Of Mermaids and Rock Singers

Placing the Self and Constructing the Nation THrough Belarusan Contemporary Music

Maria Paula Survilla

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781000143553
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Media & Performing Arts
• Subtopic: Music

This book examines the roles, functions, and interpretations of rock music as part of the initial push towards exploring national and personal identities in a newly independent Belarus. It also includes a summary of rock concert activity in Belarus.

1.
"Žyvie Bielaruś!": Nationalism, Critiques, and Cultural Responses

THE INING TABLE IS THE RITUAL CENTER OF BELARUSAN HOME LIFE. THE preparation and sharing of food emphasizes family prosperity, however humble, while the ritualized behavior around the table reflects family hierarchy and order. As the focal center of the home, the table is also the stage around which guests are honored. The surface is covered with the best the family has to offer, displays of abundance consisting of food and drink that are methodically searched-for and saved for such occasions. While this important event often ends with unabashed celebration, the meal always begins solemnly with the liturgy of the toast: the vodka is poured, the shot glasses are distributed, and the host briefly expresses the hopes of those gathered together.

At one such meal, in an apartment in one of the outlying developments of Miensk, I sat at the table with a young couple and their son. Alena Bahdanovič was to become a great friend and was key in introducing me to many Miensk musicians. Her three-year old son Henik, normally full of agitated energy sat quietly with us at the table. We were all poised to toast the beginning of the meal. I was expecting a traditional toast, a statement of thanks and of hope: "Daj Boža!" [may God provide]. Instead, Alena's husband Vaclaű turned to his young son and told him he could give the toast. Holding his juice in front of him with a grand gesture the boy loudly proclaimed, "Žyvie Bielaruś!" [Belarus lives!] and his parents answered, "Sapraūdy žyvie!"[It truly lives!].

This affirmation of the nation resonated around many tables in 1993. The statement reflected sentiments of pride, commitment, and confidence that had grown during the two years following the declaration of independ ence. This declaration could also be heard in the public sphere, during political rallies, rock concerts, and cultural performances.

As a kind of national anliphonal, "Zyvie Bielarus!" signals the discrepancy between national sentiments and perceptions of Belarusan nationhood found in academic discourse and media sources. Such contrasts represent a central problematic in the study of contemporary Belarusan culture. Despite historical efforts towards national definition, Belarusan nationhood continues to generate controversy because of the complex historical relationships between countries in Eastern Europe. Some of the trends in such discourse reflect an indifference towards Belarusan efforts at national self-determination, an incredulity that asks rather than proclaims "Belarus lives?"

The construction of nation and the perception of nation are key issues in the study of Belarus. As cultural processes construction and perception are fraught with both contemporary and historical complexities. Steady efforts towards national definition seem to be the only constant in the varied analyses of successful national development. Franz Fanon writes: "a national culture is the whole body of efforts made by a people in the sphere of thought to describe, justify and praise the action through which that people has created itself and keeps itself in existence."¹ This definition of national culture underlines the importance of process as an accumulation of efforts (the whole body) that contribute to the definition and continued existence of a nation construct. It is this accumulation of efforts that best describes the process of nation definition in Belarusan history where attempts at independence have often stalled, while the expressed desire for self-determination has persisted. This chapter addresses attitudes towards Belarusan nationhood. It serves to underline the perceptual legacy that affects world views of Belarus, the reasons for that legacy, as well as resulting responses in academic discourse.

While Eastern European nations have shared many parallel experiences since declaring independence, the path towards sovereignty has resulted in unique choices and situations for each country. Some of the choices made by these nations have perplexed Western scholars and political observers who had foreseen different models for change. If there is one constant in the literature produced about post-communist Eastern Europe, it is that political, cultural, and economic changes do not always reflect Western theoretical pre dictions.² The extraordinary and often frustrating historical moments experienced by these nations are defined by the sometimes shaky implementation of political choice, the uneven impact of a market economy, and the post-Soviet exploration of subjugated cultural identities.

