Horlivka Institute for Foreign Languages of the State Higher Educational Institution «Donbass State Pedagogical University»
The article explores the aspects of the impacts of the contemporary globalization
processes on the national history. The task is to determine the future fate
of Mykhailo Hrushevsky’s narrative, to trace possible transformations of historical
functions and to determine the historical development in Ukraine under the conditions of crisis of the state as an institution. Forthe attainment of the objectives,
a wide range of scientific literature was studied from the o utlined issues,
this has made it possible to substantiate the judgment about the absence of valid
grounds for the immediate change or substantial modernization of the narrative
History of Ukraine-Rus’ by Mykhailo Hrushevsky.
The authors consider the functions of history through the prism of contemporary
globalization changes, dividing them into theoretical and practical parts. In
their view, the theoretical group of functions has produced a change in approaches
to the process of writing history, and as a result, the formative approach to the
coverage of historical events is being increasingly substituted for civilizational
one. At the same time, the researchers assert that the second group of functions
is more prone to metamorphosis, enabling the state to intervene in the process
of writing history, thereby politicizing and subordinating it to the state’s interests.
The latter is viewed by the researchers as a far greater threat to history than the
entire process of globalization.
According to the authors, the previously mentioned is based on the commonality
of Hrushevsky’s concept both for history and for the foundations of the
Ukrainian state. This creates the ground for the reapproaching of history and
the state, which threatens the emergence of a dangerous interdependence. In the
article there are given some examples when such interdependence whittled away
the essence of history and caused its transformation into a tool of the state. It
is concluded that the emergence of mutual subordination is detrimental to both
history and the state. Such a course of events removes a significant number of
historical events from the historical analysis that is beneficial to the state, but
leads to significant losses in the realm of history. It is stated that the government
ownership of history does not correspond to the modern assessments of a state
as an institution that is losing confidence of the population, which is increasingly
conveying its sympathies to public organizations.
Keywords: globalization, Mykhailo Hrushevsky, the process of writing history,
the government ownership of history, functions of history.