Stefan Wilkanowicz, Interview with Ihar Babkou.

Stefan Wilkanowicz: What does a Byelorussian need from other European countries, from western countries and what you, on the other hand, would like to convey to others as a Byelorussian?

Ihar Babkou: For most countries of Western Europe Byelorussia does not exist. It may exist as a political fact but not as a cultural space. In the beginning, when we gained independence in 1991, a desire appeared to disseminate the idea of Byelorussia in Europe, introduce it into Europe. In like manner a part of the issue of the Europeization of Byelorussia was conceived. After some concrete attempts to enter into dialogue, it appeared that this idea is too abstract and as such cannot be realized as we would dream it to be realized. Essentially, there is the myth of Europe that it does not correspond with any uniform space. There are different European cultures, different preferences, and the need to conduct dialogue with historical stereotypes looks differently here. For instance, it is very difficult for us to conduct such a dialogue with French culture, since the latter's traditional sympathy for Russia and Poland does not permit to notice anything between Russia and Poland. The dialogue with the Anglosaxon world is also very complex, for the very idea of culture is considerably different from the idea that is generally accepted in Byelorussia and Central Europe. At the same time we managed to conduct a very interesting dialogue not only with Poland - this dialogue seems to be fairly stable - but also with Macedonia. The meeting which took place near Minsk was called the Conference of Macedonian-Byelorussian Postmodernists. In general, people would laugh at this name, but in fact it was one of the best cultural initiatives. The best Byelorussian and Macedonian postmodernists met there, and it turned out that due to a similar historical fate, analogical absence from European cultural narration the dialogue between our countries could easily be held. Owing to Macedonians we could enter the whole Balkan world. The next meeting took place already in Macedonia three months ago. A group of intellectuals was then established, a group which took the name of Another Europe. It is an informal group which does not include states but persons, for its foundation is made up of a personal desire after dialogue. We set up a modest plan of action. A programme of mutual translations in the first place, as it is mainly dead "classics" that are translated and not living contemporaries. We would like first of all to give an image of the present situation. It is extremely interesting how people think in today's Macedonia, what is going on in that culture, what books are read. The European dialogue is going on within a limited field, for each conversation must follow from mutual interest shared by two parties. We are not that willing to provide mere information. If, for instance, we consider the German-Byelorussian dialogue it will turn out that Byelorussians want propose something but on the other hand Germans want to learn, to experience something.

S. W.: Which of the most famous, the greatest European writers or philosophers are most dear to Byelorussians?

I. Babkou:I wouldn't like to tell who is dear to Byelorussians because I cannot take responsibility for everybody's choices. I could possibly tell who is most popular with the intellectuals, among significant people in culture. If we take philosophy, the situation seems fascinating, for - unlike in Poland - in which the philosophy of science, the philosophy of language, and cultural anthropology have taken roots, in Minsk we have a totally different philosophical landscape. The continental tradition in its pure form has deep roots with us, a tradition that follows from Dilthey's hermeneutics and develops into French post- structuralism, into all, rather avant-garde, philosophical standpoints. When it comes to names, I could quote Foucault and Deleuze. German philosophy after Heidegger has not been popular with us up to now, i.e. Habermas with his conception of "incomplete modernism" has not been absorbed or understood yet. We are attracted then to critical tradition, since the idea of the intellectual's critical position is very dear to us. Political authorities reshuffle more often than the seasons. Therefore intellectuals ceased to speak on behalf of the whole nation in favour of reforms or any concrete actions. They understand better the mission towards their own nation, a mission which consists in speaking not on behalf of the nation, but on behalf of one's own person, on the awareness of one's own true interests and duties.

S. W.: It seem then that the situation of Byelorussian culture is very difficult and at the same time promising. Byelorussia is building its identity in the situation of interpenetration of cultures and religions, towards Russian, Polish, Lithuanian and Ukrainian influences. This poses some difficulty, yet Byelorussia is, as it were, of its nature a country of tolerance and dialogue, which I, for instance, clearly feel in you (except for your president, that is). Various elements remain in a delicate coexistence. And this is a fairly rare case in Europe, or in general in the world, that the coexistence of various cultural elements should not lead to sectarianism, to slaughter, but to coexistence. This could be a hope and model for others. What do you think about it?

I. Babkou: First, the identity of Byelorussians has undergone some essential changes after 1991. Byelorussianness is going or has gone from ethnic identity to civic awareness, i.e. Byelorussians would be made aware as a further part of ethnic tradition, peasant's, rural nation, which creates its own space and is slowly transforming into civic identity. Szuszkiewicz's times were, in a way, unique, for it was then that attempts were made to reach such a social compromise and build such a Byelorussian identity which would, in principle, contain the whole multicultural tradition which exists in Byelorussia. This is not only the culture of the Byelorussian language, a new Byelorussian culture, but also Old Byelorussian, Polish, Tartar, so that all this could coexist. Of course, this awareness is somewhat schizophrenic and decentralized. At times it may look unstable and incomplete. I feel that it could be something very interesting. This turning point we have reached together with the election of Lukashenka, this withdrawal from some, say, cultural polyphony to colonial awareness, this is its peculiar return match. Byelorussia has always been an object of various colonizing strategies. Two ages of Russian reign, two centuries of Byelorussia's existence as a colony, have created a kind of captive consciousness, a captive mind, drawn to Russia, to Russian culture, not in terms of dialogue or using it, but in terms of coercive, even subconscious, dependence. This is just the consciousness which has taken revenge, in the person of president Lukashenka, which in consequence has led to the failure of that social compromise that has been outlined and to a very strong polarization of standpoints. On the one hand, there appear nostalgic attempts to lay national foundations on the basis of colonial awareness. Everybody perceives the absurdity of these attempts, including those who make them. In any case, such attempts disturb the state itself, for in state ideology there could not be that great dependence on other culture or other statehood. On the other hand, however, a field of genuine civic community is being produced in which, in principle, all the political-cultural powers met, powers which in the time of Szuszkiewicz were in a serious conflict. For the Russian speaking liberals the problem of the Byelorussian state and independence was indeed serious and difficult; they could not understand how such a solution could be justified. Now all these powers have taken it as an obvious fact and, in the face of Lukashenka's policy to homogenize culture, they opted for the other party.

S. W.:How do you view the direction of the development of Byelorussian culture in all this?

I. Babkou: I think that after the fall of communism Byelorussian culture has ceased to be homogenic and has departed in different directions. Until 1989 all the people who could speak and write in Byelorussian were forced to exist in one space, to know about one another, to meet, to support one another, to publish in the same printing houses etc. We are no longer facing such a situation. To answer the question about Byelorussian culture and its development, I could simply count all the particles into which it has fallen apart and try to define the direction in which each of the particles is moving. There are some remnants of Soviet culture, which according to me is quietly dying. Of course, Byelorussian culture has its own printing houses, its own institutions which are not longer the focus of society's or readers' attention; it's only self-support. On the other hand, some avant-garde movements have appeared, what has been left after the generation of the 1980s, the ideas of classical modernism, i.e. the texts that make us aware and make us think about Byelorussian tradition. There is also the youngest generation - buffoonery, happenings, any provocations, known under the name of Bum-Bam-Litu. These are young artists who realize their ideas in a somewhat stylistic manner. There is also a specific thing like the Polish culture of the Byelorussians from the Bialystok region. These are such particles which exist totally independently, and have their own dynamics. It is also the culture of the Byelorussian from the Vilnius region. I don't know what will become dominating, what texts will become classical, but I think that Byelorussian Soviet culture has come to an end, and it won't play any important role.

S. W.: Thank you.

back