×

Używamy ciasteczek, aby ulepszyć LingQ. Odwiedzając stronę wyrażasz zgodę na nasze polityka Cookie.


image

The Making of Modern Ukraine, Class 2: The Genesis of Nations (1)

Class 2: The Genesis of Nations (1)

- But today is a kind of second introductory lecture

where we're gonna be thinking about

the origins of the nation in particular, as with last time,

I'm gonna toss you some what I think are softballs,

but also feel free to raise your hand and interrupt,

because that can help me when I understand

that something's really not coming across

or something is unclear.

So just feel free to interrupt

and ask a question anytime you want.

So this lecture is called The Genesis of Nations,

and it's about a question, which I raised last time,

which has kind of been a question puzzling philosophers

from the beginning of philosophy,

which is how do you get from something to nothing?

At some point there wasn't a Ukrainian nation

and at some point there is a Ukrainian nation.

How does that happen?

How do you get social forms to come into existence

that didn't exist before?

It's a really interesting question.

And you can ask it with other social formations as well.

There didn't used to be classes,

but now we don't have any difficult--

I don't mean the classes that you're in.

I mean, social classes, right? Economic classes.

Those didn't use to exist either,

but now we don't have much trouble identifying,

oh, he's middle class.

Actually we're in America, so everybody's middle class.

Thinking that everyone's middle class

is part of the class struggle, I'm sure you know that.

So if you all think you're middle class,

that means you're already in, okay.

Sorry that wasn't our subject today at all.

We're gonna move back to nations.

Although the Marxists

are gonna get a little shout out later on

because actually Marxists were some of the first people

to think about the nation.

But when we're thinking about this social form

of the nation, what makes it particularly tricky

is that the nation, once it exists, lays claim to the past.

So the nation didn't always exist

but once it comes into existence,

it tells a story about the past

and the story that the nation tells about the past is wrong.

That's the short version.

It tells a story which clears out the past

and that story calls itself history.

Although it's not really history, it calls itself history.

And so this new social form has a story

about how it's very old and that confusion is confusion

that basically everyone lives their whole life with.

Unless you're American.

If you're American, then your national story

is that you're new and you're fresh

and you're all about the future,

which is ironic because the American nation

is actually comparatively speaking, quite old.

It's funny, right?

It's actually older than most of the European nations,

but don't tell the Europeans and don't tell the Americans,

'cause that would mess everybody up.

So the trick though is that the nation is modern,

but it lays claim to the past

in a way which if we ourselves are at all nationally minded

and many of us probably are, feels comfortable and right.

And that makes it very hard to answer this question

of where the nation came from

because the nation is already giving you an answer.

The nation comes equipped with an answer.

It comes equipped in the most banal

and obvious practical sense,

which you've already encountered in your lives probably,

which is that as you're educated,

as you go through elementary school,

middle school, high school,

if you're in anything like a national educational system,

you're given answers to these questions,

which seem self-evident as to where the nation came from.

But of course, there's a circular phenomenon here,

which is that once there's a national consciousness,

once there's a national identity,

then the educational system takes on a national character

and then reproduces that national consciousness and identity

in a way which then starts to seem unproblematic

and commonsensical.

So there's a circular quality about this,

which is very hard to break out of

when you're seven years old.

I mean, I'm sure all of you are smarter than average

and each one of you is smarter than the person next to you.

I'm aware of this, you're Yale students,

but when you were seven, you pro--

Okay, six.

When you were six, you probably weren't raising your hand

and talking about the constructed character of national--

Right? You probably weren't.

You were probably, I don't know.

Correct me, but I imagine

that what they told you about the past in your schools,

you were probably either ignoring it

or somehow taking it in to some extent, right?

Thank you for those nods. That's very affirming.

So the obvious way that this happens

is the institutional way.

The nation takes over the state,

the state takes over the education,

the education takes over the kids

and then the kids believe the things

which are commonsensical and 99 times out of a hundred

and I say this as a historian

who gets trapped in cocktail parties all the time in corners

with people who know what really happened in the past,

99 times out of a hundred, you never break free, right?

