Fedinec Cs., Csernicskó I.: (Re)conceptualization of Memory in Ukraine after the Revolution of Dignity. CENTRAL EUROPEAN PAPERS 2017/1. (original) (raw)

(Re)conceptualization of Memory in Ukraine after the Revolution of Dignity

Central European Papers, 2017

In Ukraine, having arrived at a critical stage of its history, three areas can be highlighted at the level of legislation during the struggle for the way forward since the end of 2013: the language issue, the constitutional process, and the efforts to eliminate the Soviet legacy. The subject of our analysis is the four laws belonging to the 2015 legislative package on decommunization, with an outlook to the broader context, as well. The four laws in question decide about who are heroes and who are enemies in history; what Ukraine's relationship is with World War II, as well as with the Communist and Nazi regimes. The laws point out fi rmly and excluding any further debate the primacy of the country's independence over all else, and the protection of the ideal of independence by any means concerning both the past and the present. The laws prescribe impeachment as a sanction for denying their contents. This story-hot memory infl uenced by politics-will be summarized for the period of 2015-2016.

Memory politics in contemporary Ukraine: Reflections from the postcolonial perspective

Memory Studies, 2017

Reporting from the events of the so-called ‘Euro-revolution’ in Ukraine 2013–2014, the Western media were prompt to point out the excessive use of national symbols, including those connected with the memory of the Ukrainian nationalist organizations ‘OUN’ and ‘UPA’, which for some periods of time had cooperated with Nazi Germany and were involved in the killing of civilians. By using a postcolonial perspective, the article aims to explain this phenomenon, as well as a number of other elements of the politics of memory in contemporary Ukraine, such as the so-called ‘Decommunization Laws’ adopted in 2015. Special attention is paid to Frantz Fanon’s idea of ‘anticolonial nationalism’ and Homi Bhabha’s idea of hybridity and their realization in Ukraine.

The Politics of Memory in Ukraine in 2014: Removal of the Soviet Cultural Legacy and Euromaidan Commemorations

The year 2014 brought great social and cultural disruptions to Ukraine. Euromaidan, the annexation of Crimea, and war in the Donbas led to significant social and political changes, with crucial transformations in Ukrainian historical memory playing an important role in them. Public appeals to history accompanied most political processes in 2014 and were always used for self-legitimization by both sides of the conflict. Changes in attitude towards the Soviet cultural and historical legacy and the formation of a new memory about Euromaidan (“the invention of tradition”) might be considered as a major shift in this field. The aim of this article is to observe and analyze major trends of the politics of memory in Ukraine in 2014 and early 2015.

Holodomor: The Politics of Memory and Political Infighting in Contemporary Ukraine, Harriman Review, vol.16, no.2 (November 2008), pp.3-9.

The official politics of memory in Ukraine since 1991 have been as ambiguous and inconsistent as the politics of officialdom in general, both domestically and internationally. This ambiguity stems from the hybrid nature of the post-Soviet regime that emerged from the compromise between the former ideological rivals (“national democrats” and “sovereign communists”), but also reflects the hybrid and highly ambivalent nature of Ukrainian postcolonial and post-totalitarian society. Since 1991, official politics, including the politics of memory, had been masterminded in such a way so as to not only exploit the societal ambivalence inherited from the past, but also to preserve and effectively intensify it for the future.

Memory Crash. Politics of History in and around Ukraine, 1980s - 2010s

Memory Crash. Politics of History in and around Ukraine, 1980s - 2010s, 2022

This account of historical politics in Ukraine, framed in a broader European context, shows how social, political, and cultural groups have used and misused the past from the final years of the Soviet Union to 2020. Georgiy Kasianov details practices relating to history and memory by a variety of actors, including state institutions, non-governmental organizations, political parties, historians, and local governments. He identifies the main political purposes of these practices in the construction of nation and identity, struggles for power, warfare, and international relations. Kasianov considers the Ukrainian case in the context of a global increase in the politics of history and memory, with particular emphasis on a distinctive East-European variety. He pays special attention to the use and abuse of history in relations between Ukraine, Russia, and Poland.

“Get away from Moscow!”: Main Trends of Ukraine’s Politics of Memory during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Russia’s War in Ukraine: Implications for the Politics of History in Central and Eastern Europe, 2023

Russia launched against Ukraine not only a conventional war but also a war in the sphere of historical memory. Russian historical politics threatens the existence of the Ukrainian people, denies the viability of their state, and asserts that Ukrainian history is inseparable from the history of Russia. Ukraine is forced to defend its historical memory, which has become an object of strict control by the state. This control includes legislative regulation of history, promotion of heroism, utilisation of past tragedies and traumas, and efforts to destroy everything related to the memory of the adversary, such as monuments, toponyms, and literature. The politics of memory of Ukraine can be summarised by the slogan “Get away from Moscow!”, which was used by the writer Mykola Khvylovy in literary discussion in the 1920s. The target of such politics is the establishment of a unified vision of the past; the destruction of all historical and cultural ties with Russia, denial and prohibition (potentially even leading to criminal liability) of Russian and Soviet historical narratives; and mental mobilisation of all Ukrainians around the anti-colonial, anti-communist, conservative, nationalist historical narrative, linked to the discourse of the “thousand-year” national liberation struggle against the “eternal” enemy – Russia.

Nationalist Memory Narratives and the Politics of History in Ukraine since the 1990s

Nationalist Memory Narratives and the Politics of History in Ukraine since the 1990s, 2023

This essay focuses on analyzing the history of the evolution of the nationalist memory narrative in recent memory politics in Ukraine. It observes the political rehabilitation of the radical nationalist movement and its leaders and organizations, followed by public recognition and glorification, and the evolution of this memory narrative since the beginning of the 1990s from local memory to the centerpiece of the state politics of memory. This article examines the memorialization and commemoration of the nationalist movement at regional and national levels (sites of memory, memorial dates, renaming of topographical objects, movies, TV series, etc.), policies aimed at the promotion of the nationalist historical myth, political controversies, roles of major actors, public debates on these issues, societal responses, and international disputes.

Delegitimizing the Communist Past and Building a New Sense of Community: the Politics of Transitional Justice and Memory in Ukraine

International Journal for History, Culture and Modernity, 7, p. 372–405, 2019

This article studies the way in which the crimes of the communist regime have been dealt with since the late Soviet period, and the way the legacies of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) have been subject to reevaluation. During the Soviet period, policies such as the rehabilitation of victims of mass repression were initiated from above, while the documentation of human rights violations and revelations of mass repressions and death by hunger were undertaken by the dissident movement from below. Since the late perestroika period, the focus on the crimes of the communist regime has been used by the opposition in Ukraine in the struggle for the restitution of group rights. Affirmative action concerning the Ukrainian language, culture and history was seen as the restoration of historical justice. This resulted most recently in the adoption of so-called ‘decommunization’ laws, which has been a controversial and contested issue in Ukraine. The article discusses the factors that shaped the way Ukraine has handled the communist past and constructed new narratives, and reflects on the reason why a ‘politics of regret’ has not resonated yet with political actors involved in the state legitimization struggle.

Reclaiming the Past, Confronting the Past: OUN-UPA Memory Politics and Nation-Building in Ukraine (1991-2016), in: War and Memory in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, ed. Julie Fedor, Markku Kangaspuro, Jussi Lassila, and Tatiana Zhurzhenko, Palgrave Macmillan Memory Studies, 2017.