Drakakhrust: July 27 this year celebrated 20 years of the Declaration of Sovereignty of Belarus. Although the actual independence of Belarus has acquired somewhat later (in the opinion of some — not acquired until now), yet sufficient time to speculate as to the independence of the Belarusian has come true and she the irreversible? 20 years — it is about the inter-war period of the independent existence of the Baltic countries. It was enough to gain a foothold in the national consciousness, and even after the loss of independence is the right moment reborn like a phoenix from the ashes. What about the Belarusian independence — whether it was irreversible, especially in the public mind, or is it there until all the more or less well, and the time will come ordeal — and can crumble to dust? Valentine?
Akudovich: Hypothetical, you have framed the "ordeal" is too arbitrary definition to continue to draw any conclusions. Much will depend on their nature and the measures tragichnastsi for the Belarusian society. But in any case, you can be sure that the Belarusians are not strangers to throw himself under the tanks from which side they would not move to beat our sovereignty. Historical destiny taught Belarusians refers to the alternation of the occupation as a change to the calendar season. Vtryruyuchy little can be said that the Declaration of Sovereignty of them in their bulk perceived as yet another occupation — the occupation of independence. Of course, over the years, the Belarusians are accustomed to a new type of power that has been delegated to them not outside, but inside spradukavalasya themselves. But I'm not sure that this second class of its own kind of power, the older generations of Belarusians seems radically better than those that were. By the way, if you talk about sovereignty I initially allocate attention not at liberty or independence, and power, it is because that Belarusians in their mental constitution still remain chronically individual farmers. They have almost no horizontal communication — except perhaps related. Each of them personally holds only vertical luchvy with power. And so one through the power we zaadinochvaemsya a whole. And this implies the exclusive role of government in the homogenization of the Belarusian society.
Drakakhrust: Julia, do you agree with Valentine that it is through the power of Belarusians are arranged in one piece?
Chernjavskaja: I agree with Valentin, he actually talks about the civil identification. Civil identification without affecting authorities byvae.Ya not sure that you can draw parallels between nations and a dead princess or even a phoenix, which is reborn. Each time, at every new stage in history there is ethnic identity, nation on new principles, even if they are considered old, traditional, etc.
The concept of the independence of the civil self-consciousness there is, in fact, in many ways it is this notion of self-consciousness and defines. I for his latest work has investigated many Belarusian blogs out there, this self-consciousness is exactly determined.
When in the late 80's, people involved not only in the Soviet, but many even in the Russian identity, then for the last 20 years Belarusians uneven, irregular, but practically excluded themselves from it.
It is worth recalling the results of laboratory studies "Novak", according to which 51.8% of our citizens believe Belarusians nation. 1.5% believe that Belarusians — is Russian. 1.1% — that Belarusians is Polish. 41.9% said that the Belarusians — a branch of the "Tripod Slavic nation." What it is — is unknown, because it is not specified, but it is clear and it is important that it is perceived as a multi-ethnic.
Independence — perhaps the only value a priori, that the only political value, which is declared in state and non-state media, so it is the least controversial. It is this independence — the core of civic identity. For those, of course, on who thinks that even slightly, or at least often, and hears the word "Add" it with air.
As for the "do not fall apart," then any identity is constructed, it is always fragile. The answer to your question depends on whether the society (anyone, not just Belarus) some intellectually influential group, endowed with symbolic power and influential to society.
It is also important that the independence — it's worth, and the value should be directed to some purpose. And understanding what goals our independence, that it's not just "our all," in a society not.
Drakakhrust: Andrew, our colleagues spoke about the role of government in the "kampanavanni" Belarusian independence. But recently in the newspapers published a list of former high officials — the same power that the resignation find warm places in Russia — Naumov, Ermoshin, LATYPOV, Kokorev Erin Mackiewicz and others. Following the resignation of the Belarusian government "settles" only in one direction, Russia for her — a kind of alternate. And maybe for Belarus as a whole, with all its civic identity, Russia — is a reserve airfield?