99 times out of a hundred,

you're basically trapped where they pinned you down

when you were seven.

The less obvious way that the nation gets hold of the past

has to do not with the institutions,

but with the form of the story.

And I'm gonna tell you a couple forms of the story

and try to make them seem less commonsensical

or less obvious, less natural than they are.

I called this maybe a little bit too preciously,

I called this lecture The Genesis of Nations,

because now I'm gonna talk about Genesis.

A great story about the nation

is that there once was innocence and the innocence was lost.

That is a big story about the nation,

especially nations that emerge out of empires.

Especially nations like the Russian.

I'm not gonna talk about too much about America,

but it's certainly true of America too.

There's an American imperial story

about how things were at some point,

the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s.

At some point, things were fine.

At some point, things were good.

And then somehow the immigrants got in and we lost control

and now things aren't so good.

That's a story of innocence.

If you're about making the country great again,

like a cycle.

You go back to a cycle where there's a point

or the founders are another good example of this.

So some people think that the moment of 1776 or 1789

is a kind of moment of innocence.

The founders got it basically right.

That's a very attractive idea.

The founders thought of everything,

they're kind of demigods.

They walk the earth, leaving huge footprints behind them

and the footprints were filled with the water

and residue of righteousness.

And that's all you have to know.

That's a very attractive view.

Somebody got everything right at one point in time.

Most of the Supreme Court now

pretends to believe this at this point.

By the way, you know what the problem with originalism is?

I realize this is not our subject at all

so you don't have to take notes.

But there's a school of thought called originalism

about the American Constitution,

which says that you have to take the Constitution

only in terms of what it actually says.

But you know what the Constitution doesn't say?

It doesn't say that you have to take the Constitution

the way that the Constitution actually says.

That is to say the originalist position

is self-contradictory because the originalist position

is not actually in the Constitution, right?

Okay. I've blown your minds, right?

All right. (students laughing)

But I'm only saying this by way

of this general imperial nation problem

of wanting to go back to a moment

where somehow we got everything right.

In Russia today, this is very evident

in the thought of a character called Ivan Ilyin,

who for several years Putin read

and who takes a view like this, that the world is flawed.

The world itself is flawed, but Russia has a kind of mission

of restoring the innocence of the world.

I mean, it's kind of ironic,

but very often it's the imperial nations,

the post-imperial nations that are focused on innocence.

They're focused on a time when everything was all right.

Nations that are peripheral

or are anti-colonial, anti-imperial

very often have a different structure of story,

which I wanna try to make seem

both familiar and unfamiliar to you if I can.

And that's a three part story. And again, it's biblical.

So the story of lost innocence is of course,

the story of Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden.

There's also a longer story in the Hebrew Bible,

the Old Testament about a people which had a state,

but then that mistakes were made

or bad people came and they lost their state.

But at some point they're gonna get their state back.

And when they get their state back,

everything's gonna be fine.

That's a structural story that's inside the Bible.

People have different views

about how it's gonna be right again.

The Christians say Jesus came and then everything was fine.

Zionists might say we made Israel, then everything was fine.

You can be in disagreement about when everything is fine,

but there's still the basic three part story

of everything was once good, then we lost it somehow.

Probably not our fault, probably somebody else's fault,

but we lost it.

But then there will be a moment of redemption.

So the nation takes over this story very easily.

You've probably heard phrases

like national renaissance, a rebirth.

The whole idea of rebirth

is if you think about it just for a second,

in some kind of literal way, it's a very weird idea.

It's very weird.

If you just think for a quarter of a second,

what it would be like to be reborn,

wouldn't that be strange, right?

Okay, this may be a little too Freudian,

you just left home, I know.

But a rebirth is a strange idea

if you think about it at all.

So the idea of a national rebirth

is that you're going back to that time

when everything was right.

You're going back to that golden age.

Usually the nation says we're in some kind of middle period

where things have gone wrong,

but everything used to be right.

