Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Dramatic social changes and protracted military conflict in Ukraine since 2014 caused both cultural and topological shifts. Parts of the country became the war zones, producing transformations of identification practices and providing a ground for the restructuration of collective memory, perceptions, values, and attitudes.
Architectonics of the Ukrainian “imagined community” (Anderson, 1983) is thought to be influenced by the contradictions between pro-Western and pro-Eastern cultural and political orientations. The “Orange Revolution” of 2004, the “Revolution of Dignity” (
Despite the certain cultural and regional diversity, typical for many countries, there is a common misconception that Ukraine is irreconcilably divided into East and West and that political and cultural identities are determined by this “civilization clash” (Huntington, 1996) along the Dnipro River. Ukrainian sociologist Viktoria Sereda claims that scholarly publications contributed greatly to the formation of such stereotypes (Sereda, 2017). The nation-level surveys range data within regions instead of oblasts as it appears less resource-consuming. More nuanced and diverse data is mapped on the interactive Digital Atlas of Ukraine (MAPA), launched by the Ukrainian Research Institute of Harvard University. According to Sereda, who is a member of the international team working on MAPA, sociological data, visually represented by oblast on this web-map, proves that regional “clash” stereotypes are far from reality. A similar stereotypical vision has been long reproduced in foreign media characterizing Ukraine as a “deeply divided country without its own historical and cultural sovereignty, which is just a battlefield for real international powers,” withdrawing the argument of Russian intervention from the international agenda (Portnov, 2019, p. 277).
It has become a common political practice to turn to issues of identity and linguistic cleavages, aiming to divert attention from important socio-economic problems. The theme of language has always been a stumbling block in the political life of Ukraine, used by different political parties as a main argument in power battles, providing ground for bias of “linguistic zones.” It is important for the Ukrainian sociolinguistic landscape not to be simplified, on the contrary, “Ukrainian bilingualism,” when people use Ukrainian or Russian depending on a situation, social status, and place of residence should be carefully considered (see Portnov, 2019).
Grigore Pop-Eleches and Graeme Robertson analyzed public opinion surveys from before and after the “Orange Revolution” and the “Revolution of Dignity” in order to describe the effect those events had on identification practices. The results showed that despite differences in the nature of the two revolutions, “patterns of ethnic identification and language are largely unchanged,” and what is more important, revolutions led to “a significant increase in civic identification with Ukraine as a state” and “more people in the country thinking of Ukraine as their homeland than before” (Pop-Eleches & Robertson, 2018). This study found specific features of modern Ukrainian identifications that do not fall neatly into the West-East identities scheme, largely translated within political discourse in Ukraine and abroad.
The deep analysis of the shifting identity practices, social and cultural discourses, and genesis of new existential values is becoming necessary for the development of a complex understanding of Ukrainian lessons and challenges in the contexts of the European community and global transformations. After the Russian annexation of Crimea and occupation of the Donbas region Ukraine lost control over 7% of the territory (44.000 km2) with 13% of the population (6 million). The armed conflict generated both internal and external migration flows, causing the new social status of Internally Displaced Person (IDP) for an estimated 1.7 million citizens (Norwegian Refugee Council, 2016; International Organization for Migration, 2018a), and only 25% of them intended to return to their native places after the end of the war (International Organization for Migration, 2018b). These numbers rose significantly after the new stage of invasion in February 2022 and produced one of the biggest migrant crises in history, with approximately 10 million forced migrants.
Interpretations of interviews and mental maps of IDPs revealed personal narratives grounded in the idealized past (Lazarenko, 2019, 2020). It is therefore not surprising since displaced people define themselves as victims of conflict forced to leave their homes. While IDPs are coping with traumatic changes in their lives differently—from dreaming of homecoming to “burying” the past, within their new status they have strong identifications with local IDP communities, as many of them have relocated with friends or even employers.
The “risk society,” as Beck (1986) characterized the new period of reflexive modernity (with the Chornobyl catastrophe as the main symbol), has been refracted by Ukrainian cultural specifics and historical changes of 2014 and 2022. There is a certain positive perspective for further integration and societal “homecoming” (Schuetz, 1945) processes after the period of coping with “boundary situation” (Jaspers, 1932), and “cultural trauma” (Alexander et al., 2004) in the constitution of Ukrainian national identities.