Kazakevitch: Many feel the value of independence only if all of a sudden there will be some changes. If you turn to the experience of the Baltic countries, many Lithuanian and Latvian researchers note that at the end of the 30s there were quite strong pro-Soviet sentiment, not so unanimous in all Lithuanians and Latvians believed sovereignty value for which they were willing to throw under the tanks.
It was only after losing it as a result of the Soviet occupation in the values of these peoples pyramid turned upside down, independence was seen as extremely important.
Something like we have in Belarus. Not that the idea of independence is extremely stable, but there are independent institutions: there is an independent state, the main problems associated with the power of this particular state. For part of the population — it is a value for others — just a natural phenomenon. This provides resistance to this idea, including resistance to fracture.
Drakakhrust: With your comparison, I realized that the Belarusians will appreciate its independence if it lose?
Kazakevitch: The value of independence can be for many only when the threat to its loss. At the very least, only then will we know how strong this phenomenon. But when it comes to the principle of the stability of this phenomenon, I do not see any reason to say that it is fragile, it is perceived as something external, or as some sort of occupation. Neither po
lls nor any of the other factors that do not show.
Drakakhrust: This is a pretty old Belarusian dispute — whether there was or zbudavalasya Belarusian nation with their symbols of faith, the only consciousness of history, cultural code, an understanding of its place in the world? Or is it still to come? Can you call some indicators that indicate the presence or absence of the nation?
Kazakevitch: It seems to me that the question of the existence of the Belarusian nation, society itself, the nation itself has long decided. You can recall the census and surveys, programs of political parties, intellectual debate — at different levels and in different forms of society shows that the nation has developed as a distinct community, as a set of institutions — cultural, political, economic, etc. Naturally, the Belarusian nation is not homogeneous, for example, in regard to the interpretation of the past, present, and future vision, but rather, it is a natural and normal for a modern nation.
If we take the French nation, that it includes not only ethnic French, but also immigrants from the Maghreb and Africa, and there is also no consensus than a French past, how to interpret it. Similar problems exist in Belgium and in Italy. When we begin to look closely, almost every nation in every nation are shown some discrepancies. But there is a consensus on the basic things that allows us to say that the nation exists, and, in principle, such a consensus in the Belarusian society is, starting from the name, from identification to the loyalty of existing political institutions. I mean, not loyalty to the government, namely the institutions. All of this set shows that there is a consensus that the nation exists.
Drakakhrust: Julia, Andrew painted a picture of an idyllic, it becomes clear why people are arguing, broke spears. And what it was, if everything is OK?
Chernjavskaja: To a certain extent I agree with Andrew. There are really a lot of parameters of the nation, certain Gelneram, Hobsbawm, Andersen and modern researchers. On all of these parameters have a bad situation: the formation of a unified, book printing, press, urban culture. Ethnicity may also exist in the caves, the nation — it is an urban culture and we have it. The nation as a civil entity, certain consent, of course, exist. Another thing is that most of society get it off the shelf, but like all the nations. Although one version of identity, no, I counted them in their research.
Another problem is that the nation, as zdeysnennaya dream, it must be some kind of symbols. A Belarusian nation now these characters are not secured. Those characters that are there are not divided the entire society, even more or less substantial part of it.
For example, the Uniate Church was important not so much as a religious doctrine, but as a symbol. There are two roles of religion — actual and symbolic. So when she came Uniatism — and it came hard, difficult — for us in the historical perspective, the most important thing was the language of worship and the name — "belaruskaya faith." For example, a person might not be zealously Uniates. Thus, came to him and actually cross over him. But the realization that there was "belaruskaya faith" was the most important.
The Belarusian language was the most powerful symbol on the border of 19-20 years. Now, these characters do not cover the entire culture. Similarly, do not embody it, and modern bilbardy with rye, which kalasitstsa: because they are taken from the not-too close, but not such a distant past. For part of the Belarusians symbolic role played by modern Ethnic music, Belarusian rock. But the characters that would unite people of all generations, no. The only symbolically powerful concept for the different groups is the same phrase, "the Belarusian independence." In this case, because the threats are constantly told her, and the first person in the country, and the opposition press, it is precisely its value increases in the consciousness of man: this is valuable, that we will not give up. But that is embedded in these words than they actually provided — it is thought by many.
