Table of Contents
Feburary 1995 - Vol. 5/No.3
Issue Number 18
Elzbieta Matynia: Director and Editor
Sharon Cooley: Program Coordinator
Philip Pezeshki: Executive Editor
Greg Snyder and Indira Kajosevic: Staff Associates
Published quarterly by the East and Central Europe Program.
The ECEP is funded by the Eurasia Foundation and the Ford Foundation.
Table of ContentsA Letter To ECEPDear Elzbieta:
I read with interest your report on last summer's Graduate Institute in Cracow. I think one aspect of that Institute, and of the East and Central Europe Program's work in general, should get more attention than it normally receives. Namely, participation in ECEP activities has been an important part of the intellectual development of a number of faculty members at the Graduate Faculty.
The faculty here does not include many of what used to be Sovietologists or East Europeanists. But a number of people in the Graduate Faculty's Departments of Political Science and Sociology have been greatly influenced by their work with ECEP. That work has helped us to think about democracy, nationalism, political culture, and a number of other theoretical issues in new ways. Through contact with the political realities of East and Central Europe over the last decade and through links with intellectuals and political figures in those countries, many of us have not only learned a great deal about developments in those countries, but have been encouraged to rethink our views on many questions of politics and theory.
ECEP has had significantly positive effects on the work of many members of the Graduate Faculty. Sometimes these effects are evident in the titles and subjects of publications; at least as often, they are more subtle and involve shifts of perspective and asking new questions. Some note should also be taken of the small but significant number of GF graduate students whose work refers to and involves themes central to the work of ECEP. The number of such students is growing, which again indicates the broad influence of ECEP at the Graduate Faculty.
Best regards,
David Plotke
Associate Professor, GF, Political Science Department
Shifting Identities in Western
and Eastern Europe Regionalism is believed to be a key factor of modern Ukrainian history.1 The recent elections of the Ukrainian parliament and of the Ukrainian president during Spring and Summer, 1994, revealed a deep split between those ready to accept reforms and those who oppose them. But most importantly-- and most dangerously, this split has a territorial and ethnic dimension. During the parliamentary elections, "in the eastern regions of Ukraine, which are highly urbanized and industrialized (and the most Russified as well), opponents of economic reforms running as communists achieved impressive victories. In the Western and Central Ukrainian regions (with the overwhelming ethnically Ukrainian population) the communists fared poorly and the democrats, independents and moderate nationalists did well"2.
During the presidential elections in June-July 1994, the Eastern and Southern regions voted almost unanimously for Leonid Kuchma, the former prime minister and former director of the greatest state enterprise of the area. One of the central planks of his electoral platform was the promise to bring Ukraine closer to Russia. This was precisely of what those in Western Ukraine who gave their support to the former Ukrainian president Leonid Kravchuk were afraid; Kravchuk based his program squarely on the idea of strengthening the political independence of Ukraine. In the second round of the election, the South and East outvoted the West and thus brought Leonid Kuchma to power. Some Western observers draw from this event a facile analogy with the situation in the former Yugoslavia and foretell the emergent disintegration of Ukraine along ethno-linguistic lines. Is this scenario plausible?
Data from a research project recently completed by the Institute for Historical Research at Lviv State University* lends insight into whether the issue of national identities has political implications in Ukraine. The project compared the group loyalties in two
Ukrainian cities--Lviv and Donetsk--as representative of Western and Eastern Ukraine, respectively. The survey data were collected at the end of March/ beginning of April 1994, during the first round of the parliamentary elections. Overall, 800 surveys were taken, approximately 400 in Lviv and 400 in Donetsk. Samples were stratified and completely random, using district voting lists. Interviews were conducted by a specially trained group of students from the state universities in Lviv and Donetsk. In an attempt to reduce survey and interview bias, no emphasis was placed on any particular national or other issues; our nearly 200 questions covered a wide range of political, economic, historical, ethnic and cultural issues. Our one explicit assumption was that the results obtained from each city would be very different, if not opposed.
*****
In some ways, Lviv and Donetsk do represent two diametrically opposed poles of political life in Ukraine. Tensions between Lviv and Donetsk, or between Western and Eastern Ukraine, have deep historical roots, making the two cities perfect subjects for a study of the possible futures of Ukraine.
