Theorizing post-soviet vs eastern nationalism : implications and alternatives

Abstract

One of the main issues of nationalism studies throughout its history has been the search for the justified position of the academic discourse on nationality with regards to the reality it attempts to rationally explain. Not only was it difficult to abandon the overtly ideological reasoning of the Fichtean kind, but it was and remains to be almost impossible to completely avoid implicit conformity to the public opinion dictated by an agenda formed by key relevant events. In the history of contemporary nationalism studies, one can see occasional rise of condemnation of nationalism prompted by atrocities like those committed in the ex-Yugoslavia or, adversely, cautious attempts of rehabilitation inspired by events like “velvet revolutions”, both lines of reasoning posed against the background of mild critical disapproval of nationalism as such. It seems obvious that for any social science its active distortion of and by the reality it studies is as ideological as tacit conformity to it. However, it remains unclear to what extent the objectivity, or constant self-reflection striving towards objectivity, is impaired in the case of neither distortion nor conformity, but mere confirmation of reality under scrutiny instead of constructing research subject following the immanent logic of the academic field. In this article we analyze a case of such confirmation and its implications regarding the two alternative ways of studying nationalism in a certain geographical part of the world.

Kuo objektyvesnės, metodologiškai pateisinamos terminologijos vartojimas yra nuolatinis nacionalizmo studijų iššūkis. Straipsnyje analizuojamas ir lyginamas dviejų sąvokų – „posovietinis“ ir „rytietiškasis“ – euristinis potencialas empiriniuose nacionalizmo tyrimuose. Teigiama, jog pirmoji sąvoka – „posovietinis nacionalizmas“ – neturi aiškaus empirinio turinio, kadangi buvusios Sovietų Sąjungos respublikos vystėsi gana skirtingomis kryptimis, nacionalizmo aspektu jų nesieja pastebimi vertybiniai ir viešosios erdvės panašumai. „Rytų nacionalizmas“ akademiniame diskurse istoriškai įgavo ganėtinai neigiamą konotaciją, jam priskiriamas etninis pagrindas (kaip priešprieša pilietiniam „Vakarų“ nacionalizmui), primordializmo, iracionalumo atspalvis. Kaip galimos alternatyvios sąvokos nacionalizmui Rytų Europoje konceptualizuoti yra siūlomi subnacionalinis ir „europietiškasis“ nacionalizmai, pastarąja platesne sąvoka siekiant pabrėžti nacionalizmo fenomeno Rytų ir Vakarų Europoje panašumą.