And if you're an anti-colonial or a post-colonial nation,

the story usually has to do with the people.

The people were right and good.

They're still somehow basically right and good

and we're gonna restore that rightness and goodness

by giving them a state and then things are gonna be fine.

There's been a middle period,

which involves a diaspora or an empire

or something messing things up.

But in the future, things are gonna be good.

So notice the three part story.

The three part story is very widespread. Very widespread.

Classical examples are the Jewish national story,

the Greek national story.

And I mentioned in the last lecture, the Jews and Greeks

are actually the oldest documented inhabitants

of the territory of Ukraine.

But basically, every national story

has cottoned onto this, has followed this pattern.

So I'm gonna say the obvious thing now.

It's not that this is true.

It's not that there ever was a pure nation.

It's not that there was an ethnicity

which existed a thousand years ago and still exists today.

I hope I'm not shattering anybody's illusions,

but that never actually happens.

I know I'm breaking something to you now,

but somebody has to at some point.

Relationships are a lot more complicated than that, right?

Fatherhood and motherhood and sex.

It's a lot more complicated than a straight line

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

Class 2: The Genesis of Nations (1) ||创世纪|| ||origin|| ||Походження||націй Clase|||| Klasse 2: Die Entstehung der Nationen (1) Class 2: The Genesis of Nations (1) Clase 2: La génesis de las naciones (1) Classe 2 : La genèse des nations (1) クラス2:国家創世記(1) 수업 2: 국가의 기원 (1) 2 klasė: Tautų genezė (1) Les 2: Het ontstaan van naties (1) Klasa 2: Geneza narodów (1) Aula 2: A génese das nações (1) Занятие 2: Генезис наций (1) Sınıf 2: Ulusların Yaratılışı (1) Заняття 2: Походження націй (1) 第二课:万国的起源(一) 第二課:萬國創世紀(一)

- But today is a kind of second introductory lecture |||||||介绍性的| |||||||preliminary| |||||||вступна| - Aber heute ist eine Art zweiter Einführungsvortrag - 但今天是第二次介绍性讲座

where we're gonna be thinking about wo wir darüber nachdenken werden 我们要考虑的地方

the origins of the nation in particular, as with last time, |походження нації||||||||| insbesondere die Ursprünge der Nation, wie beim letzten Mal, в частности, о происхождении нации, как и в прошлый раз, 特别是国家的起源,和上次一样,

I'm gonna toss you some what I think are softballs, ||扔给|||||||软球 ||throw|||||||easy questions ||підкину тобі|||||||легкі запитання Ich werde dir ein paar Softbälle zuwerfen, denke ich, Я собираюсь бросить вам несколько, как мне кажется, мягких мячей, 我要扔给你一些我认为是垒球的东西,

but also feel free to raise your hand and interrupt, |||||||||打断 |||||підняти||||перервати но также не стесняйтесь поднимать руку и перебивать, 但也可以随时举手打断,

because that can help me when I understand 因为当我理解时,这可以帮助我

that something's really not coming across |||||传达 dass etwas wirklich nicht rüberkommt что что-то не доходит 真的没有发生什么事 有些事情确实没有传达清楚

or something is unclear. 或者有什么不清楚的。 或者有些事情不明确。

So just feel free to interrupt 所以请随时打断我

and ask a question anytime you want. ||||随时|| 并在你想要的时候问问题。

So this lecture is called The Genesis of Nations, ||讲座|||||| 这次讲座的主题是《民族的起源》,

and it's about a question, which I raised last time, |||||||提出|| und es geht um eine Frage, die ich letztes Mal gestellt habe,

which has kind of been a question puzzling philosophers |||||||令人困惑的| |||||||perplexing question| Das war eine Frage, die Philosophen verwirrte 这一直是一个困扰哲学家的问题

from the beginning of philosophy, ||||哲学

which is how do you get from something to nothing? Wie kommt man von etwas zu nichts? 这是如何从有到无的?

