![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
Notes
* The author wishes to thank Regna Darnell and two anonymous reviewers from Nationalities Papers for their insightful comments and suggestions for this essay.
1. Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed, 6–7.
2. See, for example, Weeks, “‘Us’ or ‘Them’?”.
3. There are several ways to define tuteishaść. Nicholas P. Vakar writes that tutejshy (tutejši) means “[l]iterally, ‘local resident’; ‘aborigine’ would be the nearest translation” (Vakar, Belorussia, 25, fn.). Timothy Snyder defines tutejszość as “‘localness’, or more accurately (if less literally) as ‘local-mindedness’” (Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations, 40).
4. Some scholars disconnect the early modern ethnonym Litva from the contemporary meaning of Lithuania, though it is often interpreted this way in Western scholarship; the “Lithuanian” parts of the Grand Duchy were called Zhamoitsiya and Aukshtaitsiya (Aukshtota), not Litva. See, for example, Ermalovich, Pa śliadakh adnaho mifa. Jan Zaprudnik notices that “[t]here are innumerable documentary examples of Belarus being called Litva” (Zaprudnik, Historical Dictionary of Belarus, 148). However, to claim the “proper” name in this context is to (re-)appropriate the noble past of the Grand Duchy: a controversy that until now does not present a clear solution.
5. This interpretation implies Belarus' past as a “truly” European state by establishing a direct link between Litviny, who ruled (or at least are seen this way in Belarusian scholarship) the Grand Duchy of Lithuania/Litva, and contemporary Belarus. See Valerka Bulhakaŭ, “Moi Bahushevich.”
6. Pavel V. Shein, “Materialy dla izuchenia byta i yazyka russkago naseleniya Severo-Zapadnogo kraya,” qtd. in Nasuta, “Kharyzma tuteishaści,” n. xv.
7. Vakar, Belorussia, 74.
8. Adamovich, Opposition to Sovetization in Belorussian Literature (1917–1957), 62.
9. Chernyavskaya, “Piat' paradoksov natsionalnogo samosoznaniya belorusov.”
10. Gapova, “On Nation, Gender, and Class Formation in Belarus,” 642.
11. Eduard Dubianetski, “Natsyianal'naya samaśviadomaść belarusaŭ u minulym i sёnnia,” qtd. in Nasuta, “Kharyzma tuteishaści.”
12. Juliusz Bardach, “Polacy litewscy a inne narody Litwy historycznej. Proba analizy systemowej,” qtd. in Smalianchuk, Krajovaść u belaruskai i polskai historyi.
13. Snyder, The Reconstruction of Nations, 41.
14. Quoted in Smalianchuk, Krajovaść u belaruskai i polskai historyi.
15. Mikhail M. Plisko in the round table discussion “Stenogramma Kruglogo stola politilogov i uchenykh ‘Konservatism v Belarusi: vchera siegodnia’.” Adkrytaie hramadstva: infarmacyina-analitychny biuleten', no. 4 (106), 1998, < http://www.data.minsk.by/opensociety/106/3.html > (quoted 3 July, 2007).
16. In this context: as opposed to Yanka Kupala's interpretation of tuteishaść in his play of the same title.
17. Ivan Charota in the “Think Belarus” roundtable discussion; see Liudmila Rublevskaya, “Dumat Belarus,” Sovetskaya Belarussiya (newspaper), no. 14 (22171), Tuesday 25 January 2005, < http://www.sb.by/article.php?articleID = 41446 > (accessed 3 July 2007).
18. Quoted in Nasuta, “Kharyzma tuteishaści.”
19. Neumann, Uses of the Other, 37.
20. This is a brief explanation of this complicated and important issue which I will investigate in a forthcoming paper.
21. Nasuta, “Kharyzma tuteishaści.”
22. On the play, for example, see Adamovich, Opposition to Sovetization in Belorussian Literature (1917–1957), 61–63; Ioffe, “Understanding Belarus: Belarusian Identity,” 1243–44, 1254.
23. Some see this interpretation of tuteishaść as negative. See, for example, the “Think Belarus” roundtable discussion in Rublevskaya, “Dumat Belarus,” Sovetskaya Belarussiya (newspaper), no. 14 (22171), Tuesday 25 January 2005, < http://www.sb.by/article.php?articleID = 41446 > (accessed 3 July 2007).
