to a “psychological phenomenal nature” is an attempt to avoid further explanation of what all these concepts consist of, and in a way this is a common “escape” used by sociologists in general, not only Ukrainian scholars. Billig stressed the opposite tendency of social psychologists to explain the nature of human consciousness by reference to “sociological and cultural factors,” which can lead to a situation where there is a mutual and agreed misunderstanding between both sociologists and social psychologists (Billig 1995).
Ethnic identity is defined in the context of “Social Identity Theory,” i.e. as a form of self-categorization by individuals (Mala 1996, 35) or as a result of a set of similar identification processes (Boldetskaya 1996, 53). Ethnic identification is considered an important component of ethnic consciousness. It is understood as self-affiliation or acceptance of likeness to some ethnic group. This process develops by way of the individual adapting himself to the roots and fundamentals of an ethnic group (Mala 1996, 41). In this way, the differentiation of the two terms “ethnic identity” and “ethnic identification” is incomplete and not fully convincing, since social psychologists argue that individual ethnic identity does not always imply identification with a group in a cultural sense. Psychologists differentiate therefore between ethnicity as interrelation between ethnic groups and ethnic identity as a part of an individual’s wider identity process (Liebkind 1989, 28). This lack of coherence was partially admitted by another Ukrainian scholar, Olena Donchenko, who agreed that the “process of mass identification is a social phenomenon which is not entirely understood by sociologists” (Donchenko 1994, 167).
Summary
We can draw at least two synthetic conclusions from the discussion so far. First, authors generally agree that changes of national consciousness should be considered as dynamic processes. However, “modernists” recognize this only indirectly as, for instance, Gellner does when writing that changes of symbols within national consciousness are national processes (Gellner 1983, 58). Second, the “primordialist” tradition, as well as Soviet Ethnography and contemporary Russian and Ukrainian scholars, recognize the substantially important role of ethnic consciousness for the creation of national consciousness and of the nation as a whole. “Modernists” insist that ethnic consciousness has a random role, if any, for national phenomena and stress “objective” social and economic determinants.
From the analysis above we can sum up the similarities and differences of the main Western and Eastern European approaches to the concepts of nation, ethnic communities, national and ethnic consciousness. Although, on the one hand, synthesis is possible, it is important to stress that the common concerns expressed by different traditions do not imply a similarity of conceptual approach: often different authors reached similar conclusions as a result of different methods and means of enquiry.
Although “primordialists,” Soviet and post-Soviet scholars in Russia and Ukraine generally agree on the ethnic origins of nations and the crucial role of consciousness in their genesis, in fact their primary assumptions were substantially different. “Primordialists” developed their conclusions as a result of the assumption that consciousness is an immanent and inseparable condition of the appearance of nations, which was illustrated by the studies of world ethnic history and concrete historical and contemporary identities. Within Soviet and post-Soviet traditions, such an assumption would be unacceptable because of the materialistic paradigm in which they developed. Nevertheless, historical analysis of concrete national identities led both schools of thought to agreement, in principle, as to the role and functions of ethnic and national consciousness for the existence of national phenomena.
At the same time, although “modernists” and Soviet/post-Soviet ethno-sociologists based their theories on historical materialism, they disagree on several important issues. The former argue for the importance and functionally occasional role of national/ethnic consciousness in the appearance of national-social units during the foundation of industrialism. They claim that national consciousness is a consequence of nationalism and therefore originally initiated by the new socio-economic conditions which created the concrete boundaries of nations. The real causes of the nations’ genesis, then, lie in the development of the productive forces. In this scheme, ethnic consciousness is not necessary, so “modernists” logically conclude that substantially it is unimportant. The climax of such logic is the recognition of the fact that the appearance of “national” units itself was accidental in the development of human society during the industrial epoch (Gellner 1994).
The materialistic concept of Soviet Ethnography also states that the creation of nations is strongly bound up with the socio-economic development of human society at the stage of industrialism or “capitalism.” Consciousness here is a consequence of social reality. However, unlike “modernists,” Soviet scholars believed that national consciousness is a reflection of its nation. In this case, national consciousness is not a “creator” of the boundaries of national unity (as Gellner claimed), and is not an immanent condition of a nation’s appearance (as Smith argued), but is an internal attribute of the nation that serves an important function. It is striking that the description of these functions is quite similar within all concepts. What is difficult to harmonize is the correspondence between national and ethnic consciousness. “Primordialists,” Soviet and most of post-Soviet ethno-sociologists are together in their sense that national consciousness inherited, naturally and evolutionarily, ethnic consciousness, whereas “modernists” insist on the accidental relationship between ethnic and national consciousness.
Scholars list the following elements of national consciousness that are common to all traditions: awareness of a common historical territory (“homeland”); self-given name (‘ethnonym’); a common culture in its private and civic expressions; a common state order; and a socio-economic organization. Most of these categories reflect rational elements that are relatively easy to study using sociological research tools. However, it is the emotional elements of consciousness able to reflect the relationship between ethnic and national consciousness that are the least explored. And it is this relationship that evokes the most disagreements among scholars of different schools.
2.2. Ethnicity and Its Place Within National Consciousness
The fact that the majority of scholars agree on the importance of ethnicity for national consciousness, but have different opinions as to the role it plays, requires a closer look. As previously described, “primordialist” Western as well as Soviet and post-Soviet traditions have stressed the continuing or perennial role of ethnic components in the transformation from ethnic to national consciousness. But what exactly are these components?
Smith pointed out that ethnic myths and collective memories locate a new, already national, community within a historic space and legitimize it, providing the status of an “ancient” one. Similarly, Bromley argued that diachronic information links between generations are extremely important for the existence of an ethnicos.9 Both authors include among these elements self-stereotypes of typical characteristics of a community, self-stereotypes of a common historical destiny (myth of origin, according to Smith), and images of a “homeland” or common territory of such a community. Ukrainian scholars tend to include here cultural archetypes which national consciousness inherits from the previous historical development of a community (Yaniv 1993; Mala 1996). In light of the above discussion, it is worth considering the following elements of ethnic heritage that are deemed to be important for national phenomenon: myths, self-stereotypes and cultural archetypes.
2.2.1 Myths of National Consciousness or National Consciousness as a Myth?
The problem of the correspondence between such phenomena as myth and national consciousness continues to be the subject of intense debate and contradictory approaches to the nature of the problem abound. On the one hand, one can claim that a myth is an unchangeable part of national consciousness, and sometimes has a different appearance and
