Myths of the Soviet Era. Refutation and Debunking in the Postcolonial Period

Abstract

The article deals with the problem of Ukrainian society’s interaction with its own ideas about the Soviet past. In particular, based on the anthropological interpretation of the myth notion (according to which a myth is a story or narrative that has a sacral character for a specific social group or community), three examples of Soviet myths are considered: 1) about Stalin as a great leader; 2) about nationalism; 3) the Soviet narrative about Ukraine’s past. An important aspect of this article is the analysis of the post-Soviet dynamics of these myths, i.e., their transformation in conditions reminiscent of post-colonialism in countries of Africa and Asia, which were colonies of European countries in the past. In particular, the idea of Stalin as a great leader can serve as an example of coexistence of short and extended stories of a myth. This distinction was introduced by Bronisław Malinowski and Maurice Leenhardt to denote myths that have either taken the form of a clear narrative (short story) or exist, in people’s minds, in the form of vague ideas and beliefs (extended story). The analysis of dynamics of attitudes toward Stalin in Ukrainian society throughout 1991–2016 allows us to identify social factors, which determined positive and negative attitudes toward him in the post-Soviet period. In particular, it is shown that upon the 2000s the identity factor is crucial: if a person identifies him- or herself with the Ukrainian nation, his/her attitude towards Stalin is clearly negative. The analysis of both the main narratives about Ukraine’s past and the perception of the nationalism concept in Ukrainian society proves the accuracy of using the post-colonial approach to the understanding of Ukrainian society during 1991–2022. In particular, the theses of Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Edward Said that the domination of colonizers in the sphere of culture persists even in the case a nation has already gained political independence, have been confirmed. First, the nation keeps using the language of colonizers, i.e., keeps staying in the field of meanings imposed by colonizers. Such is the fate of the nationalism concept, which until 2014 had been perceived in Ukrainian society mainly in a Soviet way. The co-existence of six narratives about Ukraine’s past, of which only 2 were distinctly Soviet, allows us to understand the mechanisms of decolonization that took place in Ukrainian society before 2014.