Reply to Charles J. Halperin (“Rus’, Russia and National Identity”)

Abstract

I would like to express my appreciation to Charles Halperin for taking time-as a member of Slavic interpretative community (a phrase I borrowed from Stanley Fish1)-to respond to my review of Simon Franklin's and Emma Widdis', National Identity in Culture. Although he takes me to task for calling book dangerous, I interpret Halperin's comments (perhaps presumptuously) mostly as a vindication. On critical issues, it seems to me, Halperin not only agrees with my objections but also finds a few additional shortcomings that I ignored. His elaboration on several problems is informative and useful. I welcome, in particular, following observations:* I think Ilnytzkyj has some justification for objecting that editors should have qualified their exposition, which superficially subsumes Kyivan (Kievan) into Russia. I just do not like references to a millennium of history (p. 159).* The millennial framework contributes nothing to anthology except perhaps providing a catch phrase to advertise it (p. 159).* My objection [to Franklin] would be that identities adumbrated by Kyivan (Kievan) authors and later articulated by Muscovite ideologues were never national-they were dynastic, religious, historical, perhaps even cultural, but never national, since nationalism was never an element of their worldviews (p. 163).* Whether one believes that there was any continuity between Kyivan (Kievan) and Muscovy or not, it remains to my mind irrefutable that Muscovy cannot be understood without access to Kievan antecedents. On this feature of Muscovite culture Franklin is absolutely right. He is not above reproach, however, for not delineating more precisely that material from Kyivan (Kievan) might be seen as background, not as an earlier phase of Russian history (p. 163).* Widdis, in a chapter entitled in Space, observes that originally Rus'/Rhos was multi-ethnic, but none of its constituent elements were Russian. Again, as a dedicated non-post-modernist, I would have added, nor could they have been, because Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusans did not yet exist; there were only East Slavs at time (p. 164).* Ilnytzkyj devotes serious attention to this section [Franklin and Widdis, pp. 24-28], objecting, rightly in my mind, to glib invocation of Latin name for Kyivan (Kievan) as irrelevant to issues of native identity... (p. 163).* It would be just as inaccurate to equate and Ukraine, pace Hrushevs'kyi, as it is to project Russia onto (p. 164).* I would have preferred terminating early Rus' with Mongol conquest (p. 165).* [I]n nineteenth century purpose of articulating identity was not to recognize a nation, which one would think it presupposes, but to create a nation. The purpose of ideology is to express myths because they are not true, which includes myth of Land of (p. 161).I think Halperin and I are also close in our ultimate assessment of volume. Like he, I would not (and did not) equate National Identity in Culture with the Soviet abomination of a drevnerusskaia natsional'nost1 (p. 165). And I agree when Halperin says: In sum, I believe authors of National Identity in Culture do a if not perfect job of distinguishing Rus1 and Russia. Could it have been better? Certainly. Could it have been much, much worse? Absolutely (p. 165). Both of us, obviously, give book a lukewarm endorsement. Where we seem to differ is in our recommendations and level of tolerance for scholarly imprecision. A fairly decent book is one I would not suggest as an introduction for students, especially when it is so confusing on issues of terminology, national chronology and national space.However, speaking of dangerous books and sharp tones, I will admit that I was somewhat dismayed by Halperin's reference to Mein Kampf and military invasions at end of his piece. …