3332

принадлежатиде тичностейИнтеллектуальныеМод принадлежчислу подходым лоизученныхархеочис огиипопыткиаиболеепроблемкультурныевлиятельобъясненияныхистокфтеноменоароднмодременныхационализмгуафиипонимнит, ацийационализмнийнаукацион. . альныхАвтзмр

анализирует

основные

попытки

русс

их

болгарскихмеждунац оналистов,историогрнованные

арныхпоследовательном

отриц

ии Украины

Макед

этнических

аций

еск

аций-государернистскихтв,

гриров

укр

македо

рнистскиеаррат вы

русск

болг рский

е, культурные

инте

алтьные дискурсы.

Академические

ационализмакспустя нескольк

десятилетий

этиллектуактики

стр тегии в

научные

подходыисторикиисследованиям

ац

ализма, предполитичтя

ать политически м

аинскиенные и

Ключевые

буржуазный

национализм, большойпроигнорарратив, советская историография, модернизм,

идеологически

предопределенные

истоки

предпосылки своего

аучноинтегрировсследовательского

аппаркироват .

мемориальная культурслова:.

Studies

not

very

long

in

F rmulation of the problem. The history of

is

comparison

ith other

of

iography. The

first

the

history

of

Traditi

which

few

decades later gainedrary reputation of classical

es, were wr

tten

after

in

moder

a

primordialist approahistorhe areNationalismthe most

First

Wor

War,

ependcontempNationalism

Studie

app

red

in

text 1960s

and

1970s.

modernist

constructivist

t xts will form

the majority

definedcontemp rary

worksinfluentialthe

histo y

and nations.fieldsTh primordialist

approach

popular am

ademic

researcheeories of

nationalism,less than among true

ng

. Constru

tivism

modern

of

s of progresses of nati

nalisms

od rn chestructs withouthistoriographyrical ro ts.

ion lism,

the

lly,

and butions. If

we analyse

ontemp

rary

of

when primordialism em

rged in h

ly fa

in the

ion,nationalists belongrelati

. P

nd

is lessm

attractive

and

objective,

butpolitical,believingdes nationat

with

the

neces ary

historical

p litical

require an

alysis of social,

economicpractisid cul ural histori

,

nsh ps

institutions

succe sions in cont ast to the

modprov th approa

that imagine and invent themimordialismand sec

Sovi t powe

had

complex

rela

with

, the relations

of com

nist ideologndary

resultthe basis of the regime with nationali m were even

ore contradictory and dynamic.

h

d the

experience to use

contradictions when it got power in the former Russian Empire

Bolsheviks were among th

se political force

the early 20th century proposed

brutal confrontati

and

persecut

f “bourgeoisnationalism sts” who became victims

f Soviet

ogram for

the

the

. The

between the

lshevismndtheir

was temporarynationalnd

second half compf h

1930s, the

Bolsheviksw repl ced by

Betwe

the value

of the

questionna and

of class. R la ions be ween the Soviet

nationreg me and th

asnever were normal

table. The periods of co

peration alternated by

marginal herosolvingf Soviet

historiography

intellectu ls begancooperationcr ticise “bourgeois

repressions. The

of political and romiseethn

tionalism

ur

ed n

tionalism into

lists”. These criticmarginalisatiattempts imul ted

Soviethe formation and development

of the

concept

of

politictical consciousness.

an

ideological

invented

tradition

of

Soviet

historiography and

“bourgeois

m”

open politicalnationalid ideological

ations

principleslashes of class interests

with

the

valu

the

. De pite

ese con radicti

s, the ideologists of Bolsh vism were rational

nough to

a

esented

by

uSovietisationand autonomous

republics,

based

on

the

former. Th

political space. The compromise

between the Sovi

gov

nment and

thenationalnationalprinciplesregio questiondid

Russ

with local

natio

alists who represented the earlier

oppressed

groups of

the

w

Empire. The

fron

Russiaand

national edges led

their

em rgence

of

nationimag ned and invented political geography. The new nations and

new

“states”reachw re

compromisere ganisation ofthe former Empire space became Bol

attem

solve the

mean that nati

as state

ideology becam

theshevikeritage of history.

in new

and org nise

modern

of nations where

each

thnic group g

its own segme

The

Soviet regime h d contradictory

with

nationalism

and the

concept

of

“bourgeois

nationalism”

becpoliticalme an importantrelationshipsintegra element of Soviet political ideology and

