The American Association for Ukrainian Studies Larissa M. L. Z. Onyshkevych What can we, in Ukrainian Studies, do for Ukraine?
AAUS Home Back to ukrainianstudies/index.htm.  Links page Links to websites of interest for Ukrainian studies.  Brama.com homepage This site is hosted by Brama.com. Click here to see what else Brama has to offer those interested in Ukraine.  Contact the AAUS webmaster E-mail the AAUS webmaster with comments and suggestions for the site.		Larissa M. L. Z. Onyshkevych is president of the Shevchenko Scientific Society (NTSh) of America, Inc. and a member of the AAUS. This discussion piece was first presented as part of a dialog with Minister Borys Tarasyuk at the AAUS annual meeting in Washington, DC, on November 17, 2001. WHAT CAN WE, IN UKRAINIAN STUDIES, DO FOR UKRAINE? Let us describe first the we in the title: we are scholars pursuing subjects related to the study of Ukraine. The term refers to the combined we, the Ukrainianists here, and the Ukrainianists in Ukraine, are partners in the choice of profession and in dedication to it; it is as if we pledged to advance the study of Ukraine throughout our professional lives. We want to pursue it in this country, and we wish that it be pursued just as intensely by our colleagues in Ukraine, as by us here. What one group does affects the other group as well, directly or indirectly. We are dedicated to our field of study, and we care about it. This explains the greateffort that we demonstrate in various projects. We are also concerned about the possibilities of continuing such studies in this country and in Ukraine for many years to come. Thus the extra effort. We wish to have well trained and advanced partners in Ukraine, so that our particular discipline will finally flourish as a scholarly field, not just as a field for field studies. We need to reap benefit from such growth and to contribute our new ideas or discoveries to it. We also need scholarly cross-fertilization. We need to expect quality. Good quality scholarly work in Ukraine will be of benefit to us and vice versa.   Let us reassess some of our successes of the last 10 years: several significant publications of translations (e.g. the monumental series of texts published by Harvard), many personal and professional exchanges (all US sponsored), some joint collaborative projects (the publication of Krytyka - Harvard & Ukraine), publications of such translated texts as An Anthology of Critical Thought (Shevchenko Sci.Soc. & Lviv Univ.), and the anthology of poetry 100 Years of Youth (Naydan - Penn State & Lviv U), as well as the support rendered by AAUS for MAU Congresses.   There were also several specialized conferences with small groups in attendance, large conferences, such as the two in Kyiv on current Orthography (organized jointly by NTSh and NANU), and an exhibit of Scythian art (Walters Art Museum & Institute of Archeology of Ukraine. Also numerous institutions hosted visiting scholars from Ukraine. These examples represent excellent cross-fertilization.   WHAT WERE THE RESULTS? On the whole -- beneficial. Historical archives have become accessible, research has blossomed, publications have grew. Western theoretical ideas and approaches have spread to Ukraine very quickly, often through Ukrainian translations or directly from the original languages.   However , I believe that we could have reaped better results. We have made some mistakes: -- inviting the same individuals from a very small pool over and over again. These were primarily from Kyiv (and from Lviv, at best); such practice discourages or ignores scholars from other cities; -- in some cases the people invited had with ties to the establishment, and this helped them reinforce that very stifling academic establishment -- when going on teaching exchanges -- most of us prefer to go to Kyiv, thus again building up the center (in the Soviet style), while other universities need these exchanges much more! -- we still have not managed to establish a significant presence in the wider American scholarly world, which ignores Ukraine, and still thinks of Eastern Europe as Russia only, or just ignores Ukraine. For example, at the international Conference on genocide held last May in Vienna, two of our leading specialists on the Ukrainian famine were not accepted as presenters of papers, because the 1933 famine was not considered to be a genocide. Characteristically, the Program Committee was chaired by an American at U. of California.   III. WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW for Ukraine (directly): 1. For scholarly exchanges: plan for a more diversified list of scholars & universities in Ukraine. 2. Participate in joint long-term projects (taking into account that some small contribution on the part of Ukraine may be possible now), and take advantage of our different training and approaches in specific areas which might be beneficial (esp. in translation projects);. 