Mental mapping of identity
The visual nature of the reality Ukrainians live in today determines the way they used to define themselves and their perception of social context. Over the last decades, visual methodology has demonstrated great potential, and interest in mental mapping is gradually increasing with the growing number of studies on the spatialization of identity. Space is often interpreted as the product of cultural coding and the result of the selective phenomenological representation. In this vein, mental mapping aims to reflect intersubjective meanings that symbolically combine the structural elements of a particular culture. This method allows tracking of the significance of specific spatial marks of collective memory and identifying the space perceptions performed by different socio-cultural groups.
In the broadest sense, a mental map reveals a spatial image or topological model that has been formed over time in the mind of the subject (Graham, 1976). As a method, mental mapping is usually interpreted as a graphic depiction of a certain area by the informant at the request of the researcher. The method is rooted in the concept of cognitive maps, developed in the late 1940s by American psychologist Edward Tolman. The principles of mental mapping were outlined by Lynch (1960) in “The Image of the City”. Following in his footsteps, Stanley Milgram unveiled certain identification practices by examining mental maps of New York and Paris residents. He mentioned (Milgram, 1977, p. 77) the stable nature of identity projections, remarking that “the maps encoded in millions of human brains are not thereby destroyed.”
Visual symbols and signs are not only reflections of personal experience but also an indication of belonging to a wider cultural community. One of the advantages of mental mapping over standard analytical tools is the capacity to uncover those latent projections of identities that do not correspond to public discourse. This parameter is illustrated by the results of mental mapping of territorial conflict in Belgium, showing that although the language issue is often at the center of political debates, the factual differences between the two language groups are not essential (Reuchamps et al., 2014). Mental mapping proved itself effective in the analysis of identities and collective perceptions in certain socio-cultural regions. A typical example is the mental sketching of high school students who represent the ethnic communities of Israel and Palestine, with the results showing significant differences between mental and geopolitical maps, demonstrating the unique ways students think about their national territory (Ben-Ze’ev, 2015). Another illustration is the study of Cyprus (Akcali, 2010). Since Turkish intervention in 1974, the island has been territorially divided between the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus. The residents were asked to draw two maps to reflect the real country and the imaginary country the informants would like to live in. In the first case, the border between the two parts was depicted, while the desired maps demonstrated regional specifics of political and media discourses and school educational programs. The study revealed multidimensional and pluralistic identification practices, with individual hopes and goals outweighing ethnic or cultural identifications. It has produced a convincing case for mental mapping to be a relevant method for complex social realities.
The mental sketches ought to be analyzed as temporal footprints that are influenced by changing social contexts. Widespread beliefs and stereotypes should also be taken into consideration, as well as communication channels preferred by informants. Research in Los Angeles confirmed the strong relation between spatial perception and communication channels (Matei et al., 2007). Participants were invited to paint city maps in different colors, representing “fear,”“comfort” and “unknown.” The maps of those individuals who rely mainly on television and interpersonal communication have demonstrated the high level of fear, caused by places traditionally inhabited by black and Hispanic communities. Mapping has revealed not only safe and dangerous zones but also the stereotypes in the spatial perception of ethnic communities.
Mental mapping has the potential for the analysis of transitive identities that appear when local cultural values become part of a wider cultural context, such as in the case of migration and mobility. A combination of mental mapping with narrative interviews in the research of migrant children’s identifications found the “translocal” trend, embraced images and emotions related to both places of origin and current residence (Moskal, 2015). Depending on age, the application of visual methods sometimes becomes necessary in a child-centered approach, with informants who are unable to fulfill the role of respondent. Mental mapping of emotional attitudes to the neighborhood, for example, can shed light on the “microgeography of emotions” (den Besten, 2010) or immigrant children’s sense of local place marked with “emoticons,” and uncovering, among others, the problem of latent urban segregation associated with social status and unequal access to various resources.
Despite certain interdisciplinary spread, mental mapping continues to be a peripheral method in sociology and today there are no systematic studies of Ukrainian identity based on this method. Integration of methodological and theoretical developments is an appropriate strategy for further empirical adaptation of mental mapping in a specific Ukrainian context.
Recent studies on the transformation of the cultural identity of Ukrainians after the Euromaidan protests and subsequent Russian aggression have shown that the dominant identity project combines a civic criterion of membership with a strong ethnocultural basis (Kulyk, 2016). In this context, the concept of “multiculturalism” appears to be relevant, as it describes a dynamic process in which cultures interact and adjust to changing cultural contexts (Berry, 2005). Such an understanding of multiculturalism is based on the assumption that, in addition to a strong civic and national identity, various minority groups have a combination of civic-national identity and ethnic or territorial identity. On the most general theoretical level, these ideas are better adapted to the integrationist interpretation of national identity, which synthesizes primordialist and constructivist paradigms. This is the main conceptual frame that implicitly delineated the further presented empirical research of national identity’s visual projections among Ukrainian students.
Mapping the Ukrainian national identity
Methodology
From November 2019 to February 2020 authors conducted empirical research, applying the method of mental mapping to sociological problematics of identity. University and college students were asked to draw a map of Ukraine, specifying that it is expected to reflect their perception of the country and not only a copy of the geographical map. Informants could’ve used any drawing tools and it was specifically noted that participation is anonymous and drawing skills are irrelevant to the result. Additionally, participants indicated their hometown and native language, and also the language they usually speak in primary groups (family, friends, etc.).
Data has been collected from the students of 12 colleges and universities (27 areas of specialization) located in the cities of Kyiv, Lviv, and Odesa. The sample comprised the maps of 942 participants aged from 14 to 25, with a mean age of 18.5 years, 36% male and 64% female. 61% of participants named Ukrainian as their native language, 11%—Russian, 27%—both Ukrainian and Russian, and 1%—other languages. In primary groups, 34% mainly speak Ukrainian, 34%—Russian, 31%—both Ukrainian and Russian, and 1%—other languages. Most of the participants represented Odesa (223), Kyiv (182), and Lviv (147) as their native regions, although there were informants from 22 other regions, including Donetsk (19), Luhansk (10), and Crimea (5).
Based on previous methodological developments, the categorical set was constructed to synthesize qualitative and quantitative parameters of data processing and interpretation. The set included: (1) colors; (2) map form and type; (3) cities, borders, and boundaries; (4) conflict zones; (5) graphic and linguistic symbols.
Colors
The majority of informants were initially provided with colored drawing tools. The auxiliary criterion of a color scheme intended to differentiate maps with one, several (2-4), or full-spectrum colors (5-6), and a specific Ukrainian national flag scheme (blue and yellow).
Map form and type
The geographical and depictive forms of a map were incorporated into the category. If the geographical form objectively reproduces the administrative border of the country, the depictive or art form represents a metaphorical image that is not associated with a geographical map.
The integrative symbolic dimension of a drawing could be defined by political, patriotic, associative, topographical, and abstract criteria. The political and patriotic types demonstrate the respective kinds of values. The patriotic values usually include some positive expressive content, for example, a red heart or the rainbow as symbols of a positive attitude towards the native country. The political type has a salient ideological basis and can be either patriotic or anti-patriotic. The associative type mostly indicates stereotypes in the perception of different regions. Topographical type is, in fact, a pure geographical type without symbolic projections. The utter expression of this type is an “empty map,” that is the contour of the country only. And the abstract type renders different nonexistent objects, which are ideational
Cities, borders, and boundaries
According to Lynch (1960), essential elements of mental mapping are paths, edges, nodes, landmarks, and districts. In the case of large territories, these elements are modified into different regions, inhabited localities, external borders, and various internal boundaries. It was considered to be important to recognize if informants would depict settlements, and which of them have specific characteristics, i.e., capital of the country, administrative centers, or home-places. The external border was meant not just to define a contour line, but to be a reflection of a certain environment the map exists in, including neighboring territories. In turn, internal boundaries can either replicate formal subdivisions of the country (oblasts) or project informal cultural regions and personally significant areas.
Conflict zones
At the beginning of the research, armed conflict in Ukraine wasn’t among the main thematic objectives. However, it is impossible to exclude it from the interpretation of identity structures as it has had a strong influence on all social spheres. The category of conflict zones relates to specifics of Crimea and Donbas depictions on the maps and defines how those regions are represented if they have boundaries or other controversial symbolics.
