Mythologem of “fraternal nations” as the ideal model of Russian -Ukrainian relations in the Soviet/Russian historiography

Summary

The article focuses on the historical myth of the common national sources of Russians and Ukrainians (‘brotherhood’) as one of the mechanisms for conceptualizing Soviet/ Russian historiography. Particular attention is paid to the socio -political context of constructing a historical narrative, suitable for the formation of various identities, both national and imperial. The advantages of this construction were obvious, because it was allowed simultaneously to solve several fundamental problems for the creation of the imperial grand -narrative. Proclaiming the Ukrainians as brothers they could withoutdifficulty appropriate their historical heritage. By mental mapping the ethnic Ukrainian lands were included into the imperial space and inserted into the imperial discourse. At the same time, by imposing the status of ‘younger brothers’ one could level out a separate from the Russian the Ukrainian historical process, turning Ukrainians into ‘non -historical’ nation. In addition to the historiographical dimension, the ‘brotherly’ mythologem was a sufficiently effective tool for social mobilization, of both Ukrainians and Russians, for the needs of the empire. The stages pointed out in the article make it possible to talk about the repeated transformation of the semantics of this construction. Initially, ‘family ties’ were conceived with the largest index of the genetic component – as ‘related tribes’ of one ‘nation’. Over time, this index is gradually weakening, yielding to the positions of confessional and loyal subjects. In Soviet times, there was a modified remake of ‘kinship’ ties, but now as independent, but ‘fraternal’ nations. During the late Soviet period, such as in the imperial period, the devaluation of the genetic component is again observed. There is also an inequality in the counterparties of the ‘brotherly’ construction. It was initially formed as an unstable, unbalanced system, consisting of the dominant and subordinate components – ‘senior’ and ‘younger’ ‘brothers’. Ukrainian historical experience was conceived only as a repetition of the historical path traversed by the «fraternal» Russians. And the Ukrainians, constantly had to strive for an alliance with their ‘elder brother’.  

Mythologem of “fraternal nations” as the ideal model of Russian -Ukrainian relations in the Soviet/Russian historiography

Summary

The article focuses on the historical myth of the common national sources of Russians and Ukrainians (‘brotherhood’) as one of the mechanisms for conceptualizing Soviet/ Russian historiography. Particular attention is paid to the socio -political context of constructing a historical narrative, suitable for the formation of various identities, both national and imperial. The advantages of this construction were obvious, because it was allowed simultaneously to solve several fundamental problems for the creation of the imperial grand -narrative. Proclaiming the Ukrainians as brothers they could withoutdifficulty appropriate their historical heritage. By mental mapping the ethnic Ukrainian lands were included into the imperial space and inserted into the imperial discourse. At the same time, by imposing the status of ‘younger brothers’ one could level out a separate from the Russian the Ukrainian historical process, turning Ukrainians into ‘non -historical’ nation. In addition to the historiographical dimension, the ‘brotherly’ mythologem was a sufficiently effective tool for social mobilization, of both Ukrainians and Russians, for the needs of the empire. The stages pointed out in the article make it possible to talk about the repeated transformation of the semantics of this construction. Initially, ‘family ties’ were conceived with the largest index of the genetic component – as ‘related tribes’ of one ‘nation’. Over time, this index is gradually weakening, yielding to the positions of confessional and loyal subjects. In Soviet times, there was a modified remake of ‘kinship’ ties, but now as independent, but ‘fraternal’ nations. During the late Soviet period, such as in the imperial period, the devaluation of the genetic component is again observed. There is also an inequality in the counterparties of the ‘brotherly’ construction. It was initially formed as an unstable, unbalanced system, consisting of the dominant and subordinate components – ‘senior’ and ‘younger’ ‘brothers’. Ukrainian historical experience was conceived only as a repetition of the historical path traversed by the «fraternal» Russians. And the Ukrainians, constantly had to strive for an alliance with their ‘elder brother’.