Volodymyr Fadeev: “If the participants of the dialogue completely agree in their views, there is no subject for conversation.”
In 2021, Aspen Institute Kyiv implemented the Rethinking Ukrainian Identity project. 207 representatives of various industries took part in 10 one-day seminars. In particular, political leaders, including 95 members of Parliament, 3 ministers, and 7 mayors. The project aims to determine the value bases of national identity that would support the diversity of views and lifestyles.
Volodymyr Fadeev, head of the department of the H.S. Skovoroda’s Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the moderator of Aspen Institute Kyiv seminars, talked about the opportunity to expand the perspective of the world vision that Aspen-dialogue provides, his understanding of modern Ukrainian identity and the importance of different opinions for a productive conversation. Read the text at the link in the first comment.
“Look at another participant of the dialogue as a person, not a political opponent.”
— Mr. Volodymyr can you tell us about the peculiarity of the Aspen dialogues and how it differs from other forms of communication?
— The difference from other forms of communication is fundamental. The Aspen dialogue, which has been practiced for more than 80 years, involves removing a person from the usual life context. Having gone beyond the everyday environment, the seminar participant is surrounded by strangers for 5 days. At the same time, the person tries to establish a dialogue with them. I would say that it is an opportunity to find a common ground with any person despite the existing differences. A seminar participant would never have had such an experience under normal circumstances.
Of course, the Aspen dialogue is largely moderated and has certain limitations. All participants must be equal, have the same access to the floor, and have the opportunity to express their points of view impartially and freely. Instead, we are usually in a fixed position in everyday relationships, which sets specific behavioral patterns and creates the so-called “rut effect.”
— Is the experience gained during one-day dialogue sessions, particularly at the “Dialogue about identity” seminars, different?
Of course, it is impossible to achieve the effect of a 5-day seminar in one day. In the case of the latter, the experience becomes broadly transformative. We (moderators. – ed.) even say after the workshops: “Don’t take quick steps under the influence of impressions.” At the same time, the one-day seminar allows one to “taste” another form of interaction with people. This interaction is aimed at finding understanding and expanding one’s vision of the topic under discussion.
As I have already mentioned, every person has a specific position in everyday life. In turn, this position sets the perspective of seeing the world. This is one’s own “cell” through which a person looks at themselves and their relationships with others. The expansion of this perspective can be described by the classical image of the Platonic cave from which man emerges into the light. In addition to gaining new experience, dialogue allows even previous experiences to expand, rethink and try to change something.
— As a rule, the participants of the “Dialogue about identity” seminars were political leaders. What do you think are Ukrainian society’s prospects for sincere dialogue?
When the soffits appear, so does the political position. One of the advantages of the Aspen dialogue is its privacy. It allows people to be more open-minded, and unbiased and go beyond their job. To disidentify oneself, to look at another participant in the dialogue as a person, not a political opponent. In addition, confidentiality is embedded in the rules, allowing you to express opinions that a person would not say publicly.
Of course, there may be some limitations to the dialogue. Especially when the participants come with previous communication experience, beyond which it isn’t easy to go beyond. This applies, for example, to heads of parties or leaders of factions who previously have “spoken” a lot of different things about each other. But it is necessary to establish a dialogue, and these attempts will have a positive effect. In addition, the Aspen dialogue is adapted to express different, even opposing, opinions.
“No collective identity is homogenous.”
Moving on to the topic of the project, let’s talk about modern Ukrainian identity. Do you think it is homogenous or yet inclusive?
No collective identity is homogenous. This can be explored through history. Between the 1st and 2nd, World Wars was a period of national uplift. After the collapse of European monarchies, nation-states emerged and began to shape their agenda. The governments of these countries aimed to create a model of a united cultural environment. At the same time, any society, especially a pre-modern or semi-modern, archaic, semi-rural one like Ukraine in the 20s and 30s of the 20th century, is heterogeneous. Attempts at unification often did not meet the principles of social justice and, in some places, were violent. Like, for example, the Soviet experience and efforts to create a model of a Soviet person — a builder of a bright future, communism. The nationalist states of those times were no less authoritarian.
