The Ukrainian Week recently interviewed Myroslav Shkandriy, who is one of the authors of the Ukrainian Decolonial Glossary and a well-known researcher of Ukrainian literature and art. The discussion revolved around the decolonization discourse in science and the unique contributions that Ukrainians can make to it. Shkandriy has authored several books including “Modernists, Marxists, and the Nation: The Ukrainian Literary Discussion of the 1920s,” “In the Embrace of the Empire: Literature and Imperial Discourse from the Napoleonic to the Postcolonial Era,” “Avant-Garde Art in Ukraine, 1910–1930: The Memory Worth Fighting For,” “Jews in Ukrainian Literature: Representation and Identity,” “In the Maelstrom: The Waffen-SS ‘Galicia’ Division and Its Legacy,” and others.
– Myroslav, with Ukraine currently undergoing an accelerated decolonisation process amidst the ongoing conflict, there’s a predominant focus on derussification and desovietisation. However, the broader anti-colonial discourse in Ukraine also encompasses challenging the Western-centric coloniality of knowledge alongside Russian influence. Do you believe Ukrainians can effectively understand and navigate both these directions swiftly?
The postcolonial discourse emerged in the 1990s and gained momentum in the early 21st century. It was primarily led by countries in Africa, Asia, and South America, which are often referred to as the Global South. However, Ukrainians and Eastern Europeans have been increasingly involved in this discourse, arguing that it is highly relevant for analysing Eastern Europe and the countries that were part of the Russian Empire.
I believe that Ukrainian scholars and cultural institutions should focus on fully understanding and mastering the discourse about the Russian Empire. This includes understanding its origins, methods, and overall impact. Similar to the widespread discourse on feminism and gender studies in universities worldwide, the Russian Empire has not been represented in a similar way. Ukrainians have a unique perspective to offer due to their historical connection to Russia, their deep understanding of Russian psychology and literature, and their experiences of suffering under the Russian Empire and during Stalinism. There is rich material for scholarly exploration, not just in terms of economic and political oppression, but also in the history of psychological subjugation and emancipation.
Ukrainians should incorporate their understanding and analysis of Russian imperialism into the broader decolonial discourse. This will not only enrich the global conversation but also empower Ukrainians to engage with the wider world using this specialised knowledge.
In some countries, there is a prevailing belief that European or ‘white’ countries do not have the right to engage in decolonial discourse. This belief is often linked with anti-European or anti-American sentiments. However, this is a misconception because researchers from ‘white’, European, or North American backgrounds contribute valuable insights and enrich global discourses.
For example, when discussing Russia and its literature, it’s important to recognise the significant influence of Ukraine. Much of Russian culture was either about Ukraine or created by Ukrainians. The Ukrainian Revolution of 1917-1920 was distinct from the Russian Revolution, and there were also differences between Ukrainian Marxism and Russian Bolshevism. Therefore, in conversations about decolonisation, it’s crucial to include the perspectives of Ukrainians.
– Can scholars from the countries that were part of the Soviet Union and from the peoples within today’s Russian Federation, who are effectively colonised by Russia, be our allies?
– Yes, they absolutely should be our allies. Very interesting researchers have already begun to emerge who describe the situation in Central Asian countries. Russian orientalism was not exactly like Western European, but it existed. Russia has always had an inferiority complex towards Europe, but this did not prevent it from oppressing, exploiting, and dominating the peoples of Central Asia.
A new organisation called RUTA is being formed and is preparing for its first conference in the Carpathian Mountains at the end of June. This is an attempt to gather researchers from Central and Eastern European countries, the Baltic states, the Caucasus, and Central and Northern Asia and create an organisation that will study these regions and not allow Russianists to dominate this discourse. They have announced an open call, and researchers from various countries are signing up.
In many organisations focusing on Slavic studies or politics, Russian studies tend to dominate. However, here, representatives from these nations are attempting to create discourse from the perspective that they, too, are subjects, have created and are creating history, and should be seen as equals. This is just one example among many.
Initiatives like the Ukrainian Decolonial Glossary and RUTA are very indicative of the changing world. In Slavic departments in the West—whether teaching history, politics, or literature—there are attempts to use new terminology, look at things more broadly, revise previous history textbooks, and move away from a Russian-centric perspective. This is now being discussed everywhere, and efforts are being made to rethink the historical situation.