80

officialsmytho ogy. Criticismhist riansof

who

regularlynationandlism” enteredly thecrinumbercised andof ritualexposeddutiesthe Sovietideologicalparty

preconomyUnionv cations,or autonomof thepovertyUSSRrepublicand“bourgeoisfter werletheexposedRSFSR,snesstheirofbutbourgeois“bourgeoUkraininationalists“bourgeoisonalism”. Ukrainian. HistoriansSSR ofwaseachthethesecondSoviet

including the

Belarus

were criticis d elessthan the U

rainian one.

to analyse the

The

purpose

nd objectiv

of the

articlehas

. The

purpose

of thisnationalism”ticle

B larus “bourgeois

s”. This

arti

sev ral

tasks

ncluding

the study of general

rea where knowledgenationalism,bec me

victim of politica

ideology.

gy. Other

nationalismmos,

criticised

and

exp

sed

in Soviet po itical mythol

main cultural strat

gies

d practices

Soviet intellectuals used when they

bourgeoisiticised Ukrainian and

tr nds

Russian and Bulgarian

ig ns of

and relapses of primordial nationalistic

the

Soviet Nationalism

Studies,

analysis of th ir connections with Western Nationalism

Studies; analysis of the place

role of criticis

of

in the Soviet culture of memory as

imaginat on. Russian and Bulga

tr tegimodernismof agi

and invention of Ukrainian

recent po

ical

projects

inspired

bytheirstile

counnationalism. recogniFo example,

Bulgari

nationalist

intellectual

i sisted that Macedonimodernismnation

and

were resu ts of the

conscioRussianpolicy of

Macedonian

“nations” in the context of

denial and non-

have much in common

Bulgarian cr tics and opponents of

Ukrainian

Macedonian p oj cts perceived these identities as

anticipate

academic

Yugoslav

nd constr

vi

in Nationalism Studies.

and

at Ukrainmodernita nation

of theentityrie-

of Austria-Hungary [53],

Serbian nat

alists and the

political

leadersh p [4], when Russian

nationalists

believed

which sought to weaken Russia and

separate

ts

reg ons and edges.

the

odern era becamebecameform consequenceof toh ollective

intellectuals’

faithpolicy nations as new

sist to

52; 56]. The his oriographical suppo ters of modernnationalismin ist that

es

and

atio

alisms

If the attempts of acade

sc

olars of

Russiano f nd the

origins of nations

communiti

invented

tr d tions,

then

the

nalistic rhetor

of Russian and Bulgariaimagined

modernism insists that nation lism

of

tions became historicallymotivated

authors,ch rooted in

economic triumphacademic

rise

pitalism. Bulg

and Russian nati nalists as

who andticipated

la er

di course,

rooted

in

polit

and

ideological

phobias.

nat onalists in

their attempts to criticize

a

and Ukraininationalismsoppone ts insistedRussian

that

Classicalwell

odernists

correlat

M

cedonian

and Ukrainian

with the develphenomenapmentof

capitalism, but

preferred to

explain

genes

of alternative id ntities by

anti-

and

an

-Bulgarian intrigues and

fthe political

of Au rian-Hungary

r Serbia [18; 34;

the developmentheyof la guages,aspirationsthe norm lization

elitestand rdiz

ion.

and

Bulgar

Ukrainiandel berate

zation of folk dialects and becam

attempts to deastroy

the unity of the Russian

and Bulgariannorm tions,

separate Uk ai

ians and

edoni ns from them andRussianvent new “national”

and

ian languages, on the one

, emerged

results of the

malicious

and

existence of indepMacedondent Ukrainian and Macedoniahandationalisanguages. These int

llec ualstronglyctics actualizthe

languages,

at would be

ifferent from the Russi

Bulgarian [1;2;23].

deny

one

On th

oth

hand, Russ

Bulgarian

ts consiste

tly and

hand,

imagined and invented themimaginationconsis ently in other borders and

integrated

into

including

constructivism

primordialism. Deny

independ nt

status of Ukr inian and

two mutu lly excl

sive strategies of the

and invention of

he na ion

and

Bulgarian

Macedon an

languages

and

their

ctivism

ling

ic

char

cter,

Russian

the

of modernism and

co

str

N

lismlanguages,Studies ctively

themsimultaneously,con epts If

Ukraimaginedinian

Macedonian projects used construc ivistiond scourse in fact.

tions, on

theoristsCr tics

and deniers of the

independence

of

Ukrainian and Macedonian

nationalists projected Russian and

el ments in these

invented

to dialectsriticize

“im

ginat

”

“invention”, thenBulgarlgarian

d Russi

n nationalists in their attusemp

and

attempts to prove their

they

nt st

uist hostile and

lien acts

.

