The latest annual Fulbright conference, held for the first time in Lviv rather than in Kyiv, gathered about 150 academics from various corners of Ukraine. All of them have participated in a Fulbright Academic Exchange Program, i.e., they did research or taught in the US. In the years of independence more than 250 Ukrainian academics have upgraded their professional skills, improved their English, and considerably broadened their world outlook. At the same time, more than 170 Americans have done in-service training and delivered lectures at Ukrainian universities.
In 1999 program alumni set up the Fulbright Association of Ukraine (part of the worldwide Fulbright Association) in order to continue improving their research efforts, diversifying and activating their intellectual life, and promoting ties between Ukrainian and US academics.
Fulbright alumni usually begin their conferences with university-related discussions. Last year the society’s conference coincided with a public rally in front of the Electoral Commission in which the Fulbrighters elected to take part. Then and there they decided that the next conference would discuss the topic “Intellectuals and Political Power.” In other words, they were keen to offer their abilities to build the state.
Myroslava Antonovych (UK), member of the Fulbright Association board and participant in the current conference, admitted, “This subject has long been in the air. All our officials have advisors and experts, i.e., intellectuals and researchers with hands-on experience. They are mostly academics, but many of them, not in the least owing to their studies in the US, now hold government positions. For example, Serhiy Holovaty is minister of justice and one of our Fulbrighters. Many alumni work in ministries and the Presidential Secretariat. In other words, people who conduct research and have done advanced studies abroad are now having a certain impact on government policies. This is a positive process.”
Below we offer a variety of opinions of participants in the discussion, who broach a larger number of questions than those that were raised at the conference.
Martha BOHACHEVSKY-CHOMIAK, director of the Fulbright Program in Ukraine:
“This year we are discussing what an intellectual and a public researcher is, whether intellectuals tell the government what they want, whether they raise pressing issues and generally regard the government as an entity with which one can cooperate.
“My aim is to include as many people as possible — not just Kyivans. There are a number of things in Ukraine that I criticize. One of these is the problem of the center and the regions: Ukraine is large and developed enough to have only one center, not several.
“Unfortunately, Ukrainians tend to advance theses, antitheses, and concepts and then later they do nothing (they’re tired of all these theses and antitheses). Practical actions are a more difficult matter. I think there are a lot of problems in Eastern Europe: there are so many things that must be done that you become downhearted. In America, too, nobody is perfect, and there also are poor and rundown areas. The similarity of the situation is evident when we come to give lectures at Kherson Teacher-Training University or in Horlivka, or even in Luhansk. This corresponds to the situation in most US colleges. One thing stands out: I think there is too much emphasis in Ukraine on so-called prestige and an unnecessary division of things into first, second, and third categories. A lack of responsibility for one’s actions and one’s milieu is observed. In Ukraine you can ask somebody for a favor and get a promise in reply, but this does not mean that the promise will be kept. You have a more deeply stratified society. We also have strata, but in the 19th century America did two notable things that brought about radical changes. First, it invented selling things by catalogue. Farmers can buy the same clothes that are worn in New York. Secondly, American women published a book that explains how one should behave at table or address a minister, what clothes one should wear, etc. All this helped poorer people measure up to richer ones. In contrast with Europe, which pays more attention to who your father or uncle is and to your connections, America places greater value on what you can do.
“Nor is there friendly criticism in Ukraine: you are either exalted to the skies or trampled into the mud. You need more frankness and less flattery. You should know how to listen to the person who has come to you, you must learn to listen to critical remarks and correct your behavior.
“Americans who come to Ukraine are in raptures. They help by taking students to the US at their own (Americans’ — Ed.) expense. Some are seriously planning to invest money in Ukraine. I personally have directed the Fulbright Academic Exchange Program for five years. I am a historian by training and have a doctorate from Columbia University. I wrote a book, White on White, about the women’s social movement in Ukraine and became a gender guru. I criticize Ukraine a lot precisely because I know it and love it.
