Paul
Goble
Staunton, October 16 – Ukrainians have
demonstrated many remarkable qualities over the past two years, qualities that
neither they nor others expected they had, Ekaterina Shchetkina says. But while
they have managed to come up with an adequate “image of the enemy,” they have
not been able to come up with an equally adequate “image of a friend.”
As a result, she argues in a
commentary in today’s “Delovaya stolitsa,” Ukrainians do not know what to do
about the Donbiss, a reflection of the absence of “a societal consensus on the
war, its goals and permissible methods and the main thing what should be
considered a victory” (dsnews.ua/society/pochemu-my-ne-znaem-chto-delat-s-donbassom-16102015102400).
This
“indeteriminacy,” she argues, represented a sharp break from “the clarity” of the
revolution of dignity and now appears likely to last “a very long time because
any lack of agreement necessarily will turn out to be a terrible weapon in the
hands of foreign propagandists and domestic competitors for the electorate.”
“The
key phrase here,” Shchetkina says, is “’societal consensus’” which with respect
“not only to the issue of the Donbas” does not exist. “We have turned out
simply organically not prepared for it” despite all the other things Ukrainians
have demonstrated a remarkable capacity for.
Ukrainians
have “shown a capacity for horizontal communication and even cooperation in
extreme circumstances. To questions of life and death, [they] have been able to
give a relatively solid answer.” And Ukrainians can take great pride in their
willingness and ability to support their army “in the first months of the war”
and beyond.
But
as soon as the issue becomes a little less than about life and death, she
continues, Ukrainians again break apart into particular fragments of a mosaic.”
Shchetkina suggests the following analogy: Ukrainians can agree on saving a
house on fire, but they can’t agree among themselves on what color it should be
painted once it is saved.
That
reflects the fact that “horizontal ties” in Ukrainian society are still
extremely weak and do not cut across other identities. Consequently, there is
little room for constant communication among them or for those who are interested
in “supporting a space for public dialogue in a more or less workable
condition.
The
Ukrainian media which might play that role suffers not only from the crisis of
traditional media but also by what could be called “a crisis of conception” in
which those working in its outlets are “ever less prepared for the broad
consumption of information and ever more are oriented toward the employment of
memes.”
Memes
are useful for mobilizing people because they simplify reality for members of
an in-group, but they do absolutely nothing to help people “find a common
language” with others or to reach agreement. In fact, the Kyiv commentator
says, they have exactly the opposite effect, sometimes intentionally but often
by accident depending on who introduces them.
“Well-selected
memes form a communications barrier, raise the level of intolerance, and
interfere with reflection and the formation of one’s own opinion,” she
says. “The war in the Donbas in a
completely natural way gave rise to a multitude of memes to which we react” in
absolutely predictable ways.
Shchetkina
gives as example “’the memes of hatred.’” “’We will not forget or forgive’ or ‘how
is one to live with such people.’” These
mobilize people but they also keep people from seeing and acknowledging the complexity
of the situation or finding a way to overcome divisions if a conflict ebbs.
Such
memes create the illusion of each side being a monolith, something no one wants
to see challenged because that would involve “cognitive dissonance” and the questions
such a mental state give rise to, she continues. But constantly asserting that “’we will never
forget or forgive’ is not hatred” as some think. “It is, forgive me,
masturbation” of one’s own feelings.
Overcoming
the illusions such memes gives rise to is far more difficult than overcoming
real differences, she says, something that Ukrainians now see giving the “dizzying
prospect” of having to deal with the Donbas – or “more truly, making peace with
[themselves] because the Donbas is only the occasion” for that.
Consequently,
Shchetkina concludes, “when we say that “it is unclear what to do with the Donbas,
we in fact are recognizing that it is unclear for us what to do with ourselves.”
No comments:
Post a Comment