2/2003 Beyond the Borders: Political and Economic Migrations, Internal and External Exile

О важности места и опасностях самоузнавания

Андрий Заярнюк

2/2003

Публикуется на английском.

SUMMARY:

В своем эссе А. Заярнюк рассматривает проблему влияния украинской диаспоры и подпитываемой ею профессиональной академической среды на институциональные и интеллектуальные перемены в исторической науке постсоветской Украины. Автор раскрывает положение украинистики в контексте восточноевропейских исследований в североамериканской академической среде, сравнивает украинский случай модернизации историографии через контакты с западным академическим миром с российским случаем, анализирует проблему властных отношений во взаимосвязях между историками независимой Украины и учеными украинской диаспоры и рассматривает парадокс историографическо-методологического “унисона” между национализирующейся историографией Украины и национальной оптикой исторических исследований в диаспорной историографии.

Доступ

Оформите подписку, чтобы получить полный доступ к текстам

Оформить подписку

Read in English

Сноски

1.See, for example, his seminal work: Yaroslav Hrytsak. Narys istoriï Ukraïny: formuvannia modernoï ukraïns’koï natsiï XIX-XX st. Kyïv, 1996.↩

2.See, for example, numerous panel discussions during the Fifth World Congress of the International Association of Ukrainian Studies (Chernivtsi, August 2002).↩

3.For this see Michael D. Kennedy. Cultural Formations of Post-Communism: Emancipation, Transition, Nation and War. Minneapolis, 2002.↩

4.For one of the most recent statements of this kind see Mykola Riabchuk. Ia ne nazyvaiu sebe politolohom… // Suchasnist’. 2003. Kviten’. P. 97.↩

5.By these I do not mean the boom in popular pseudo-theories on the origin of Ukrainians, “Veles book” and so on, but more respectable attempts to create a set of theories and theorists of our own. For example, there are claims that Ol’herd (Ippolit) Bochkovs’kyi’s work in the 1920s-1930s anticipated all the most important arguments of Miroslav Hroch and Ernest Gellner.↩

6.As an example of this shift see Stephen Kotkin. 1991 and the Russian Revolution: Sources, Conceptual Categories, Analytical Frameworks // Journal of Modern History. Vol.70. No. 2. Pp. 387. He says that the history of Russian revolution becomes “a mirror in which various elements of the modernity found outside the USSR are displayed in alternately undeveloped, exaggerated, and familiar forms.”↩

7.I am borrowing this phrase from Taras Kuzio and Paul D’Anieri (Eds.). Dilemmas of State-Led Nation Building in Ukraine. Wesport, CT, London, 2002.↩

8.Yaroslav Hrytsak. Ihry z kocherhoiu: vser’ioz i po-ukraïns’ky // Krytyka. 2003. Nos.1-2.↩

9.Arif Dirlik. Modernity as History: Post-Revolutionary China, Globalization and the Question of Modernity // Social History. 2002. Vol. 27. No.1. P. 39.↩

10.Markus Reisenleitner. Slashing postcolonial studies, or: why this debate still bothers me. A response to Clemens Ruthner’s ‘K. und K. ‘Kolonialismus’ als Befund, Befindliechkeit und Metapher” // Spaces of Identity. 2003. Vol. 3. No. ½.↩

11.“Minority” here is used in the sense of “experiences of the past that always have to be assigned to an ‘inferior’ or ‘marginal’ position as they are translated into the academic historian’s language.” Dipesh Chakrabarty. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton, 2000. P. 101.↩

12.Ranajit Guha. Projects for Our Times and Their Convergence // Ileana Rodríguez (Ed.). The Latin American Subaltern Studies Reader. Durham and London, 2001. P. 37.↩

13.Ibid. P. 41.↩

Примечания

[1]See, for example, his seminal work: Yaroslav Hrytsak. Narys istoriï Ukraïny: formuvannia modernoï ukraïns’koï natsiï XIX-XX st. Kyïv, 1996.

[2]See, for example, numerous panel discussions during the Fifth World Congress of the International Association of Ukrainian Studies (Chernivtsi, August 2002).

[3]For this see Michael D. Kennedy. Cultural Formations of Post-Communism: Emancipation, Transition, Nation and War. Minneapolis, 2002.

[4]For one of the most recent statements of this kind see Mykola Riabchuk. Ia ne nazyvaiu sebe politolohom… // Suchasnist’. 2003. Kviten’. P. 97.

[5]By these I do not mean the boom in popular pseudo-theories on the origin of Ukrainians, “Veles book” and so on, but more respectable attempts to create a set of theories and theorists of our own. For example, there are claims that Ol’herd (Ippolit) Bochkovs’kyi’s work in the 1920s-1930s anticipated all the most important arguments of Miroslav Hroch and Ernest Gellner.

[6]As an example of this shift see Stephen Kotkin. 1991 and the Russian Revolution: Sources, Conceptual Categories, Analytical Frameworks // Journal of Modern History. Vol.70. No. 2. Pp. 387. He says that the history of Russian revolution becomes “a mirror in which various elements of the modernity found outside the USSR are displayed in alternately undeveloped, exaggerated, and familiar forms.”

[7]I am borrowing this phrase from Taras Kuzio and Paul D’Anieri (Eds.). Dilemmas of State-Led Nation Building in Ukraine. Wesport, CT, London, 2002.

Ab Imperio

Ab Imperio

О важности места и опасностях самоузнавания

Примечания