– In Ukraine, during the 2000s, a movement started to reclaim the names of artists and scholars that had been appropriated by Russia into Ukrainian cultural heritage. There was pushback from Western academic and museum circles, which essentially insisted that “We shouldn’t rewrite world art history just for the Ukrainians’ sake.” However, this attitude changed only after the war began. Did you encounter similar resistance when writing your research, which later became the book “Avant-Garde Art in Ukraine, 1918-1934”?
– I have been researching the avant-garde movement of the 1910s-1930s and the Ukrainian artists associated with it. Initially, there was little interest in this topic in the West, with some people disregarding the existence of the Ukrainian avant-garde and instead considering these artists to be Russian or part of the Russian avant-garde. However, the situation began to change in 2014 when museums, curators, and scholars faced resistance from the Ukrainian side. This change intensified after 2022. Today, many museums acknowledge a particular artist or author as Ukrainian or born in Ukraine. This shift has affected the interpretation of specific works and the recognition of the creativity of Ukrainian artists. Even individual works have been renamed—now referred to as “Ukrainian Dancers” instead of “Russian Dancers”—demonstrating a growing awareness within international artistic circles.
Certainly, there is always a certain reluctance, an unwillingness to change something, but this is understandable—people are accustomed to certain books, textbooks, established approaches, and shifting the focus requires them to reorganise everything in their minds, to rethink everything anew. And I believe the task of Ukrainian scholars is to explain, present new materials, tell the story of Ukrainian art and the biographies of artists. And it has an effect; it slowly influences people, and it begins to change the situation.
I believe that if an artist identifies as Ukrainian, or if their works are related to Ukrainian tradition or the Ukrainian movement, or if they participate in the artistic process alongside other Ukrainians, then they can and should be included in the concept of the Ukrainian avant-garde. I think that the more we discuss it, write about it, and explain it, the more people will come around to our point of view. Over the past 25 years, Ukrainians have managed to establish the idea in the West that they were leading figures in the avant-garde and that many of the brightest, most talented figures were shaped within the Ukrainian cultural context. This is now widely accepted in academic circles.
– Myroslav, it seems that in your book on avant-garde art in Ukraine, you relied less on concepts from the decolonial lexicon. However, in the monograph “In the Embrace of the Empire,” which was published in 2023, you operate with contemporary terms.
– The book was originally published in English in 2001 and later translated into Ukrainian. However, 23 years have passed since then. At the time of the book’s initial release, Ukraine was not a significant part of this discourse, and very few scholars were discussing Ukraine in this context. It was only later that scholars like Marko Pavlyshyn, Tamara Gundorova, and Vitaliy Chernetsky started addressing Ukraine in this context.
The second edition of my book in Ukrainian gained new life and wide resonance during the full-scale invasion. It became clear that it was time for a second reading of the topic, prompting me to return to research in this vein. This is one of the reasons I became interested in working on the “Ukrainian Decolonial Glossary” project.
– What are you currently working on?
Last year, I published a book about the Ukrainian ‘Division Galicia’. During the same time, a major scandal erupted in the Canadian Parliament due to the presence of a former division member during Zelensky’s visit. This year, I had to give many interviews to explain to people that there is a lot of myth-making surrounding this division, as well as Ukrainian culture, politics, and history in general. The process of demythologisation is very necessary, and it is currently happening. I am trying to participate in it.
– I noticed that many of the authors of the Glossary are young scholars who have studied or are currently studying at reputable Western universities. They are familiar with the latest theories of decolonial discourse, which brings a noticeable new impetus to Ukrainian science. Did you find it interesting to work with them? Perhaps a new network or collaboration has emerged?
– The project originated when young scholars in Western universities noticed that Ukrainians and Ukraine were not being included in discussions about decolonisation and history. They began to investigate why this was the case. The project contains many interesting observations that are specific to Ukraine. Due to varying understandings of the concept of Europe in Western Europe, Ukraine, and other countries of the Global South, there is a need to understand the terminology and how it is used, why concepts change, and what influences these changes. The “Glossary” emerged from meetings between young Ukrainian scholars and Western scholars. As someone from the West who travels directly to Ukraine, it has always been important for me to include the Ukrainian experience. In our article “Anti-colonial, Post-colonial, Decolonial,” Yulia Kravchenko and I attempted to explain how this terminology or some of its aspects can be applied to the 20th and 21st centuries. I believe combining these two experiences in this initiative is important and valuable. Now, decolonisation is once again an area of interest for my research. If the Glossary continues to grow, I’ll happily contribute to the work.
– Ukrainian studies are growing globally, with an increasing focus on decolonial discourse. However, the influence of Russian funding in academic science and museums cannot be overlooked. There have been cases of scholars recruited by Russian special services to portray Russian culture as unique. Can you describe any trends you’ve observed as a scholar who has been working in this field for many years?