Towards the end of the 19th Century, the Donetsk basin became the site of intense mining and heavy industry and a center of the metallurgical industry. The industrial development of Eastern Ukraine attracted a large number of emigrants from the central part of Russia. In turn, Ukrainian peasants emigrated from the industrializing region to more remote parts of the Russian Empire, America, and Canada. The Ukrainian peasantry had traditionally served as the social base for Ukrainian national movements, whereas in Southern and Eastern Ukraine such movement was relatively weak. The strong presence of a Russian-speaking proletariat in the urban centers of Eastern and Southern Ukraine was one of the main factors in the military victory of the Russian Bolsheviks over the Ukrainian independence forces during the revolutionary years of 1917-1920. Indeed, the political situation in 1994 somewhat resembled the one in 1917, when the local population gave support to pro-Russian Communists.
The situation in Western Ukraine looks quite different. Lviv experienced the traditional destiny of many Central European cities, which served as crossroads of different national, political, religious and cultural traditions, from the Ukrainian, Polish, and German, to the Russian. The formative nation-building experiences of Western Ukraine in the modern era paralleled in many ways those of other peoples of the Habsburg monarchy: the Czechs, the Slovaks, the Slovenes, and the Croats. During the interwar period, despite Polish policies of forced assimilation, Western Ukrainians managed to develop an exceptionally dynamic national consciousness. After the inclusion of those lands into the USSR, this consciousness contributed dramatically to the survival and revival of the idea of a Ukrainian nation. Western Ukraine was an area of the USSR that was least Soviet, in both historic and demographic terms.
Lviv and Donetsk not only embody two disparate histories and distinctive nation-building processes, but also exhibit two very different patterns of urbanization. Despite Donetsk's early 20th Century expansion from Russian immigration, the bulk of Donetsk's inhabitants today (76.7%, according to our survey) were born in Ukraine. Approximately half of them (49.2%) were born in a large city, and only a third (29.8%) came from a village. This means that a large segment of Donetsk's inhabitants are traditional city dwellers. Although Donetsk has some kind of mixed population of both Russians and Ukrainians, its cultural infrastructure is almost purely Russian. Strong Ukrainian influences were active only during the short period of so-called "Ukrainization" in the 1920's, but these were quickly halted and replaced by strict Russification policies. For example, in 1989, approximately 40% of the Ukrainians in Donetsk considered Russian their native language.
Lviv in the postwar decades presents a very different picture. Ukrainians there constantly increased their share of the city's population (60% in 1959 and 79.1% in 1989), while the number of Russians declined from 27% in 1959 to 16% in 1989. The primary source of this decline was the constant migration of people from the neighboring countryside; these people replaced the Jewish and Polish segments of the city's population which were either exterminated during the Nazi occupation, or forcibly repatriated by Stalin after the war to Poland in exchange for Ukrainians living in the Eastern Polish borderlands.
Lviv serves as an example of the tendency of the Western and, to a large degree, of Central Ukraine as well, to become less Russian and more Ukrainian. Some believe that this will occur all over Ukraine.3. But how would the Russian minority in a city like Donetsk react to such a scenario? Would they contribute to the integration--or the disintegration--of Ukraine?
A first look at the results of our survey gives the impression that the disintegration of Ukraine is a danger which should be taken very seriously. The most salient issue is, of course, the relationship Ukraine should share with Russia. Asked to place themselves along a seven-point spectrum signifying their desire for more or less separation from Russia, more than half of the Lviv respondents chose the "completely separate" end, while more than half of those interviewed in Donetsk chose the opposite end. Similarly, when asked which direction for the future of Ukraine would prefer, most people in Lviv (62.2%) chose that it remain a totally independent country. The future of choice for 57% of the people in Donetsk, on the other hand, would be that Ukraine become part of a greater federation including Russia.
The desire to reunite with Russia could be understood as a result of Ukraine's severe economic decline after the proclamation of its independence in 1991. In December 1991, most of Donetsk's inhabitants voted for independence because they believed that Ukraine had better economic prospects than Russia. But the absence of economic reforms in Ukraine during the last three years seems to have had quite the opposite effect. Nevertheless, there is no great difference between the attitudes of the inhabitants of Lviv and Donetsk toward the contemporary economic situation of Ukraine: 67% of Lviv's respondents and 95.6% of Donetsk's evaluated the economic changes in Ukraine since 1991 as "negative" or "very negative." Those in Lviv still stubbornly support the idea of Ukrainian independence, despite the
marked deterioration of their everyday living standards. [It should be noted that, according to our survey, the average, monthly family income in Donetsk (1,485 mln. coupons) is substantially greater than in Lviv (1,058 mln.)].
