Andriy Portnov is a professor of Ukrainian history at the Viadrina European University in Frankfurt am Oder, director of the Prisma Ukraïna research network focusing on the Eastern Europe, author and co-editor of nine books and over two hundred scientific publications on the history of Ukrainian historiography, Polish-Ukrainian and Russian-Ukrainian relations. For 20 years, he has been teaching history at Western universities and maintaining scientific interest in Ukraine. We had a chance to ask Professor Portnov about Ukrainian studies abroad, the complex history of Ukrainian history and its future.
Kateryna Lysenko
You frequently mention that the department of your university is the only department in Europe that has Ukrainian in its title. Aren’t we thus trying to fit ourselves into a historical framework that no longer works? Aren’t we fighting for a place in the outdated system instead of trying to make something new? In other words: How to write a new history in a world of total deconstruction?
Andriy Portnov
Let’s start with the fact that the “Wests” are very different: America is one story, Poland is another. Indeed, our department is the only one in Europe that has “History of Ukraine” in its title. Why so? In Germany, the opinion that teaching and research of historical topics cannot be tied to national paradigms has been prevailing for years. That is why most historical or linguistic departments dealing with our region have “Eastern Europe” (Osteuropa) in their title. It sounds great, but as a result, almost all these departments are occupied by people who deal with Russia. In this case it is not perceived as a “national narrative”. Why is it okay to study Russian history, but Ukrainian history is necessarily a terrible nationalism? Omelyan Pritsak, the founder of the Ukrainian departments at Harvard, already admitted back then (in the late 1960’s – early 1970’s) that we are not creating a national narrative, but instead we are returning an important segment of the cultural history of both Europe and Asia. Ukrainian studies should not be turned into some exercises in patriotism, but we must say that there is a separate Ukrainian historical process. I agree with Pritsak.
Kateryna Lysenko
What to do with expectations now, the moment that imposes certain obligations on the word Ukraine, on a person who speaks about/on behalf of Ukraine? Can and should we claim to be critical?
Andriy Portnov
There is no problem when Ukrainians study Ukrainian history, just as there is no problem when Germans study the history of Germany, and the French study the history of France. What is really important is that people who are Ukrainianists know the Ukrainian language and culture. Unfortunately, this is not always the case in Germany itself. Here it is easy to find unique examples of how someone who has always dealt exclusively with Russia suddenly declares himself also a Ukrainianist. In other words, it is a problem of professional competence, not ethnic origin.
Kateryna Lysenko
Have you noticed the difference in optics about Ukraine in Ukraine and abroad?
Andriy Portnov
Since my scientific path has developed in such a way that I have been teaching in Germany for ten years, I do not feel entitled to make categorical verdicts on historical science in Ukraine. I can say that I maintain contact with many colleagues in Ukraine and constantly discover new, high-quality Ukrainian-language publications – very often completely unknown outside the country. As an example of a very good scientific monograph, I can name Ihor Serdyuk’s book Little Adult: Child and Childhood in the Hetmanate of the 18th century. Unfortunately for English or German language historiography, there is no unwritten norm to navigate well in what is written about Ukraine in Ukraine and in the Ukrainian language. Hierarchies and discrimination also exist in the so-called “international” science. That is why, by the way, Prytsak insisted (and rightly so!) that the Ukrainian scientific center should appear at Harvard (one of the most prestigious universities in the world) and it should be at the highest level of world science. In Germany, until now the cultural and historical separateness of Ukraine is by no means an obvious thing. The gradual increase in university positions teaching the Ukrainian language began precisely in the context of full-scale Russian aggression. Should war crimes really have been happening all over Ukraine, so that German universities realized the importance of studying Ukrainian?… I remember how, after the Maidan, Ambassador Andrii Melnyk (former ambassador of Ukraine to Germany – editor’s note) and I visited the rectors of Berlin universities and convinced them of the importance of Ukrainian studies. We were told “we are generally not against it, but find the funds for it yourself…”
Kateryna Lysenko
So what to do?
Andriy Portnov
I think every researcher should continue their work. Seriously, I have started thinking about it recently. The Second World War was terrible, and still there were publications by my beloved Viktor Petrov or Ivan Krypyakevich – these people, despite all the horrors around, continued to investigate various scientific topics and publish books. And we have to keep working. If we stop doing this and switch to something more current – there is a threat of losing time. For the first few months after February 24, I did nothing but give interviews, write newspaper articles, and afterwards I realized that, unfortunately, it did not have the effect that I would at least like to have. So I am gradually returning to scientific activity and advise everyone who can do the same, to continue working.
