International congresses in Scandinavia reveal trends in academia (CONCLUSION) (09/24/00)

International congresses in Scandinavia reveal trends in academia

by Dr. Frank Sysyn

CONCLUSION

TORONTO - In contrast to the relatively recent institution of the World Congress for Central and Eastern European Studies (WCCEES), the International Congress of Historical Sciences celebrated its centennial this year in Oslo. Organized by the International Committee of Historical Sciences, which is composed of 56 national committees as well as affiliated international commissions and internal commissions, the International Congress of Historical Sciences is a heavily bureaucratized organization in which most sessions are organized by invitation. Panels are many fewer than at the WCCEES: seven on the conference's themes, 20 on specialized topics and 25 roundtables.

In addition, 23 affiliated organizations, such as the International Association for Byzantine Studies, the International Commission on Ecclesiastical History, the International Commission for Slavic Studies and the International Commission for the Study of Jewish History, held sessions, as did 16 internal committees, including the International Commission on Latin Paleography, the Commission for the Conservation and Publication of Contemporary Sources, the International Commission on the History of the Russian Revolution. Twelve workshops, predominantly on regions, including Eastern Europe, and on technology were held. Still, the number of presentations was fewer than at the congress in Tampere, Finland, though the number of participants was greater, with at least 3,000 attending.

Organizers pointed out that the first congress to be organized under the auspices of the International Committee of Historical Sciences (ICHS) also was held in Oslo, in 1928. That congress was of particular importance for Ukrainian historians because Ukraine was admitted to the committee at that congress. A Soviet delegation of 11 members included two Ukrainians, Matvii Iavorsky and Volodymyr Iurynets. Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Myhkailo Slabchenko and Oleksander Fedorovsky were scheduled to attend but in the end the Soviet authorities did not permit them to go abroad as part of the delegation.

In writing his account of the congress, the Marxist historian Iavorsky emphasized the importance of international congresses for social sciences and humanities in Ukraine. Although underlining the Marxist component of these studies, he also stressed their Ukrainian nature. He commented that while Russian scholars could build on old contacts abroad and had maintained relations after the revolution, Ukrainian scholars came from what was still a terra incognita. He insisted that Ukrainian scholarship had much of which it could be proud to show in the West and expressed the hope that the Oslo congress would not be an isolated incident in establishing contacts, but would be a beginning of normal international scholarly relations for Ukrainian scholars. Within three years he was arrested and exiled, and then was executed in 1937.

Soviet Ukraine's entry into international scholarship turned out to be precisely that: an isolated incident. When the next congress was held in Warsaw in 1933, no participants from Soviet Ukraine had their papers published in the congress resumes, though Petr Preobrazhensky's from Russia was included. The six specialists in Ukrainian studies who were announced to deliver papers, Iaroslav Pasternak, Myron Korduba, Mykola Chubatyi, the Rev. Iosafat Skruten, Ilarion Sventsitsky and Roman Zubyk, were from outside the USSR, with the large number furthered by the close proximity of Western Ukraine.

In 1995 at the 18th Historical Congress in Montreal, Ukraine's membership was reactivated. The Ukrainian Studies Fund at Havard paid the initial fee and the Petro Jacyk Educational Foundation has been paying Ukraine's dues to the present. Iaroslav Isaievych and Omeljan Pritsak comprised the Ukrainian delegation. Regrettably, the failure of the Ukrainian government to support participation at the congress and the inability of the Ukrainian Historical Association to support Ukrainian participants meant that only the head of the Ukrainian committee, Prof. Isaievych, was present from Ukraine at this year's congress in Oslo. Partially in response to his request that Ukrainian specialists from the West attend the congress, Zenon Kohut, Serhii Plokhy and Frank Sysyn attended. The importance of Ukrainian participation was underlined by the significant attendance by senior Russian historians, such as Aleksander Chubariyan, Vladimir Volkov, Andrei Sakharov, Aleksander Furtsenko, as well as Polish historians Jerzy Kloczowski, Antoni Maczak, Henryk Samsonowicz and many younger scholars.

Ukraine received most attention in the workshop on Central and Eastern Europe: "Borders and Changes in 'National Space' in East-Central Europe," which highlighted the project to produce new textbooks in Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus and Poland. Other panels that touched on Ukraine were: "The Opening of Archives and the History of Communism," "Central Europe: Unity and Diversity," "Writing the History of Religion under the Conditions of Stalinism and Marxism," "The Cold War Revisited," and sessions on the history of the Russian Revolution.

Although the conference was held in scholarly tones, one frequently felt the tensions in the comments as to which civilization or geographic zone Ukraine belonged, that is Europe, East Central Europe, Eastern Europe, the Slavic world and the Russian sphere. The discussion on the publication of Ukrainian, Polish, Belarusian and Lithuanian textbooks translated into each of the languages elicited a request by a Russian scholar that Russia also be included.

The study of Ukraine in an East Central European context meets opposition from some scholars. Prof. Kloczowski informed us that in France the inclusion of Ukraine in East Central Europe had met such opposition from the influential Russian émigré scholar Vladimir Vodoff that dual editions of a work on East Central Europe would appear in Paris, one including Ukraine and one excluding it. He urged Ukrainian specialists to take part in debates occasioned by the controversy. In both Tampere and Oslo, Russian scholars alternated between criticism and defense of the Russian/Soviet past, but they clearly have problems dealing with Ukrainian issues or with problems of Russian nationalism and imperialism.