“As for the conference’s theme, the main function of political power is similar to that of doctors: it should not cause harm or worsen the situation. You have to look at power through its constituent factors. I would not even use the term ‘power,’ I’d rather say ‘state,’ ‘government,’ ‘bureaucracy,’ ‘administration.’ You can also assume some of the functions. There is a law: if you don’t take on part of the government, someone else will and will be controlling you. I always say that every university professor should be an administrator, a researcher, and an instructor. Should you remove at least one of these props, the chair will fall. What is more, the government must follow a code of honor, but not everyone is aware that the government’s code of honor is your vote. I vote and I elect, so I have the right to ask: yesterday you said one thing and now you are saying something different. Why? It is the media that are supposed to play a decisive and important role here. It is a great calamity if the government bears no responsibility to the people. But the greatest tragedy is when people do not demand responsibility for actions. The Orange Revolution showed that something can be done. Or do we need another revolution, this time on our own, without Berezovsky and Co.? One must reflect on this.”
Borys GUDZIAK , rector of Ukrainian Catholic University:
“The assessment of the state of our intellectual life is ambiguous. On the one hand, all that happened in Ukraine — the establishment of democratic principles and respect for human dignity — could not have occurred without a certain number of active and committed intellectuals, who have been working in the past few decades to implement their ideals. But we can also phrase the question this way: could these dramatic crises have bypassed our society if our intellectual environment were more powerful, if there were many intellectual milieus capable of thinking critically, actively incorporating intellectual concepts into various organizations, and nurturing the fruits of change in society? Just imagine Lviv, a city with almost 900,000 residents. According to statistics, there are 116,000 students at secondary specialized and higher educational institutions here, about 10,000 academics at state-run and private colleges, and researchers at eight institutes of the Academy of Sciences. A colossal potential — a hundred times as many professional intellectuals as in early 20 th-century Halychyna! But for years many institutions and the establishment as a whole have shown inertia and lack of active intellectual courage, usually manifested in protests, critical statements, and words, which unite people and call for a certain ethical action. Most rectors were either silent or caved in to pressure. In many collectives, there were just a few activists. Out of tens of thousands of academics, only 4-5 percent was really active in sociopolitical life. As for today, the time is finally coming when the intellectual does not need to save Ukraine. Now the poet can write verses and the philosopher can philosophize instead of building the nation. But it still seems to me that many of our intellectuals are neither building the nation, doing research, nor living a full-fledged intellectual life. We should analyze and understand the historical sources of today’s phenomenon and try to avoid mistakes and avert the processes that can weaken the innate and acquired ability to live an intellectual life.
“Certain achievements in literature and art prove that Ukrainian culture is still full of life. There is less progress in philosophy and history because we have not yet critically reconsidered totalitarianism. So far intellectuals have also failed to adequately address questions of political and business ethics. On the other hand, there is a problem of political power, and more often than not the government and the governed interpret power as guidance and domination. To my mind, this is a major misunderstanding because being in power must mean serving people. I think that when these accents are shifted, this will clear up the overall picture. Only then will the government understand that it needs intellectuals. We see today that the president and the ruling party are focusing their attention on the ministries of defense and internal affairs, as well as economic and oil and gas agencies, but they are ready to turn the ministry of education over to the tender mercies of its more distant partner, the Socialist Party. There are very few intellectuals involved in today’s political life. Of course, this can be attributed to the fact that political life requires some personal features that are rarely typical of and are antithetical to intellectuals. What is valued today is the ability to raise funds, make declarations, and take rash actions, whereas human ethics are not involved in the political process, and the public sphere rejects such things as reflections, doubts, and searching. But an intellectual is always in search of something! It is not until the government and the populace change their interpretation of the idea of power that the role of intellectuals will become active and effective. I am optimistic about this. I think Ukraine is offering new opportunities today.”