At some point there wasn't a Ukrainian nation Irgendwann gab es keine ukrainische Nation В какой-то момент украинской нации не стало. 在某个时候没有乌克兰国家

and at some point there is a Ukrainian nation. 在某个时刻,乌克兰民族出现了。

How does that happen? 这是怎么发生的?

How do you get social forms to come into existence ||||社会||||| |||||||||існування Wie bringt man soziale Formen zustande? Как заставить социальные формы существовать 你如何让社会形式出现 你如何使社会形式产生?

that didn't exist before? 以前不存在的?

It's a really interesting question. 这是一个非常有趣的问题。

And you can ask it with other social formations as well. ||||||||社会形态|| ||||||||structures|| ||||||||формації|| Und man kann es auch bei anderen Gesellschaftsformationen fragen. И это можно спросить и у других общественных формаций. 你也可以用其他社会结构来问这个问题。

There didn't used to be classes, |||||课程 Früher gab es keinen Unterricht, Раньше классов не было, 以前没有课程,

but now we don't have any difficult-- но теперь у нас нет никаких трудностей... 但现在我们没有任何困难的--

I don't mean the classes that you're in. Я не имею в виду занятия, которые вы посещаете. 我不是说你所在的班级。 我不是指你在上的课程。

I mean, social classes, right? Economic classes. |||||经济| Я имею в виду социальные классы, верно? Экономические классы. 我的意思是,社会阶层,对吧?经济类。

Those didn't use to exist either, |||||也不曾存在 Раньше их тоже не было, 那些以前也不存在,

but now we don't have much trouble identifying, |||||||识别 |||||||визначати но теперь у нас нет особых проблем с идентификацией, 但现在我们不难识别, 但现在我们在识别上没有太大困难,

oh, he's middle class. ||中产阶级| 哦,他是中产阶级。

Actually we're in America, so everybody's middle class. ||||||中产阶级| Вообще-то мы в Америке, поэтому все относятся к среднему классу. 其实我们在美国,所以每个人都是中产阶级。

Thinking that everyone's middle class ||每个人的|| 认为每个人都是中产阶级

is part of the class struggle, I'm sure you know that. |||||斗争||||| |||||боротьба класів||||| 是阶级斗争的一部分,我相信你知道。 是阶级斗争的一部分,我确信你知道这一点。

So if you all think you're middle class, Так что если вы все считаете себя средним классом, 所以如果你们都认为自己是中产阶级,

that means you're already in, okay. это значит, что вы уже в деле, хорошо. 那就意味着你们已经属于这个阶层了,好吧。

Sorry that wasn't our subject today at all. Жаль, что это совсем не наша сегодняшняя тема. 抱歉,这根本不是我们今天的主题。 抱歉,今天的主题根本不是这个。

We're gonna move back to nations. 我们将回到国家的层面。

Although the Marxists ||马克思主义者 ||Marxist theorists Obwohl die Marxisten 尽管马克思主义者

are gonna get a little shout out later on |||||喊||| werden später ein wenig hervorgehoben. vão ter um pequeno destaque mais tarde в дальнейшем будут немного освещены 稍后会大声喊叫 稍后会得到一些关注。

because actually Marxists were some of the first people 因为实际上,马克思主义者是一些最早的人。

to think about the nation. 思考国家。

But when we're thinking about this social form Но когда мы думаем об этой социальной форме. 但是当我们思考这种社会形态时

of the nation, what makes it particularly tricky |||||||棘手 |||||||challenging aspect ||||||особливо| нации, что делает его особенно сложным 是什么让它变得特别棘手 国家的社会形态,是什么使它特别棘手

is that the nation, once it exists, lays claim to the past. ||||||||声称||| |||||||lays|||| |||||||претендує на|претендує на||| ist, dass die Nation, sobald sie existiert, Anspruch auf die Vergangenheit erhebt. полягає в тому, що нація, як тільки вона існує, претендує на минуле. 是国家一旦存在,就对过去提出要求。

