In the book’s preface, the conference’s co-organizers Rodger Potocki (National Endowment for Democracy) and Anna Grudzinska (Institute for Civic Space and Public Policy at Lazarski University) outline the articles included into the publication and remind about the design of the 2010 conference:
The 2010 event consisted of three types of activities: academic panels, practical workshops and side events. Prior to the conference, participants toured sites in Warsaw connected with Belarusian history. The event opened with a Book Fair with displays from leading Belarusian and Polish publishing houses, including: “Batskaushchyna,” “ARCHE,” “Nasha Niva,” “European Humanities University,” “Haradzenskaya Biblijateka,” “Histarychnaja Majsternia,” “Radyjola Plus,” “Kamunikat” (Bialystok, Poland) and “Borussia” (Poland). The Fair functioned throughout the conference, disseminating important works on Belarusian history.
During the first day, scholars from different countries discussed the historical perception of Belarus and Belarusians as portrayed in various sources, written over the centuries, and what role these historical descriptions play today in bringing Belarus closer to Europe. Participants also discussed competing historical narratives, which have led to competing national identities, and whether it is possible to come to a consensus on Belarusian history that could help shape a new identity and new policies that might overcome the division of society in today’s Belarus. Despite Belarus’ long association with Europe, it is the Soviet version of the nation’s history that has been successful in gaining the greatest public acceptance. One of the panels addressed the question of why the European narrative has almost disappeared and what can be done to rehabilitate it. The first day of the conference concluded with a panel looking at the different ways in which textbooks and curricula have portrayed the historical relationship between Belarus, Europe and Russia, and what lessons they contain for educating citizens. In particular, the panel discussed how teaching about Belarus’ European history could bring the country’s citizens closer to Europe.
The presentations produced for the conference can be divided into three groups that reflect on different areas of historical discourse. The works focus on:
- Historiographical questions related to the different periods of the history of Belarus, problems of historical narrative-building and nation-building (e.g., pro or anti-European discourse) and its social and political impact in different periods in the history of Belarus;
- Questions related to the recent construction of historical narratives by official institutions (the politics of memory), including official state bodies, universities, publishing houses and the media vs. non-state actors, such as NGOs, think thanks, independent scholars and cultural figures; and
- Issues related to teaching history and civic education in schools, universities and non-formal settings.
The second group of texts by David Marples, Christian Ganzer, Ales Smalianchuk, Jan Shumsky, Aleh Latyszonek and Anastasia Ilyina considers issues relating to the construction of historical narrative and the politics of memory. Marples describes the state control of memory and its influence on nation-building. He points to the Great Patriotic War as the defining element of historical memory and the foundation for the present-day collective identity in Belarus. His text depicts how the Soviet narrative has influenced the perception of Belarus’ past. The author offers case studies on the Brest Hero Fortress, Khatyn Memorial and Zaslauye “Stalin Line” to demonstrate how commemorative sites reflect this tend. This idea is also explored by Christian Ganzer, who analyzes how the narrative of the Museum of the Defense of the Brest Fortress manipulates the past and creates certain events and national heroes while allowing the victims to perish in oblivion. Similarly, Jan Shumsky analyzes the process of the re-writing of history after the 1940s. He looks at the network of institutions that controlled and guided Soviet and regional historiographies, with a focus on the role of the Central Committee of the CPSU. He raises question about individual responsibility while illustrating the various objectives of the Communist Party’s policies on history. Latyszonek examines the problems regarding the commemoration of heroic battles in contemporary Belarus. Concentrating on the Slutsk Uprising and the Battle of Orsha, he presents a personal interpretation of the meaning of these events and contrasts it with popular perceptions. A different perspective is offered by Smalianchuk, who discusses the role of the enemy-image in creating national identity. His analysis looks at texts written in the late 19th and 20th centuries which create a national narrative, as well as the historiography of the Soviet period. He highlights the martyrology of Belarus, in which the enemy-image dominates all other aspects of history, creates a “victimized” version of history, and leaves out the importance of individual responsibility and personal choice. Ilyina offers a broader reflection on the interplay between remembering and forgetting as presented in the works by Ricoeur, Levinas, Le Goff and Assman.
The last group of texts – by Maria Survilla, Tamara Mackievich, Tatsiana Astrouskaya, Zachar Shybieka and Hanna Vasilevic – is dedicated to the teaching of history and offers a critical perspective on the present day methodologies in Belarus. Mackievich considers the teaching of history to be a vital part of civic education. She describes the controversial changes that have negatively impacted the educational system, including reducing the number of teaching hours, introducing new state propaganda, and recreating images from Soviet times. The aim of such a “reform” is to create “obedient individuals” who believe in Lukashenka’s “Belarusian model of development.” She also touches upon the growing popularity of informal education as a reaction to the regime’s paternalism, xenophobia and conformism. Vasilevic links Lukashenka`s speeches to the different interpretations of history presented in state textbooks. Astrouskaya analyzes the contents of state textbooks to show how different political and social conditions have influenced and altered the historical narrative of Belarus, including its language and discourse. Shybieka looks at the issue of “patriotic education” and whether such education fits into the modern civic education paradigm. Finally, Survilla discusses the problem of the isolation of Belarusian academics and their lack of participation in global academic discourse. This situation limits the impact of the academic community, which normally would serve as an intellectual force for change. To address this challenge, Survilla presents a translation initiative to reverse the lack of access to diverse discourses. This program would involve making source materials that show contrasting paradigms and theoretical approaches, political and regional biases, alternative historiographies, domain-related biases and diverse epistemologies available to Belarusian academics.
On the second day, a series of workshops focused on more practical aspects such as how Belarusian history is taught, how civic campaigns and multimedia tools can improve history education, how official institutions, academics and activists can work together to better teach history, and how to build bridges between Belarusian and European historians. The idea of bringing together scholars and civic activists focusing on history proved to be quite fruitful. The academic participants were surprised at the high quality of the civic activism campaigns showcased at the conference and they were provided with several interesting examples on how theory could be translated into multimedia and nonconventional presentations that appeal to not only students but also ordinary citizens. The conference closed with the presentations of new works on Belarus by Aleh Latyszonek, Aleh Dziarnovich, Nelly Bekus, Andrei Liankievich and Aliaksei Litwin.