Politics within modern states is becoming more humane and focused on human rights. Of course, it is not flawless. Now another problem arises — increasing diversity not only creates communication obstacles but also leads to barriers between different social groups. Ukraine feels this for itself. Issues of culture and national identity have become highly politicized. These are not exclusively political, but political parties largely influence the agenda, thereby trying to mobilize their electorate. In turn, this politicization sets a perspective, which in the case of Ukraine, turns out to be a dead end and creates social tension.
What should we do in this situation? And can dialogue between political leaders be one of the ways to solve it?
The acuteness of the problem should be removed. The question of national identity itself is eternal. Over time, attitudes, ways of life, and culture change. Identity must be reconciled with these changes so as not to create obstacles in the interaction between people, but on the contrary, to form normal relations between them. The conversation makes sense and should be continued. It may be worth discussing tangential topics. After all, dialogue is one of the tools for overcoming barriers, restrictions, and obstacles that stand in the way.
Am I correct in understanding that the rethinking of Ukrainian identity is an ongoing process?
It’s not possible to control the identity change. In general, there are many approaches to its understanding. I take the approach that identity is not just an individual’s business. The problem is not only how I treat myself but also how others understand and treat me. The question of recognition arises: to what extent do other people recognize a particular opinion I have formed about myself?
This is an open problem because I have to convince others that I have specific properties or a right to something. The same goes for others. And due to the lack of communication and unbiased conversation, we have to overcome tensions. It is also worth noting that due to our loyalty to confident leaders and political camps, we always promote and “push” only certain aspects of this identity: practices, visions of the future, ourselves, and the world around us.
Dialogue is possible if there are both common and different views
— What do you think modern Ukrainians are like? How can they be characterized?
— I think that Ukrainians are very different. But they all have a connection to our land, country, and culture. World Ukrainians include not only those who form a political or ethnic nation. People may be related through affinity — for example, they grew up in our country and left. Yes, the diaspora, who have their attitude and loyalty to Ukraine, is also part of the global Ukrainian community. A person feels interested and valued if Ukraine retains some significance for them. And then, the differences begin, which, accordingly, are the subject of discussion. The Rethinking Ukrainian Identity project explores creating a space for political leaders to discuss these differences.
— Speaking of the common and the differences, what do you think is more common between the seminar participants?
— There is a certain common denominator among the seminar participants. They are Ukrainian politicians and representatives of authorities or people related to political activity. The starting point is the recognition of Ukraine as an independent country. Even if one of them thinks that subjectivity is not enough now, there is an intention to achieve it. But if the participants ultimately agreed with their views, there would be no subject for conversation. Communication is possible only if there are standards and different opinions. Of course, it would be possible to say certain ritual things, “good day,” and so on, but there would be nothing meaningful to say.
On the other hand, if we do not entirely coincide in views, this is equivalent to having a different language. Some of the participants had a very personal vision. They differed even in their behavior, but it was not so critical that the conversation did not occur. There were also like-minded people, but it was only sometimes interesting: they could talk about things they liked and resort only to mutual support.
Did you notice certain transformations or changes that happened to the participants after the seminars?
The positive changes that I feel among the participants of the Aspen Dialogues are generally, to a large extent, but only sometimes, the removal of tensions and misunderstandings that existed. Especially if you take politicians. As a rule, they express a clearly defined position publicly. Changing the format of communication creates conditions for the articulation of differences. For example, a person may only sometimes agree with his party’s policy and the faction’s position. Moving beyond that position creates room for understanding with adversaries who may think the same way. Sometimes people stopped being enemies.
The project “Rethinking Ukrainian Identity” was implemented at the initiative of the Ministry of Culture and Information Policy of Ukraine and with the support of the European Union.