Kateryna Lysenko
In such moments, such as the Maidan or a full-scale war, it seems that everything must change, space for a new language opens up, and we have a chance that can be used but also missed.
Andriy Portnov
After the Maidan, it seemed that there would finally be a rethinking of the established optics about Ukraine (with a re-emphasis on “nationalism”, ideas of “two Ukraines” and similar clichés), but this almost did not happen. Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine and the Ukrainian society’s response to it are another impetus for change. But changes in the academic world are always difficult, they have to overcome the resistance of the material, i.e., established hierarchies and distribution of resources. A full understanding of what Ukraine is, as a subject of the historical process, will inevitably destroy those basic stereotypes that people have been clinging to for years and on which they make good money. It is so convenient to explain Ukraine through Bandera, or rather, Bandera’s mythology!… And it explains almost nothing… Elon Musk took and repeated the most banal pro-Putin stereotypes. Although he allegedly could at least get his hands on the popular book by Serhiy Yekelchyk, Ukraine. What Everyone Should Know. You can joke here, of course, that Elon is not everyone…
Kateryna Lysenko
…he is everywhere. Would this or any other book help?
Andriy Portnov
That is an interesting question: to what extent knowledge, especially academic knowledge, generally plays a decisive role. I feel that scientists often overestimate their own influence. In Soviet times, by the way, the Communist Party was afraid of sedition in scientific works, which recognized the primary importance of ideological monolithicity. Now we live in times when there is no monolith, and the most diverse (often, as if directly opposite) ideas are whimsically combined in our heads. For example, there is a group of feminists in Germany that published a pro-Putin appeal calling for an end to the supply of weapons to Ukraine. How could feminists do this, knowing about Putin’s repeated homophobic speeches, knowing about proven facts of torture and murder of homosexual men in Chechnya… It just amazes me. But, returning to academic knowledge, I think we should admit that it has a very limited influence.
Kateryna Lysenko
In what new categories should we think and write history today?
Andriy Portnov
Today, for some reason, I constantly remember the bright memory of Omelyan Prytsak, who, long before the modern discussions, in 1980, delivered the famous speech What is the History of Ukraine?, where he clearly stated that the history of Ukraine is not only the history of the Ukrainian people – it is the history of all communities that have developed on the territory of Ukraine: starting with the Polovtsians and Pechenegs and ending with Armenians, Russians, and Poles. Subsequently, Paul Robert Magochy published A History of Ukraine: The Land and Its Peoples – an attempt to synthesize the history of Ukraine as a sum of national histories of various communities. I would also mention here that a significant number of people of past eras did not think of themselves in national categories, or had a double or triple self-identification. In other words, it seems to me that it is not so important to talk about “overcoming the national narrative” as it is for all of us to learn languages and analyze various sources. And it is also very important to create long-term scientific projects and institutions. Especially after the end of the war. And here Prytsak’s legacy, his “Harvard miracle” should really become an example to follow. By the way, please note that the border between Ukraine and Western Europe, which was quite serious even in my student days, is now gradually (and I think seriously and for a long time) disappearing. This means, in particular, that new scientific projects will be more open and international.
Kateryna Lysenko
Yes, it seems that this applies to everyone, not only to Ukraine. It’s just that, at least I would like to believe, this approach doesn’t work anymore. As Snyder wrote that Ukraine (and, I will allow myself to add, we are able to substitute with any country) – Ukrainian history is world history.
Andriy Portnov
Of course. The history of each country is a part of world history. Local stories always have transregional and transnational dimensions. Thinking about a broad perspective, one should not forget about a thorough and holistic study of the local context. It was Snyder, by the way, who very aptly wrote about the shortcomings and oversights of the German historiography of the Holocaust, which often completely ignores and does not understand local contexts – Ukrainian, Lithuanian or Polish.
Kateryna Lysenko
Well, we are ending this conversation in great company: You, Pritsak, Snyder…
Andriy Portnov
I was very lucky to correspond with Omelyan Yosypovych. He, as well as other prominent historians of the older generation – Yaroslav Isaevich, Yaroslav Dashkevich, Roman Shporlyuk, Natalya Yakovenko, Mykola Kovalskyi – greatly influenced my formation as a scientist. At one time, by the way, Isaevich and I reviewed Snyder’s book about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Timothy Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999, New Haven, 2003 – editor’s note). What Tim does to transmit knowledge about Ukraine to the Western reader deserves great respect. I hope that we will soon receive new syntheses of Ukrainian history, written in an experimental language, and then our conversation will have a productive continuation.