Graphic and linguistic symbols
Instruction for the informants contained the option to use explanatory notes for different symbols or signs on the map. Notes were expected to explain those graphic elements which otherwise are impossible to interpret. Since many participants hadn’t had good drawing skills, linguistic captions, and legends helped them to name the depicted objects. Informants considered it as an opportunity to comment on any presented object by writing text and, therefore, to deepen the semantic layer of the map. Another initial intention was to compose the catalog of the most common graphic symbols, various emoticons, pictograms, and signs as visualized identity structures, collective representations, and semiotic constructions of social values. Thus, the graphic symbols are considered a source of expressions or reifications of integrated existential experience and a “tacit knowledge,” based on the postulate that “we can know more than we can tell.” (Polanyi, 1966, p. 4). This embodied, intuitive, and “sensory” (Bull et al., 2006) dimension of identity can be more efficiently uncovered by a projective mapping approach, rather than traditional verbal methods. Hence, it was certain ground to assume that “we can
Along with the importance of the categorical set, the empirical project was oriented toward a triangulation strategy. It aggregated the analytical positions of three researchers, implied synthesis of qualitative and quantitative techniques, and a combination of mental mapping with interviews. Generally, 20 leitmotif, semi-structured interviews have been conducted with informants after they had drawn the maps. Informants were asked to comment on the drawing and to explain the elements that could have ambiguous or latent meanings.
Results and discussion
A constructed set of categories made mental map analysis more controlled and systematized (Table 1), although left enough heuristic possibilities, usually characterized as an open methodological system. More than half of the maps were colored, and the others were drawn with gray pencils and black or blue pens. A combination of several colors dominated among color schemes. The Ukrainian flag scheme was also common, whereas full-spectrum and single-color schemes were less popular. Black and red colors prevailed in the depiction of the conflict zones.
The Components and Distribution of Mapping Categories.
Within the category of form and type, the geographical form vastly prevailed (Figures 1–3), and the depictive form could only be found in a minority of cases. In the process of analysis, it turned out to be irrelevant to differentiate political and patriotic types, which merged into a unified political-patriotic type. A significant number of pictures belonged to topographical or associative types, and the abstract maps were the rarest. Further interpretation of maps’ types has been conducted through qualitative consideration of graphic and linguistic symbols.
Mental map of Ukraine.
Mental map of Ukraine.
Mental map of Ukraine.
Important elements of the maps were cities, borders, and boundaries. 42% of informants preferred to depict settlements, and the most recurring were the cities of Kyiv, Odesa, and Lviv, which is attributed to the location of the majority of informants. Donetsk and Luhansk, as spatial markers of conflict, were among the frequently depicted cities. Typical were the notations of regional centers, tightening up the resemblance to the administrative map. 340 informants featured borders and boundaries, and 269 maps demonstrated administrative, cultural, or subjectively significant internal territorial divisions of the country. A small number of maps had both internal and external frontiers, or external borders only, different from the administrative border by indicators (names or symbols) of neighboring territories. Specific boundaries are defined by attempts to highlight certain regions and areas or to replicate the formal administrative structure of the country formed by oblasts.
There was a clear tendency to depict the conflict zones of Crimea and Donbas as Ukrainian territories. Crimea was presented on 86% of maps. In some cases, it was impossible to detect its appearance (for instance, at depictive type), and only a few informants preferred not to portray the peninsula. The vast majority of informants (75%) identified Crimea as part of unified Ukraine, and the remaining group drew different borders between the peninsula and the main territory, still recognizing it as part of the country. The dotted line used in some maps as a border reflects the ambiguous status of the territory. A similar pattern emerged for Donbas that was depicted on 83% of maps without boundaries, and even the presence of the front line did not explicitly presuppose its assessment as a non-Ukrainian region.
The essential part of the participants drew different graphic symbols and more than half used linguistic symbols (Table 2). Graphic symbols consisted of several hundred categories that were generalized into 3 meta-categories of cultural, natural, and anthropic objects, while every map could contain more than one categorical unit (e.g., flag and the Sun).
The Parameters of Graphic Symbols.
The largest meta-category was formed by projections of various cultural objects, with signs and heraldry, and technical symbols as the main segments. Ukrainian national flag or flag colors occurred on every third map. Non-heraldic signs weren’t widespread, with leading positions reaching 20-30 units in categories of emoticons, diverse arrow pointers, and geometric figures. Other smaller categories were music notes, stars, ethnic patterns, and question marks. The latter expressed uncertainty about the future or absence of identification images regarding certain territories. Chornobyl zone, despite being one of the stereotypic
The categories of technical symbols included buildings, weapons, engineering structures, industries, and transport. About 10% of informants depicted different buildings, mainly the high-rise blocks as symbols of urban areas or the small houses as an embodiment of home. Ships prevailed as symbols of the seaside south, and some maps had a network structure, i. e. numerous cities-points connected by lines or transport channels, sometimes with Kyiv as the center. Few participants preferred to picture cars, heavy industry, and water or air pollution. Plants and coal mines had been often situated in the eastern region known as the industrial center.
Images of weapons consisted of arms, tanks, bombs, explosions, and barbed wire and were expectedly concentrated in Donbas and Crimea. In other rare cases, a saber was used as a symbol of Zaporizhian Cossacks (historical warriors) and a mace as a national attribute of power. Crosses, which combined characteristics of signs and cultural objects, were the relatively frequent designation of deaths in conflict zones but also had nonmilitary religious affiliations. For example, one map showed religious identifications across the country, with the Catholic crosses in the western part, Orthodox in the south-east and both in the central territory. At the same time, crosses were supposed to express absence, prohibition, or negative assessment concerning some objects. Thus, the crossed animals were drawn as a consequence of pollution, or crossed money symbolized poverty and unpaid salaries. Money signs had also been used to symbolize big cities, industrial centers, conflict zones, corruption, or the future prosperity of the country.
Other cultural objects were infrequent and reached 5-7 units each. Anchors, wine bottles, and beaches with sun loungers, and umbrellas are depicted in southern seaside regions. Floral wreaths with ribbons, clay pottery, Easter eggs (
The second meta-category defined the natural objects. Significant were floristic and faunal symbols, pictures of rivers, seas, mountains, and the Sun. Trees and flowers dominated the floristic category. Trees had been usually associated with western mountainous territories. In a few cases, it was part of a certain scene, the reference to problems of illegal logging in the Carpathians and forest fires in the eastern territories, or the chestnut as a symbol of Kyiv. Flowers were widely used as an expression of a general positive attitude, and sunflower was relatively common, but less than ears of wheat and viburnum, which are traditional national symbols as well.
The Carpathian Mountains, the Dnipro River, and the Black Sea were the most often portrayed as inorganic natural objects. Some informants drew white or black clouds to show their respective evaluations and psychological stances. Particularly, black clouds with rain and lightning marked conflict zones, and white clouds with the Sun and rainbow indicated peaceful territories or positive emotional valence. In faunal symbols, birds and fish appeared frequently. White doves symbolized peace, and seagulls or fish were often depicted in southern territories.
The third meta-category was formed by anthropic objects or images of man and attributive symbols, with the most numerous categories of hearts and people. The half of heart signs symbolize love to home, native and meaningful places. Another half tended to express love for Ukraine in general, and values of unity or peace. People’s figures were portrayed with the themes of friendship, unity, peace, love for the native country and family, optimism, hope for a better future, and the end of the war. Those themes are embodied by images of people holding hands, men, and women in national costumes, Cossacks, smiling people, family, and children. Not all the images translated an optimistic mood. Some participants drew people in conflict zones (soldiers, refugees) or negative, tragic, and mourning war images. Apart from hearts and people, anthropic objects included images of blood, eyes, hands, skulls, and nonexistent anthropomorphic creatures. The majority of these images projected the meanings of conflict and the need for peace—crying angel-girl with burning wings, angels-souls of the fallen heroes, the face of the devil, monsters attacking Donbas and Crimea, or two hands shaking from east and west of the country. There were only 2 informants who pictured themselves on the map, with one saying “I am Ukrainian.”
Specifics of qualitative analysis of graphic symbols were determined by relations to linguistic symbols, and in many cases, it was impossible to interpret the meanings of identity structures without an integral understanding of the map in total. Linguistic symbols in the forms of textual inscriptions, captions, and legends revealed several factors that influence the identity constitution. The situation of war conflict was salient on the maps of about every fourth informant. The most common inscriptions were “Crimea,”“Crimea is ours!”“Donbas is Ukraine!” and variations of these phrases. War zones were characterized as “pain of all Ukrainians,” damaged, problematic, or risk areas that need freedom, peace, and reintegration. Donbas and Crimea were often marked as lost or “temporarily occupied” territories. One informant wrote: “Ukraine is from the Carpathians to Luhansk. Ukraine is also Crimea and Donbas. Ukraine is OUR country!!!!!!!!! Ukraine is not a part of Russia. We are Ukrainians, we have our language!!!”
Another informant from western Ukraine gave the following characteristic to the identity of Ukrainian citizens of conflict zones: “People, who sometimes don’t know who they are. Unfortunately, those people do not always love Ukraine. Because when Stalin destroyed our people by famine and moved there many Russians mixed with us and brought war to Ukraine.”
Some participants paid attention to the problem of ideology and propaganda: “I don’t think we will be able to return Crimea even in 10 years, although it will always be our territory. And Donbas will be a big problem for a long time because people, and importantly, young people, are already ‘infected’ with the ideas of the ‘Russian world’ and ‘New Russia’. Thus, they will be in protest to all Ukrainian.”
The problem of war conflict was related to the values of unity, freedom, and peace in a broader sense as well. Statements that Ukraine is a unified, indivisible country were typical and manifested tendencies of in-group and we-identifications: “By uniting, we can do anything!”“We are united!”“Together we are a force!”“We are Ukraine!” Civil national identity prevailed over ethnic and was rooted in the unity of western and eastern parts of the country, solidarity, and equality of all social groups, though the significance of the Ukrainian language and culture was noticed as well, and in some cases, language was considered as a crucial source of national unity. Tolerance and reciprocity were essential for the definition of Ukraine as a predominantly civil nation: “For me, Ukraine is a country where happy people live, who respect each other, remember their history, their heroes (for each community, depending on the place of living, they may be different), and most important…, despite the diversity of life stories, respect the other, love their own and seek common ground.”
The important cluster of identifications projected the values of family, patriotism, economic growth, expectations for positive changes, reforms, justice, and elimination of corruption. Informants expressed their love for Ukraine and aspirations to live in a strong, developed, independent, and friendly European country. These values overlapped with various regional stereotypes, associations, or images of territorial compositions, and specifics of social structures and institutes. The personal travel experience inside the country also had significance and some identities were constructed based on memories, impressions, and attachments to particular places and people. There are several examples of typical associations: Lviv—coffee and chocolate, tourism, authentic culture, “soul” of Ukraine; Chernivtsi—famous university building; Ternopil—popular comic group; Vinnytsia—fountains, Roshen chocolate factory; Odesa—Pryvoz marketplace, capital of humor, tourism and seaside resorts; Mykolaiv—Zoo; Kherson—watermelons; Zaporizhia—Cossacks; Cherkasy—a mix of Ukrainian and Russian languages (
Aside from the formal administrative division, there were two other dimensions of territorial structure that formed identity projections. The first dimension implied natural and historical regions, which included Left-bank and Right-bank Ukraine, Tavria, Pryazovia, Prydneprovia, Prychornomorya, Bessarabia, Podillia, Halychyna, Bukovyna, Prykarpattia, Sivershchyna, Polissia, Slobozhanshchyna, and Donbas. The second dimension represented the most general divisions of the country in western, eastern, northern, southern, and central regions. Western Ukraine is associated with mountains, recreational zones, tourism, patriotism, Ukrainian-speaking population, culture, agrarian economy, deforestation, bad roads, castles, the border with European Union, and labor migration. Common images of the south were seas, recreational zones, tourism, industrial and agricultural areas, Russian-speaking population, and annexed Crimea. Northern Ukraine is portrayed as mostly Ukrainian-speaking territory, with deep historical roots, a prevalence of agriculture, and service economy. Center was characterized by the capital, plain landscapes, complex economy, and minor predominance of Ukrainian language over Russian. Eastern Ukraine was often marked by war conflict, instability, heavy industries, a Russian-speaking population, and border with Russia.