symbolic

sacred

body

of the

nation,

themselves

belonged

to. On the other hand, thesthe

81

Ukrainehistoriesdentntellectualti [8;10;23;17;40;43]actualizattemptsMacedoniathetoiaintprimordiweregrate. TheconsistentlUkrainiansginlisteventspreferencd byofthemandand political,asecisivelyMofannaticedonaliststegralianssocial,enationpartintobecauseeconomicofRussianlizedethnictheandhistoryandRussianimaginBulgarianculturalofandgeographicbyBulgarnationRussian

and

Bulgarian

nati alists

as

local

forms

ions

of

Russ an

Bulgar

orical

pro

sses

[19; 20; 27]. Modern Russian and

dimensethnicities

and identities were projechistoryed by

Russian and

Bulgarians

toRusdistantsify

Bulgarize Ukrain

historicaland

s

in

this intell ctual situation becameattemptsform

of inve

tion

imagination of

the forced export

Russian and Bulga

nationalists into the

Bulgariap st and they imagined

inhabitants of

Macedonia and Ukriane as

ties

and

ians.

natidentity,onalcontMacedonianxts [38;39;45;

of Russian and Bulg rian

into

Russ andand MacedonianBu garian

ethnicityModernisthistoricBulgarlly coincidental,

but

critics

of

Ukrainian

nd

ideologists and theorists

of Macedonian StudiesUkrainian

nationalisms. They insisted that Mykha lo

46].

in Nationalism

pre

that the connection of nationali m w

Macedonian national

ms

anticipated this

ea becaussumethey denied the national

ident ties

of

Ukrainians or Macedonians, but were nati

al tr itors who abando ed Russian

r Bulgarian identity

Hrushevs’kyi

and Andrei

Slavko

Janevski

Blaže Koneski were not truthe

The na ionalist discSheptyts’kyiurs in the imagin tion

and invention of

Macedonia

and Ukraine in

RuRussian n

Bulgarian

historiography

focused

he histories

of

for the momen ary politically

rcena

benefits.

Bulgarian and

ationalisms pr ved

be very stable. Ethnocentrism and nationalist myths

motivateddeterminederpretations of history. Rus ia and

lgaria after

he proces sphereof historiographiespoliticalminancetrans

by inter

tional slogans and

became

popular

he

alist

Russian historiography of the post-

Ukraine. If

m and non-recognition of Ukr in

dentity were masked

the Soviet era

dominateSovi a, the hnocentric

in im

ginatiohis

n andtioanvention of Macedonia, Macedonians and

Mac

doni

ethnocentristory as parts of the Bulgari

cal, political,

ultural and linguistic spaces

as

so

stable an

nfluential that

during

peor od when the

communists controlled the power

and

the main vect rs

atedtrajectories

f the

of the Bulgarian identity [15;

Bulga ian nationali

paradigmentered

into

symbi

tic

relati

ships wi

nationalism in

sovietized

Macedonia

and

UkrainSecond develop as

gh

lds

of developmentcon becameprimordialism

and

polit cally

30].

the

WordomiWar when

istoriography

t

of

Bulgaria afte

of

nationalist

collective

as

about

Macedo

ia. The

Russian

Bulga ian

g in.

numerous

exts of Ru sian and

Bulgarian nationalists were republished in the 1990s

of

of Macedonia

Ukraine.

Nation

listic

ver ions

of thes

histories,

imagined

nd democratization begun, experiencedstreveral w ve

of no

talgic intere

in nationalistic versions

the other hand, as its most important

and

ivativattempts. The

c

Russianhistories Bulgarian centered

ystems of coordi

ates, became popular in Ru sia and Bulg r

alysis

f Ukrainian

understandingsnationalism

Russian

iography,

on the one hand, and

and

The

nationalist

of Ukrainian

story coexist with

of the academ

2010s.

of

history,

cluding

understa ding

of

Mace

identity,ethnocentric

nationalismrando

anomaliesversio spired by the

achievementsenemie of

Bulg ria,

the inve

nationalistiof the

Yugoslav anti-BulgariMacedonianproject, the imagination of

Macedoniannalism in

and dentity

histMacedoniany writing

of

Macedon

edo

M cedonians and

d minant

langu ge asexternalof Bulgarian

thnogr phic groupsnation

ernist and

d alect,

became

Bulgarian

y. Th

of

the

mo

Therefore,theistorians involved in studies of Macedonian and Ukrainian histories inBulgarian

constructiviststoriography are

ly rare and most

Bulgaria

histori

continuenati

cultivate

promote

the narratives

extremp edecessors of the 19thhistoriographcentury

the interwattemptsper od.

