Studies, Vol. 55, No. 7, 2003, pp. 1009–1047; Alexandra Goujon, “Language, Nationalism, and Populism in Belarus,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. 27, No. 4, 1999, pp. 661–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. Here the “choice of languages” does not mean that Belarusian citizens can actually choose to speak or not to speak, for example, Polish. Rather, it implies that a number of languages are spoken in the country. In this essay, I do not discuss the reasons why particular languages are available, and at times, required for Belarusians; it is more important to stress common multilingualism of the people of Belarus.Google Scholar

21. Elena Gapova, “The Nation in Between,” pp. 68–70. On trasyanka, see also: Alexandra Goujon, op. cit., p. 668; Grigory Ioffe, op. cit., pp. 1014–1017.Google Scholar

22. Elena Gapova, “Belorusskie intellektualy.”Google Scholar

23. Ibid. Google Scholar

24. Elena Gapova, “O politicheskoi ekonomii ‘natsionalnogo yazyka’ v Belarusi,” Ab Imperio, No. 3, 2005, <http://abimperio.net/scgi-bin/aishow.pl?idlang=2&state=shown&idnumb=46> (accessed 12 June 2006).+(accessed+12+June+2006).>Google Scholar

25. Elena Gapova, “Belorusskie intellektualy.”Google Scholar

26. Here I refer to the discussion of Gapova's essay “Belorusskie intellektualy: mezhdu klassom i natsiyei” on a popular website for the Belarusian intellectuals; see <http://belintellectuals.com/discussions/comments.php?num=0&id=44> (accessed 12 June 2006). At points, this discussion became too personal and offensive towards Gapova and some postings can be qualified as hysterical rather than intellectual. Gapova is merely one of a few critical voices in the Belarusian intellectual nationalist discourse. Instead of vocalizing the issues of “language and democracy in Belarus,” as is expected in the hegemonic intellectual discourse where the status of the intellectuals remains unquestioned, Gapova addresses and deconstructs the links between “nationalist messages” and the group that produces them in relation to the other social strata of contemporary Belarus. Therefore, at times Gapova's scholarship is (mis)interpreted as a threat: “Your [Gapova's] goal is simple: You want to reduce the status of the local [intellectual] community in order to create your own intellectual capital.” See discussion posting dated from 13 July 2005: 18:26 <http://belintellectuals.com/discussions/comments.php?num=0&id=44> (accessed 12 June 2006). Such personal attacks on Gapova's work rise from two equally influential backgrounds: her criticism of the nationalist discourse in Belarus and her feminist perspective. Gapova's scholarship is often associated with feminism and gender studies, neither of which is, as yet, fully recognized by the Belarusian scholarly community. The political association of feminism and gender studies with, and their (hypothetical) financial support from, the West are typical reasons cited for the scorn towards these fields and the scholars engaged in them. At the same time, the post-Soviet “traditional” disciplinary paradigm is incompatible with gender/feminist theory which operates on Western scholarly framework. The dialogue between Belarusian and Western academies is thwarted a priori because the common theoretical frameworks and points of reference are missing. On the problems surrounding institutialization of gender studies in the former Soviet countries, see, for example: Serguei Oushakine, “Chelovek roda on: futliary muzhestvennosti,” Voprosy filosofii, Vol. 7, 2005, pp. 34–56; Irina Zherebkina et al., “Problemy i perspektivy razvitiya gendernykh issledovaniy v byvshem SSSR,” Gendernyie issledovaniya, Vol. 5, 2000, pp. 8–42.+(accessed+12+June+2006).+At+points,+this+discussion+became+too+personal+and+offensive+towards+Gapova+and+some+postings+can+be+qualified+as+hysterical+rather+than+intellectual.+Gapova+is+merely+one+of+a+few+critical+voices+in+the+Belarusian+intellectual+nationalist+discourse.+Instead+of+vocalizing+the+issues+of+“language+and+democracy+in+Belarus,”+as+is+expected+in+the+hegemonic+intellectual+discourse+where+the+status+of+the+intellectuals+remains+unquestioned,+Gapova+addresses+and+deconstructs+the+links+between+“nationalist+messages”+and+the+group+that+produces+them+in+relation+to+the+other+social+strata+of+contemporary+Belarus.+Therefore,+at+times+Gapova's+scholarship+is+(mis)interpreted+as+a+threat:+“Your+[Gapova's]+goal+is+simple:+You+want+to+reduce+the+status+of+the+local+[intellectual]+community+in+order+to+create+your+own+intellectual+capital.”+See+discussion+posting+dated+from+13+July+2005:+18:26++(accessed+12+June+2006).+Such+personal+attacks+on+Gapova's+work+rise+from+two+equally+influential+backgrounds:+her+criticism+of+the+nationalist+discourse+in+Belarus+and+her+feminist+perspective.+Gapova's+scholarship+is+often+associated+with+feminism+and+gender+studies,+neither+of+which+is,+as+yet,+fully+recognized+by+the+Belarusian+scholarly+community.+The+political+association+of+feminism+and+gender+studies+with,+and+their+(hypothetical)+financial+support+from,+the+West+are+typical+reasons+cited+for+the+scorn+towards+these+fields+and+the+scholars+engaged+in+them.+At+the+same+time,+the+post-Soviet+“traditional”+disciplinary+paradigm+is+incompatible+with+gender/feminist+theory+which+operates+on+Western+scholarly+framework.+The+dialogue+between+Belarusian+and+Western+academies+is+thwarted+a+priori+because+the+common+theoretical+frameworks+and+points+of+reference+are+missing.+On+the+problems+surrounding+institutialization+of+gender+studies+in+the+former+Soviet+countries,+see,+for+example:+Serguei+Oushakine,+“Chelovek+roda+on:+futliary+muzhestvennosti,”+Voprosy+filosofii,+Vol.+7,+2005,+pp.+34–56;+Irina+Zherebkina+et+al.,+“Problemy+i+perspektivy+razvitiya+gendernykh+issledovaniy+v+byvshem+SSSR,”+Gendernyie+issledovaniya,+Vol.+5,+2000,+pp.+8–42.>Google Scholar

