| Abstract [eng] |
Belarus and Ukraine share many common points in their history starting from cultural and religious influence of Kiev Rus, belonging in Great Duchy of Lithuania to history in Soviet Union. Both countries turned into authoritarian regimes shortly after the declaration of independence in 1991. Civic protests had erupted frequently in both Belarus and Ukraine expressing dissatisfaction with the regime and its policies. Greatest civic protests were 2013 - 2014 Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine with strong stances for Ukraine's eurointegration and 2020 Belarus protests that emerged after rigged presidential elections. There were noticed a considerable number of historical symbols in both of the mentioned civic movements. Collective identity and collective memory are highlighted as one of the main mobilizing factors in civic movements. However, in authoritarian countries collective memory is tightly controlled by the government which intends to use it to legitimize its regime and maintain power. Belarus and Ukraine civic protests reflected several historical discourses that sometimes do not coincide with official regime promoted collective identity. The main question of the thesis is raised: who and how had disseminated historical narratives that were seen in civic protests yet did not conform to regime discourses. The goal of the thesis is to examine the overlap or difference between the dominant, state-supported discourses and the discourses reflected in the protests, which can be seen in school history textbooks and the media, and to research how these discourses influenced collective identity of the protests. To reach the above-mentioned goal critical discourse analysis is used 1) to research historical narratives high school textbooks in Ukraine and Belarus; 2) to find most prevailing historical narratives in popular Belarus and Ukraine media; 3) to compare the findings in textbooks and media with discourses that arose in civic movements. The analysis showed that historical discourses that reflected in Ukraine textbooks did not coincide with official historical memory constructed by Victor Yanukovich regime, yet they were highly reflected in media outlets. Support of official historical discourse in media was mainly influenced by the owners of media outlets goals to back up V. Yanukovich regime in order to ensure favorable conditions for their business interests. Media mainly supported pro-Russian and Soviet ideology based historical discourses while in protest a sharp increase in need to 'desovietize' collective memory was noticed. Similarly in Belarus official historical discourse was based on Soviet past and memory of Great Patriotic war. This discourse was noticed both in textbooks and state-owned media which glorified USSR's victory against Nazi Germany. Independent media outlet stands out with attempts to insert memory of USSR caused repressions against Belarus people in official historical discourse. Despite harsh laws directed towards independent media that included arrests and fines, the memory of Soviet repressions was noticed in protests. However, official discourse appeared strongly inherited in society and narratives regarding Great Patriotic war were also used by activists of protests, yet they were reversed and negatively portrayed the authorities. |