The main difference between the attitudes of the inhabitants of Lviv and Donetsk, however, is political, not economic: 74.4% of Lviv's respond- ents evaluated the political changes that have taken place since the independence of Ukraine as "positive" or "very positive", while in Donetsk 88.2% think these changes have been "negative" or even "very negative". The most telling finding is that the most disliked political group in Lviv are the communists, while in Donetsk it is the Ukrainian nationalists.
It would be very tempting to say that behind this political split stands the differenct ethnic composition of each city. But this isn't supported by our research, not least because the issue of ethnicity in Ukraine turns out to be more complicated than it at first appears. We found, instead, that ethnic identity sometimes doesn't appear in its pure state, but is mixed with other loyalties. For example, one of the most striking results of our research was the discovery of a new type of identity in Donetsk. Asked to choose a description which defined them best, 45% of the persons interviewed there self-identified as Soviets ("Sovietskiye"). Approximately a quarter of the other inhabitants thinks of itself as Ukrainian, while a fifth identifies as Russian. This means that roughly half of the people of legal Ukrainian status (i.e. according to their passports), and half of the legal Russians in Donetsk self-identify as Soviets. In Lviv, by contrast, such legal (or so-called objective national identity) corresponds directly with subjective national identity: only 4.9% of those interviewed in Lviv called themselves "Soviets."
What is a general portrait of these "Soviet" people? Most of them (76.6%) were born in Ukraine, half of them in a big city (presumably, a large part of them in Donetsk itself); only a third of them were born in a village. Their fathers and mothers were mostly Russians (42-47%) or Ukrainians (40%). There is no direct relation of "Sovietness" with age: almost as many young people as old were likely to identify with "Soviet" Donetsk. The same could be said about differences in educational level.
One man we interviewed called himself "a product of socialism." His identity as a Soviet derives from having lived his whole life in the Soviet Union. But the quality of his "Sovietness" depends, he said, upon how remote this Ukraine was from every part of the former Soviet Union, including the center. "In Ukraine, even Russians speak in a somewhat non- Russian way," he claimed.
The "Soviet identity" is an identity based on different loyalties, some of which are reconciliable and others which are in conflict with each other. This is especially true with respect to so-called transitional identity, which is the kind I believe this Soviet identity is. For example, the percentage of Soviets following the dissolution of the Soviet Union has already significantly declined. I base this claim on a comparison of the results of a survey conducted in 1991 of the Russian speaking population in non-Russian Republics--75% of these referred to themselves as Russians--with the 45% rate of Soviets in Donetsk revealed in our survey. Presumably, most of them will convert to Russian identities, while others will choose to become Ukrainians.
More important for our present concerns, the existence of the "Soviet" identity suggests that people in Lviv and Donetsk have much in common. Only 1% of the Lviv respondents and 5% of those interviewed in Donetsk wished that Ukraine would become regionalized into several separate countries. Each wanted their region to remain a part of Ukraine. Evidently, while the populations of Lviv and Donetsk almost completely disagree on what kind of future they want for Ukraine, they are in close agreement on what they do not want--regionalization. Even in Donetsk, most agreed that the unity of Ukraine is more important than the needs of the separate regions. Most believe that their region would be worse off if it were not part of Ukraine. And the overwhelming majority in both cities feels that its region has a common destiny with the rest of Ukraine.
Notes
1. David Saunders, "Modern Ukrainian History," European History Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1991), p. 85.
2. Szporluk Roman, "Reflections on Ukraine after 1994: The Dilemmas of Nationhood," The Harriman Review, Vol. 7, No. 7-9 (March-May 1994), pp. 1-2.
3. Serhii Seheda, "Istorychna dynamika etnichnoho skladu naselennia Ukrayiny," Analitychna dopovid', No. 2 (1994).
* The project was supervised by sociologist Okasana Malanchuk (University of Michigan), and social scientists Natalia Chernysh and myself (both of Lviv State University). The project was funded by the West Ukrainian branch of the Soros Foundation, and emulated a famous American project, "The Detroit Area Studies".
