Article body

The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history.

Kundera 1981: 159

Approaching the Problem

In 2016, the Development Centre “Democracy through Culture” (DC, Демократія через культуру), jointly with the National Historical Library of Ukraine, initiated a set of interdisciplinary workshops “The Cultural Factor in National Security,” involving a range of stakeholders in cultural policy development and implementation, dedicated to developing a cultural strategy on the national and local levels. Focused mainly on the sphere of intangible cultural heritage, we aspired to identify the intersecting points in the activities of different agencies concerning national security and the role of the ICH in it.

In 2018 in Severodonetsk, jointly with the Luhansk Regional Centre for Folk Art, DC held a workshop “Safeguarding Traditional Arts and Crafts as a Precondition for Building Peace,” based on a banner exhibition of the same name. The exhibition was a joint initiative of the National Academy of Arts of Ukraine, the Ministry of Culture of Columbia, the National Union of Folk-Art Masters of Ukraine, the Development Centre “Democracy through Culture” and the Department of Culture, Nationalities and Religions of the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast State Administration. It demonstrated the experience of Columbia in post-conflict resilience and peace building with help of creative works, as well as representations of the living heritage and living culture of Ukraine. The motto of the exhibition, “Living Tradition – Living Knowledge – Living Culture – Living World,” highlighted the decisive role of culture as well as traditional knowledge and skills in the development of modern society, the strengthening of social cohesion and peace. However, a question submitted by the local cultural manager from Stanitsa Luhanska, a settlement on the Siversky Donets River, appeared rather critical. The question was about concrete political and practical measures they should use to secure the ICH on territory near the frontline. Should these be a set of special ad hoc measures, a part of general cultural policy, or wider – a social security policy? What role could and should intangible cultural heritage play in such policy? Is it important to think about intangible values when the tangible world faces disaster? Should we prevent emergencies, including the war, to safeguard the living heritage or should we safeguard ICH to prevent man-made emergencies, including wars?

Now, since the full-scale war in Ukraine was unleashed by Russia on 24 February 2022, we understand more fully how relevant the question was from Stanitsa Luhanska. This town has suffered regular shelling from the occupied part of Luhansk region since 2014. The situation in Stanitsa Luhanska in 2018 was a harbinger of the general situation all over Ukraine since February 2022, when the people were deprived of the sense of attachment to place, to their environment. The war broke “the fluid, slippery space between people and things.” That is: “a form of social memory that is grounded both in ‘everyday’ practices such as speaking, walking, gesturing, and communicating, and in more specialized ceremonial or ritual contexts” (Harrison and Rose 2010: 240).

“War and displacement are synonymous with the disruption of the daily lives of individuals experiencing them. War puts the parameters, meaning and salience of identities to an extreme test” (Sasse and Lackner 2018: 1). In other words, we are faced with the threat of our identity disintegrating and we need instruments and measures to protect it.

The Ukrainian Case

As Greek researcher Kalliopi Chainoglou writes, the “destruction of a group’s heritage, which is the symbol of their identity, is a form of ‘cultural’ warfare […]. The protection of intangible cultural heritage in times of war has been erroneously overlooked in the past” (Chainoglou 2017: 115). In Russia’s war against Ukraine, one of the major aims of the aggressors has been to make it impossible for Ukrainians “to remember their past and their traditions, to build a sense of identity, community and locality in the present” (Harrison and Rose 2010: 240). The Russian occupants have deliberately shelled cities and villages to kill civilians, bearers of knowledge, skills and experience. They have destroyed dwellings and cultural facilities, natural and cultural spaces related to social and cultural practices. They have forcibly removed children and adults, uprooting them from their cultural and historical environment, burned Ukrainian books and banned the Ukrainian language on occupied territories, erased and falsified history, including in school textbooks. They have forced inhabitants of the occupied territories of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Luhansk, and Donetsk oblasts to take Russian passports, trying in such an uncivil way to split and convert local identities.