At the same time naive to think that the symbol can be artificially engineered control or spiritual elite. By the way, modern bloggers are trying to do is very active and sometimes very talented. The symbol itself grows, it can only wait. Maybe he is maturing somewhere.
Drakakhrust: Valentine, it reminds me of your formula that freedom can not be won, it can only wait. Or do not wait.
Akudovich: I can not respond to the optimism Andrew. Kali has his own optimistic view based on the presence of institutions — from government institutions to the institutions of culture, then all we had in the Byelorussian SSR, in the Soviet era, but then all these institutions have worked on the Soviet people as a universal nation.
Second, where Andrew took, we have consolidated views on some basic principles that form the nation? I once jokingly said that we have some options historiography would be enough for half of Europe. We have representation in society apart, and sometimes in opposite directions, even geopolitical choice, I mean sympathy for the West or the East. And sociological data confirm this. We are, in a sense schizophrenics, we accumulate so much at roznavektarnyh trends for each piece of any problems, as long as it does not in any vnarmovvaetstsa gamagennasts, despite having conclusive shifts.
On the national nedaaformlenasts Belarusians and speak uncomfortable, because this has been going on we do not know how many years. And in fact Belarusians still not quite a nation, but I think we are also looking for a nation where we have it, and can not be. What I mean by this? In the world there are many different types of nations, as my colleagues have said. And the national canon, which developed the pioneers of the Belarusian Revival at the beginning of the twentieth century — the only one of them. The basis of it is known to be formed Belarusian, Belarusian culture in general, historical continuity with the Polotsk principality and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the like. There is no objection, it is a good canon, and many people took advantage of them when perafarmatovvali themselves to the national manners. But I doubt he approached the Belarusians whose attention the historical fate ruled not by cultural, historical and linguistic values, and the values of the social order, because of them depended primarily a matter of life and procreation. In short, not having a great propensity for the organization of life, drawing on the historical and linguistic-cultural values, we still appreciate the level of our natsyyanalizavanastsi this measure and therefore little to find it appropriate. If we do not rule the Belarusian language, if on the periphery are the historical and cultural values, the certain part of society, known as the national involved, said the decline of the nation or the lack of it. So maybe it is time to change the very measure?
Maybe if you change it, it will be Andrew optimism is not so unreasonable.
Drakakhrust: For some 16 years out of 20 years of independence — it's vanity, curve path, with which the country, the society in the end will come "into the open, a wide expanse", as he wrote, Midsummer, is meant to play to a direct and in a sense, normal. So it will be? More precisely, what the range of variation of the current "nenarmalnastsi" (in quotation marks) to complete normality for tomorrow? And, I'm not referring to political factors (the same Baltic countries in the interwar period, there were enough modes
authoritarian), but the quality, content and independence of the nation? What they can become significant, dramatically different?
Chernjavskaja: The Nation — this is a process, not the result. If we decide that we have formed a nation, it would indicate that we have turned into a monument to themselves. History knows no ifs. Criteria narmalnastsi and nenarmalnastsi always questionable, as are personal and group content. Where is the starting point?
I'm not quite pesymistka, but not completely optimist. If we talk about whether there is a Belarusian identity, then yes, there is, but other characteristics, it is necessary for self-awareness, the Belarusians as a nation is not enough. We have a tremendous group razroznenasts. And not only among intellectuals and the "people."
We are still people small group. It is normal for the village, but life is already urban. And this is perhaps one of the major obstacles of modern nation building. A nation — a "long" social connections, and we are in a rural short — dating, personal relationships. We isolated — I mean the group. This applies not only intellectuals, but any environment. We are not only isolated from the pan-European processes, but also from each other. Here I am personally to this transmission was not familiar with Andrew, and Valentin met recently, although the interests of reading his work.
We prefer life in his lyakune: and at the country level and at the level of groups. We have a strong temptation to "closed door", fear of difference, neadnarodnastsi, the differences of the new. A nation — a phenomenon fundamentally geteranomnaya and open. We have a different idea: the better we are, in a warm home fossa after serving.