Yaroslav Hrytsak is the Director of the Institute of Historical Research, Ivan Franko State University of Lviv, Ukraine. This paper was presented to the Graduate Faculty in November 1994.
Tradition and Transition - Yerevan
State University at 75 The State University of Armenia, now known as Yerevan State University, has become the most prominent Armenian educational institution in recent times. The university was founded on May 16, 1919, after the reestablishment of statehood in 1918. As the first institution of higher learning in the new state of Armenia, it was particularly important to the Armenian people. Yerevan State University made invaluable contributions to nurturing Armenian scholars and scientists. Its role in the nation's socio-political life has also been very significant.
This year Yerevan State University is celebrating its 75th anniversary. The university is the foundation from which sprouted many other institutions of higher education in Armenia--most importantly, the National Academy of Sciences. Originally, there were four faculties: history and philology, economics and law, medicine, and physics and mathematics. At present, Yerevan State University has 19 faculties with 10,000 students. In general, classes are taught in Armenian, except in the Faculty of Russian Philology.
The University offers two types of degrees. The Diploma of Higher Education is awarded to students who have successfully completed five years of coursework in their major fields of studies. The degree of Candidate of Sciences is awarded to graduates for completing an additional three-years of coursework and for defending their dissertation in their major field. Programs of study for the Diploma differ according to specialization. The University offers programs in 28 fields, with 77 specializations in the natural sciences and the humanities, as well as in traditional and contemporary studies. During the first two years of their five-year course of study, students in the same field take general courses together and receive a similar basic education. Afterward, they are divided in groups according to their specializations and receive specialized instruction.
Currently, Yerevan State University is being restructured into an integrated, more multifaceted educational system. The integrated educational system will give priority to basic scholar-research activities, as well as create the climate for the exchange of knowledge and collaborative research projects. A flexible, three-tier degree system, including the bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, will be introduced, along with substantive changes to the curriculum.
Meanwhile, despite extremely difficult economic conditions, construction of a new library complex was recently completed. The University library is one of the largest in Armenia, with 2,900,000, volumes in its collection. The majority of the books, however, are in Russian, and there is almost no new literature in social and political science. Since September 1994, the library was provided with some electricity for lighting, but, as is the case throughout the university, there is still no heat in the building.
During the last two years, several new departments opened at the University, including a Department of History and Theory of International Relations, and a Department of Political Science. As in the majority of the universities of the former USSR, the Department of Political Science was established in place of the former Department of the Theory of Socialism. The faculty of this new department has prepared its first course, "Political Science in Armenia;" currently, this course is included in the curriculum of every department. This new Department is in dire need of literature, however, both of a general character and of that which deals with particular issues.
For information on Alexander Markarov, please see the Visiting Fellows column.
Consotium WorkshopAll Workshops take place on Tuesday from 1:30 - 3:30 p.m. in the Levinson Student Center (located directly above the cafeteria) at the New School, 65 Fifth Avenue (between 13th and 14th Streets). Copies of the paper presented are available one week prior to the date of presentation in the offices of the East and Central Europe Program (Room 423).
January 31
Laurentia Ghita (Consortium for Academic Partnership Fellow) will present her work on democracy and Romania, entitled, Enthusiasm, Delusion, Reality: The Costs of Being at the Crossroads of International Stability.
February 7
Jozsef Berenyi (Consortium for Academic Partnership Fellow) will present his paper on, Return of the Jedi! or, the Empire Strikes Back? The Social and Political Consequences of the Slovak Elections.
February 21
Special Bulgarian Session: Ralitsa Peeva (New School degree candidate) will speak on Bulgarian Ethnic Policy: the Case of the Turkish Minority. Valeri Pandjarov (Pew Democracy Fellow) will present his Reflections on the Macedonian Question. Both will give a brief overview of the December elections in Bulgaria.
March 7
Monica Ciobeanu (Pew Democracy Fellow) will talk on Women and the Public Sphere in Romania and Three Generations of the Romanian Family: A Study of Social Mobility.