So the nation didn't always exist

but once it comes into existence, 但一旦它存在,

it tells a story about the past 它讲述了一个关于过去的故事,

and the story that the nation tells about the past is wrong. und die Geschichte, die die Nation über die Vergangenheit erzählt, ist falsch. 而国家关于过去的故事是错误的。

That's the short version. ||简短版| 这是简短的版本。

It tells a story which clears out the past |||||澄清||| Sie erzählt eine Geschichte, die mit der Vergangenheit aufräumt 它讲述了一个揭开过去的故事,

and that story calls itself history. |||称|| |||names|| 这个故事称自己为历史。

Although it's not really history, it calls itself history. ||||||称|| 尽管这不是真正的历史,但它自称为历史。

And so this new social form has a story 因此,这种新的社会形式有一个故事

about how it's very old and that confusion is confusion |||||||混乱|| 关于它是多么古老,以及混淆就是混淆

that basically everyone lives their whole life with. |||生活|||| 基本上每个人都带着这个生活一辈子。

Unless you're American. 除非你是美国人|| 除非你是美国人。

If you're American, then your national story 如果你是美国人,那么你的国家故事

is that you're new and you're fresh ||||||新鲜的 你是新的,你是新鲜的 你是新来的,你很有活力

and you're all about the future, |||||未来 你只关心未来, 而且你全心关注未来,

which is ironic because the American nation 这||讽刺性|||| ||іронічно|||| 讽刺的是,美国 这很讽刺,因为美国国家

is actually comparatively speaking, quite old. ||相对而言||| ||relatively||| ||порівняно||| ist, vergleichsweise gesehen, ziemlich alt. 实际上,相对而言,非常古老。

It's funny, right? |有趣| 这很有趣,对吧?

It's actually older than most of the European nations, 它实际上比大多数欧洲国家都要古老。

but don't tell the Europeans and don't tell the Americans, ||||欧洲人||||| 但不要告诉欧洲人,也不要告诉美国人,

'cause that would mess everybody up. denn das würde alle durcheinander bringen. 因为那会把大家搞糟。

So the trick though is that the nation is modern, ||诀窍|||||||现代 Der Trick dabei ist, dass die Nation modern ist, 所以关键是国家是现代的,

but it lays claim to the past 但它宣称对过去的拥有权

in a way which if we ourselves are at all nationally minded ||||||||||国家层面|心态的 ||||||||||in a national sense| |||||||||||національно свідомі auf eine Art und Weise, die uns, wenn wir überhaupt national eingestellt sind de uma forma que, se nós próprios tivermos uma mentalidade nacional 以一种如果我们自己在民族意识上有所考虑的方式

and many of us probably are, feels comfortable and right. ||||||感觉||| 而我们中的许多人可能确实如此,感觉舒适而正确。

And that makes it very hard to answer this question 这使得回答这个问题非常困难

of where the nation came from 关于国家的起源

because the nation is already giving you an answer. |||||给予||| 因为国家已经给你一个答案。

The nation comes equipped with an answer. |||装备||| |||furnished||| |||оснащена||| 这个国家配备了一个答案。

It comes equipped in the most banal ||配备|||| ||||||ordinary ||оснащений|||| 它以最平淡无奇

and obvious practical sense, |очевидний|| 和显而易见的实用意义配备。

which you've already encountered in your lives probably, |||遇到过|||| |||зустрічалися з|||| 你们可能在生活中已经遇到的,

which is that as you're educated, und das ist, dass man in der Ausbildung ist, 作为你们接受教育,

as you go through elementary school, ||||小学| 在你们上小学的时候,

middle school, high school, 初中,高中,

if you're in anything like a national educational system, |||||||教育的| 如果你在类似于国家教育体系的地方,

you're given answers to these questions, ||答案||| 你会被提供这些问题的答案,

which seem self-evident as to where the nation came from. |||显而易见||||||| 看起来显而易见国家的起源。

