The National Self

The national Self (Russia)

A nation identifies itself from other nations through their flag, a national symbol, shared history, and common economic background. A nation is, “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.” ("nation | Definition of the nation in US English by Oxford Dictionaries"). From the above explanation, it becomes certain that the definition of a nation is clearly linked with the term ‘national identity.’ It is an individual’s identity and is the core component of social and political loyalty to their nations. De Reus. (1996) agrees that national identity:

Promotes reconciliation of human beings with certain unavoidable limits to human existence (the value of a sense of belonging, of feeling at home). It promotes public space, thus giving access to an open society which meets certain humanistic requirements (the value of fellow-feeling or sociability). It promotes active social membership, marked by dignity and closely related qualities such as self-respect, self-esteem and integrity (the value of dignity). And it promotes collective liberty, in the sense of a context of cultural distinctiveness and social self-control which enhances personal liberty for most citizens (the value of self-determination). (De Reus, 1996, p. 2.)

Furthermore, national identity defines who is the member of a community and who isn’t. National identity also divides the communities into ingroups, those who belong to national communities (the ‘Self’) and others who are outside the community as ‘others’. People belonging to other communities with different languages, religion, belief system, territory, and so on are allotted under the category of foreigners or as ‘others.’ National identity thus differentiates between such ‘others.’ The conflict between the nationals and others can arise over issues such as culture, traditions or territorial ownership. Therefore, the ‘others’ are important in defining national identity.

When it comes to Russia, its national identity consists of 77.7% Russians, 3.7% Tatar, 1.4% Ukrainian, 1.1% Bashkir, 1% Chuvash, 1 % Chechen, and other 200 national groups which are represented in Russia. Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism are recognized as the country’s official traditional religions. So, the Russian identity is built upon Russianness. On the other hand, it shares its borders with fourteen countries, namely Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Kazakhstan, North Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Mongolia, Norway, Poland, and Ukraine. (The World Factbook, 2018). The major issues have been raised over territorial boundaries as Russia still views Ukraine as its regional branch. Russia and Ukraine both have Russian as their language, which puts Russia in a situation to create its national identity which is different from its significant other- Ukraine. Hence, the need for Russia to distinguish itself from its significant other- in this case, Ukraine has become important.

Russia and Ukraine have been fighting for several years on territorial, language and religious issues. When Ukraine became an independent country, it became difficult for people to differentiate between Russian and Ukrainian territories. In an interview with people from Ukraine, Hrytsak, (1998) pointed out that, “When people were asked about their country, some started to answer about both Ukraine and Russia; only when the interviewer asked an additional question did they understand that they were being asked about Ukraine.” (p. 273). Moreover, certain parts of Ukraine still use Russian as their first language. Thus, the Russian linguistical identity is blurred in order to accommodate the Ukrainian population. This confusion makes it harder for Russia to distinguish itself from Ukraine and to have well-defined boundaries as well as their language.

When observing the Russian-Ukrainian relationship, it looks like countries with shared identities often go to war with each other. Ukraine is a complex and fragmented society at the historic crossroads of Western and Eastern Europe, with ethnic-linguistic identities (like Russia) which deepened after its separation from Russia. In this case, Russia and Ukraine are culturally similar but differ in their political institutions. Russia depends on ideas such as communism or dictatorship, whereas, the still-developing country Ukraine follows liberalism. But in recent times, Ukrainian and Russian ideals are overlapping, creating similarities rather than the contrasts. As Molchanov (1996) rightly puts it that, “In this case, Ukraine becomes a mirror where Russia seeks to find her own image from the most distant times to the present.” (p.184). The Russian government likely sees Ukraine as a threat based on its cultural proximity to Russia rather than its cultural distance. This is a threat to Russia because a more democratic Ukrainian government may serve as an example to Russian citizens of how culturally similar people can be alternatively governed. In such a case, Russian identity appears to be entangled and confused with Ukrainian identity and the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian war exists because of shared identities. Hence, it is with no surprise that Russia feels that its national identity is threatened by its significant other.

Moreover, Ukraine as a country is divided into two major groups of people, with two different sets of political culture. One being “pro-Russians” who support the integration of Ukraine with Russia and the other being “pro-Ukrainian” the ones who support the idea of Ukraine being independent and forming its own national identity. Since both, the countries have shared myths, history, and language the difference between them is blurry and unclear. This situation is creating a problem of forming a national identity in Russia as well as in Ukraine. This ongoing conflict between the two countries on national identities are unclear and are in a state of constant change. This is supported by Hrytsak(1998) that, “The common assumption is that the issue of identity in Ukraine should be perceived as a Russian/Ukrainian dichotomy, but in fact, neither group can be said to be homogeneous. Because of their linguistic and cultural proximity to each other, both groups are suffering from a crisis of identity.” (p. 3). Thus, such a situation compels Russia to carve out its national identity that is different from Ukraine. According to Triandafyllidou (1998), this can be particularly severe, as in the Ukrainian Russian case, when rival nations contest territory, history, and cultural heritage 'by asserting that specific myths, symbols and/or ancestry are part of their national past'. This is a direct threat to the viability of the former dependency (i.e. Ukraine) because 'They thus threaten the ingroup's sense of uniqueness and authenticity. The ingroup may, therefore, be led to redefining its identity in order to assert that the contested symbols or myths are its own cultural property' (p. 602). In both the cases, identities are being formed in contrasting ways. And even today Russia is trying to redefine its national identity in the post-Soviet era. Therefore, the Russian ‘self’ is being forced to change and evolve in such a situation.

References

De Reus, J. (1996). the value of national identity. In Klamer A. (Ed.), The Value of

Culture: On the Relationship between Economics and Arts, 166-186.

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.seattleu.edu/stable/j.ctt46mwr9.14

Hrytsak, Y. (1998). National identities in post-soviet Ukraine: The Case of Lviv and

Donetsk. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 22, 263-281. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.seattleu.edu/stable/41036741

Molchanov, M. (1996). Borders of identity: Ukraine's Political and Cultural

Significance for Russia. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne

Des Slavistes, 38(1/2), 177- 193. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org.proxy.seattleu.edu/stable/40869778