Iavorsky's assertion that Ukrainian scholarship could make a considerable contribution at the international congresses still rings true. As I sat in on a session on "Nobilities in the Comparative Perspective," I thought how beneficial Ukraine's scholar Natalia Iakovenko would be to the discussion. Certainly Vladyslav Verstiuk from Kyiv would add much to the commission on the Russian Revolution. The Rev. Borys Gudziak and Oleh Turii could say much on writing the history of religion under communism. Numerous Ukrainian archivists could have placed Ukraine in the context of the opening archives, a story of which Ukraine has some reason to be proud when placed in a comparative context. Many other scholars could be named. But in order for Ukrainian scholars to be included, the Ukrainian committee must belong to the organizing group of the congress and to affiliated organizations.

Ukraine has made the first step in returning to the international historical scholarly community. Much remains to be done. The Ukrainian government must be made to understand that it is essential that its national committee be supported. The world of scholarship is one place where Ukraine must no longer be a terra incognita. Ukrainian representatives are needed on numerous commissions, including the new one formed on the Cold War.

But, while one can say that Ukrainian historical scholarship has much to offer, we cannot ignore the weakness in the field brought on by the economic and cultural crises in Ukraine. Means have to be found to keep talented younger scholars in academia. Given the decimation of study of Ukrainian history under the Soviets, it has been understandable that Ukrainian history has been the major concentration of historians in Ukraine. If historical studies in Ukraine are to take on international significance, experts on the French Revolution, Chinese dynasties, native American peoples, Habsburg history and numerous other fields must emerge.

The tyranny of the new "obsche-poniatnii iazyk" - English - must be accepted. The historical congress had two official languages, English and French. Except for the French, some Poles and some Latin Americans, English dominated. Certainly the Russian participants all spoke English. In commenting on the historical congresses of the 1960s, Ivan Lysiak Rudnytsky pointed out that while Russian historians spoke in Western languages, historians from the national republics spoke in Russian. While in Tampere it may have been emotionally hard to hear Ukrainians speaking in Russian, at least they could take part. Too few scholars from Ukraine can speak in English or French in order to participate in a historical congress. Indeed the level of the Warsaw Congress in 1933, when Western Ukraine alone sent six scholars all of whom delivered papers in international scholarly languages, has not yet been achieved 60 years later in independent Ukraine.

The Scandinavian trip of the CIUS and Jacyk Center associates also included visiting two institutions of significance for Ukraine and Ukrainian studies. In Stockholm the group arranged consultations at the Royal Army Museum. In general, Stockholm is a treasure-house of historical museums, many of them of significance for Eastern Europe because they contain the artifacts of the Swedish age of power, the 17th and early 18th centuries. In the royal castle one can see not only the uniforms in which Gustavus Adolphus and Charles XII wore when they were killed in battle, but also the preserved hide of the horse of Gustavus Adolphus. Specialists in Ukrainian history have long been aware of the importance of the Swedish archives and libraries for Ukrainian history. Fortunately, the émigré scholar Bohdan Kentrzynsky wrote major studies on the age of Khmelnytsky and the age of Mazepa on the basis of these materials, though his choice of Swedish has limited their currency among Ukrainian specialists.

In addition to the archives of Sweden and the manuscripts taken from East European collections, one can find numerous materials transported home by the victorious Swedish armies of the mid-17th century. Of late we have heard much about the banners of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and of Kozak regiments in the Swedish State Trophy Collection. These materials have been researched by Eva Turek, head of the collection, and Iurii Savchuk of the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. While only the banner of Khmelnytsky is exhibited, the other Kozak banners are superbly archived. In addition, there are exquisite 17th century albums of painted reproductions of the banners. Our group met with Ms. Turek and Johan Engström, director of the museum, who were very interested in making these materials available to specialists in Ukrainian history. Seeing the excellent conditions in the museum, one had to think wistfully that these banners would not have survived were they in Ukraine nor would they be receiving adequate preservation care were they in Ukraine now.

The second "institution" the group visited was Dr. Mykola Radejko. For the entire post-war period, this veteran of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) was Ukraine's de facto representative in Norway. Through his articles in the Norwegian press and his contacts with the Norwegian political establishment, he ensured that Ukraine had a presence in Norwegian public affairs. The account of his activity by a leading Norwegian journalist, Christian Chistensen, has recently been published in Kyiv in Ukrainian translation. His son Bohdan has continued his commitment to Ukrainian and East European affairs through his study at Harvard and other North American institutions and his work in Ukraine and the region. Dr. Radejko and his wife, Ranghild, also a physician, invited our group and Prof. Isaievych to their home where we had the opportunity to examine the excellent library of old imprints that the well-known bibliophile has assembled.

In general, most of us assumed that the role of the diaspora in representing Ukraine and Ukrainian scholarship would end with the independence of Ukraine. We also assumed that an independent Ukraine would understand the importance of institutions such as the Shevchenko Society in Sarcelles, France, and the Petliura Library in Paris, the Ukrainian Free University in Munich, and the Ukrainian Catholic University in Rome that had been so long supported by the diaspora. These institutions, after going through needed reforms, should be a window to Europe for a Ukraine that aspires to be European.

Yet, a decade after independence, diaspora institutions and scholars are still trying to fill in where Ukraine is absent or under-represented. We are all aware that the diaspora that once existed is coming to an end and its institutions are threatened with dissolution. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian academic establishment are strangely indifferent to opportunities afforded by these institutions and to the importance of Ukraine's international status in scholarship. They should respond appropriately to the increasing international interest in Ukraine and scholarship on Ukraine.

PART I

CONCLUSION

| Home Page |