3. Arrange for or provide grants for joint projects (e.g. in 2001 NTSh: co-sponsored an archeological excavation of historical Baturyn). 4. Inform colleagues about international conferences (the academic hierarchy in Ukraine hates to share such announcements). 5. Plan panels for international conferences to include colleagues from Ukraine, especially when the conferences are held in Europe. 6. During the next International Congress of Ukrainian. Studies (MAU) in Chernivtsi, we should make an extra effort to ensure the following: --that junior faculty and junior scholars from Ukraine are invited and are provided with an opportunity to attend; --special sessions in each major field (history, ethnography, folklore, music, archeology, art, or even by genres in literature); such sessions should deal with current needs in terms of archival access, research, the need for particular publications (or correction of Soviet published censored classical texts), discussions of new terminology, and of course curricula; -- further discussions and planning with similar groups to reassess the results and the need to continue. 7. We are aware of the requirements in Ukraine for doctoral students to have a certain number of published pages in VAK-approved periodicals. Now most of these periodicals charge up to 8 hryvnias per page to publish an article. 8. invite exchange scholars from Ukraine for a semester or two; however, we should keep in mind that the best scholars in the field should remain in Ukraine. And we should support them there by any means, including annual stipends. The prospect of a scarcity of outstanding specialists and outstanding instructors in some disciplines in Ukraine are most alarming now. We should not let this happen in Ukrainian studies. Ukraine can't afford a brain drain in Ukrainian studies., especially now that there are finally excellent specialists in this field. Also, we need good partners in Ukraine, and we need excellent and dedicated instructors there (a rarity in some disciplines). Otherwise, the exchange will be lopsided, and we may be left with no partners (for example, NTSh has given out grants this year to outstanding professors of the Ukrainian language in Ukraine.) These eight points outline some possibilities for helping Ukrainian studies, as thus also Ukraine, directly.   Ukraine has now formulated an educational goal "to create an appropriate environment for the development and self-expression of each individual, for the formation of a generation capable of learning throughout their whole lives, and for the articulation and development of values in a civic society". A pretty impressive goal, especially visa-vis that of Russia, which desires to modernize education in order to keep its leading place in the world and influence world processes. "Developing values for a civic society" is highly commendable; however, something is missing there in terms of excellence, of striving for improvement, of knowing one's own past, studying the world, and planning for a future.   We can also help Ukraine and Ukrainian studies indirectly This brings me to our side of the ocean. We all want our discipline to grow and to have serious achievements here and in Ukraine. If Ukrainian studies in the US are strong , this will also have an impact on Ukraine, whether in terms of scholarship, diplomacy, and politics. In order to grow, and in order for our field to have a future, we need to broaden our horizons and options by developing and stimulating our field. We need to have a vision and need to plan a future for Ukrainian studies here , otherwise, we won't have any students here, and neither will there be a place for the Fulbrighters from Ukraine to come.   Therefore, I have four suggestions for indirect aid: 1. During the last 10-15 years, much has been written (or even practiced) in the area of interdisciplinary collaboration. Perhaps we should consider a more structured interdisciplinary and intercontinental collaboration. For example, MLA is now exploring ways in which to share teaching programs and assignments between English and Foreign languages (e.g. in world literature programs); Chairs of Foreign Language departments and English departments hold meetings at MLA conventions, or hold summer seminars. Shouldn't AAUS be the perfect forum for such discussions? We should not only to have Ukrainian literature included in the above programs, but also consider planning our field as a discipline, together. We have three chairs at Harvard, we have a graduate program in Chicago, we have funded a course here, a course there (from Columbia, to Penn State to Kansas). We have Fulbright grants, IREX grants, ACLS grants, NTSh grants. But do we ever plan together? And shouldn't we? E.g. there are opportunities at various universities to have a program or a course, often quite specialized and advanced, depending on the specialization and qualifications of the instructors available on the campus anyway. We need to share such information and arrange for a course or two.   Also, while we hope that American instructors are chosen based on their qualifications, the same should be applied to those from Ukraine; that is, .when the Ukrainian language is taught, it should be by specialists with good credentials, not just by anyone with a university degree from Ukraine, who may not even know and use current orthography.   2. Ukraine now precipitates more interest in our government agencies, who need specialists. During the Soviet period our State Dept. "specialists" knew something about Russia, but hardly anything about any other Soviet republics. Recently we had a "re christening" of post-Soviet Eastern Europe to "Eurasia", and we were not able to do much about it. This change only underscores that the situation hasn't changed much at our governmental establishment. However, this new nomenclature provided an unspoken support for a political view to keep CIS together, and perhaps hope for the return of a union with Russia. At first, many in Ukraine objected to such geopolitization, while now some use it as a leverage for their political unionist plans. No wonder there are critical comments in the Ukrainian press about "useless (bezdarni) western post-Sovietologists."   In America today, there is more interest in Ukraine, and we need to help nurture future scholars and specialists here. New experts cannot be created by taking one or more courses on Ukraine and following events on the internet. Do we provide enough training and accessible information to train future experts? Whether for government work or for scholarly fields? Hardly.   We need to coordinate many of our plans for training experts in Ukrainian history, language, literature, and culture. We know that in the US., foreign language study is very low now, and to alleviate this situation the government has provided programs (Title VI for 2002). After a decade of a "global and interregional" or cross-cultural trend, there is a new interest in returning to more regional studies of language, culture, and in Language Resource Centers . We should explore these new possibilities.   By planning and providing strong and individually varied Ukrainian programs and publications here, we would inspire and support good scholarship in Ukraine. We have been acting as if each university or institution were an island. Shouldn't we share information, and compile an overview of current courses and seminars offered, research in progress, and publications planned in this country, and make recommendations for AAUS and for all of us? How about developing further that data bank that AAUS initiated last year, in order to cover current and planned course offerings? We need to have a task force to provide a coordinated look at the situation and at our field, including more Ukrainian book exhibits at AAASS conventions. 3. We could also plan a joint project for several online course in Ukrainian studies. Princeton, Stanford, Yale, and Oxford had such an alliance and prepared 12 courses in the arts and sciences. Together with videos and interactive software tools we could offer excellent courses for students as well as diplomats and businessmen. 4. Perhaps it is time for us to have a full-time or part-time Ukrainian Studies coordinator or outreach person for a clearing house: lobbying deans, and heads of departments (history, modern languages, world literature) informing them of the present need for courses and programs dealing with Ukrainian studies, making suggestions in this respect, and also providing visibility for Ukrainian studies among students. We could then train new scholars, new specialists, and future government officials specializing in Ukraine. Americans with such knowledge would also be of significant benefit to Ukraine. 5. Most of us run into a wall when trying to acquire more than one copy of new books in Ukrainian studies from Ukraine, or sending more than one copy of a particular book, donated as a gift to Ukraine. We need to develop a working arrangement with Ukraine to be exempted from paying duty on scholarly publications. To sum up, in order to improve the future for Ukrainian studies in America and help Ukraine indirectly, we should: coordinate our programs at various universities & share our plans; arrange specialized programs (1-2 semesters) at top universities with courses taught by top scholars; prepare interactive software tools and online courses in Ukrainian studies; arrange for a coordinator and a clearing house of information in order to provide visibility and growth for Ukrainian studies; arrange for duty-free import and export of scholarly books.   Whether directly (through the above 8 points) or indirectly (through the five points), -- these are some of the options for us to help Ukrainian studies both here and in Ukraine. When one partner is strong, the other benefits as well.   It is through such projects that the two partners may achieve more when working in concert, for the sake of Ukrainian studies in America and in Ukraine.