Renewed access to Eastern Europe allows for a new understanding of these emerging nations. Past scholarship and media coverage of Eastern Europe continue to provide comparisons and points of contention against which to gauge new research. This is particularly true in the understanding of history, of cultural change, and in the articulation of national identity in each country.

The exploration of past and present politics and culture in Eastern Europe is often obscured by assumptions about the definition of nation and the process towards national identity. Writings on the Soviet Union rarely consider Belarus as a subject for cultural and political inquiry, depending instead upon a primarily russophile historiography of Belarusan history and culture. With its complex history (including that of its ethnographic territories Bielastocőyna (Poland) and Vilnia (Lithuania) to the northwest), treatments of Belarus have produced a historiography of Eastern Europe underscored by a narrative that asks who has the right to assert nationhood.³ Belarus' national identity is debated in several ways. Interpretations of history and nationhood reflected in Western, Polish, Russian, and Soviet scholarship often contrast with the internal exploration of what it means to be a modern nation as expressed by Belarusan scholars. Jan Zaprudnik maintains that part of outside perceptions of Belarusan nationhood have to do with a lack of informed critical scholarship about its history. He writes: "Traditionally, whenever Belarus was written about in Western source books it was treated as an "appendix" to a larger political unit [...] a description of a country as part of a larger whole [...] Such authors have failed to present the Belarusan nation from within, as it were, in the light of its own dynamics and aspirations" (1993, xiv-xv).

The most controversial and debated issues in the study of Belarus include a disregard of its distinct cultural and national identity, and are complicated by the fact that readings on the history of Belarus, as with any history, vary according to the placement of the historian. Developing histories are always mediated because the ownership or appropriation of any perceived historical moment necessarily redefines that moment in the history of another group. The politics of histories can be overt challenges to other histories or can be equally powerful through omission, conceptually eliminating the "other" by ignoring their significance. As James Clifford writes: "Every focus excludes, there is no politically innocent methodology for inter cultural inter-pretation."⁴ Whatever the focus, it is clear that documenting histories is part of the process of justifying a national existence. Beyond adding to scholarly discourse, such documents also influence the character and articulation of cultural confidence and national identities.

Identity and Nation

Identity as a theoretical framework strives to answer the questions of who am I? or who are we? according to the many variables that the individual can choose to emphasize or to obscure.⁵ These variables might include the importance given to heredity and/or to many other aspects of life choice and experience (social group; taste; sexual orientation; religious affiliation; etc.). While it exists as a highly individualistic concept, identity also includes the sense of connection to others.

For group definition, identity is the sense of similarity or of common origin that is fundamental to a sense of belonging. Group identity may be tied to the recognition of nation, in itself neither a simple nor a stable concept. Concepts of national origin and of nationality are understood according to the knowledge of common history, of shared conflicts, and of what are often perceived as collective achievements. This knowledge base can be maintained through language, historical narratives, cultural expression, and national symbols.⁶

When group stability is jeopardized due to internal conflict or external aggression, groups are compelled to define similarities, and behavioral norms as rules of conduct, traditions, and language become strategic tools for cultural defense (Royce 1982; Horowitz 1985). Such strategies for defense are often seen in countries that emerge from colonialism and begin to explore the impact of their pre- and post-colonial histories. One response to the stress of colonialism is the effort to establish distinction. Horowitz describes this reaction as a movement of differentiation recalling historic glories and "emphasizing cultural uniqueness" (115).⁷ While identity can provide a fluid frame for cultural analysis, the concepts of nation and nationalism belong to a varied repertoire of scholarly discourse that attempts to understand this globally-manifested aspect of group definition.

Michael Ignatieff defines nationalism as a combination of political, moral, and cultural ideals that ultimately provide groups with identity boundaries leading to the historic and contemporary justification of assertion, including violent action.⁸

Despite the examples of violent nationalism in past and present world conflict (Chechnya and the former Yugoslavia), national identity and nationalist exclusivity are not parallel concepts. The ideal and practical construction of territorial boundaries based on ethnic ties can be an internal, conscious, historically-based process that groups rely on as a physical metaphor for identity. However, even without territory, or ethnicity, nationalism really struggles to answer questions of differentiation and to provide legitimacy according to cultural difference, according to "what we are not."

