Читать книгу Between Lenin and Bandera - Anna Kutkina - Страница 12

To conclude, the process of dialogue, not only the strictly human one, but also that of interaction with objects of one’s surrounding (e.g. demolition or preservation of communist symbols) is an essential element of the meaning-making process. To exist, it requires engagement of multiple voices, positions and subjects. It is the phenomenon that transforms people and carries the potential of producing physical (e.g. topographic) changes.

Analysis of a broader array of academic literature that deals with the concept of hegemony and the process of meaning-making unravels varied intellectual traditions. The fields of intellectual practices involve world-systems analysis, historical materialism, or international relations, to name a few. On the basis of an ongoing dialogue, scholars in the field strive to add to existing ‘classics’ of hegemony (Gramsci 1971; Laclau and Mouffe 1985) to facilitate its common understanding. In his “Approaches from a Historical Materialist Tradition,” Robert Cox (2019), for instance, aligns with traditional definition of hegemony as “[being] never complete” (Laclau 1985). At the same time, he also argues that “there is always some opposition provoked by a hegemonic order, [where] some contradictions generated from within lead to its transformation” (Cox 2019: 366). For Cox, as well as other academics contributing to socio-political and cultural understanding of social change through the prism of hegemony (e.g. Chase-Dunn 2018; Gills 1994; Thompson 2015), “historically transitory nature of a hegemonic order relates to the success with which a dominant structure of power [generates] a condition of acquiescence over a vast range of the order that it is in fact...dominating.” In their further examination of the nature of hegemony, followers of the historical materialist tradition, for instance, define hegemony as a ‘quality of a whole, not just a relationship among the parts’ (Cox 2019; Chase-Dunn 2018; Thompson 2015). For them, hegemony is more than just dominance. It is an “internalized coherence...that has been transformed into an intersubjectively constituted reality” (Cox 2019: 337). According to Destradi, within a broader domain of international relations, the term ‘hegemony’ is also used as synonymous to that of ‘empire’ (Destradi 2010: 909). Such practicum, however, makes an unequivocal identification for meaning particularly problematic (Destradi 2010; Krasner 2001).

In this book, my intention is to examine decommunization to address an existing manner of equalization ‘hegemony’ and ‘empire.’ I suggest to apply both classical analysis of ‘hegemony’ discussed above (Laclau and Mouffe 1985) and that of a broader theoretical framework (international relations or culture studies, e.g. Cox 2019; Destradi 2010; Hardt 2000) to explore meaning-making of states in transition—in our case, Ukraine. The definition of hegemony as a ‘process that is never complete’ is used as a common reference point between the school of discourse analysis and wider theoretical approaches that examine hegemony as a relationship of ‘dominance’ and ‘subordination’ (Bussmann and Oneal 2007; Cox 2019; Knorr 1985; Rapkin 2005). Here, I emphasize the transitory nature of hegemonic formations as being the ground condition for the socio-political and cultural changes within a state. The ‘other’ or the ‘empire,’ as I illustrate further, serves as an integral component and point of reference that both comprises and stimulates the process of meaning-making.

In the preceding discussion, theoretical parallels were drawn between the theory of discourse analysis, Bakhtin’s (1981) theory of heteroglossia (and monologism) and that of Anderson’s (1983) ‘imagined communities.’ According to Bakhtin (1981: 12), “the entire world can be viewed as polyglossic or multi-voiced since every individual possesses their own unique worldview which must be taken into consideration through dialogical interaction.” He argues further that “different worldviews eventually condition one another and turn into a process which produces change through creative elaboration by ways of new and different meanings” (Bakhtin 1981: 271). It is important to note that within the framework of co-existence of multiple voices within one state, the concept of hegemony not only refers to the privileged position of a nation-state or a group, but becomes a broader construction of multiple discursive formations. The concept of monologism (Bakhtin 1981: 8) could be used further in parallel with that of a homogeneous hegemonic formation. Dialogism, on the other hand, could be juxtaposed with heterogeneous hegemonic construction that, I argue, is being formed through multiple forms of socio-political and cultural dialogue. As a step further, a dialogue can then produce a discursive response that originates actual social changes.

The task of bridging heterogeneous elements into a potentially consummated whole is the one Bakhtin, as well as Laclau and Mouffe, Destradi or Cox aim at resolving at various levels. This chapter addressed the theoretical background of the ‘evolution’ of multivocality—the meaning-making process that ranges from monologism to heteroglossia, the hegemonic to counter-hegemonic formation. In a broader conceptual framework, the juxtaposition of monologism to polyphony, or homogeneity to heterogeneity, could be seen as the interlocative correlation between ‘I’ and the ‘other.’ Such interaction (or lack of such) occurs within the space of lived experiences, where establishment of the hegemonic reading remains a personal, interpretative act. It occurs through articulation and fixing of meanings—putting different elements of history, present and the potential future together. Within such a process, despite the necessity and possible desire of both individuals and the public (or state) to create a uniform, mutually-inclusive formation, it is important to remember contestation as an integral component of the meaning-making.

In the following chapters, we take off with analysis of both the informal and authorized procedure of eradication of the Soviet past from the physical and discursive space of Ukraine—decommunization—through the prism of resolving such ‘tension’ between homogeneity and heterogeneity, hegemony and multivocality. As we are to recall, the process of hegemonic meaning-making implies the existence of articulative operations that seek to provide fixation of a discursive field. In the case of post-Euromaidan Ukraine, decommunization is akin to decolonization. It could be seen as a hegemonic construction to the extent that it manages to redefine the terms of state-relations and set a new agenda for specific political formations, similar to those of other post-Soviets states. Identification and further juxtaposition of ordinary citizens’ and government’s narratives, as well as multiple processes of interaction with objects of national past, require implementation of dialogism as the effort of understanding, as “the active reception of speech [and action] of the other” (Voloshinov 1996: 45).

Ultimately, from the critical point of view, Anderson’s take on nationalism as unifying a nation instead of allowing nation’s multiple meanings has been acknowledged as being potentially single-minded. Whereas the question of “what common imagination exists” endures (Anderson 1983; Mitchell 2000), examination of reproduction and contestation of the ‘imagined communities’ is essential for further analysis of development and transformation of nation over time. In the case of Ukraine, the concept of a ‘new nation’ is being constructed around the ‘other’—the Soviet state and that of the modern Russian Federation. The process of meaning-making emerges into hegemonic (and counter-hegemonic) formations that take multiple forms and range from toppling (or preservation) of communist statues to re-naming of streets or exhibitions of political posters. But before we proceed with empirical analysis of (post)2013 decommunization, I suggest addressing the existing debates on the postcolonial status of Ukraine together with discussing the conceptual basis of post-Euromaidan de-Sovietization.