NOTES FOR READING
KATE BROWN, BIOGRAPHY OF NO PLACE
Benedict Anderson famously
imagined how communities imagine themselves, how a patch of land becomes France
or Indonesia, rather than any other concept. Often, these secular territories
replace older sacred landscapes – look for instance at the Four Corners
country in the US, and how the four states divide up an ancient sacred
landscape that was once unified. Kate Brown has done something much more
radical, in taking a territory that has no such clear identity, that is pure
borderland: ÒHer Ôno placeÕ is left-bank Ukraine, the borderland between
shifting Polish-Lithuanian and Russian empires -- the wedge of land made
notorious by Chernobyl and its cloudÓ. She shows the different frames that can
be placed upon this territory, and in so doing, she touches on ÒmainstreamÓ
history – the Soviet era, the Holocaust – but also shows how many
such events take place on the fringes of her central story.
Though her book has much to
recommend it, I will identify some of the central themes that strike me. In
each case, I would like you to find events and passages that illustrate these
themes, or perhaps contradict them.
Brown notes that Òtoday's
independent Ukraine is a creation in which the streamlining of hybrid identities
into national groups, the deportation of people as national minorities, the
Nazi imposition of racial hierarchies, the Holocaust, the Soviet annexation of
Polish territory, and the Polish and Soviet population transfers all played
major roles in creating unambiguously Ukrainian nation-space." What were
the other roads not taken in this story?
What events particularly grabbed
you or struck you in this story?
Which of the documents quoted had
a particular impact on you?
The central theme of the book is
how we determine who we are – or if you like, what masks we wear. Often,
our constructions of identity seem fundamental and never-changing, whereas in
fact they can change radically in a few decades. A hundred years ago, Central
and east Europeans defined themselves at least partly by the monarchy to which
they swore allegiance. Later, various forms of nationality came to the fore.
How do national identities change, come into being, and decline or die? Do they
arise from below, from the grassroots, or are they imposed from the cities and
the elites? How far does change derive from ideological and academic theory?
How do people define themselves in
terms of who they are not? How are out-groups and enemy groups defined? What
role did the Jews play in this process? What do Jews symbolize to their
enemies?
What role does science play in the
definition of race and ethnicity?
What was the impact of
technological change on these identities? How was the countryside changed in
thee face of mechanization and capitalist agriculture?
How do definitions of local
community change in the processes under way here?
What does ÒmodernityÓ mean to the
inhabitants of the kresy?
Reviewer Karl E Loewenstein offers a nice summary of BrownÕs main three characters:
The three
main characters of Brown's narrative are Jan Saulevich, the first head of the
autonomous district, Vsevolod Bolytskyi, the security chief who had him
arrested, and Karl Stumpp, a German professor brought in by the Nazis to
racially purify the kresy. Each tried to force the denizens of the kresy into
preconceptions that did not fit. Saulevich created Poles, Bolytskyi turned them
into traitors because of their Polishness, and Stumpp tried to discover the
Germanness in them.
How does Brown bring these figures to light? How might
another historian have illustrated this story through other narrative forms?
How exactly did Saulevich try to
Òcreate PolesÓ? How successful was he?
What presence did the state have
in the localities before the twentieth century? How did this presence change as
the century progressed?
What role do schools and education
play in the process of making identities?
What role do history and memory
play in the process of making identities?
What role does language play in
the process of making identities?
What role does military service
play in the process of making identities?
How do issues of gender and
changing gender roles feature in BrownÕs story?
What was the role of paranoia and
conspiracy theory in defining such areas as loyal or subversive?
Why do states engage in ethnic
cleansing?
For modern minds, it seems
incomprehensible that pre-20th century inhabitants should have been
so unconcerned with their nationality. They must have been something? In
fact, these world-views seem quite difficult for us to understand. They "made
up a continuum of cultures that stood literally and figuratively on the border
between Poland, Ukraine, and Russia, in a place where mass media had not yet
standardized vernaculars or made boilerplates of ritual and tradition."
Do
you think Brown exaggerates the constructed nature of national identity? Are
there places where she seems to place her own ideological/theoretical approach
over and above what the evidence itself would strictly support? Bohdan Klid
writes that, Brown Òattempted to explain how the kresy disappeared with hardly
a trace and how this borderland region was transformed into relatively
homogeneous nation-space. Her anti-modernist approach has resulted in providing
valuable insights into this process. However, the reader should be aware of her
negative view of twentieth-century nation-building.Ó Is that fair comment?
Does Brown exaggerate or
romanticize the self-sufficiency of the earlier inhabitants of the Markhlevs'k
region? In what ways were they tied in to wider networks and state affairs?
Ultimately, is the lesson of
BrownÕs book that national identity is often a response to the successful
exercise of brute violence and armed terror?
Based on the experience of this
region, how should we approach the events of Ò1939-45Ó? Is it not fairer to see
Òthe warÓ as part of a continuum of violence and ethnic cleansing that began in
the 1920s, and continued well into the 1950s. When did Òthe warÓ begin? When did
it end? (see http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/chronicles.pdf for my own discussion of these
questions).
How did religion feature as a
characteristic of the pre-modern world-view? How did the modernizing states
fail to understand this factor?
Between the 1920s and the 1950s,
some of the worst bloodshed in human history occurred in the ÒThree Bs,Ó the
area between the Balkans, the Baltic and the Black Sea. Does the present book
help us to understand the extraordinary ferocity of the violence? Was it new
historically?
Based on this book, should we see
the atrocities of the Nazis as less exceptional? In the 1980s, German
historians engaged in a ferocious debate over whether the Nazi atrocities
should be seen as a response to Stalinist horrors. How does Brown contribute to
these arguments?
How does this book help us
understand Òthe HolocaustÓ?
Tell me about the Volhynia
massacre
Think of the lessons of this book
as they apply to the processes of state-formation and creating national
identity as they would operate in the era of decolonization in Africa and Asia.
What lessons does she offer?
Does
this book contribute to debates about national self-definition in other regions
and eras, for instance in contemporary Africa – or even in North America?
In an important article, Brown explores ÒGridded Lives: Why Kazakhstan and
Montana Are Nearly the Same PlaceÓ. And she does it quite convincingly! Is the
difference between the Ukraine and, say, France or the US, that events in ÒNo
PlaceÓ just happened more recently?
What
are the lessons of the book for a modern Europe trying to create a new
continental identity supplanting the older nation-states? And moreover they are
doing it in the face of mass migration and religious/cultural conflict.
What
other criticism would you have of BrownÕs work? What other questions might you
ask of her material? What other interpretations might you offer?
FinallyÉ.
David Hensley very kindly points out to me a recent interview with Kate Brown
from Harpers:
http://harpers.org/sb-six-questions-kate-brown-1158926209.html