March 21
Andras Tapolcai (Pew Democracy Fellow) will present his recent work on Maintenance, Self-Defense, and Resistance: The Cultural Survival of the Roma in New York City, which complements his studies of the Roma in Hungary.
April 4
Special Session on Estonia. Peeter Muursepp (Pew Democracy Fellow) will speak about the March 1995 elections in Estonia, as well as present an analysis of current citizenship and nationality issues in Estonia.
April 18
Special Session on Women in Eastern Europe. Discussion to be chaired by Indira Kajosevic (Katarina Kalwinska Fellow) and Irina Liczek (Committee on Gender Studies).
April 25
OPEN.
For more information please contact Sharon Cooley at (212) 229-5580.
Working GroupsCracow Summer Institute, July
12 - August 2, 1995The following are the courses planned for this year's Institute:
l Civil Society and the Public Sphere, with Professor Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, GF Sociology Department.
l Problems in Democratic Politics Today, with Professor David Plotke, GF Political Science Dept.
l Institution-Building in Post-Communist Societies, with Professors Ulrich Preuss and Claus Offe, University of Bremen.
l Theories of Gender in Culture, with Professor Ann Snitow, GF Committee on Gender Studies and Feminist Theory.
For more information and a program brochure, please contact Sharon Cooley at (212) 229-5580.
Regional Collaborators Jiri Ryba, a graduate of Russian Literature and Pedagogy at Charles University in Prague, has served as executive editor of the academic periodical, The Sociological Review, and co-published the monthly Sociologické aktuality (Sociological Topical News), an independent journal of the sociological community, in which abstracts from the meetings of the Democracy Seminar in Prague are regularly published.
Alena Miltová, sociologist and political economist, worked in the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology (and subsequently in the Institute of Theory and History of Science) of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, where she finished her PhD in 1989. She is co-chair (together with Miloslav Petrusek) of the Democracy Seminar chapter in Prague.
Since its creation one year ago, SLON has published 23 titles in the following seven different series:
Studies includes sociological monographs and collections of papers on current social problems (mainly from the areas of theoretical sociology, sociology of politics, economy, culture, morals, etc. Works by both Czechoslovak and foreign authors are represented, including Eva Broklova's Czechoslovak Democracy: The Political System of the Czechoslovak Republic,1918-1938.
The Sociological Terminology series presents materials from the Sociological Dictionary currently under preparation by the Institute of Sociology of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, supplemented by additional data and indexes.
The Working Texts series includes research surveys, information on topical problems, texts of lectures, papers from conferences or seminars, and supplemental data, tables, and literature indexes. An example is Zora Butorova and Martin Butora's Slovakia One Year After [The Split]: Roads and Crossroads of the New State as Seen by Its Citizens.
The Textbook series, which is intended for high school teachers and university students, features several titles that attempt to fill the existing gap in sociology, social work and political science.
The English series features original works by foreign authors. Jaroslav Krejci's Society in Global Perspective is the only publication in the series so far.
The series From the Sociological Archives will examine the little-known history of Czech sociology. The books are expected to include memoirs, documents and excerpts from original works examining specific time periods, various schools of sociology, and outstanding personalities in the field of sociology.
The "Sociologické aktuality" series is modeled after the Czech journal of the same name, and is intended for a wider public. It features sociological essays, interviews, etc. Some of the titles in this series include, Ivo Mozny's Why It Was so Easy: An Analysis of Families' Support for the Velvet Revolution, and Josef Alan's (ed.) Dialogues About Civil Society.
It was suggested at last year's Democracy Seminar meeting in Stupava, Slovakia, that SLON should collaborate with ECEP to publish a book on "the new democracies" of East and Central Europe. The publication will assemble the best works presented at the various Democracy Seminars during the last five years of their official existence.
Books may be ordered from SLON, c/o Alena Miltová, poste restante, 140 02 Praha 42 (FAX#: 422-591-442).
Democracy SeminarsThe Bratislava Chapter, chaired by Martin Bútora, conducted four seminars in the second part of 1994. The June meeting's topic was The Coming Elections and the Pre-Election Atmosphere in Slovakia. The presentations included, "The Electoral Systems in Europe and the Electoral Law in Slovakia" by lawyer Ernest Valko; and "Socio-cultural Value Background and Voting Preferences" by sociologist Vladimir Krivy.
