:Cities after the Fall of Communism: Reshaping Cultural Landscapes and European Identity

Abstract

John Czaplicka, Nida Gelazis, and Blair Ruble, eds. Cities After the Fall of Communism. Reshaping Cultural Landscapes and European Identity. Washington, D. C: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, and Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009. 384 pp. Illustrations. Index. $65.00, cloth.It is commonplace by now to assert that histories and identities are constructed, as it is common knowledge that the post- communist world is fertile ground for the reinvention of identity. Still, this new book is a very valuable contribution to the literature on postsocialism. John Czaplicka et al meticulously investigate the ramifications of nationbuilding, institution building and market reform for spatial organization and heritage praxis in a number of Eastern European cities with widely diverging histories and mythologies. The overall consistency of the book is remarkable, with all chapters revolving around the question (derived from Kevin Lynch): What time is this place? The various contributors grasp very well the intricate connections between nation-building, hi story- writing and identity construction after communism; new nations need new identities, identities imply new histories, and histories and identities need to be made visible in physical space. Capital cities, historic cities, and the monuments they contain, are prime assets in these efforts.From the opening chapters, it is obvious that the ongoing rewriting of history is a matter of selection: local history in Eastern European cities reveals forgotten cultural connections that are not entirely desirable for the new regimes, as it reveals layering that necessitates selection in the construction of identity narratives. In each chapter, this principle of selectivity is illustrated differently, depending on difference in history and power- relation s. In the investigations of the various contributors, the importance of scale is confirmed over and over again: local, regional and national identities can monopolize the use of history in city space. In Sevastopol', the local history of a Russian military bulwark, and, importantly, one pitted against Europe, makes a European identification (prominent for a while in the national Ukrainian narratives) difficult, and propels identification towards Russia, while in Kharkiv, once the capital of Russian-imperial Ukraine, a history of academic prominence inspires a cosmopolitan attitude that manoeuvres pragmatically between Europe and Asia, between Russia and Ukraine. Conversely, L'viv proudly adopted the position of the Ukrainian city, based more on regional identity than on local history; Polish, Jewish and other factors in the past of the city are still marginalized in current identity narratives. In Odesa, a particular brand of cosmopolitanism, linked to an aggressive and liberal Russian-imperial settlement policy, still lingers on in the selfidentifications of Odesans, shifting between Russian and Ukrainian loyalties. Vilnius is largely claimed by the national-level narratives on Lithuanian history and identity; despite a long and intricate relationship with Poland in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, 20th century trauma prevents an appreciation of Polish history in Vilnius, and, at a more fundamental level, an appreciation of the hybrid nature of Polish-Lithuanian elite identity.This understanding of the importance of scale, I argue, is an important contribution by itself; most of the literature on post- socialist identity construction dwells on the emergence and negotiation of national narratives, and their impact at local levels. …