Uladzimir Matskevich: Religion - Ideology - Program

Uladzimir Matskevich

Regular Conference of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum was marked by controversy. Herewith, it was a logical and practical contradiction.

On the one hand, civil society in Belarus retains leadership within the Eastern Partnership, we manage the initiative, we create patterns, suggest ways of action.

On the other hand, USAID has recently published its Civil Society Organizations Sustainability Index for Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia, according to which Belarus is on the last place among all European countries and even among the Eastern Partnership on the basis of all indicators.

Who are we? We are what we think of ourselves, or we are what the standard methods of measurement indicate? We are the first or we are the last? And what should we do, after all, - be proud of our success and achievements or make up for lost time with might and main, catch up with the backlog?

Generally stated judgments are rarely true and fair. The truth is that ALL people are mortal. But the fact that the average life expectancy in Belarus is 70.9 years, this does not mean that ALL the Belarusans shall die just after they’ve celebrated their 70 year anniversary. No, someone will live up till seventy years old, and someone won’t. Average values are abstract, and certainly do not give grounds for generally stated judgments. The fact that we have very low civil society sustainability and development index, does not assume that ALL organizations are unsustainable and undeveloped. Some of them are sustainable, some are not. The fact that our leadership in the Eastern Partnership has been recognized, does not assume that ALL Belarusan organizations and their representatives are leaders. Not at all, some of them are leaders, others are losers.

Abstract judgments and specific ones have different domains of definition. You can not talk about a specific thing in an abstract manner, as far as it would be a lie. The abstract has its purpose, with the help of abstractions, we can better understand the specific, if we are able to do it, of course; thus, if we are able to ascend from the abstract to the concrete.

The Conference of the National Platform of the  Belarusian civil society should have resolved these contradictions by accepting the Concept of Development of the National Platform), but it has rather exacerbated them by messing specific concepts up with abstract cavils). Someone refers to the National Platform as to the quite specific phenomenon, while for someone the Platform is an abstract thing that has no relation to their lives.

This completely practical situation may seem small and insignificant to Belarusan history or to European problems. Only a small part of the Belarusans is involved in these issues, there are no political elite, writers, scientists or academic authorities. But inside the National Platform, interests, actions and programs of the major analytical centers of the country, think tanks, intellectuals clubs and individual experts are intersected. Through understanding the role and significance of think tanks, analytical centers and expert society in the modern world, I’m forced to consider this small situation in the context of the major problems of our time. Not all, of course, but those that are directly related to the thinking of experts, analysts, and intellectuals.

And intellectuals and experts do not live in the present time, but somewhere beyond. Their thinking is not modern, but anachronistic. Anachronism, if we understand the term literally, refers to something not obsolete, a relic of the past, though, so it is sometimes, but to what is out of time, as a prefix “a” means denial, and word "chronos" means time in Greek. Accordingly, the term "anachronistic" can denote everything that is out-of-date, what is obsolete and what hasn’t not matured yet, all that is out of place and out of time.

To resolve the conflicts and problems inside the National Platform, many sympathetic intellectuals have offered me a solution based on some common ideology for all the National Platform participants. Someone advised to develop such an ideology, someone suggested not moving away from the ideology that has supposedly existed for the while set of "third sector" of all the unity of Belarusan NGOs and other civil society elements. But these recommendations and these solutions seem to me very anachronistic, out-of-date. In a practical situation, time flows differently from theoretical considerations, especially in the problem or conflict case. You can not always have time to find and formulate appropriate arguments. I just brushed the advices as to attract or develop an ideology in a particular situation aside by claiming these advices to be untimed. But then, when the challenge was over, I had to think on, - how can it be that the ideology is not modern and out-of-date?

Not any particular ideology, but ideology in general, ideology as such!

Ideological criticism is usually directed against specific ideologies. Marxists criticized the German ideology of their time, then anyone who took the trouble, criticized the Marxist ideology. In Marxism itself, and in many schools of philosophical and methodological the very ideology approach was criticized, as opposed to the theoretical or conceptual approach. But to replace the criticized ideology a new one, better ideology, was proposed. An opposition of the theoretical approach to the ideological one did not deny the ideology, just localizing it in social reality, as ideology was for the masses, the theory - for professionals, that's all. During the XIX and XX centuries ideologies succeeded one another, were in odds and in conflict, but prevailed. We are so used to it that ignored the knowledge that it was not always. Not always, but in the modern era; from the French Revolution to the present day. Modernity, that is, modern time. And what was before modern time?

Everybody has accepted the interpretation of the French Revolution as a struggle between classes and class ideologies. As ideologies are much more than classes, so the ideological struggle is possible within classes, as well. All subsequent revolutions, social upheavals, reforms, etc. were accompanied by ideological wars and ideological work. Someone created an ideology; others drove them into the masses, while the masses and various historical figures were guided by ideologies and thus justified their actions. This is our social reality.

