The proposed article by Lyudmila Kiseleva, candidate of philological sciences, associate professor of the department of literary studies of the National University "Kyiv-Mohyla Academy", is partly a continuation of the first lecture of the lecture hall "Actual issues of Ukrainian identity", partly the beginning of the next cycle.
About the history of Ukrainian national identity formation, about the causes and consequences of our psychotype ambivalence, about the main grounds for national identification (so-called "identities") and their transformation. First of all, it is worth clarifying the vague concept of identity, which is often used in different contexts without a clear definition. The term "identity" comes from the Latin "identitas", which means identity. The broadest interpretation of this concept is the integrity of the human "I", as well as sociality as loyalty to the values of the community. At the same time, there are various forms of individual and group identity (age, professional, etc.), among which ethnic identity is considered the most important. In the "Encyclopedia of Ethno-State Studies" it is noted: the most common and stable form of identity is ethnic identity, which is based on such group features as a common origin, language, culture, religion, historical memory, historical fate, etc.
Anthony Smith, leading theoretician of nationalism, in his work "National Identity" states that today "national identity constitutes the main form of collective identification" and is "the dominant criterion of culture."
Anthony Smith is a supporter of the so-called primordialist approach to identity, which emphasizes its biological-emotional aspect, that is, the kinship, natural connection with one's own people. However, there is another, constructivist approach associated with the author of Imagined Communities, Benedict Anderson. The point here is that the very construction of identity creates new forms of solidarity, new dimensions of collective national identity. This applies, in particular, to an individually constructed identity, i.e. a conscious choice of nationality with which a person identifies himself, and the corresponding self-development. During the period of national revival at the beginning of the 20th century, people of different nationalities joined the Ukrainian national movement, switched to the Ukrainian language, considered themselves Ukrainians, became leaders of culture and played a significant role in the process of self-awareness of Ukrainians as a nation. Let's remember Nikolai Fitilov, who became Mykola Khvylovy - one of the most outstanding writers of the time; and Mike Johansen, also a prominent novelist of that time, and Olena Teliga, and many others. The example of Yury Shevelyov, an outstanding philologist-linguist and literary critic, who in his memoirs "I-me-meni" recalled his conversion to Ukrainianness as an instant transformation of consciousness: Ukrainians, who had been oppressed for centuries, became a heroic nation in his eyes , and this is what made me want to join their community; and through such addition, language became. Subsequently, Shevelyov proved that the language itself is the source and basis of national identity, and the Ukrainian language, due to its antiquity and richness, occupies a prominent place among the Slavic languages. Conclusion: only social dynamics, a surge of patriotism, and the success of the nation-building process cause such a strong sympathy for the Ukrainian ethnic group that people of other nationalities consciously join Ukrainianism and become leaders of its cultural values and political aspirations.
However, there are problems that should be discussed separately. First of all, the geographical, cultural, historical and political diversity of the modern Ukrainian space. Different states, different religions existed on the territory of Ukraine; the historical experience of the people living in these territories was different. Two definitions of Ukrainians are recorded in Boris Grinchenko's dictionary: as "nedolyashki" and "Moscow-born". We are talking about the western and eastern parts of Ukraine. The Ukrainians who stayed behind in Zbruch became assimilated with the Poles, which is why they were called "nedolyashkas". And that part of Ukraine, which went to Muscovy, became the territory of the "Moscovites". So it was the lack of statehood (the so-called disease of statelessness) that caused the disintegration of national self-awareness. At the same time, the depth of historical memory caused a desire for reunification, and here at different times various symbols of the nation's integrators were formed, which we will talk about separately in the future. At the same time, the leaders of national self-awareness were increasingly demanding of their own people. For example, Ivan Franko complained about the pettiness, selfishness, duplicity and pride of his Galician compatriots. He wrote that his community was "overweight, clumsy, sentimental, devoid of heart and willpower, so little capable of political life in its own wasteland... At the same time, Franko believed in the possibility of uniting the Ukrainian community on other grounds: "People, even though he has been oppressed, darkened and demoralized for many centuries, even though today he is poor, infirm and ill-advised, he is still slowly rising, feels the thirst for light, truth and justice in the ever-widening masses and is looking for ways to them. Therefore, it is worth working for this people, and no work will go in vain!"