“Little Russia” No Longer: A Narrative Analysis of the Wartime Change of P. I. Tchaikovsky’s Historical Culture at Kyiv’s National Music Academy of Ukraine Named After Petro Tchaikovsky
(2024) EUHR18 20241European Studies
- Abstract
- The thesis explores the de-Russification process in Ukraine since the 2022 Russian invasion using the case study of P. I. Tchaikovsky and the Ukrainian National Tchaikovsky Academy of Music. Students, staff, and alumni have protested the inclusion of the Russian composer’s name, but the governing body of the conservatory has repeatedly kept the name. Each side of the debate
references different historical narratives to support how Tchaikovsky is or is not a Ukrainian symbol. The thesis answers how Ukrainian actors use the symbol of Tchaikovsky to redefine cultural boundaries, reassert Ukrainian autonomy, and contest narratives around Ukraine. The thesis utilizes a narrative analysis and applies the “usages of history” typology by... (More) - The thesis explores the de-Russification process in Ukraine since the 2022 Russian invasion using the case study of P. I. Tchaikovsky and the Ukrainian National Tchaikovsky Academy of Music. Students, staff, and alumni have protested the inclusion of the Russian composer’s name, but the governing body of the conservatory has repeatedly kept the name. Each side of the debate
references different historical narratives to support how Tchaikovsky is or is not a Ukrainian symbol. The thesis answers how Ukrainian actors use the symbol of Tchaikovsky to redefine cultural boundaries, reassert Ukrainian autonomy, and contest narratives around Ukraine. The thesis utilizes a narrative analysis and applies the “usages of history” typology by Klas-Göran Karlsson to the arguments put forth by Ukrainian actors on both sides of the debate. The thesis identifies four narratives: 1) Tchaikovsky is Russian and a Russian symbol; 2) Ukraine enjoyed a close relationship with Russia due to a shared Soviet past; 3) Ukraine was a victim of Russian and Soviet imperialism; and 4) the USSR unjustly appropriated the Ukrainian symbol of Tchaikovsky, which needs to be reclaimed. Using Ann Rigney’s theory of mnemonic regime change and the formation of counter-memory, I find that both the name-removalists and the name-preservationists are engaging in postcolonial counter-memory. The removalists accept the Soviet narrative of Tchaikovsky’s past and wish to rewrite the memory of Ukraine’s Soviet era spanning to the present. The preservationists, on the other hand, deny the Soviet narrative of Tchaikovsky’s past and look to counter the nineteenth-century imperial narrative to enrich Ukraine’s cultural heritage. Finally, I check the historicity of each argument and include possible perspectives from Tchaikovsky himself using primary sources from his life. However, changed nomenclature prevents Tchaikovsky from conclusively describing his relationship with Ukraine; the debate must resolve based on his dominant historical memory instead. Overall, this thesis is situated within research on Tchaikovsky’s historical culture in Ukraine. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9173234
- author
- Lamore, Donna LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- EUHR18 20241
- year
- 2024
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- Tchaikovsky, Ukraine, historical culture, historical narrative, historical memory, Rigney’s theory of mnemonic regime change, counter-memory, European Studies
- language
- English
- id
- 9173234
- date added to LUP
- 2024-09-11 15:53:59
- date last changed
- 2024-09-11 15:53:59
@misc{9173234,
abstract = {{The thesis explores the de-Russification process in Ukraine since the 2022 Russian invasion using the case study of P. I. Tchaikovsky and the Ukrainian National Tchaikovsky Academy of Music. Students, staff, and alumni have protested the inclusion of the Russian composer’s name, but the governing body of the conservatory has repeatedly kept the name. Each side of the debate
references different historical narratives to support how Tchaikovsky is or is not a Ukrainian symbol. The thesis answers how Ukrainian actors use the symbol of Tchaikovsky to redefine cultural boundaries, reassert Ukrainian autonomy, and contest narratives around Ukraine. The thesis utilizes a narrative analysis and applies the “usages of history” typology by Klas-Göran Karlsson to the arguments put forth by Ukrainian actors on both sides of the debate. The thesis identifies four narratives: 1) Tchaikovsky is Russian and a Russian symbol; 2) Ukraine enjoyed a close relationship with Russia due to a shared Soviet past; 3) Ukraine was a victim of Russian and Soviet imperialism; and 4) the USSR unjustly appropriated the Ukrainian symbol of Tchaikovsky, which needs to be reclaimed. Using Ann Rigney’s theory of mnemonic regime change and the formation of counter-memory, I find that both the name-removalists and the name-preservationists are engaging in postcolonial counter-memory. The removalists accept the Soviet narrative of Tchaikovsky’s past and wish to rewrite the memory of Ukraine’s Soviet era spanning to the present. The preservationists, on the other hand, deny the Soviet narrative of Tchaikovsky’s past and look to counter the nineteenth-century imperial narrative to enrich Ukraine’s cultural heritage. Finally, I check the historicity of each argument and include possible perspectives from Tchaikovsky himself using primary sources from his life. However, changed nomenclature prevents Tchaikovsky from conclusively describing his relationship with Ukraine; the debate must resolve based on his dominant historical memory instead. Overall, this thesis is situated within research on Tchaikovsky’s historical culture in Ukraine.}},
author = {{Lamore, Donna}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{“Little Russia” No Longer: A Narrative Analysis of the Wartime Change of P. I. Tchaikovsky’s Historical Culture at Kyiv’s National Music Academy of Ukraine Named After Petro Tchaikovsky}},
year = {{2024}},
}