According to the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine (MCIP), during the period between 24 February 2022 and 25 July 2023, 763 objects of cultural heritage were destroyed or damaged, including: 248 objects of architecture; 241 objects of architecture and urban planning; 185 objects of history; 28 objects of architecture and history; 19 objects of monumental art; 17 objects of urban planning and monumental art; 18 objects of archeology; 27 objects of architecture; urban planning and history; 5 objects of urban planning; 2 objects of science and technology; 1 object of garden and park art; 1 object of architecture, urban planning and monumental art; and 1 object of architecture and technology. By oblasts, the picture is as follows: Kharkiv oblast, 207 damaged or destroyed monuments of cultural heritage; Donets oblast, 100; Kherson oblast, 76; Kyiv oblast, 69; Odesa oblast, 69; Chernihiv oblast, 63; Zaporizhzhia oblast, 35; Lviv oblast, 32; Dnipropetrovsk oblast, 28; Luhansk oblast, 25; Sumy oblast, 25; Mykolaiv oblast, 22; Khmelnytskyi oblast, 6; Vinnytsia oblast, 4; Zhytomyr oblast, 2 (Ministry of Culture 2023). This list of material objects is deeply relevant to intangible cultural heritage as well, since “cultural heritage should be viewed in broad and holistic terms, which means that each category of cultural heritage entails some dimension of the other (tangible-intangible, intangible-tangible), and when either of these two categories is affected by armed conflict, the loss of either form of cultural heritage deeply affects the population and contributes to the erosion of the people’s identity” (Chainoglou 2017: 114).

The UNESCO “Operational Principles and Modalities for Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in Emergencies” adopted in 2020, highlight the dual role of ICH safeguarding in emergencies: “on the one hand, intangible cultural heritage can be directly threatened by emergencies, and on the other hand, it can effectively help communities to prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies” (UNESCO: 8GA/9). In Ukraine, as elsewhere, the war threatens to damage a large part of the intangible cultural heritage, or to destroy it completely. In the same way as, for example, in Syria, the killing of thousands “has eliminated many of the bearers of heritage, and the displacement of millions from their lands, with many of them dispersed across the globe, splits communities and weakens cultural identity, its associated practices, and the traditions and experiences that bring people together and unite them” (Abbas 2018: 25). On the other hand, the living heritage in Ukraine became a powerful source of resistance and combat against the aggressors from the very first days of the war. Ukrainian rebel songs, the national anthem and flag, saluting with “Slava Ukraini!” (Слава Україні! Glory to Ukraine!), as well as all-Ukrainian ICH manifestations featuring borsch soup, pysanky (painted Easter eggs), vyshyvanky (embroidered shirts), along with social practices, religious traditions, cooking diversity and handicrafts constituted a backbone of Ukraine’s struggle against the aggressor and also of building a new national identity, strengthening “new patterns of meaningful communication among the believers” (Castells 1997: 70). The story of the rooster-flask in the town of Borodianka, near Kyiv, can serve as an example of how a piece of pop/folk art has gained powerful new meanings.[1] These patterns are based on history, collective memory, knowledge, sense of belonging and culture. The process which started since the Euromaidan and accelerated with the Russian war, “has strengthened the sense of political unity and state identity in Ukraine, including higher regard for the Ukrainian language as the symbolic marker of this state identity” (Sasse and Lackner 2018: 4). During the first days of the military aggression, disparities between regions, cultural and ethnic groups, considered by many analysts as challenges for Ukrainian civic development, were pushed into the background. The common slogan of these days in all regions, especially in those under temporary occupation (Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts), was: “We are from Ukraine!” Such evidence of strong state identity is very significant considering the multiethnic composition of the country (more than 130 nationalities and 3 indigenous peoples). The rich and diverse culture and heritage became important building materials of this identity. The National Register of Elements of Intangible Cultural Heritage of Ukraine identifies local and regional manifestations of the living heritage, but also all Ukrainian elements like the “Ukrainian Pysanka” and “Culture of Cooking Ukrainian Borsch.” The Register also includes traditions associated with different nationalities living in Ukraine, including “Peculiarities of Playing Klezmer Music in the Podilsky District of the Odesa Oblast”; “Christmas Ritual Moshu (Ritual of Men’s Koliada)”; “Milina – Knowledge, Skills and Social Practices”; as well as of indigenous peoples, like “Ornek, Crimean Tartar Ornament and Knowledge About It”; “The Tradition of Preparation of et aiaklak (Karaite Meat Patty): Experience of Melitopol Karaites”; “The Practice and Cultural Context of Preparing Chiberek and Yantyk, Traditional Dishes of Crimean Tartars.”

This “may be the most important type of identity building in our society” (Castells 1997: 9) as it constructs forms of collective resistance to the external oppressor and unites people around values which they consider essential for their survival and existence. In the current Ukrainian reality, such values or “resistance identity” as Manuel Castells calls it, means the fight against the past dogmatic domination of soviet and imperial power that is further embodied in today’s Russian aggression. This power, which during past decades and centuries tried to erase Ukrainian national memory, destroyed culture and heritage, distorted the history. The struggle, the “resistance identity” building, of Ukrainian communities also means restoration and creation of “images and representations through which they project themselves to the outside world” (Sousa 2018: 8). These efforts, which had bottom-up energy and top-down confirmation, drove structural, spatial, spiritual and value-oriented changes. Such changes are reflected in the law of Ukraine “On Condemnation and Prohibition of Propaganda for Russian Imperial Policy in Ukraine and Decolonization of Toponymy” (Про засудження та заборону пропаганди російської імперської політики в Україні і деколонізацію топонімії) signed by the President of Ukraine on 21 March 2023. During a year and a half, many toponyms, urbanonyms, names of streets, sites and organizations all over Ukraine were restored (putting the historical record straight) or changed (commemorating new heroes, events or values). The law “On Protecting the Functioning of the Ukrainian Language as the State Language” (Про забезпечення функціонування української мови як державної, 2019, with amendments in 2023) and “On Media” (Verkhovna Rada 2022) have put an end to the ambiguity in the linguistic sphere on the official and informational level. The split between Orthodox churches in Ukraine became aggravated as a result of the Russian war. There are about 30 million Orthodox believers in Ukraine, divided among the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate [UOC-MP], the Orthodox Church of Ukraine [OCU]) and others. This led to the transfer of more than 500 parishes from the UOC-MP to the OCU in the past 18 months, including Ukrainianization of the sacred Kyiv Pechersk Lavra. It has also led to a switch to а revised Julian calendar – to become more aligned with the Gregorian calendar used in the secular world – as of September 1, 2023. This move, as the OCU’s head, Metropolitan Epifaniy said, was “vitally necessary” (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty 2023).

The emergence of the new identity of Ukraine or new Ukrainian identity corresponds to another type of identity building, “project identity,” as Castells defines it: “Naturally, identities that start as resistance may induce projects, and may also, along the course of history, become dominant in the institutions of society, thus becoming legitimizing identities to rationalize their domination” (Castells – 1997: 81). Project identity creates new meaning around itself. Though we will be able to speak about the legitimization of such newly made identity, or “legitimizing identity,” only after the end of the war, we can now consider some challenges in this regard. First, there is a risk that by changing the names of streets, the authorities will create a symbolic physical space as “an illusion that the real history will start anon,” as Lithuanian philosopher Leonidas Donskis has described the processes in Central European cities (Prague) in the 20th century (Donskis 2011). However, in Ukraine, the new values represented by renaming the space is based on grassroots initiatives. The government only certifies or legitimizes it. Thus, we hope that the project identity of new Ukraine will not be a simple illusion but a real starting point for future development.

