Ukrainian Nationalism in the Post-Stalin Era: Myth, Symbols and Ideology in SovietNationalities Policy by Kenneth C. FarmerReview by: F. E. SysynThe Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 59, No. 4 (Oct., 1981), pp. 624-625Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4208414 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 22:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:37:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

624 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

Farmer, Kenneth C. Ukrainian Nationalism in the Post-Stalin Era: Myth, Symbols and Ideology in Soviet Nationalities Policy. Studies in Contem- porary History, vol. 4. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Boston, London, I 980. 241 pp. Notes. Bibliography. Index. Fl 70.

FARMER approaches the study of Soviet nationalities policy and Ukrainian nationalism through an examination of myths and symbols employed in forming public opinion and in carrying on political debates. He maintains that for a data-scarce society there are few alternative methods for studying the nationality factor. He also points out that because the Soviet regime forbids open discussion, political debates are conducted in Aesopian language. Farmer's goal is to delineate the myths that com- pete for the allegiance of Soviet citizens and to examine the symbols through which contending myth-holders carry on debates.

He defines myths as 'propositions concerning the fundamental nature of reality, or the "essence" of reality. They are largely unquestioned bodies of belief, held by large numbers of people' (p. 25). He postulates that two political myths vie for the allegiance of Soviet Ukrainians: a myth of proletarian internationalism with a corollary of Russification and a myth of the Ukrainian national moral patrimony. He proceeds to discuss the symbols, or issues and events, through which the proponents of the two myths conduct their debates (e.g., Taras Shevchenko, ortho- graphic questions, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists).

Farmer's volume is a well-informed account of the struggles over the nationality question in the Ukraine between 1956 and I972, during which the post-Stalin thaw allowed for a resurgence of openly expressed Ukrainian patriotic feeling. After analysing the two myths, Farmer describes the terms of their proponents' 'debates' up to the point when the regime decided to cut off all discussion with a new campaign against Ukrainian nationalism that accompanied the fall of the head of the CPU, Petro Shelest, in 1972. For the I960s, Farmer traces the policies of the regime that drove Ukrainian patriots into the ranks of dissenters and analyses the thought and composition of Ukrainian dissent.

The book serves well as a concise discussion of the nationalities question in the Ukraine. It is particularly useful for its delineation of the potent amalgam of proletarian internationalism and Russification policies that has been employed by the regime against the Ukrainian national move- ment. It is less satisfactory in its discussion of Ukrainian nationalism, since all Ukrainian patriotic sentiments are included under this rubric and are studied on the basis of limited data. A study of this length can hardly be expected to provide a penetrating discussion of the many aspects of modern Ukrainian nationalism. Consequently, for many topics (e.g., the impact of urbanization, the effect of the annexation of the Western Ukraine by the Ukrainian SSR, language patterns, the historical evolution of Ukrainian nationalism, the composition of the Ukrainian dissent movement), Farmer's comments are superficial, if generally accurate. Data may be scarce, but the growing literature on Ukrainian national dissent shows that more sophisticated discussions of many issues are possible.

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:37:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 625

It may be argued that Mr Farmer only sought to outline myths and symbols, a job he has done well, but the reader must feel dissatisfied with the excessive caution in forming opinions that leads him to conclude a book on Ukrainian nationalism:

It is fitting to conclude as we began, by emphasizing that the nationalities problem in the Soviet Union has not been solved. Ukrainian nationalism has a respectably long history, and it is a contemporary and ongoing problem. Grand conclusions and confident predictions, therefore, are inappropriate, beyond noting that it is unlikely that the issue has been finally decided.

Confident predictions are not expected, but some insights might have been offered as to how the struggle between myth-holders is faring.

Cambridge, Massachusetts F. E. SYSYN

Barry, D. D., Ginsburgs, G. and Maggs, P. B. (eds). Soviet Law After Stalin, Part ii: Social Engineering Through Law. Law in Eastern Europe Series, no. 20. Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1978. xiv + 335 pp. Index. Fl 96.

THE PRESENT volume of the unique and important series of monographs and legal texts published by the Documentation Office for East European Law of the University of Leyden is of particular interest to a wider readership including political scientists and sociologists because of the sociological treatment of the legal issues discussed. The twelve papers collected here (made possible by a grant from the Ford Foundation) discuss their subjects under the dispensations of the 1977 Soviet Con- stitution. Why a new Constitution and not mere amendments is the question asked by John N. Hazard. His answer is that the ageing leader- ship desired 'to bind its successors to its way of political life' and its interpretation of the Party's programme and ideology (p. 28). The sixtieth anniversary of the Revolution in I977 was an appropriate occasion to mark a new stage in the political life of the country as 'Developed Socialism'. Certain amendments were made necessary due to the inter- national obligations of the U.S.S.R. such as the Covenant on Human Rights and the Helsinki Declaration of I975 (Basket iII). The author criticizes restrictions on individual liberties and freedoms such as par. ii of art. 39, that while exercising these rights 'citizens may not injure the interests of society and the state or the rights of other citizens' (p. 2 1). The particular criticism seems misplaced. It is difficult to imagine a body politic not applying such restrictions, while either expressing them in their constitutions or merely by exercising them.

The comparative study of the final version of the Constitution and its draft by Yurii Luryi is one of the most interesting papers. It is marked by the immediacy and liveliness of the personal experience of a lawyer recently having practised in the Soviet Union. The reasons he gives for the amendments made in the draft seem particularly convincing and significant in political terms. The article by Valery Chalidze somewhat overlaps with the previous two contributions. He rightly stresses that the

40

This content downloaded from 62.122.76.48 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 22:37:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions