Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:26:51.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Revival of Polish National Consciousness: A Comparative Study of Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Ellen J. Gordon
Ellen J. Gordon*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin—Stevens Point, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While it is true that many nations and nationalities have come to be identified with a particular language group, linguistic homogeneity is by no means a sufficient or necessary marker of a nation or nationality. And yet, language is often used as a marker, not only to define a people or a nation, but, perhaps more importantly, is used by a people to set themselves apart from others. “Groups tend to define themselves not by reference to their own characteristics but by exclusion, that is, by comparison to ‘strangers’.” The use of language allows for a clear-cut division between “natives” and “aliens.”

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 217 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 Association for the Study of Nationalities of Eastern Europe and ex-USSR, Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Armstrong, John A., Nations before Nationalism (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 1982), p. 5. Armstrong bases his discussion of language on the work of Norwegian anthropologist Fredrik Barth whose social interaction model of ethnic identity focuses on the perceptions of members which distinguish them from other groups. See Armstrong, pp. 2–7.Google Scholar

2. For an interesting study of nationality differences and collective memory, see Howard Schuman, Cheryl Rieger, and Vladas Gaidys, “Generations and Collective Memories in Lithuania,” University of Michigan, unpublished manuscript, 1990. The authors found that for Lithuanians “memories of the past overwhelmingly concern not world events or events of the Soviet Union (except insofar as they have involved Lithuania), nor, at the other extreme, events at the regional or city level, but events that concern Lithuanian nationality. Lithuanian identity provides the matrix within which events are remembered as important in answer to a question about world and national history over the past sixty years.”Google Scholar

3. Zaprudnik, Jan, Belarus: At a Crossroads in History (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993), p. 35.Google Scholar

4. Ernest Renan suggests that the nation is a soul and only two things constitute this soul. The first is a legacy of remembrances. The second is the desire to live together and the will to continue to value the common heritage, “Qu'est-ce qu'une nation?” in John Hutchinson and Anthony D. Smith, eds, Nationalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 17. See also Hobsbawm, Eric, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) and Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983).Google Scholar

5. An interview with a leader of the Union of Poles of Belarus, Tadeusz Gawin, began with the words, “We are not guests here. No one brought us here; we were not dropped here by parachute. Our grandfathers and fathers for centuries have lived on this land, held on to their language, their faith, their culture,” Dziennik Polski, 16 February 1993. In an article titled “Poles in Ukraine, are they for sure Polonia?” the author notes that “Poles in Ukraine are an autochthonous people; they have lived on the territory which is their heritage for many generations. Polonia, on the other hand, refers to those of Polish descent who have left their native land,” Slowo, 25 February 1993.Google Scholar

6. Estruch, Joan, “The Social Construction of National Identities: The Case of Catalonia as a Nation in the Spanish State,” in Uri Ra'anan, Maria Mesner, Keith Armes and Kate Martin, eds, State and Nation in Multi-Ethnic Societies (Manchester, England: Manchester University Press, 1991), pp. 135'142, 136.Google Scholar

7. Ibid., pp. 138'139.Google Scholar

8. Ibid., p. 139.Google Scholar

9. Jacob, James E. and Beer, William R., “Introduction,” in William R. Beer and James E. Jacob, eds, Language Policy and National Unity (Totowa, NJ: Rowman ∧ Allanheld, 1985), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

10. Laitin, David, “Linguistic Revival: Politics and Culture in Catalonia,” Comparative Studies of Society and History, Vol. 31, April 1989, pp. 297–317, 309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Laitin, David, Language Repertoires and State Construction in Africa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Data are from Natsional'nyi sostav naseleniya SSSR (Moscow: Finansy i statistika, 1991).Google Scholar

13. , Similarly in the nineteenth century, the Moldavian language “came to be identified as a lower class, illiterate idiom as against Russian—the language of literature, politics, cities, and public discourse. In Russian Bessarabia the little tradition was Moldavian, the great tradition was Russian,” Irina Livezeanu, “Irredentism as a Question for Empirical Study: The Moldavian Case,” Paper delivered at the Conference on Soviet Ethnic Relations and International Peace, The University of Michigan, 6 May 1991. Livezeanu writes that Moldavians came to believe that Moldavian was strictly a “‘kitchen language’ used by uneducated, illiterate peasants” and that it could not be used for educated discourse.Google Scholar

14. Rothschild, Joseph, Ethnopolitics: A Conceptual Framework (NY: Columbia University Press, 1981), pp. 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Laitin, See, “Linguistic Revival…,” for a discussion of the role of government elite in state-building.Google Scholar

