Why Language Matters: Part III
Narratives, Mythmaking, Ukraine and AI
**Subject to updates after further research**
The Power of Narratives
As Timothy Snyder mentions, the whole world and its political agenda is involved in a “competitive mythmaking” (creation of narratives). Russia seems to be an extreme case of this trend, where the myth or narrative Putin has created leads to him trying to match reality with it.
Putin’s major narrative that permeates the world affairs today is “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”. It’s a prime example of how a “history” (in the meaning of a created “narrative” or “story”) can influence the succession of events in time (i.e. “history” as in what we study); and also, how (supposedly) individuals can, and are endowed with the ability, to change history and the succession of events in the attempt to achieve greatness. This idea of individuals influencing history, according to Tim Marshall – the author of Prisoners of Geography, originated in tsarist Russia with Ivan the Terrible at the helm. It seems to prop up and fuel the myth of Russian exceptionalism, which is also something Putin uses to justify his neo-colonialist tendencies.
The roots of the myth arguing for the unity of Russia and Ukraine can also be traced back to 1654, when Russia “gifted” Crimea to Ukraine (it was not Russia’s to give in the first place), and Ukraine made a choice to accept this gift and thereby inevitably intertwine its fate with that of Russia, which also contributed to the myth that dominates Putin’s and Russian international policy until today.
The first thing that’s striking about the title of Putin’s aforementioned essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” is the notion of unity in the context of current developments in Ukraine. But the use of language in the title is also important. The first is the word “on”, which supposes, in this context, that the ensuing part is a fact (which is far from the truth and reality).
Arguably, you can only write a treatise “on” something that actually exists or has happened; there wouldn’t be much of a point in writing a treatise “On the Gremlin Overlords of Verden” – well, because neither Gremlin overlords nor a land named Verden exist. Unless you are working within the realm of sci-fi/fantasy. Or some sort of hypothetical science.
And here we arrive at the unfortunate combination of words “historical unity”.
At first, it would suggest that the “historical unity” in question once was and is no more – as it is “historical”. History suggests change. Taking “historical unity” as an argument for current unity is fundamentally flawed and illogical. We could write a treatise on the historical unity of the world (Pangea, I guess), and it wouldn’t make much sense or change much in the present state of affairs – as it is “historical”, and, naturally, subject to change over time. (The change is implied by including the very word “historical”.)
But this is exactly what a “narrative” is – some could call it propaganda; some may call it history; some may call it a myth, legend or mythology. The word “historical” is in this case used to justify imperialist tendencies and intentions – sort of like: “But look, historically, Russia and Ukraine are a single entity. And if we deny ‘history’ as we know it (development of events over time; Ukraine becoming a sovereign state and nation) – it should remain unchanged.”
This sort of “unchanging” history would then, however, give rise to many claims around Europe, not least of which would be, for example, a Greek claim to the southern territories of Ukraine, as the names of these town suggested – Chersonnesos, Theodosia, Kimmerikon – all Greek settlements around (770–100 BC), as per “The Gates of Europe” by Serhii Plokhy. Or a Hungarian claim to the southern parts of Slovakia. Or a Lithuanian claim to a large part of Eastern Europe. Depends on how far back in history you are willing to go.
Putin believes that “history” is on his side – at least the “history” (legend, myth) he invented for Russia, Ukraine and its peoples. His interpretation of history. But it’s rarely (more likely never) the case that history is on anybody’s side, as Snyder points out. It can only appear so, depending on which narrative we choose to entertain.
As Snyder puts it:
“What Putin is doing has nothing to do with history as a discipline. He is engaged in building a legend, which is based on other legends.”
Legends which support arguments such as “we were here first” and the argument for the re-establishment of the Great Rus’.
As Snyder writes, again:
“Putin bound his country's future and his own to a story or stories about Ukraine: that it must fail, or did not exist, or was governed by nationalists, or maybe fascists, or was populated by Russians who wanted unity with Russia.”
The title of Putin’s essay along with the ideas explored therein demonstrate that we could argue that language has the power to shape our idea of history – as the great legends do and have done for centuries. And in this case, legends and stories also shape the present.
Part IV on Origin Stories coming next
I like that you are taking up this topic, because so many others seem to ignore it.
The maltreatment of history, establishing a myth, legend, narrative, that justifies what would otherwise be considered unjustifiable, is happening in this particular case with Russia and Ukraine, but it is also the basis for most other events in politics. Especially these years, where nationalism and xenophobia are gaining terrain.
Sometimes we have to be careful, though, if we consider a narrative to be "created" and even for a purpose, to be used for propaganda, or if the one telling it perhaps does believe in it and just tries to tell it with words of his own.
History writing and telling has always been the victim of the poor distinction between evidence and conviction, and when trying to achieve something of historical significance, which is probably what Putin is doing, his own understanding of the past, present, and wanted future, will probably be colored by the situation he is in.
It may not, due to that, be a simple matter of revealing his lie, as he may not see it as such.
Of course, it is always possible that he is simply furious over being called a dickhead by the president of Ukraine, even if that happened in a comedy show, and before he was a president.
Some people can't really take criticism.