The September meeting focused on Ethnological Perspectives on the Transformation of Slovakia. Ethnologists Viera Feglova and Olga Danglová presented their views on how different "local mentalities" in Slovakia are responding to large scale systemic changes and challenges. Discussion was concentrated on the way in which problems of "big politics" are reflected at local levels of social life.
In October, Jacques Rupnik, political scientist and writer from Paris, spoke on, Post-Election Slovakia in Central Europe. The issues discussed included: the orientation of Slovakia's foreign policy after the elections; the reactions of Western democracies to Slovakia's constitutional violations; and the prospects for and obstacles to Central European cooperation.
In November, Democracy Five Years After was the topic of the seminar. Several protagonists of the "Velvet Revolution" in Slovakia spoke during the meeting. Among the participants were those who in 1989 were student representatives, environmentalists, artists, sociologists, writers, and people of religious and civic dissent and who have since members of parliament and goverment: Zuzana Mistriková, Rudo Sikora, Ján Budaj, Ladislav Snopko, Lubomír Feldek, Frantisek Miklosko, Peter Zajac, Martin Porubjak,and Martin Bútora. The cinema hall was packed by more than 150 participants; a documentary film on the events of Fall 1989 was screened before the discussion.
Ukraine
The December 14, 1994, meeting of the Lviv Chapter of the Democracy Seminar discussed Adam Michnik's, "The Velvet Restoration," (published in September's ECEP Bulletin). Michnik, whose remarks opened the session, was followed by a polemic from Yurij Badzio, former leader of the Democratic Party of Ukraine; and comments by public figures and scholars: Yaroslav Dashkevych, Oleksy Haran, and Taras Wozniak. Other participants included leading public intellectuals, I. Dziuba, O. Yemets, Larysa Krusheletska, and others. The proceedings of the meetings will be published soon. The Lviv meeting was chaired by Yaroslav Hrytsak, the author of the feature article in this Bulletin.
The topic of the January, session was, The Lessons of Chechnia. The March meeting will examine Trans- itions in Spain and South America.
Romania
Transition and Social Change has been the general topic of the Cluj Chapter of the Democracy Seminar, chaired by Andrei Marga, Professor of Philosophy and Rector of the the Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj- Napoca, and coordinated by his assistant, Ciprian Tripon. Presenters include: November 1994, sociologist Irina Culic, "Integration and Differentiation Within the Present- day Political Spectrum;" December, sociologist Ciprian Tripon, "Liberalization and Restoration: An Analysis of Adam Michnik's, 'The Velvet Restoration' and Ira Katznelson's, 'Liberalism's Crooked Circle';" January 1995, sociologist Dan Stegaroiu, "Sources of Resistance to Changes in Present-day Romania;" February, Pompiliu Teodor, "Transition Indicators in Central and Eastern Europe;" March, economists Maria Barsan and Nicolae Paun, "The Transition Economy and The Problems it Faces;" April, philosopher Delia Marinceanu, "Identity Dynamics Within the Social Conflict;" May, political scientists Emil Boc and Irina Kantor, "The Delimitaton of Powers in the State: Its Current Form in Romania and Eastern Europe;" and June, sociologist Vasile Dancu, "Discourse Variants of Today's 'Left Wing' Parties."
Czech Republic
At the November, 1994, meeting of the Prague Chapter, Miloslav Petrusek, chair of the Department of Sociology and Dean of the Faculty of Social Science at Charles University, presented "A Sociologist's Tour of Russia, 1994". Parts of the lecture are published in a recent issue of the journal Sociologické aktuality. The December meeting discussed "Economic Transformations and the Ethics of Business", with Jiri Kabele and Lubomir Mlcoch, both of Charles University.
NotesWednesday, February 1
l Andrei Marga, Professor of Philosophy and Rector, Univ. of Babes-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca, Romania, spoke on Dilemmas and Difficulties in the East European Transitions: The Case of Romania.
Wednesday, February 8
l Steve Solnik, Professor of Political Science Department, Columbia Univ., gave a talk entitled After Chechnya: Has Yeltsin Killed Russian Democracy? This lecture was co-sponsored by the Graduate Faculty's Committee for the Study of Democracy.