But of course, there's a circular phenomenon here, |||||循环的|| ||||||феномен явище| 但当然,这里有一个循环现象,

which is that once there's a national consciousness, |||||||national awareness |||||||національна свідомість 一旦有了民族意识,

once there's a national identity, ||||国家认同 一旦形成国家认同,

then the educational system takes on a national character ||||||||国家特征 那么教育系统就会具有国家特征,

and then reproduces that national consciousness and identity ||再现||||| ||відтворює|||національну свідомість|| 然后再再现这种国家意识和认同

in a way which then starts to seem unproblematic ||||||||无问题的 |||||||appear|unproblematic ||||||||безпроблемним чином 以一种开始似乎毫无问题的方式

and commonsensical. |常识性的 |practical and logical |і здоровий глузд und vernünftig. 而且很合乎常理。

So there's a circular quality about this, ||||循环特性|| |||round nature||| Es handelt sich also um eine zirkuläre Qualität, 所以这有一种循环的特性,

which is very hard to break out of |||||打破|| |||||escape from|| 这很难挣脱。

when you're seven years old. 当你七岁的时候。

I mean, I'm sure all of you are smarter than average ||||||||更聪明||平均水平 我是说,我相信你们都比平均水平聪明。

and each one of you is smarter than the person next to you. ||||||更聪明|||||| 你们每一个人都比旁边的人聪明。

I'm aware of this, you're Yale students, |知道||||| |усвідомлюю||||| 我知道这一点,你们是耶鲁大学的学生,

but when you were seven, you pro-- ||||||你 但是当你们七岁的时候,你们——

Okay, six. 好的,六岁。

When you were six, you probably weren't raising your hand |||||||举手|| 当你六岁时,你可能没有举手

and talking about the constructed character of national-- |||||字符|| 并谈论国家的构建特性--

Right? You probably weren't.

You were probably, I don't know. 你可能是这样,但我不知道。

Correct me, but I imagine 纠正我,但我想

that what they told you about the past in your schools, 他们告诉你学校里过去的事情,

you were probably either ignoring it 你可能要么是在忽视它,

or somehow taking it in to some extent, right? |以某种方式||||||| |||||||в якійсь м| oder sie in gewissem Maße aufzunehmen, richtig? 要么在某种程度上接受了它,对吧?

Thank you for those nods. That's very affirming. |||||||肯定的 |||||||supportive ||||кивки|||підтримуюче Ich danke Ihnen für Ihr Nicken. Das ist sehr ermutigend. 谢谢你的点头。这非常令人肯定。

So the obvious way that this happens 发生这种情况的明显方式

is the institutional way. ||制度化的| ||the established method| ||інституційний спос| 是制度化途径。

The nation takes over the state, Die Nation übernimmt den Staat, 国家接管国家,

the state takes over the education, |||||教育 国家接管教育,

the education takes over the kids |教育|||| 教育接管了孩子们

and then the kids believe the things 然后孩子们就会相信这些事情

which are commonsensical and 99 times out of a hundred ||зрозумілі|||||| 这些都是常识,而且百分之九十九

and I say this as a historian ||||||历史学家 我是作为一名历史学家说的

who gets trapped in cocktail parties all the time in corners ||被困|||聚会||||| ||застрягає|||||||| кто все время попадает в ловушку на коктейльных вечеринках в углах 总是被困在角落里的鸡尾酒会里

with people who know what really happened in the past, с людьми, которые знают, что на самом деле произошло в прошлом, 和那些知道过去真正发生了什么的人一起,

99 times out of a hundred, you never break free, right? 99 раз из ста ты никогда не вырвешься на свободу, верно? 百分之九十九的情况下,你都无法挣脱,对吗?