And how the things were before the French Revolution? For example, in the course of the American Revolution? Although, what historians call the American Revolution is a revolution just on the one hand, and on the other hand it was a war for independence. This uncertainty complicates the analysis and interpretation. Perhaps the case of the English or the Netherlands Revolution is clearer? Not at all. Was there the revolution in England in the XVII century, or may be it was a religious war? And the Netherlands fought for independence from Spain.

And, perhaps, the Low German rebel lands were fighting for freedom to practice their religion and against the power of the Catholic Church, represented by Spanish troops? Or it was a bourgeois revolution? Indeed, Engels tried to present even a peasant war in Germany in XVI century as the first one in the history bourgeois revolution. Although it would be worth to consider not even among the peasant wars typical of the Middle Ages, but rather in a series of wars, such as Albigensian - religious wars, or crusades against heretics. Anabaptists in Munster differed little from the Albigenses and Waldenses, and were mostly not the peasants, but the urban poor.

The French Revolution stands out like a historical starting point of modernity (modern). It has had such a powerful effect on minds, theories, the philosophy that it has changed not only the social structure and political system of France, but the mentality and consciousness of all Europeans and even of the whole of humanity. The French Revolution demanded explanations - what was it? These were not long in coming. New theories and concepts appeared: classes, ideology, civic nation, a nation, etc. This is the theory, science, and philosophy. And the very ideology it is "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", and much more. Further, in the XIX and XX centuries, we, Europeans, understood the things that were happening exactly in terms of concepts and categories devised for explaining and understanding the Great French Revolution, we were inspired for the actions and deeds by the ideologies that emerged, reproduced and bud after the revolution.

However, the critical philosophy and methodology have long ago come to the realization that applying the explanatory constructs, suitable for the French Revolution and the modern era, to the previous history is unjustified modernization of the history, that is, anachronism. It is impossible, applying things appropriate and timely for one epoch, to the other one. It is even anachronistic and unjustified, defining wars of Cromwell and Parliament against the king as a revolution. Anachronism is the interpretation of the revolt of Spartacus in terms of the class struggle, etc. But if this is so, then it appears that there was no ideology either of Spartacus’ gladiators, or of Presbyterians and Independents of Cromwell. And what were they guided and inspired by? Well, what’s the question? By faith and religion! After all, we won’t confuse religion and ideology, will we?!

To change religion, which had defined the spirit of the eras, had driven historical characters and fully managed the masses, came the ideology of modern times. Hence, ideologies are not eternal and timeless. They are historical. Once, the era of ideology came, and it must end sometime!

And, maybe, it's already over?

This is the statement that I would like to fix as an analytical conclusion from all the facts that we can observe in the modern history of Belarus. And in such small appearances, which I began this text with, and in the whole modern history of the Belarusan nation.

However, here the confusion starts: in particular, if my statement has a right to exist and the era of ideologies is over, then the time of modern nations is also over. Can we then refer to the Belarusans as to a nation?

You need to understand this in detail, long and carefully. While I would be limited to the following radical statement: the Belarusans is the first Postmodern nation in history! First one, because I do not know any other precedents or attempts to create a nation in the end of the XX century, in the postmodern era. Not only the creation of the nation in this era, from the beginning to the end, but even the end of the nation creation process.

Postmodernism is a good, paradoxical name for the styles and features in art. Since the end of the XIX century to the present day, each new venture in art is aimed at surpassing its predecessors in startling style. Art Nouveau, Jugendstil, Acmeism, Dadaism, Expressionism, Surrealism, Neo-Realism, etc., - all these styles and many more claimed being modern, the most modern, the most contemporary of all their contemporaries. It could not last forever. Finally, it was announced that the modern time was over and came ... What has come? Postmodernism. Maybe citizens were no longer shocked by works of Postmodern art as they had been shocked by innocent Impressionist paintings by Claude Monet and Camille Pissarro. A citizen, born and raised in the XX century, was used to everything.

But for the logic, so, not even for logic, but for simple etymology, the word "Postmodernism" is not possible in meaning; roughly, as is impossible “post-now”. There was yesterday, today and tomorrow, there is now, there was that preceded to now, there will be what will be. But what will be, it doesn’t exist yet. But Postmodernism exists. Or - it’s like as it’s existed. But if Postmodernism exists now, then it is our present, ie our modern time. Maybe! But then the common sense and our consciousness suggest that our modern time is different from their modern time, from Modern as a style in art and culture in the era preceding the First World War, and, especially, from Modern of the French Revolution.

Our common sense tells us this, but our mind is full of oxymorons of Postmodernism and Postmodernity. And theoretical thinking operates with terms, concepts and categories, born in the era of “that modernity", "that present time", not ours. In our time, people do not wear tunics of the Restoration epoch, hats of the period of the Second Republic, dandy black coats and cylinders of the time of "Flowers of Evil", but people somehow continue to reason in terms and categories of that time. Not all the terms of that time are equally in vogue now. Classes and class theory are not as popular as before. But the ideology is a child of the Modern epoch, though, it does not enjoy the same success as in the first half of the twentieth century, but it still sets the agenda and precedence rule of politicians, scientists and experts.