The second risk is more complicated. It deals with necessary synergy of all stakeholders to maintain and safeguard the established or restored identity. This is not an easy task. As recognized environmental expert Paula DiPerna describes it, it is like “a slot machine, where the player is looking for three cherries.” In her words, the action requires “science, policy and capital” all engaging at the same time. However, the problem is that “each of those works on a different logic and on a different timeline” (DiPerna 2023: 177). Even if all the “cherries” shared a common logic to build or restore a strong state identity, this identity would directly depend on the “cherries’” surfacing synchronously.

Again, we face the question raised above about concrete political and practical measures to secure safeguarding of ICH in the post-war country and about the general cultural policy and wider social security policy. The effectiveness of various measures for safeguarding ICH will depend on the level of involvement of the tradition bearers and practitioners, scientists, policymakers, businesses and civil society organizations on the national and especially the local levels. “Identifying the phases and methods of their active contribution to the decision-making process meant laying the foundations for building an alliance and a relationship of trust with the local community that will be able to support the process of making certain needed actions concrete” (Sakr 2021: 57). In Ukraine, a Facebook page “Platform for Intangible Cultural Heritage” (Платформа НКС), open for all stakeholders in the field, was initiated by the Development Centre “Democracy through Culture” in 2017. In 2019, several national and local organizations joined the “Platform,” including the National Union of Folk-Art Masters of Ukraine, the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine, Odesa Oblast Centre for Ukrainian Culture, regional centers for folk-art and culture, regional and municipal departments of culture, museums, libraries, research institutes and universities. In the post-war situation, experiences of working with this “Platform” based on mutual trust, will likely prove useful for various stakeholders. Participants of the International Forum on Safety of Cultural Heritage “War in Ukraine: The Battle for Culture,” on 8-9 February 2023, agreed that this “Platform” should be a part of a “national doctrine for the protection of cultural heritage.” They emphasized, “the key principle of the doctrine is that the preservation, transfer, promotion, and development of cultural heritage is an element of national security, along with territorial integrity, Ukraine’s independence, its democratic and legal system, and environmental security” (International Forum on Safety of Cultural Heritage 2023).

The safeguarding of ICH should become one of the core elements of the national legal system. At the moment, besides the Law of Ukraine “On Joining Ukraine to UNESCO Convention on Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage” (Про приєднання України до Конвенції про охорону нематеріальної культурної спадщини) (Verkhovna Rada 2008), ICH is mentioned only in the Law of Ukraine “On Culture” (Про культуру, using the ICH definition taken from the 2003 Convention) (Verkhovna Rada 2011). The Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine has issued several Orders (Накази) concerning ICH: “On Approval of the Procedure for Maintaining the National List of Elements of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Ukraine” (Про затвердження Порядку ведення Національного переліку елементів нематеріальної культурної спадщини України) (Ministry of Culture 2017) and “On Approval of the Regulation on the Expert Council on Intangible Cultural Heritage under the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine” (Про затвердження Положення про Експертну раду з питань нематеріальної культурної спадщини при Міністерстві культури та інформаційної політики України) (Ministry of Culture 2021). A separate law on ICH is very necessary to coordinate interaction between the stakeholders as well as to define rules and terms. This legitimized coordination will be important for developing a post-war ICH safeguarding policy and strategy. Such a law would be made on the basis of an assessment of the losses and needs. Preparatory steps for this assessment have been undertaken by a team of the “Democracy through Culture” Centre and the MCIP “Sector for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage and Relations with UNESCO.” Clearly, more data, information and conclusions are needed. However, even the initial evidence provides good material for consideration.

