{"title":"Securitization of historical memory during the Russian-Ukrainian War","authors":"Yurii Latysh","doi":"10.32626/2309-2254.2022-38.178-188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the research deals with the study of the historical politics of Ukraine during the war in the context of national security. Th e theoretical framework is based on the concept of securitization developed by the Copenhagen School (Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver) and the concept of Politics of Mnemonical Security (Maria Mälksoo). Th e research methodo- logy is based on the use of a transdisciplinary approach the principles of objectivity, historicism, systematicity, the use of methods of analysis and synthesis, generalization and systematization, comparative-historical, historical-typological and problematic-chronolo gical. Th e studies no- velty is that the article examines for the fi rst time the phenomenon of securitization of memory during the Russian-Ukrainian war against the background of the features of the landscape of memory in Eastern and Central Europe, analyzes the legislation, highlights the views of rep- resentatives of the Ukrainian authorities on the role of history in the war time. Conclusions. The securitization of historical memory in Ukraine began aft er Russia’s aggression in 2014 and serves as a means of ensuring the safety of the national historical narrative by delegitimizing or directly criminalizing Soviet and Russian narratives that are considered a threat to the state and society. Its main reason is the abuse of “historical arguments” by the Russian authorities, which include the denial of the existence of the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian language, statements about Ukraine as a “failed state” and the Nazi state, the concepts of Russian world, Novorossiya, and the divided Russian people. Securitization is a forced and temporary wartime policy. In a democratic and pluralistic society, national memory cannot be formulated offi cially or regulated by bureaucracy. Aft er the war, historical memory must be desecuritized, deweapo- nized and returned to the realm of political participation and public debate.","PeriodicalId":33265,"journal":{"name":"Problemi suchasnoyi psikhologiyi","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Problemi suchasnoyi psikhologiyi","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32626/2309-2254.2022-38.178-188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The purpose of the research deals with the study of the historical politics of Ukraine during the war in the context of national security. Th e theoretical framework is based on the concept of securitization developed by the Copenhagen School (Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver) and the concept of Politics of Mnemonical Security (Maria Mälksoo). Th e research methodo- logy is based on the use of a transdisciplinary approach the principles of objectivity, historicism, systematicity, the use of methods of analysis and synthesis, generalization and systematization, comparative-historical, historical-typological and problematic-chronolo gical. Th e studies no- velty is that the article examines for the fi rst time the phenomenon of securitization of memory during the Russian-Ukrainian war against the background of the features of the landscape of memory in Eastern and Central Europe, analyzes the legislation, highlights the views of rep- resentatives of the Ukrainian authorities on the role of history in the war time. Conclusions. The securitization of historical memory in Ukraine began aft er Russia’s aggression in 2014 and serves as a means of ensuring the safety of the national historical narrative by delegitimizing or directly criminalizing Soviet and Russian narratives that are considered a threat to the state and society. Its main reason is the abuse of “historical arguments” by the Russian authorities, which include the denial of the existence of the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian language, statements about Ukraine as a “failed state” and the Nazi state, the concepts of Russian world, Novorossiya, and the divided Russian people. Securitization is a forced and temporary wartime policy. In a democratic and pluralistic society, national memory cannot be formulated offi cially or regulated by bureaucracy. Aft er the war, historical memory must be desecuritized, deweapo- nized and returned to the realm of political participation and public debate.
研究的目的是在国家安全的背景下研究乌克兰在战争期间的历史政治。理论框架基于哥本哈根学派(Barry Buzan, Ole w . æver)提出的证券化概念和记忆安全政治学(Maria Mälksoo)的概念。研究方法是基于跨学科方法的使用,客观性原则,历史主义,系统性,分析和综合,概括和系统化,比较-历史,历史-类型学和问题-年代学。本文的研究之处在于,本文首次以东欧和中欧记忆景观的特点为背景,考察了俄乌战争期间的记忆证券化现象,分析了立法,突出了乌克兰当局代表对历史在战争时期的作用的看法。结论。乌克兰历史记忆的证券化始于2014年俄罗斯入侵之后,通过将被视为对国家和社会构成威胁的苏联和俄罗斯叙事合法化或直接定罪,作为确保国家历史叙事安全的一种手段。其主要原因是俄罗斯当局滥用“历史论据”,其中包括否认乌克兰人民和乌克兰语的存在,将乌克兰视为“失败国家”和纳粹国家的言论,俄罗斯世界、新罗西亚和分裂的俄罗斯人民的概念。证券化是一种强制的、暂时的战时政策。在一个民主和多元化的社会中,国家记忆不能由官方制定或由官僚机构管理。战后,历史记忆必须非军事化、非武器化,并回归到政治参与和公共辩论的领域。