and Russia prefer to ignore several cultural and social turns in

Western historiography and continue

82

develop nati

nalist myths [9;31], clothed in

ga bs of socio-economic and politic

histori

. I

constructUkrainiannewother methodoldirectionsvisthist riesgicalof BulgarianrealitiesRussiaconsistentlyandsuccessfully,andRuBulgaria.sian historiogthecontinuenationalitheraphiesmoderto werehistoriograableattthemptstopotentialhiesacceptto ofwrandofMacete mothessimilatonianerniste theof

and

Ukraine

[24;26;33]

Therefore,extremely

rareignorea d few

in

Ukrain an

and

Rus andi

histor ographi .

ave its N

Studies?

criticism of “b

urgeois nationalihistorym”

Did the USSR

Macedonwas holy ideol

gical

duty only ationalismfirst glance. The author presumes that S

v et intellectuals

had

signifi

nt

historicalapproachesances

to

c eate

own

schools

of

Nationalism

Studies,

which were

the

f Stalin and

their

emonisaSovietion in

Soviet historical and political

geneticallym mories tur

in the

ideas of VladimtheirLen n, Iosif

and Lev

Trotskii

[28,47,48,49], but

Vladimir Lenin into

ost

xpertalinthe problems of the

question,

nationalimarginalisationrootednational politics. SoviTrotskii,historians

wrote

focusednationalthe problems

of nationalism [14; 29]. The author prthesu

es thatcitedperiodicallyhe rpus of thesetexts can be d vided into two

groupsofTextstheecond group w re

re numerous and the

ho

preferr

to

critics

.

focused on

in g neral, its

ideological

form

first group.

ex

intellectual tradition, but the

presumcriticismthat itspecialisepossible to assumThe

history of the

ti

th

Soviet tex

nationalismre

form of political sci nce in

USSR [51] bec use

Th

texts, focusedonalism”

tof bour

heis

ationalists,

played an instru

theoreticalalis role and became

bourgeois

f Union or

ous republics. I

can be unders ood as moderinization of

of “bourgeoisnationalisms

was within

first attempauthormake

Western

in

Nationalism

StudiesSovietilable

Sovieautonoreaders in spi

the fact

that

Soviet historianspproachesferred to

ret ll them and accompany

excursi

ns

with the necessa

ide logically mo ivat d criticism.

attempts

to solve political and

tasks

the

con exts

of

.

compet tion

between

hist

ans

f

ations and ide

these nd their non-communist

consistent, critici ing

in

ide

g cal

was

constantideologicalan

stable, but they were

ever

projectsexp sing

the

errors

and

errors“bourgeois”of geoisalternativesnatio alism”.

Thetho

ologically

Soviet

critics criticismof nat

lism

tionali

historiography.

interest of

Soviet

theoretic lly, the S

v et

hy of

belonged

to

the

Marxist

discourse

in

its

Sovietized

versinationalism. Tatar

ian

Dily ra

Usm

presumes

that

“t

oclaime

denat ona

f

hist

ry,historiograthe pu pos ful

cr

ation of the history

of

classes and class struggle,

fact

rs madeisationpriori impossible the

further

developmentanovaf historical scienc

and the creation

of

rigid ideological

press,

total contr

l,

denia

of the hist

riographical lega

y of

past… these

nati

The

ofExtremeSovie

collective ideas ab

ut bourgeois nati

nalism was the result of

and

nal

istory” [54].

po iticisation

was the

feature

f

Soviet

his

iography

Soviet

produc ion was ideologized andmoainopolised.

activ ty of

small group of absolutely loyal par y

who had access to sources that werthe

inaccessiblestoriogr herphical

and Soviet citizen

because they

ropagated

deas

of Ukrainian

or Belarusiaformationionalism.Genetically Soviet

ext

on nationalism rooted in the

proposed by

Vladimir

and overlapp

p rtly with

th

p opositions

f

Iosif

Stalin and Lev

mythol

gized, but despite these factors, they never devhistorianseticalped in

vacuum.

Trotskii, butLenind fferencetoriansVladimir

Lenin, the

e auth

rs wer

ignored and not quoted by Soviet

Soviet

critics

of

nationalism”

were

familiar

with

the

main concepts

and

critics of nationalism. Soviet Nationalism

Studi

were

deeply

ideologized,

pol ti ised

provisions

of Western histor ography and the

met

this article pres mes that it

is log cal to

assume th

Soviet critic“bourgeoissm of

dologically had much in common w th the

th

retical approach proposed by Elie K

urieauthorin he early 1960s

his book

“Nationalism” [25].

n Nationalism

Studies which perceivnationalismideologism,nationalism

as predominantly political doctrine and

Kedour thebecame the founder of

one

ofthe most influential theoretical approaches

Eliedeology.

83