Surveying the main domains of Ukrainian ICH, we observe that traditional craftmanship constitutes approx. 40% of the elements identified; social practices, rituals and festive events represent 30%; and the remaining 30% consist of cooking traditions, performing arts, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe. Since many ICH elements engage food traditions and social practices, the destruction, pollution and disappearance of herbs, plants and natural spaces will seriously affect them, especially in eastern, southern and northern parts of Ukraine (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Sumy oblasts). For example, in the village of Boromlia, Okhtyrka district, Sumy oblast, the territory where cattail grows has been mined and destroyed by the occupants, and the cattail weaving tradition of Boromlia is unworkable at this time. The building of the Museum of History of the village of Ulanove, Shostka district, Sumy oblast, a place for transmitting knowledge and skills related to the ICH element “Pysankarstvo (Egg Painting) of Ulanove” was seriously damaged: the roof, windows and foundation were ruined.

The explosion of Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant impacted the viability of various ICH elements, in connection with destroyed natural and cultural spaces, polluted water and flooded territories. These include two all-Ukrainian elements, “Ukrainian Pysanka” and the “Culture of Cooking Ukrainian Borsch.” The explosion (and the war as a whole) has seriously impacted the elements’ vitality. It has endangered the life and health of tradition bearers, harmed knowledge transmission (as result of kidnapping [number unknown], killing [over 500], and injuring [over 1500] Ukrainian children). According to UN data, as of 29 June 2023, about 6.5 million Ukrainians have fled abroad and over 5 million are internally displaced. Certainly, neighboring regions suffered as a result of the destruction of the Kakhovka dam, but so did distant regions dependent on the vegetable supply from Kherson and its adjacent oblasts, the quality of water and other essentials. In Kherson oblast, all three ICH elements included in the оblast inventory have suffered directly from the explosion and the war: “Kherson Borsch in Tavriya,” “Tradition of Basket Weaving from Crude Wicker in Velykooleksandrivsk District” and “Dialects of the Village of Starosillia.”

Since a major portion of the ICH elements is related to craftmanship, these manifestations will seriously be impacted if they are displaced to other regions or countries, or if the tradition bearers are injured or killed. This problem is even more acute, given the age and small number of craftspeople for some of the elements (Table 1).

Table 1

Age and gender groups of selected ICH elements

Age and gender groups of selected ICH elements
Source: Development Centre “Democracy through Culture,” 2023

-> See the list of tables

Most of these elements are practiced predominantly by women, who might conceivably be able to continue their practices in other locations. However, their age often impedes their replacement and endangers the existence of the related ICH elements. Some elements are traditionally masculine and these are especially endangered since young men are involved in battle actions and the bearers are old and few.

Professional folk masters and mistresses earn an income with their work. Over 2200 are members of the National Union of Folk-Art Masters of Ukraine. The main problems they experience now are the destruction of their places of work (workshops, rooms in culture centers, museums), their inability to offer their handicrafts in exhibitions, fairs and festivals, and a shortage of materials (clay, wood and others). The table below demonstrates the main crafts represented in the National Union of Folk-Art Masters of Ukraine, the number of craftspeople, and the problems caused by the war.

Table 2

Data of National Union of Folk-Art Masters, as of 10.08.2023

Data of National Union of Folk-Art Masters, as of 10.08.2023
Source: Development Centre “Democracy through Culture,” 2023

-> See the list of tables

Conclusions

As declared in the Resolution by the UN Human Rights Council, “damage to cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, of any people constitutes damage to the cultural heritage of humanity as a whole” (United Nations 2016). Such harm also means damage or even destruction of national identity. National identity is based on history, collective memory, knowledge, sense of belonging and culture. In the Ukrainian case, this foundation has proven to be sustainable and strong, founded on a rich national cultural heritage, especially its intangible legacy. It is reflected in “resistance identity” which has consolidated Ukrainian society against its foreign aggressor. Planning post-war development requires us to elaborate clear principles, modalities and objectives. The war has revealed the role of intangible cultural heritage for the viability of communities and as an essential part of the national security. The next steps will be to strengthen this legitimizing identity, that is: state identity building supported by society and secured by the state.