Benedict Anderson (1983) offers an analysis of nationalism from a developmental perspective. He theorizes that the nation is an "imagined political community" shaped in modern times through print technology and communication and perceived as a natural evolution, a historically-based, universally-accepted concept. While Anderson strives to understand the conceptual development of nationalism as a process, he stresses that negating the process as a "falsity or fabrication" obscures the overriding acceptance of the concept as a defining element of diversity and distinction in our global communities. He stresses the imagined state of communities bound by elastic borders that exist partly on the basis of accepting the existence of a neighboring nation. Therefore the ideological hold of the nation exists because the root of the concept lies in the perceived connectedness between cultural practice and political differentiation, not in politics alone (14-40).

The reciprocal relationship between self-definition and outside acceptance is part of Belarus' national experience. Its history, tied to the national development of Samogitia (modern-day Lithuania), to the Polish Commonwealth (1569-1795), and to that of the Russian Empire, places Belarus in a tug-of-war for the ownership of history, for cultural distinction, and for the right to assert national identity.⁹ Part of the outside perception is complicated by the perceived success of what Partha Chatterjee labels official nationalism.¹⁰ In countries that have experienced colonization, for example pre-sovereignty Belarus, the notion of nation was being constructed by a political ideology that equally manipulated cultural choices. Chatterjee describes 'Russification' as a model of official nationalism which "involved the imposition of cultural homogeneity from the top, through state action" (165).

The manipulation of culture through state action was aggressively implemented throughout Belarus' history. One key example is connected to Joseph Stalin's definition of the nation and his subsequent manipulation of the Belarusan language. Stalin's nation doctrine had to justify the varied make-up of the Soviet construct. His definition stressed a historically constituted conglomerate of people who had lengthy and systematic connections, common territory, economic interdependence, and a definable spiritual complexion or national character.¹¹ These criteria were underlined by the perception of a national community based on language (Russian). Stalin's official nationalism altered the Belarusan language in a very specific way. In 1933, Soviet policy eliminated certain written elements in Belarusan orthography and grammar. Central to these changes was the outlawing of one letter, the "b" [miakki znak]. The purpose was to bring the sonic characteristics of the Belarusan language closer to that of Russian, thus facilitating linguistic assimilation.¹² In addition to the manipulation of language, Belarusan demographics were also manipulated in the Soviet attempt to homogenize populations.

The Soviet mandate for the internationalization of populations in the Soviet Union led to many other colonial strategies including the displacement and conscious seeding of many groups into "other" geographic environments. In the case of Belarus this process was particularly aggressive because the system sought to "provide an ethnic Russian presence in an important Russian border region" (Clem 1990, 113). In addition to providing a military presence along the iron curtain this process was seen as a way to replace national and regional identities by the forceful adoption of a one-option Soviet nationalism based on Russian culture, language, and a central ized single-party rule. The psychological and practical effects of these experiences are seen and heard in contempo...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents
• List Of Illustrations
• Notes to Accompanying CD
• The Transliteration of the Belarusan Language
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• 1. “Žyvie Bielaruś!”: Nationalism, Critiques, and Cultural Responses
• 2. Terminology, Controversy, and the Interpretation of History
• 3. “Stand in the doorway”: Entrances and Exits in Urban Belarus
• 4. From Legislation to the Renaissance: Belarusan Rock and Urban Folklore
• 5. Of Mermaids and Rock Singers: Ethnography and Shifting Authority in Pałac’s “Rusałki”
• 6. Ulis: “America is Where I am”
• 7. From Bard to Rock Star: Kasia Kamockaja
• 8. National Republic of Mroja [Dream]: Quotation and the Kangaroo
• 9. Rock and Revolution: Performance and the Mediation of Rock
• Bibliography
• Discography
• Index