In addition, there is a strong tendency to relate the history of Belarus from any one period. Moreover, there is no public consensus: for some it is ON, for others it is the Byelorussian SSR, others gray pagan antiquity, when "the people" and "kind" were identified. From this point of view, we love to talk about what we have special blood, as it differs from the blood of Russian, Polish and others, and that we face genotype.
Finally, the temptation arhaizatsyi — a vision of the country in a nostalgic tones like something lost that must be repaid. We have little visions of the future.
All these and other reasons prevented the release of "the open, on the wide expanse."
Kazakevitch: First, I do not agree that the existence of the Byelorussian SSR, the existence of the Belarusian culture and literature in the Soviet times played exclusively on the creation of a universal Soviet identity. Obviously not, and the Byelorussian SSR was contradictory phenomenon — part of its institutions worked to preserve the ethnic and cultural identity, and some — to create a general Soviet identity.
Second, regarding the thesis of historiography. In fact, they have not so much, there are examples of countries where there are many more. It is also a question of intellectual level, and historiography may be 15, and the history of ideas at the level of society — only 2. And I would not exaggerate the differences between the various versions of the story, when we talk about the vast majority of the population of Belarus. It is in the intellectual concepts, or just ON or only Belorussian, and for most people there and then, and more. That's what I mean when I talk about consensus. This negamagennaya phenomenon, but it negamagennaya in any country.
As geopolitical orientations, it basically opportunistic phenomenon, it may change for several years under the influence of the media. If there is a public debate about the foreign policy, it does not question the existence of the society, on the contrary, it shows that the company has an internal communication.
The last item for the elite, not the one who designed the nation that the Belarusian population wanted. Obviously, the construction of ethno-cultural nation in the early twentieth century, it was the only way to formulate the Belarusian nation, because it was the standard for the entire region. In order to create some kind of community, you need to rely on the joint institutions. Of course, in the beginning of the twentieth century, the Belarusians such institutions could be just the language and ethnic culture. On the basis of all other institutions — the church, the state, it would be no longer the Belarusian nation, Russia can, can some other.
The fundamental change has occurred in the 90-91 years, as even in contrast to the previous period, there was the Belarusian state and this institution can identify with. Is a gradual transition from ethno-cultural understanding of the Belarusian nation for political or politico-cultural, depending on which direction we consider intelligent.
As for the future, I would not interpret the history of Belarus the last 16 or 20 years, as nenarmalnasts. Indeed, there has been a lot of negative phenomena in politics, and culture, but happened very significant evolution that has demonstrated the stability of the many cultural and political institutions. If you compare the slogans under which Lukashenko came to power, and that power is updated in a box now, it is clear that won the national project, and not the one under which, say, a referendum was held in 1995.
The only thing that the authoritarian regime significantly restrain some of the processes, and I spoke with talked about the marriage of internal communication. Indeed, almost frozen communication between the state and private spheres, between the supporters of the regime and the Belarusian nationalists. If there was a different political situation, this communication would occur more densely, and the formulation of new national symbols would occur faster.
But if independence is preserved if it is not to be questioned, all the problems that remain, to some extent be resolved.
It is not that everything is homogeneous — understanding the history of our assessment, a vision of the future. But the level of consensus, the level of communication will be higher. And it does not matter to the elites and intellectuals, I would regard it as a natural social process.
Akudovich: Those who wait on the future of the Renaissance belarushchyny — almost certainly not a wait. Of course, many of the repressed today to revive the national values. Completely and even-odd heritage back — if only because it is functionally suitable for developing tourism, and beautifully diversify the country's image. For the same reason the monuments of famous heroes of our past flooded area cities and towns.
Slightly recovers and language, although functionally it is almost not go beyond local discourses. However, no national values and ideas will organize the life of Belarusians in the future. And the values and ideas of the social order to increase the quantity and quality of life. However, just this, and no struggle for national ideals, Belarusians and doing all their previous history.
Needless to say, the prospect of a boring look. But we are by nature not too gay people.