I have been engaging with more theoretical discourses regarding the construct of ‘the nation’ along with its main counterparts, nationalism and national identity. The fluidity of the term across disciplines, particularly international relations, has proven to be a bit difficult to navigate as I conduct my research. The postmodernist aspect of my project does not help to simplify these issues either. Although, revisiting Mary Fulbrook’s Historical Theory has been quite helpful in grounding myself in a fundamental understanding of historical agents, sources, structures and outlooks in wider historiographical contexts; it is quite comforting to acknowledge that the historian has no way of avoiding a specific conceptual category of analysis (Fulbrook, p. 80). By recognizing the artificial construction of terminology dominant in historical writing, a more informed deconstruction and understanding of ‘the nation’ as a historical phenomenon is allowed. I have thoroughly enjoyed Eric Hobsbawm’s Nations and Nationalism as it engages with different approaches to the term ‘nation’, particularly delineating the relationship between nationalism and national identity. I had previously not considered the implications of an a priori and a posteriori perspective of nation-building, which now leads me to question how deeply I should go into researching discourse regarding national consciousness in Belarus and Ukraine. Hobsbawm’s book exemplifies the unreliability of attributing nationalism as the driving force or precursor of ‘nation’ through the collapse of the Soviet Union, as nationalism was a beneficiary of the establishment of the states – not the instigator.
My short essays focus on the methodological issues related to ‘the nation’ as a unit of analysis in transnational history has helped to indicate some of the broader historiographical issues associated with the nation-state and nationalism. I have gained a greater appreciation for the transnational perspective as it does aim to mitigate some of the gaps prevalent in the historical tradition of ‘the nation’. Interacting with different scales addresses the requirement of analysing the nation from ‘below’ in order to understand its construction from ‘above’.
In regards to the postmodernist historiographical aspect of my project, much of the scholarship on ‘the nation’ I have read for my short essay ties in nicely with some of the facets of postmodernism I am working with. Although, I am a bit daunted by the language aspect as I am realizing I will be dissecting a discourse (what is ‘nation’) within an even more complex discourse (what is ‘language’). I am particularly interested to see how the postmodernist historiography of power structures plays into terminology such as ethnicity and nationality and its application in Ukrainian and Belarusian scholarship.