ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

The Dnipro dam atrocity must prompt a re-evaluation of Russian culture

So far, Russianists have been strangely resistant to confronting imperialistic, Russocentric narratives, says Nataliya Shpylova-Saeed

June 13, 2023
Source: Satellite image ? 2023 Maxar Technologies/Getty images

The destruction of the Nova Kakhovka dam is?just the latest atrocity since Russia¡¯s full-scale invasion to?tear at?the soul of?Western-based Ukrainian academics who, like?me, are obliged by?the paucity of?positions in?Ukrainian studies to?teach courses on?Russian language and culture.

International organisations such as the and the already recognise that Russian crimes during its?invasion and occupation of?Ukraine fall under the category of?genocide, and the International Criminal Court has for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia¡¯s presidential commissioner for children¡¯s rights, for the unlawful deportation of?children from Ukraine to?Russia.

Russia¡¯s invasion of?Ukraine in?February last year has prompted some overdue efforts to?reconsider the ways Russian culture classes are taught. But those efforts, while praiseworthy, are patchy and slow. Many Russianists have yet to?engage seriously with the dark side of?Russian culture, which feeds the chauvinistic and imperialistic attitudes that Russia has towards Ukrainians (as?well as towards non-Russian nationalities and ethnicities in?Russia).

Russian culture has been politicised since the days of the Russian Empire, and it has been used by Russian imperialists to promote the idea of Russia¡¯s ¡°greatness¡±. This thinking persisted and became part of the Soviet ideology, in which Russians were presented as ¡°first among equals¡±. And it is also reflected in the West.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

ADVERTISEMENT

For decades, representative works of Russian literature, ballet, music and art have been almost unquestionably considered global masterpieces. Academics in Russian studies, too, have embraced these notions, not least because they boost student recruitment.

Moreover, academic discussion of the ¡°great Russian culture¡± has typically included works created anywhere in the Russian Empire or the former USSR, overlooking the fact that many renowned Russophone writers, artists and other historical figures were born and raised outside Russia. Both of these tendencies have contributed to the tenacity of imperial and colonial narratives that Russia, directly or discreetly, maintains to this day.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

ADVERTISEMENT

The extent to which biased and misleading representations of Russia have coloured Western perceptions of it is illustrated in popular culture. For instance, the Walt Disney film Anastasia (1997) not only took liberties with the portrayal of historical events that led to the collapse of the Russian Empire but also amplified a romantic image of the empire.

But we should expect better from academic experts ¨C even if self-decolonisation, as we might call it, can be uncomfortable because it requires Russianists to come to terms with their own lack of knowledge or even self-deception about Russian cultural superiority. The production of new knowledge takes humility and diligence, as well as responsibility.

In my case, I?have felt compelled, since the invasion began, to use my teaching to counter Russia¡¯s frequently repeated narratives about Ukraine¡¯s historical inseparability from the ¡°great motherland¡± and its inability to act as a political player and partner. It has been challenging to explain why it is historically, politically and culturally unacceptable to define both Crimea and Donbas as ¡°Russian¡±, and I?have been accused (by some colleagues and students) of being biased and emotional for doing?so.

I was patronised with comments such as: ¡°We understand, this topic is emotional for you, but the war in Ukraine is complicated.¡± Russianists sympathise with the suffering of Ukrainians, before adding that Russians are also suffering. But are Russian homes being bombed? Are Russian children being kidnapped and deported? Are Russian civilians being tortured and executed simply because they are Russians? For me and my Ukrainian compatriots, the war is anything but complicated: the Ukrainians are fighting for their existence, for their right to be distinct from Russians and to have their own state.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

ADVERTISEMENT

What does bias even mean for a person who teaches a course on a country that annihilates her own? How can we define the ¡°one-sidedness¡± of a person whose family and friends live under the daily threat of a missile hitting their homes? Is there such a thing as unbiasedness towards Nazi Germany, for instance?

Changes will take place in Russian studies eventually, but not as fast as many outside the discipline hoped when the full-scale invasion took place. Some colleagues point to bureaucratic hurdles that make immediate changes impossible, but the scale of atrocities committed by Russia renders that argument woefully inadequate.

By focusing on the war and critically re-evaluating the Russocentric approaches to Russian studies that contribute to the sustainability of the ¡°Russian great culture¡± narrative, I?took responsibility for the courses that I?taught on Russia in 2022. I?do hope that the latest atrocity committed by Russia, and the unfolding environmental disaster, encourages a similar approach by those Russianists who, so far, have been more willing to engage in a conversation about how ¡°complicated¡± the war is than one about Russia¡¯s responsibility for crimes against humanity.

After all, wars sharpen questions of moral obligation and responsibility, and maybe this is what we need today in the educational system.

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

ADVERTISEMENT

This autumn, Nataliya Shpylova-Saeed joins the department of Slavic languages and literatures at Harvard University as a preceptor in Ukrainian. During 2022-23, she was a visiting assistant professor in the Russian and Eurasian programme at Colgate University, in Hamilton, New York.

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (4)

Please provide evidence that proves that Russia destroyed the dam, when the Ukraine/US/NATO clearly had more to gain/less to lose from its destruction. You are aware of the Ukrainian/US destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, aren't you?
Ukraine has reportedly lost huge areas of agricultural land (for growing vegetables, grain, oilseeds, etc.) due to flooding, and future loss of irrigation water - the countries that import these commodities will have to look elsewhere, putting more strain on global food supply, civilians on both sides of the Dnipro have been forced to evacuate their homes, and these people, their pets and livestock have been lost to floodwaters. Tell us: How exactly is that "more to gain/less to lose"? Are you a Putin apologist? Do you justify the Russian invasion - an act of war - that brought about all this mayhem and destruction in the first place? Are you justifying the Russian infantry's atrocities in Bucha? The cruise missiles fired indiscriminately from Russian and Russian-occupied territories destroying residential apartments and killing civilian non-combatants? Both Ukranians and Russians are dying because of the paranoia and megalomania of a former KGB staffer... There are no winners!
The dam was constructed from thousands of tons of steel reinforced concrete. The breaches in it are hundreds of metres wide. This is not a product of shell or rocket impacts, the dam has clearly been blown up from the inside. Only the Russian army was in a position to do that.
The "who is to gain" question is a reasonable first question for a detective investigating a murder. Even then the answer does not necessarily lead to the murderer. In complex situations the question may be asked too, but the chances of the answer leading to the culprit are much reduced: there can be opportunistic agents around and the culprits can make mistakes. The situation with the North Stream pipeline is not as clearcut as Kremlin bots and useful idiots would lead you to believe: for example, the RF Baltic Fleet was engaged in war games in the right place and at the right time. In any case it is the RF who is an aggressor and it is the aggressor who bears the primary responsibility for all disasters of this kind. Imperial delusions of the Kremlin mafia and the Russians who want to believe in their superiority should not be supported by Western academia.

Sponsored

ADVERTISEMENT