– In many Slavic and Eastern European Studies departments, only Russian language and literature were taught, while everything else was considered secondary and invisible. This was due to the powerful influence of Russia and the Soviet Union. The West was fearful of their advancements, such as launching the first satellite and the first person into space. As a result, Russian studies took precedence. For instance, while at the University of Cambridge, I studied Russian literature and French because I was in the Faculty of Modern Languages and Literatures and had no opportunity to study Ukrainian. However, at the University of Toronto, there were Ukrainian courses, professors, and studies available.
I understand the power of agency, and I agree that there is no need to succumb to paranoia. There are many people who think critically, have common sense, and want to help Ukrainians. It’s important to explain to them that it’s impossible to comprehend global events today without considering Ukraine. Ukraine is a crucial geopolitical factor, and it raises the question of why there are so few experts on Ukraine in the West and why Ukraine is so poorly understood. This is a strong argument and an advantage for Ukrainians who wish to pursue studies in science at international universities.
Russian literature and culture are worth studying and understanding rather than fearing or avoiding. It’s important to critically examine their culture, exposing any chauvinism, nationalism, and distortions. By doing so, we can better grasp how imperial thinking has influenced people’s psychology, leading to the current political situation. To gain a more insightful perspective on Russian culture, it may be beneficial to seek explanations from Ukrainians, as they can offer a unique viewpoint from outside the cultural centre.
– Have you noticed more translations of Ukrainian literature and scientific books into English and other languages? This can be useful for explaining things to students or colleagues at scientific conferences.
– There is a lot happening in the cultural scene. Films, both documentaries and feature films, are being released, and books by contemporary authors as well as Ukrainian writers from the 1920s are being translated. This is just the beginning and it lays the foundation for further progress. I know that Ukrainian historians are being translated as well. For example, the ten-volume “History of Ukraine-Rus'” by Mykhailo Hrushevsky has already been published, and classical works by Ukrainian historians who described the Ukrainian Revolution of 1917 are also being translated. One of the historical figures, Pavlo Khrystyuk, a member of the Central Rada and UPR, as well as a socialist-revolutionary, wrote a very interesting work called “Notes and Materials on the History of the Ukrainian Revolution, 1917-1920” in 4 volumes. Mark von Hagen has already written interesting articles about him, and there are attempts to translate his work, although it is a lengthy piece and will take some time to translate. Nevertheless, I believe these works need to be translated because they completely change the perspective on the Soviet Union and the revolution. I am interested not only in decolonization policy but also in the history of the Ukrainian socialist movement.
In fact, all these socialists, social democrats, and socialist federalists led the revolution of 1917-1920 and heroically fought for the Ukrainian State. We must recognise their significant contributions to Ukrainian political culture, despite being undeservedly forgotten by the next generation, who blamed them for the revolution’s failure. They were essentially fighting for national liberation, and we can explain this as an emancipatory project, much like those in other countries around the world. Unfortunately, there was a period when right-wing circles feared feminism and de-imperialization, seeing them as disloyal to the Western world. However, that time has passed, and I believe Ukrainian history offers much that can inform current discussions. Ukrainian history is extraordinarily rich and interesting. Vyacheslav Lypynsky was fascinated by its grandeur, and Ivan Lysiak-Rudnytsky echoed this sentiment, emphasising that it is a great and captivating history worthy of study and admiration. I believe the Western world will also come to appreciate it.
– In times of war, the Ukrainian culture is at risk of becoming solely reactive, focused on rejecting Russian culture. How can this be avoided?
I believe that every compassionate person should stand in support of Ukraine and the values for which Ukrainians are fighting. This includes Russians. Some Russians are offering their assistance, are appalled by the events, and hope for Ukraine’s victory. It’s important to seek out allies among them and utilise their support. This is not just a battle for Ukraine, but also for democracy and a better society in Russia, and many people recognise this.
It’s important to recognise the unique dynamics of events in Ukraine and understand how Ukrainians perceive the situation. In the Western world, there’s a debate about engaging with Russian scholars. People are hesitant to sit at the same table if it gives the impression that Russians’ views are always considered correct. In my view, it’s acceptable to engage in dialogue with individuals who strongly oppose Putin, the Russian invasion, and support the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine. However, if a person’s stance is ambiguous or unsupportive, it’s important to insist that they are not given a platform to express their views alongside Ukrainians as if they have authority in this discussion.