Wednesday, February 22
l Gyorgy Csepeli, Professor of Sociology, Institute of Sociology, Eotvos Lorand Univ., Budapest, will speak on Fear As a Factor in International Relations in Eastern Europe at 6:00pm in Room 242.
Thursday, February 23
l Galina Starovoitova, Head of the Center for Ethno-Political Studies, Institute for the Economy in Transition (Moscow); former adviser to President Yeltsin on interethnic issues; and former member of parliament in the USSR and the Russian Federation will speak on The Self-Determination of Nations and Russian Democracy at 8:00pm in Room 242. This lecture is co-sponsored by the International Center for Migration, Ethnicity, and Citizenship.
Wednesday, March 1
l Suada Kapic, founder of the Mobile University in Sarajevo, director of FAMA (an independent production and publishing company), and author of Sarajevo: a Survival Guide and "Sarajevo's Art and Philosophy of Survival", will give a talk at 6:00pm in Room 242.
Tuesday, April 4
l Mykola Ryabchuk, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Vse Svit (Whole World), will speak on Dilemmas of Ukraine's Faust: Civil Society or State Building?, at 4:00pm in Room TBA.
Tuesday, April l1
l Dimitar Dimitrov, sociologist, Faculty of Philosphy, Sofia Univ., and member of the Central Electoral Commission in Bulgaria, will speak at the Workshop on East Europe on The 1994 Bulgarian Elections: What They Do and Do Not Mean, at l:30pm in the Levinson Student Center.
Wednesday, April 19
l Anatoli Tikholaz, Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Univ. of Kiev-Mohlya Academy, Ukraine, will speak on The Prerequisites for Legal Reform in Post-Soviet Society at 4:00pm in Room 217.
For information, call 212/299-5580.
Meetings were held this Winter with: Andrei Marga, Professor of Philosophy and Rector at the Babes-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, Romania; Catherine Peila, Program Consultant at the Citizen Exchange Council/Arts Link, New York City; Raphael Matevossian, Prorector for International Relation, Yerevan State University, Armenia; Amy Ansell, Department of Sociology and Director of the Program in International Education at Bard College, New York; Dr. Alena Miltová, co-publisher of Sociologické Nakladatelství, Prague; Simona Raseev, Senior Researcher at the Institute of Sociology at the Romanian Academy in Bucharest; Oleksiy Haran, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Kiev- Mohyla Academy, Ukraine; and Taras Vozniak, Director of the Institute for Political and Cultural Research in Lviv, Ukraine.
I regret the errors in punctuation in both the title and text of the green box of the December, 1994, issue of the Bulletin. My apologies both to the author and to our readers, with special thanks to those who brought them to my attention. --Philip Pezeshki
Executive Editor
Visiting Fellows
Alexander Markarov, Assistant Lecturer in the Political Science Department, Yerevan State University, Armenia, was invited by ECEP for a curriculum working visit in early February. During the first week of his visit Alexander, an alumnus (1994) of our Democracy and Diversity Summer Graduate Institute in Cracow, held consultations, meetings, and discussions with members of the Graduate Faculty on the conceptualization and design of several courses to be introduced into the newly established political science department at Yerevan State University (YSU).
His principle advisor was Professor David Plotke (GF Political Science Dept.) who began working with Alexander during the Cracow summer institute. Other consultants included Professors Andrew Arato and José Casanova (GF Sociology Dept.), Aristide Zolberg (GF Political Science Dept.), Elzbieta Matynia (GF Comm. on Liberal Studies), and Jan Gross (NYU Political Science Dept.). Sebouh Aslanian, a GF degree candidate and ECEP Associate, assisted Alexander throughout his visit.
During his visit a special meeting of the Working Committee on Collaboration with Armenia was held. It was attended by Igor Barsegian (Fulbright Fellow and Visiting Professor of Anthropology, George Washington Univ.); Nora Dudwick (Fellow of the Institute for European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies), Sebouh Aslanian, and Elzbieta Matynia (Director, ECEP). During this meeting issues of literature translation, curriculum reform, the continuation of Armenian participation in ECEP's Cracow Summer Institute, and the establishment of the Yerevan Chapter of the Democracy Seminars was also discussed.
Alena Miltová was an ECEP Visiting Fellow in January. Please see the Regional Collaborators column, on Page 5 for more information.
 |
 |
 |