Ukrainian Maidan as the Last Anti-Soviet Revolution, or the Methodological Dangers of Soviet Nostalgia (Notes of an American Ukrainian Historian from Inside the Field of Russian Studies in the United States)

Abstract

SUMMARY: Sergei I. Zhuk sees the same reason as an explanation for why many American experts in Russian studies and Russian scholars oppose the Ukrainian revolution and solidarize with the foreign policy of Putin’s regime. In their historical imagination, the Ukrainian Maidan became the real last anti-Soviet revolution, which rejected and destroyed the traditionally accepted Moscow-centered and Russian-focused (in fact, Russian imperialist) approaches to an analysis of recent political, social, cultural, and economic developments in the post-Soviet space. As such, this revolution challenged nonconfrontational, conformist, and “emotionally positive” approaches to the analysis of Soviet and post-Soviet society and culture, which have become the most popular theoretical model and have dangerous epistemological and methodological consequences. Unwilling to discard their favorable historiographical concepts of the conformist late socialist Soviet past, many American and Russian scholars preferred to distance themselves from “controversial” Ukrainian developments, denying their historical validity, and associating themselves with more familiar and predictable developments in post-Soviet Russia. Thus, a particular epistemological choice necessitates a very special political decision. Тот факт, что многие американские русисты и российские исследователи заняли антиукраинскую позицию и поддержали внешнеполитический курс путинского режима, Сергей Жук объясняет общими мотивами. Они разделяют историческое воображение, в котором Майдан предстает как последняя и окончательная антисоветская революция, отвергающая и разрушающая традиционный и привычный москвацентричный и россиецентричный (по сути, российский империалистический) подход к анализу политических, социальных, культурных и экономических процессов на постсоветском пространстве. Украинская революция бросила вызов определенному типу интерпретации позднесоветского и постсоветского общества – как неконфронтационного, конформистского и эмоционально позитивного. Эта интерпретация в последнее время превратилась в наиболее влиятельную теоретическую модель, с крайне опасными эпистемологическими и методологическими последствиями. Не желая расставаться с прочно утвердившимися историографическими шаблонами о конформистском позднесоветском обществе, многие американские и российские исследователи предпочли отстраниться от “противоречивых” украинских событий, отрицая их историческую значимость и солидаризируясь со столь знакомой и предсказуемой социально-политической динамикой в постсоветской России. Таким образом, определенный эпистемологический выбор повлек за собой весьма специфическое политическое решение.

Academic freedom and intellectual dissent in post‐soviet Ukraine

“…Concepts that were developed in relation to university systems operating in Western liberal democracies are often a mismatch for experiences in post‐totalitarian societies and may produce vastly different connotations, or outright misunderstanding. Moreover, it is not easy for scholars to recognize the value of intellectual dissent given the stubborn influence of Russian propaganda in the world (Zhuk, 2014) as well as the prevailing organizational cultures that propel a “colonial complex—inferiority” (Tlostanova, 2015), “hyper‐centralisation” (Oleksiyenko, 2016) and “academic feudalism” (Oleksiyenko, 2021b) in the post‐totalitarian contexts.…”

“…In 2014, when the streets filled with millions of pro‐European protestors, thousands of whom later joined the military units fighting against Russian invaders, many Sovietophiles and nostalgic historiographers of the post‐Soviet space were utterly shocked (Zhuk, 2014). This shock was particularly palpable during the country‐wide toppling of Soviet symbols (e.g., monuments to Lenin and communist military figures).…”

“…To curtail the narrative of decolonialization/Ukrainization, the ruling elites used the media to broadcast the Russian language and narratives, while deriding the backwardness of Ukrainian culture and efforts to uncover suppressed history. The power of the Kremlin propaganda was so strong that Russophile intellectuals in the West continued to imbibe and spread the anti‐Ukrainian narratives many years later (Zhuk, 2014).…”

On Politics in Comparative and International Higher Education

“…In the context of global competition for prestige and status goods, the legitimisation of academic powers depends on the limited resources that corporations are willing to grant only to those who enhance the discourses of trades and services, promotion of techno-capacities, and competitive positioning of national universities in economic globalisation (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004). Critical thinking is a challenge when increasing numbers of scholars opt for self-censorship over risking their security and careers (Lebow 2016;O'Loughlin 2016), and reinforce their allegiances to agendas of their political and epistemological legitimizers (Zhuk 2014).…”

“…For many authors, working on critical research means facing delays in peerreview processes. Editors often complain about insufficient scholarly input, or scarcity of peer-reviewers who have the ability to properly assess criticisms of nationalism, neoimperialism, corporate assault, and ethical polysemy, especially if papers challenge any preconceived notions of epistemological groups (Zhuk 2014).…”