99 times out of a hundred, 99 раз из ста, 百分之九十九的时候,

you're basically trapped where they pinned you down |||||钉住|| |||||held down|| ||в пастці|||пригвоздили|| вы в основном в ловушке, где они прижали вас 你基本上被困在他们把你压住的地方

when you were seven. 当你七岁的时候。

The less obvious way that the nation gets hold of the past ||||||||获取||| ||менш очевидний||||||||| Die weniger offensichtliche Art und Weise, wie sich die Nation der Vergangenheit bemächtigt 国家掌握历史的不太明显的方式

has to do not with the institutions, ||||||机构 ||||||установами hat nichts mit den Institutionen zu tun, 与机构无关,

but with the form of the story. 而是以故事的形式。

And I'm gonna tell you a couple forms of the story

and try to make them seem less commonsensical |||||||зрозумілим und versuchen, sie weniger vernünftig erscheinen zu lassen

or less obvious, less natural than they are.

I called this maybe a little bit too preciously, ||||||||overly carefully ||||||||надто вишукано

I called this lecture The Genesis of Nations, |||||Походження||

because now I'm gonna talk about Genesis.

A great story about the nation

is that there once was innocence and the innocence was lost. |||||невинність|||||

That is a big story about the nation,

especially nations that emerge out of empires. ||||||empires |||виникають||| insbesondere Nationen, die aus Imperien hervorgegangen sind.

Especially nations like the Russian.

I'm not gonna talk about too much about America,

but it's certainly true of America too.

There's an American imperial story

about how things were at some point,

the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s.

At some point, things were fine.

At some point, things were good.

And then somehow the immigrants got in and we lost control Und dann sind die Einwanderer irgendwie reingekommen und wir haben die Kontrolle verloren.

and now things aren't so good.

That's a story of innocence. Das ist eine Geschichte der Unschuld.

If you're about making the country great again,

like a cycle.

You go back to a cycle where there's a point Man kehrt zu einem Zyklus zurück, bei dem es einen Punkt gibt

or the founders are another good example of this. ||founders|||||| ||засновники||||||

So some people think that the moment of 1776 or 1789

is a kind of moment of innocence. ||||||невинності ist eine Art Moment der Unschuld.

The founders got it basically right.

That's a very attractive idea.

The founders thought of everything,

they're kind of demigods. |||half-gods |||напівбоги Sie sind so etwas wie Halbgötter.

They walk the earth, leaving huge footprints behind them

and the footprints were filled with the water ||||filled||| ||||заповнені|||

and residue of righteousness. |remnant||moral integrity |залишок праведності||праведності und der Rest der Gerechtigkeit.

And that's all you have to know.

That's a very attractive view.

Somebody got everything right at one point in time.

Most of the Supreme Court now

pretends to believe this at this point.

By the way, you know what the problem with originalism is? |||||||||interpretation of law| |||||||||оригіналізм|

I realize this is not our subject at all

so you don't have to take notes.

But there's a school of thought called originalism

about the American Constitution,

which says that you have to take the Constitution

only in terms of what it actually says.

But you know what the Constitution doesn't say?

It doesn't say that you have to take the Constitution Це не означає, що вам потрібно взяти Конституцію

the way that the Constitution actually says. так, як це фактично говорить Конституція.

That is to say the originalist position |||||original intent| Це означає позицію оригіналіста

is self-contradictory because the originalist position ||self-contradictory|||| |сам себе|суперечливий|||оригіналістична позиція| є самопротирічним, оскільки позиція оригіналіста

is not actually in the Constitution, right? фактично відсутня в Конституції, верно?

Okay. I've blown your minds, right? ||вразив||| Окей. Я вас здивую, чи так?

All right. (students laughing)

But I'm only saying this by way

of this general imperial nation problem

of wanting to go back to a moment

where somehow we got everything right.

In Russia today, this is very evident ||||||очевидно

in the thought of a character called Ivan Ilyin,

who for several years Putin read

and who takes a view like this, that the world is flawed. |||||||||||imperfect |||||||||||недосконалий

The world itself is flawed, but Russia has a kind of mission

of restoring the innocence of the world. |||purity||| |відновлення невинності світу|||||

I mean, it's kind of ironic,

but very often it's the imperial nations,

the post-imperial nations that are focused on innocence.

They're focused on a time when everything was all right.