27. Olga Shparaga, discussion posting dated from 27 June 2005: 03:30, <http://belintellectuals.com/discussions/comments.php?num=0&id=44> (accessed 12 June 2006).+(accessed+12+June+2006).>Google Scholar

28. Frants Korzun, discussion posting dated from 1 July 2005: 12:47, <http://belintellectuals.com/discussions/comments.php?num=0&id=44> (accessed 12 June 2006).+(accessed+12+June+2006).>Google Scholar

29. Elena Gapova, discussion postings dated from 3 July 2005: 07:25 and 19 July 2005: 01:54, <http://belintellectuals.com/discussions/comments.php?num=0&id=44> (accessed 12 June 2006).+(accessed+12+June+2006).>Google Scholar

30. Benedict Anderson, op. cit., p. 102.Google Scholar

31. On different versions of the Belarusian language, see Endnote No. 30 in Elena Gapova, “The Nation in Between,” pp. 86–87.Google Scholar

32. Lyavon, discussion posting dated from 27 June 2005: 02:27, <http://belintellectuals.com/discussions/comments.php?num=0&id=44> (accessed 12 June 2006).+(accessed+12+June+2006).>Google Scholar

33. Grigory Ioffe, op. cit., pp. 1024–1025.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., p. 1022.Google Scholar

35. Benedict Anderson, op. cit., p. 31.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., p. 14.Google Scholar

37. Giuseppe Vacca, “Intellectuals and Marxist Theory of the State,” in Anne Showstack Sassoon, ed., Approaches to Gramsci (London: Writers and Readers, 1982), p. 41.Google Scholar

38. Antonio Gramsci, The Prison Note Books (New York: International Publishers, 1971), p. 5.Google Scholar

39. Katherine Verdery, op. cit., p. 38.Google Scholar