16. See “Bialorus Bez Pogoni,” Gazeta Wyborcza , 15 May 1995.Google Scholar

17. On 14 August 1385, Grand Duke Jogaila (Jagiello) issued a declaration known as the Kreva Union Act in which he agreed to baptism and to marry Hedwig (Jadwiga), the crowned queen of Poland. He also pledged to keep the Lithuanian and Russian regions united with the Kingdom of Poland. The Kreva Union is most notable for bringing Christianity to Lithuania, Juozas Jakstas, “Lithuania to World War I,” in Albertas Gerutis, ed., Lithuania: 700 Years (New York: Manyland Books, 1969), p. 59.Google Scholar

18. In Russian eyes, Poles and Catholics were virtually the same. Hence, Lithuanian and Belarusan Catholics were affected by the 1865 law forbidding those of “Polish origin” to purchase land. See Wandycz, Piotr S., The Lands of Partitioned Poland, 1795-1918 (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1974), p. 242.Google Scholar

19. Motyl, Alexander J., Dilemmas of Independence: Ukraine After Totalitarianism (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1993), p. 25.Google Scholar

20. Rudnytsky, Ivan, “Polish-Ukrainian Relations: The Burden of History,” in Peter J. Potichnyj, ed., Poland and Ukraine: Past and Present, (Edmonton, Alberta: The Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1980), pp. 3–31, 15.Google Scholar

21. , Motyl p. 26.Google Scholar

22. Ibid., p. 35.Google Scholar

23. , Zaprudnik p. 45.Google Scholar

24. Ibid., p. 46.Google Scholar

25. Ibid., pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

26. Ibid., p. 53.Google Scholar

27. In Latvia and Kazakhstan the language of assimilation has been Russian. In Latvia, 15% of the Polish population claimed Latvian as their native language, 54% Russian and 27% Polish. In Kazakhstan, 76% claimed Russian as their native language and 12% Polish.Google Scholar

28. Burant, Stephen R. and Zubek, Voytek, “Eastern Europe's Old Memories and New Realities: Resurrecting the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth,” East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 72, 1993, pp. 370–393, 376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Milosz, Czeslaw, Beginning with My Streets: Essays and Recollections, trans. Levine, Madeline G. (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, Inc., 1991), p. 27.Google Scholar

30. Historian Usievalad Ihnatouski, as quoted by Zaprudnik, p. 77.Google Scholar

31. Zaprudnik p. 88.Google Scholar

32. Solchanyk, Roman, “Ukraine, Belorussia, and Moldavia,” in Lubomyr Hajda and Mark Beissinger, eds, The Nationalities Factor in Soviet Politics and Society (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990), p. 189.Google Scholar

33. , Solchanyk p. 187.Google Scholar

34. Ibid., p. 188.Google Scholar

35. While Belarusan assimilation to Russian has been quite high, there is a great degree of variation between rural and urban areas. According to 1979 data, 40.5% of urban Belarusans claimed Russian as their native language, while in rural areas it was only 7%, Solchanyk, p. 184. According to 1989 data, in Belarusan oblasts where the Polish population was more heavily concentrated in the rural areas, their linguistic assimilation was more likely to be to Belarusan (Vitebsk, Grodno, and Minsk oblasts). In those oblasts where the Poles were more urban, there was greater assimilation to Russian (Gomel and Mogilev oblasts).Google Scholar

36. Natsional'nyi sostav naseleniya SSSR (Moscow: Finansy i statistika, 1991).Google Scholar

37. Gazeta Robotnicza, 23–24 May 1992.Google Scholar

38. Ibid. Google Scholar

39. Natsional'nyi sostav naseleniya SSSR (Moscow: Finansy i statistika, 1991). Figures for Donetsk, Ternopol, and Krymsk oblasts were derived from 1979 percentages, Itogi Vsesoyuznoy perepisi naseleniya, 1979 goda, Vol. IV, Part 1, Book 2.Google Scholar

40. Gazeta Robotnicza, 23–24 May 1992.Google Scholar

41. Vardys, V. Stanley, The Catholic Church, Dissent and Nationality in Soviet Lithuania (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978), p. 19. Despite Russia's anti-Polish policies many of Lithuania's pastors and hierarchs still had a pro-Polish orientation. In 1912, a group of Vilnius priests, concerned with the behavior of their Polish and polonized colleagues and bishop, directly petitioned Pope Pius X to interfere and protect the rights of the Lithuanian language and Lithuanian clergy, ibid., p. 18.Google Scholar

42. Ibid., p. 224.Google Scholar

43. While the Catholic Church in Lithuania faced severe repression from the Soviet government, Soviet attempts to separate the Lithuanian Church from Rome failed. In 1984, there were 630 Catholic parishes in Lithuania, served by 693 priests, and 104 students in the seminary in Kaunus, Bohdan R. Bociurkiw, “Nationalities and Soviet Religious Policies” in Hajda and Beissinger, p. 154.Google Scholar