Nations that are peripheral |||marginalized nations

or are anti-colonial, anti-imperial

very often have a different structure of story,

which I wanna try to make seem

both familiar and unfamiliar to you if I can. |||незнайомий|||||

And that's a three part story. And again, it's biblical. |||||||||біблійний

So the story of lost innocence is of course,

the story of Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden.

There's also a longer story in the Hebrew Bible, |||||||єврейській Біблії|

the Old Testament about a people which had a state, ||Старий Заповіт|||||||

but then that mistakes were made

or bad people came and they lost their state.

But at some point they're gonna get their state back.

And when they get their state back,

everything's gonna be fine.

That's a structural story that's inside the Bible. ||структурна|||||

People have different views

about how it's gonna be right again.

The Christians say Jesus came and then everything was fine.

Zionists might say we made Israel, then everything was fine. Jewish nationalists||||||||| Сіоністи|||||||||

You can be in disagreement about when everything is fine,

but there's still the basic three part story

of everything was once good, then we lost it somehow.

Probably not our fault, probably somebody else's fault, Wahrscheinlich ist es nicht unsere Schuld, sondern die Schuld von jemand anderem,

but we lost it.

But then there will be a moment of redemption. ||||||||Moment of salvation. ||||||||спокута

So the nation takes over this story very easily.

You've probably heard phrases Wahrscheinlich haben Sie schon die folgenden Sätze gehört

like national renaissance, a rebirth. ||||renewal ||||відродження

The whole idea of rebirth

is if you think about it just for a second,

in some kind of literal way, it's a very weird idea. ||||буквальний|||||дивний|

It's very weird.

If you just think for a quarter of a second,

what it would be like to be reborn, |||||||reincarnated |||||||переродитися

wouldn't that be strange, right?

Okay, this may be a little too Freudian, |||||||psychological |||||||Фройдівський

you just left home, I know.

But a rebirth is a strange idea ||переродження||||

if you think about it at all.

So the idea of a national rebirth

is that you're going back to that time

when everything was right.

You're going back to that golden age.

Usually the nation says we're in some kind of middle period

where things have gone wrong,

but everything used to be right.

And if you're an anti-colonial or a post-colonial nation,

the story usually has to do with the people.

The people were right and good.

They're still somehow basically right and good

and we're gonna restore that rightness and goodness |||||moral integrity||moral virtue |||відновимо||правильність||

by giving them a state and then things are gonna be fine.

There's been a middle period,

which involves a diaspora or an empire |||dispersed population|||

or something messing things up. ||псує||

But in the future, things are gonna be good.

So notice the three part story. |Зверніть увагу||||

The three part story is very widespread. Very widespread. ||||||дуже поширена||дуже поширена

Classical examples are the Jewish national story,

the Greek national story.

And I mentioned in the last lecture, the Jews and Greeks

are actually the oldest documented inhabitants |||||мешканці

of the territory of Ukraine.

But basically, every national story

has cottoned onto this, has followed this pattern. |understood|||||| |зрозумів це|||||| já se apercebeu disso, já seguiu este padrão.

So I'm gonna say the obvious thing now. |||||очевидне||

It's not that this is true.

It's not that there ever was a pure nation. |||||||чиста|

It's not that there was an ethnicity ||||||race ||||||етнічна приналежність Não é que houvesse uma etnia

which existed a thousand years ago and still exists today. que existia há mil anos e continua a existir atualmente.

I hope I'm not shattering anybody's illusions, ||||breaking apart|anyone's| ||||руйнувати||ілюзії Espero não estar a desfazer as ilusões de ninguém,

but that never actually happens. mas isso nunca acontece de facto.

I know I'm breaking something to you now, Sei que estou a quebrar algo para ti agora,

but somebody has to at some point. mas alguém tem de o fazer a dada altura.

Relationships are a lot more complicated than that, right? |||||складні|||

Fatherhood and motherhood and sex. parenting||parenthood|| Батьківство||||

It's a lot more complicated than a straight line Це||||||||