After acquiring independence, here and there in Belarus, calls were heard as to develop the national idea (ie, the national ideology). And in 2003, the efforts of the National Academy of Sciences, universities and other humanists were focused on the development of the national ideology. The Nationalists put forward their version of the national idea, the Liberals opposed their ideology, the Marxists (communists and socialists of all varieties) demonstrated their complaisance and ideological flexibility, being ready to stand to lose and participating in the convergence of ideologies. And everybody believed this to be absolutely correct.

And how it could be otherwise? Where there is an independent state, there is nation. Where there is nation, there is a national ideology. It has always been like this. Always? We’ve found out that not always. So it was only in the period of modern nations, in the modern era. And how should the things be in the postmodern era?

Nations in the modern sense didn’t exist until the American and French revolutions. In the modern sense, means, civil nations. But there were nations. Even in the Middle Ages, there were nations in universities, which we would now call affinity groups; in the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation there was a nation, too, but there were the other nations, and those nations did not need ideologies. So, maybe we do not need ideology either?

We, the Belarusans, the first and so far the only postmodern nation in the world!

For us, the Belarusans, it’s very difficult to get used to the idea that we are the first in something, and, in a sense, the only ones. For centuries, being surrounded by the dominant neighbors, we have always wanted to be better than others, to be like everyone else, to be considered worthy people. We have been copying, imitating, reaching out for and overtaking. This has impeded seeing and understanding of the things happening, understanding and exploring the specific. Not the things which would demonstrate us similar to others, but rather which would make us different.

In the course of studying and exploring of what we are similar to all others, the others have developed research approaches, methods, knowledge, which we use; more, we are forced to use it if we do not want to "reinvent the wheel" and look very silly. But in course of studying and exploring of what we are different from the others, no one has bothered to develop the methods and approaches to gain knowledge that we can take advantage of. This is only our problem, thus, we will have to do it for ourselves: to develop a methodology, approaches and paradigms, gain new knowledge. Completely new knowledge, ie, not what we do not know yet, and should ask the Americans, Parisians or Muscovites. New knowledge is new knowledge for everyone: for us, for the Americans, the French and Russian.

And what does this knowledge consist in? In nation, in the modernity. Not that modernity, which is called modern, and which has gone in the past already. Not that modernity, which is called Postmodernity and that does not exist, because it can never be. In our modernity! In our time and epoch. In The era of information and Internetization, globalization, etc. And here we can not use the old (archaic) or timeless (anachronistic) methods and approaches. We need new methods and approaches. And in order to create new ones, we need to free up the space, occupied by all the old. That old, obsolete that in the previous periods and times performed the functions able to solve the problems, but today isn’t any more. To illustrate this idea, let’s back to the ideology.

Thus, the ideology is the brainchild of Modern times, the Modern era, the era of modern nations. If modern nations are imagined communities (according to Anderson), then the ideology is the most common imagination that creates the unity of these imagined communities. But common communities have existed before nations’ appearance. The function, similar to that is performed for nations by ideology for those communities, performed religion. That is why the religious wars of XVI-XVII centuries were not held by nations, not by classes, but by religious communities. And they were held not under the ideological slogans, but in understanding, "cujus regio, ejus religio". For secularized nations this is impossible thing.

Let’s suppose that Belarusan nation, having become independent, didn’t not have time to develop the national ideology. Can we use the religion similarly? No! That would be foolish and extremely outdated!

Then, what is smart and modern?

I have now the only understanding that the era of modern nations ended with ideologies. Modern nations need not ideologies, not religions, but something different. I would call it development programs. Programs roughly in the meaning given to this concept by Imre Lakatos.

And the development of such programs is the most modern activity that we can only imagine for today. The Belorusan nation is the first nation in the world that needs for the existence not a common religion, not a single ideology, but the development program.

We are not a modern nation, which are the Americans, the French, the Poles. Not anachronistic nation, as our eastern neighbors. But we are not postmodern nation either, as these do not exist. We're just a modern nation. The most modern one. And that’s why we know and understand ourselves so bad. Others understand us even worse. But back to the beginning of the text, to the National platform, I can say that if we act in a program way, rather than in an ideological way, we can become leaders and both pave the way for us in Belarus, and for the others in Europe.

This text was written as a material for the International scientific conference "Problems of modern Belarusan ideology" (Minsk, November 3, 2012).

About the author

Uladzimir Matskevich, Belarusan philosopher and methodologist, head of the Humanitarian Techniques Agency (AGT), head of the Board of the International Consortium EuroBelarus and chairperson of the Interim Coordination Committee of the National Platform of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum.