Сабінський М. Е. Mykhailo Hrushevsky in foreign Ukrainian historiography in 1940-1980. – Qualifying scientific work on the rights of the manuscript.
Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the specialty 032 «History and Archeology». Drohobych Ivan Franko State Pedagogical University, Drohobych, 2023.
It is studied that the period of 1940-1965 is an important stage of Ukrainian diasporic historiography, which marked a gradual retreat from the concepts and practices of mainland Ukrainian studies of the previous era and convergence with Western socio-humanitarianism. Having escaped out of the «iron curtain» and realizing the impossibility of a quick return to the Motherland, Ukrainian intellectuals established communication between themselves and their Western colleagues, created new institutions and creative networks, and reconsidered the cultural heritage of the national revival. It has been found that these circumstances had a direct impact on the discourse of Hrushevskyi studies. Being extremely emotional in his assessments and journalistic in stylistic practices during the war and the first post-war years, he gradually acquires academic features. This was manifested in attempts to approach the complex subjects of M. Hrushevskyi’s biography from all possible worldview and research perspectives, the rejection of political expediency in favor of scientific validity, as well as the replacement of the emotional rhetoric of party journalism with the restrained academicism of originally substantiated researches. It is concluded that the tough «battles for Hrushevskyi» between supporters of conservative and republican ideologies during 1940-1965 gave way to a balanced understanding of the national phenomenon of the scientist.
It is proved that the centenary of M. Hrushevskyi became a significant event in the intellectual life of Ukrainians abroad. Despite the stereotyped thinking of some diasporic figures, thanks to extensive media promotion and numerous public and scientific initiatives, the personal date of the outstanding scientist was turned into a holiday of Ukrainian culture important for the consolidation of the emigrant community. This was accompanied by an increasingly conscious rejection of many invectives generated by the era of the Liberation struggle. Therefore, the need for a contextual and multidisciplinary understanding of the scientist phenomenon gained deeper and deeper understanding. As a result, numerous innovative historiographic studios based on actualized range of problems appeared. Their authors, in their reconstructions of the life and activities of M. Hrushevskyi, took into account a wide range of cognitive perspectives and intellectual contexts. It is proved that all this made possible the development of L. Vynar’s disciplinary initiative to start scientific Hrushevskyi studies.
It is substantiated that the considerable potential of L. Vynar’s disciplinary initiative was manifested in the dynamic formation of the theoretical (conceptualization by the scientist of the theoretical and methodological foundations and the description of the subject area), institutional («Ukrainian Historian» as an academic tribune; Ukrainian Historical Association as a leading institution, in which the collection of Hrushevskiana and a number of serial publications were created) and communicative (carrying out of periodic representative scientific forums, at which intensive interdisciplinary interaction was established) components of scientific Hrushevskyi studies. It is proved that its most important effect was the increasingly active archival heuristics and publishing work, as well as the related deeper specialization of Hrushevskyi studios. So, during the studied twenty years, popular science Hrushevskiana, which had the task to educate and enlighten, quantitatively gave way to analytical, and later to synthetic studios. Created with consideration of the methodological innovations of Western humanitarianism, these studios were focused on a comprehensive understanding of M. Hrushevskyi national phenomenon in the widest possible socio-political and cultural contexts. It is noted that the cognitive limits of foreign Ukrainian studies were of an objective nature and were associated with the impossibility of studying mainland collections. This situation had a more severe impact on the study of M. Hrushevskyi’s social and political heritage, whose researchers were forced to operate with a relatively modest range of sources.
It is concluded that the diasporic Hrushevskiana appears as a historiographical phenomenon that is complex in its ideological nature and diverse in its forms of realization and stylistic practices.
Keywords: M. Hrushevskyi, Ukrainian foreign historiography, reception, scientific discussion, social and political controversy.
