Alexander J. Motyl

Dilemmas of independence : Ukraine after totalitarianism

The collapse of the Soviet Union added a large new country-Ukraine-to the map of Europe. With its endowment of natural resources and skilled population of 52 million, Ukraine can play a major role in European and world affairs. How an independent Ukraine evolves internally and the foreign policies it adopts will have considerable impact on Europe, East and West, and the United States. Alexander J. Motyl, an authority on the post-Soviet nations, examines the painful choices confronting Ukraine. He considers Ukraines troublesome inheritance from the Soviet Union and discusses ways Ukraine might overcome this legacy to build a modern, democratic, and market-oriented state. Motyl advances an evolutionary approach, one that places equal emphasis on economic reform, the creation of democracy and civil society, state-building, and ethnic peace. He also explores Kievs relations with Moscow, and suggests what the West should-and should not-do to help Ukraine and the other former republics survive their post-imperial and post-totalitarian challenges.

The social construction of social construction: implications for theories of nationalism and identity formation

Although most contemporary theories of nationalism and identity formation rest on some form of social constructivism, few theorists of nationalism and identity formation interrogate social constructivism as a social construction – a social science concept “imposed” on the non-self-consciously constructivist behaviors of people, who generally do not believe they are engaging in construction. Since social constructivism – unless it is a metaphysics about what is real – is really about the concept of social construction, the first task of constructivists is to ask not how various populations have engaged in social construction but how social construction should be defined. As this article shows, constructivism is at best a run-of-the-mill theoretical approach – perfectly respectable, but no different from any other theoretical approach in the social sciences. It is only when social constructivism makes outlandishly radical claims – that all of reality or all of social reality is constructed – that it is unusual, exciting, and wrong.

Why is the “KGB Bar” possible? Binary morality and its consequences

This article asks why a popular bar named after a criminal Soviet secret police organization has not provoked the outrage of the developed worlds intellectual and artistic elites, who would surely condemn an SS Bar. It attributes this moral blindness to the Holocausts centrality in Israeli, German, and American national discourse and the resultant binary morality that ascribes collective innocence to all Jews at all times and in all places and collective guilt to all Germans – and potentially to all non-Jews – at all times and in all places. The moral logic of the Holocaust thus transforms Jews into victims and non-Jews into victimizers; the moral logic and reality of the Gulag transform everybody into both victim and victimizer. The binary morality of the Holocaust insists that all human beings be heroes; the fuzzy morality of the Gulag recognizes that all humans are just humans constantly confronted by moral ambiguity. But because the Gulags moral ambiguity concerns non-Jews and Jews, the Gulag undercuts binary morality. The Holocaust and the Gulag are not just incompatible moral tales; they are incompatible and intersecting moral tales. As a result, they cannot co-exist. We therefore fail to respond to the KGB Bar because to recognize the Gulag as a mass murder worthy of categorical moral condemnation would be to challenge the sacred status of the Holocaust. Ironically, the KGB Bar is possible precisely because an SS Bar is impossible.

Identity crisis in the Soviet west

What would happen if the Baltics, Ukraine, and Belorussia had their way? Neither the Soviet leadership nor the West is prepared for real autonomy in the prosperous western republics.

The paradoxes of Paul Robert Magocsi: the case for Rusyns and the logical necessity of Ukrainians

How is it possible for a Rusyn nation-builder to have contributed to the historiography of Ukraine to such a significant degree that one might suspect that Paul Robert Magocsi is really a Ukrainian nation-builder? Like all social-science puzzles, this one dissolves upon closer inspection. Magocsi resembles a Ukrainian nation-builder – or perhaps even is a Ukrainian nation-builder malgré soi – precisely because he is a Rusyn nation-builder. That is so because all nation-builders are always builders of at least two nations, their own and the others.