44. Ambrose, Elizabeth, “Language and Church in Belorussia,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Report on the USSR, 9 February 1990.Google Scholar

45. Ibid. Google Scholar

46. The Uniate Church dates to the end of the sixteenth century when a substantial part of the Ukrainian-Belorussian (“Ruthenian”) Orthodox Church accepted union with Rome, while keeping its Eastern liturgy and customs. The Uniate Church was wiped out in Belarus and most of Ukraine by actions of the Russian imperial government and the Russian Orthodox Church and survived only in the Austrian-occupied province of Galicia, Bociurkiw, p. 155.Google Scholar

47. According to a 1978 issue of the Paris-based Polish weekly Kultura, there were six Roman Catholic priests in Vinnitsa oblast, three in Zhitomir, five in Khmelnitsky and one each in Ternopol, Odessa, and Ivano-Frankovsk oblasts, Borys Lewytzkyj, Politics and Society in Soviet Ukraine, 1953-1980 (Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, University of Alberta, 1984), p. 196.Google Scholar

48. See Gordon, Ellen J., “Legislating Identity: Language, Citizenship, and Education in Lithuania” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1993).Google Scholar

49. For the purposes of this article Lithuania's Polish population is treated as a single actor, even though it is not monolithic. In doing so, there is a focus on those members of the Polish population who have resisted assimilation into either Russian or Lithuanian society and who have supported a revival of Polish national identity. Clearly, there are Poles who see their future in an accommodation with the Lithuanian government, who prefer to work for greater regional autonomy, or who see their future interests in migration to Poland.Google Scholar

50. OMRI Daily Digest, No. 23, Part I, 1 February 1995. See also, Czas Krakowski, 1 February 1995.Google Scholar

51. According to an article in Znad Wilii, 17–30 March 1991), of 194 teachers teaching in Polish, 66 did not have the proper educational certification or diploma. In addition, many of these teachers are ready to retire.Google Scholar

52. example, For, see Kurier Wilenski, 18 March 1993, p. 4.Google Scholar

53. Kurier Wilenski, 16 April 1993, pp. 3–5.Google Scholar

54. See Kurier Wilenski, 26 June 1993, p. 5.Google Scholar

55. Girnius, Saulius, “Lithuania's Foreign Policy,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Research Report, 235, 3 September 1993, p. 32.Google Scholar

56. , LEXUS United Press International, 27 March 1995. See also Czas Krakowski, 25–26 March 1995.Google Scholar

57. FBIS-USR, 11 December 1992, p. 136. See also Pawel Chrzanowsk, “Dryf” in Tygodnik Powszechny, 9 April 1995.Google Scholar

58. FBIS-SOV, 22 July 1994, p. 57. See also Czas Krakowski, 25–26 March 1995.Google Scholar

59. Glos Znad Niemna, 16–30 June 1992. According to a report in Kurier Wilenski, there are 305 schools in Belarus offering Polish language courses in different forms, Kurier Wilenski, 9 March 1993.Google Scholar

60. Kurier Wilenski, 23 February 1993.Google Scholar

61. Dziennik Polski, 16 February 1993, interview with Tadeusz Gawin, leader of the Union of Poles in Belarus.Google Scholar

62. Slowo Powszechne, 29 April 1992.Google Scholar

63. Deutsch, Karl W., The Nerves of Government: Models of Political Communication and Control (New York, 1966), p. 129, as cited in Roman Szporluk, “The Role of the Press in Polish-Ukrainian Relations,” in Peter J. Potichnyj, ed., Poland and Ukraine: Past and Present (Edmonton, Alberta: The Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1983), pp. 212–228, 213.Google Scholar

64. Lad, 1 March 1992.Google Scholar

65. Kurier Wilenski, 25 August 1992.Google Scholar

66. , Zaprudnik p. 221.Google Scholar

67. See interview with Leszek Mazep, Chairman of the Cultural Society of Poles in Lviv, Przeglad Tygodniowy , 26 July 1992 and “Jan, Iwan, Mecislavas,” in Dziennik Polski, 2 October 1994. Poles have expressed opposition to the spelling of Polish names (Jackiewicz) with Lithuanian letters (Jackevic).Google Scholar

68. , Motyl p. 80.Google Scholar

69. Hrytsak, Yaroslav, “Ukraine: A Special Case of National Identity?” The Ukrainian Weekly, 26 January 1992, p. 7, as cited in Motyl, p. 80.Google Scholar