24. Zaprudnik, Historical Dictionary of Belarus, 1988: 207.
25. See the news postings from the Belarusian nationalist Internet news portal Khartyia'97: “Belarusi pahrazhaye ‘kulturnaya revaliutsyia’?” Khartyia'97 (Charter'97), 19 November 2001, 11:06, < http://www.charter97.org/bel/news/2001/11/19/06 > ; “Gazeta Wyborcza: ‘Tuteishykh’ zabaranili za toie zh, za shto ŭ 1942 godze zaplaciŭ zhyćcёm Yanka Kupala—za belaruskaść.” Khartyia'97 (Charter'97), 21 November 2001, 11:05, < http://www.charter97.org/bel/news/2001/11/21/05 > ; “Nikolai Pinigin: vo vremia politicheskikh kampaniy ‘Tuteyshykh’ snimali s pokaza.” Khartyia'97 (Charter'97), 5 December 2001, 11:36, < http://www.charter97.org/bel/news/2001/12/05/36 > (all accessed 3 July 2007).
26. Gapova, “O politicheskoi ekonomii ‘natsionalnogo yazyka’ v Belarusi”, 417.
27. Elena Gapova repeatedly calls attention to the muted position or even absence of Belarusian “common” people in the Belarusian nationalist projects of any kind. For example, in one of the discussions in her online journal, on the question of whether shliakhta, which occupied higher social segments and produced discursive messages, should be erased from Belarusian history, Gapova responds that she would rather make sure that Belarusian “simple folk” finds their place in Belarusian history too. See Elena Gapova, live journal posting and comments, 17 December 2006, < http://pigbig.livejournal.com/58294.html > (accessed 3 July 2007). See also Gapova, “O politicheskoi ekonomii ‘natsionalnogo yazyka’ v Belarusi”; Pershai, “Questioning the Hegemony of the Nation State in Belarus.”
28. Rudkoŭski, “Tuteishyia—byli, yość i buduć.”
29. See, for example, the summary of the discussion entitled “Independent Belarus: The Ways of National Self-Identification”; see especially the remarks made by Belarusian social scientist Aliaxei Lastoŭski and historian Alexei Bratochkin, in [discussion] “Itogi piervoi diskussionnoi vstriechi Niezavisimaya Belarus: puti natsional'nogo samoopriedielieniya.” Novaya Evropa, < http://n-europe.eu/content/?p = 842 > (accessed 3 July 2007).
30. Shparaga, “Być belaruskai, al'bo Pa-za miezhami tuteishaśći.”
31. Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed, 25 (emphasis in original).
32. Tuteishaść remains a riddle in Belarusian nationalism to the present day. The alternative “non-confrontational” yet oppositional character of tuteishaść is not as visible as it was in previous centuries, but it is not entirely gone either. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the time of new (last?) Belarusization, tuteishaść is often incorporated into the new Belarusian nationalist projects. However, the multilingual potential of from-here-ness tends to be overlooked in the intellectual debates about the importance and loss of the “nation” language in contemporary Belarus. At present, if not found outdated, tuteishaść is rather seen as a characteristic of Belarusianness that describes the sense of national, native and local/territorial belonging of the Belarusians in the context of building a “new” Belarusian national identity and joining the project of European Modernity. In many ways, this discussion of tuteishaść tells us more about the Belarusian elites than it does about the Belarusian population. However, considering the complicated character of nationalism in Belarus, I shall investigate the relationship(s) between tuteishaść, Belarusian identity and intelligentsia in a forthcoming paper.
33. Nasuta points out that not only peasantry but also local gentry (shliakhta) could identify with tuteishaść, for whom from-here-ness might stand for the attachment with his or her native land and family property (rodavy maiontak) (Nasuta, “Kharyzma tuteishaści”). However, this interpretation is not common.
34. Plisko in “Stenogramma Kruglogo stola politilogov i uchenykh ‘Konservatism v Belarusi: vchera i siegodnia.’” Adkrytaie hramadstva: infarmacyina-analitychny biuleten', no. 4 (106) (1998), < http://www.data.minsk.by/opensociety/106/3.html > (accessed 3 July 2007).
35. Shimov, “Belorussia: vostochnoevropeiskiy paradoks.”
36. Gapova, “On Nation, Gender, and Class Formation in Belarus,” 643.
37. Vakar, Belorussia, 12.
38. Religion in Belarus is a controversial topic. See, for example, Zaprudnik, Historical Dictionary of Belarus, 76–81, 184; Vakar, Belorussia, 54–68; Weeks, “‘Us’ or ‘Them’?”; and elsewhere.
