Georgiy Kasianov, Philipp Ther. A Laboratory of Transnational History: and Recent Ukranian Historiography. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2009. 318 S. ISBN 978-963-9776-43-2.

Reviewed by Jenny Marietta Alwart

Published on H-Soz-u-Kult (September, 2009)

On the question as to whether Ukraine has a trism and has served as a tool for the legitimiza‐ history, which Mark von Hagen discussed over 10 tion of the state since Ukrainian independence in years ago in an article focusing on the absence of 1991. academic tradition of Ukrainian history in North‐ Essays in the frst section of the book discuss ern America and Western Europe Mark von Ha‐ national vs. transnational approaches to the histo‐ gen, Does Ukraine Have a History?, in: Slavic Re‐ ry of Ukraine. Georgiy Kasianov focuses on na‐ view 54 (1995) 3, pp. 658-673. , this book presents tional historiography in his essay “ ‘Nationalized’ a clear answer: yes, it does. Or, as von Hagen for‐ History: Past Continuous, Present Perfect, Fu‐ mulates in “Revisiting the Histories of Ukraine”, ture...”. As he shows, national historiography is his contribution to this book: “If prior to Ukraine’s rooted in the mid-19th century and is linked to most recent independence in 1991 scholars in‐ historians like , one of the volved in Ukrainian studies often regarded them‐ fathers of Ukrainian historiography and president selves as embattled or besieged […], the fact of of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (1918-20). This Ukraine’s existence is harder to deny today across “frst stage” of national historiography lasted in a host of social-science and humanities disci‐ Ukraine itself until the end of World War II and plines” (p. 41). reemerged at the end of the 1980s. By the diaspo‐ This book discusses and shows transnational ra it was held over decades as a “credo” (p. 7). Af‐ approaches to Ukrainian history and presents a ter Ukraine gained independence, diaspora histo‐ wide spectre of questions that are still to be re‐ riography was transferred back to Ukraine and searched. Scholars from Ukraine, , North came to have “considerable infuence” (p. 13) on America and Western Europe attempt to give new Ukrainian historians. Today’s Ukrainian national impulses to the nationalizing historiography historiography is “supported morally, politically, which is dominant in Ukraine today and which is and materially by the state” (p. 11). mainly based on essentialisation and ethnocen- H-Net Reviews

Andreas Kappeler argues in his essay “From tive history, transfer history and histoire croisée an Ethnonational to a Multiethnic to a Transna‐ and thereby lays out approaches that could be ex‐ tional Ukrainian History” that there are “compet‐ tremely use-ful for students that want to work in ing or even exclusive national narratives and col‐ the feld of Ukrainian transnational history. lective memories pertaining to the history of The second part of the book contains empiri‐ Ukraine” (p. 54). As an example for contradictory cal research on a broad spectrum of central top‐ interpre-tations of the past he gives quotations ics. Alexei Miller and Oksana Ostapchuk’s essay is from Israeli, Soviet, Ukrainian, German and émi‐ about the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets that were gré Cana-dian encyclopedias about the Cossack used for and that result from . The battle of Ukraine being at the junction of Slavia Latina and in 1648 was, from the Ukrainian per‐ Slavia Orthodoxa. The authors describe the politi‐ spective a “glorious liberation of the Orthodox cization of the alphabet in the Habsburg Monar- from the rule of the Polish Catholic ”, but chy and the and also give insights for Eastern European “their frst great perse‐ into the “language building” of the Ukrainian SSR cution” (p. 52). From Russian and Soviet perspec‐ that, among other things, created a single orthog‐ tives Khmelnytsky has “a positive connotation as raphy. John-Paul Himka’s essay deals with the initia-tor[…] of the so-called reunion of Ukraine North American ’s collective with Russia” (p. 53). Kappeler says that “divided memory of World War II and contains an exem‐ memory is a reality in today’s Ukraine” and that plary examination of a recent documentary flm “there seems to be no common history of on this subject. Himka shows how a victimi-za‐ Ukraine” (p. 56). Referring to von Hagen, he says tion-narrative is being constructed and that that the question as to what should be consid-ered Ukrainian collaboration in mass murders against Ukrainian history, still “remains open” (p. 56). Jews is not mentioned, and calls for “reexamina‐ Should it be the national Ukrainian narrative, or tion”. Other essays are about the names of Ukrain‐ the history of the multiethnic population of the ian territories (Natalia Yakovenko), narratives whole territory from ancient times on? about Ukrainian history in the early 19th century In addition to von Hagen and Kappeler, (Oleksiy Tolochko), nationalism as well as nation‐ Philipp Ther also stresses in “The Transnational alism studies in the case of contempo-rary Para-digm of Historiography and Its Potential for Ukraine (Yaroslav Hrytsak), and the historical Ukrainian History” the importance of multiethnic‐ juncture when empires had to deal with na-tional‐ ity and multiconfessionality for Ukrainian history. ism and the beginning of modern nation-building He speaks of a “simultaneous existence of several (Roman Szporluk). national and religious movements and empires In summary, this is a commendable, inspiring or, to be even more general, cultures and soci‐ book that every historian working on Ukraine eties” (p. 82), to which an adequate approach should consider. In addition, it should serve as a would be through a transnational perspective. valuable stimulus for anyone dealing with The term transnational means for him a “new Ukraine in other felds of the humanities. Also, paradigm [that] concentrates on relations be‐ readers of the non-scientifc community who tween cultures, societies, or groups of societies want to inform themselves thoroughly about and deliberately transcends the boundaries of one Ukrainian history will fnd this book extremely culture or coun-try” (p. 86). The term should be helpful. The editors call the book an “alternative understood in its potential to “demonstrate the reader of Ukrainian history” (p. 4), but it goes fur‐ connectedness and hybridity of European cul‐ ther than that: it presents a whole array of inter‐ tures”. Ther also gives a short outline of compara‐

2 H-Net Reviews esting topics that must be understood as an invita‐ tion to work on these felds. Several repetitions of themes in diferent essays, such as “the ‘return’ of the diasporic historiography after 1991” do not re‐ duce the value of this book. Yaroslav Hrytsak gives a quite pictorial an‐ swer to the question of Ukraine’s existence and his-tory. He quotes the words of a former British ambassador in concerning the “bumblebee paradox”: “ ‘an engineer of aerodynamics will tell you that a bumblebee cannot fy, but it does’ ”; Hrytsak then adds, concerning the obvious failure of some theories of nationalism in the case of Ukraine: “If, according to some theories, Ukraine cannot and should not exist, yet in fact it can and does, then the ‘bumblebee’ probably is not to blame. Evidently, there is something wrong with the laws of aerodynamics” (p. 230).

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/

Citation: Jenny Marietta Alwart. Review of Kasianov, Georgiy; Ther, Philipp. A Laboratory of Transnational History: Ukraine and Recent Ukranian Historiography. H-Soz-u-Kult, H-Net Reviews. September, 2009.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=25774

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

3