39. Shimov, “Belorussia: vostochnoevropeiskiy paradoks.”
40. On the controversy surrounding the language question in Belarus see, for example, Brown, “Language and Identity in Belarus”; Goujon, “Language, Nationalism, and Populism in Belarus”; Ioffe, “Understanding Belarus: Questions of Language”; Marples, “National Awakening and National Consciousness in Belarus”; Pershai, “Questioning the Hegemony of the Nation State in Belarus,” 626–27, 631.
41. Compare, for example, “In other words, people called Belorussians [tutejši] ‘are nothing more than raw ethnic material; they have no self-consciousness and cannot be treated as a separate nationality’” (Vakar, Belorussia, 12).
42. Yazep Lyosik, “Belaruskaya ‘Eneida navyvarat,’” qtd. in Nasuta, “Kharyzma tuteishaści.”
43. Vakar, Belorussia, 132.
44. See, for example, Marples, “National Awakening and National Consciousness in Belarus,” 566; Gapova, “O politicheskoi ekonomii ‘natsionalnogo yazyka’ v Belarusi.”
45. Lyosik, qtd. in Nasuta, “Kharyzma tuteishaści.”
46. See Sikorska-Kulesza, “Kobieta w rodzine drobnoszlacheckej w XIX wieku.”
47. Ibid.
48. See Marples, “National Awakening and National Consciousness in Belarus,” 569; Gapova, “On Nation, Gender, and Class Formation in Belarus,” 642.
49. See, for example, Ignatoŭski, Karotki narys gistoryi Belarusi, 170–71; and elsewhere.
50. For example, David Marples points out that “industrialization of Belarus did not occur in this period [second half of the 19th century], and the Belarusians remained confined to agriculture or handicraft industries” (Marples, “Europe's Last Dictatorship,” 900).
51. It is important to notice that these transformations were not a totality that affected each and every Belarusian. Perhaps industrialization had an effect on the “middle” strata of Belarusian society, leaving aside the higher gentry, who could protect their status and property, and the lower peasantry, who did not have the resources to provide their children with basic education and/or move.
52. On common polylingualism in Belarus see, for example, works by Yuri Shevtsov, who writes: “Common (massovyi) bi- and polylingualism is one of the significant characteristics of the Belarusian cultural landscape that distinguishes Belarus from rather commonly monolingual Russia” (Shevtsov, Ob'yediniennaya natsyia, 37).
53. On the complicated character of nationhood and nation building in the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and post-Soviet states, and the role of elites in this process, see Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed, 23–54.
54. Here I refer to the definitions used in the independent Belarusian film entitled Mysterium Occupation (dir. Andrei Kudzinienka, 2003). This movie alternatively represents World War II and the Belarusian partisan movement and is currently banned from circulation and broadcasting in Belarus. For details see < http://partisanfilm.narod.ru/mystery/mystery_main_ru.html > (accessed 3 July, 2007).
55. Gal, “Between Speech and Silence,” 177.
56. Ibid., 175–76.
57. De Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, xviii.
58. Ibid., xix ff.
59. Gapova, “On Nation, Gender, and Class Formation in Belarus,” 642.
60. I use “partisanship” metaphorically. However, some scholars see the Belarusian identity and nationalist project in relation to the partisan and anti-Nazi movement in Belarus during World War II. See, for example, the publications of Belarusian historian and political analyst Yuri Shevtsov. See also the works of Belarusian Philosopher Valiantsin Akudovich.
61. Such an “ethnographic” vision from the 1920s may not be entirely relevant to the contemporary national identities of Belarus, considering its complicated history, and economic and socio-cultural transformations in the twentieth century.
62. Brubaker, Nationalism Reframed, 13, 16–17.
63. Ibid., 39.
64. Here I make no reference to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which, according to some scholars, was an autonomous Belarusian state in the thirteenth to sixteenth centuries. The “Belarusian” nation in its current “modern” understanding developed much later. The Grand Duchy was a pre-modern state with a different set of identities which are not coherent with the identities developed in modern times. It is problematic to take for granted the “continuity” of cultural and national Belarusian identity from the Grand Duchy to the commonwealth of Rzecz Pospolita, to the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Rather, it was a set of separately developed disruptions of identity suitable for each state that included Belarusian territory.
65. Shevtsov, Ob'yediniennaya natsyia, 69, 72; see also 65–83.
66. This point opens a new discussion about “Belarusian” identity and its relation to concepts such as narod (people), natsyia (nation), and gramadzianstva (citizenship). The formation and meaning of Belarusianness, and the ways in which this concept is officially and intellectually institutionalized, will be discussed separately.
![Supercharge Your Next Research Paper: Research and write your next paper with Jenni AI.]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/112448/MPU-L1SN.png"})