Against the positive and neutral background, some rare ideological perspectives on divisional criteria were critical. One informant described the northwestern part as “patriotic Ukraine,” the center as “borderlands,” and the south-eastern part as “unpatriotic Ukraine.” Another informant differentiated “West,”“Little Russia” (center and north), and “New Russia” (south-east). Besides the themes of war and disintegration, there was a display of the problems of illegal logging, soil export, air and water pollution, forest fires, drying rivers and lakes, chaotic changes in school education, bad roads, corruption, demographic crisis, unemployment, unpaid salaries, inequality, poverty, homelessness, alcoholism, and drug addiction. Particular inscriptions indicated that Ukraine is a “country of corruption, swindlers, thieves,” and single maps were composed as topologies of drugs or poverty distribution, though only 1% of the maps identified as such “problematic” sub-type.
The final minor segment of linguistic symbols (1-2%) rendered quotations of national and Kyiv anthems, poetry, and songs. In classic poetry there were Taras Shevchenko’s words “Learn from others and don’t shun your own…,” and Volodymyr Sosiura’s “Love your Ukraine, love as you would the Sun” and “Without a native language, young man, there is no our people.” In modern songs Sofiya Rotaru’s “Homeland, my native homeland” and “Scriabin’s”“Don’t be ashamed—it’s your land, don’t be ashamed—it’s Ukraine!!!” were cited.
After analyzing graphic and linguistic symbols used by various language groups (“native language” and “language spoken at home”), there were found no significant differences in cultural patterns. For instance, regarding patriotic/political maps, informants provided insights into their perception of their country and its future, with universal topics discussed across different linguistic groups. The most commonly used visual symbols were hearts representing sympathy for their country or for a specific city, as well as the Ukrainian flag or blue and yellow color combination in various forms, appearing in 80% of these maps. The most frequently discussed topic across all language groups was unity, both literally in the context of occupied territories and symbolically, highlighting the need for all Ukrainians to come together.
National identity is dynamic and flexible matter, and while differences exist, the “we” cultural code is constructed from a repertoire of meanings that individuals use to define themselves. According to Cohen (2001, p. 21), cultural symbols “continuously transforms the reality of difference into the appearance of similarity with such efficacy that people can still invest the ‘community’ with ideological integrity. It unites them in their opposition, both to each other, and to those ‘outside’. It thereby constitutes, and gives reality to, the community’s boundaries”.
In the generalizing theses on results obtained theoretical and methodological perspectives had to be mentioned. On a theoretical level, there is a certain basis to assert that the structure of national identity among Ukrainian students could be characterized by the relative parity of local and national belongings. Despite the salient elements of war conflict and the problem of social disintegration, emotional valence and images of identities remain predominantly positive and optimistic, projecting the values of patriotism, peace, freedom, unity, and development. These values demonstrate the tendency for the constitution of the national identity as rather “national-civil” (Golovakha & Drobizheva, 2007), inclusive and multicultural, than exclusive or ethnocentric, although some ethnic factors continue to be influential. Among such factors, interiorized on the stage of primary socialization and translated by educational and political institutions, is the adaptive development of authentic neo-Ukrainian culture (language, values, symbols, traditions) and further critical reassessment of remaining Soviet archetypes and historical narratives. In this perspective, the structure of mental maps of Ukrainian students, who were born in independent Ukraine and have never lived in the Soviet Union, demonstrates the late phase in the gradual transition from “diffuse” identification practices, as the inability to define their own national affiliation, to a “blended” identifications, when the individual readily creates a pastiche out of the different threads (e. g., Russian-speaking or Crimean Tatar Ukrainian). Thus, the national-civil specifics of identifications makes Ukrainian integrative in-group stance dominant over other elements of self-definitions (racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, sub-cultural).
On the level of methodology, there is a wide spectrum of mental mapping procedures, which should be considered in a further adaptation of this method in a sociological context. Since mental mapping is essentially a projective approach, it needs to be critically examined through the analysis of social problematics of values, statuses and roles, groups, and institutions. Methodological interviews, conducted following the mental mapping, showed that at least some maps cannot be correctly interpreted by psychological projective schemes. For example, one informant, who drew a map of a very small size and located it in the upper part of the sheet, explained it was a result of the mistake in expectation to receive additional task from the researcher, which need a space in the sheet. And there weren’t any latent, unconscious attitudes projected by this size or location of the drawing.
Another methodological problem is the relevant interpretation of the meanings of graphic objects and the relations or distance between their symbolic and factual layers. On the different maps, the Sun can be a positive ideological symbol or a part of the natural landscape only, and a depiction of a national flag does not necessarily mean the projection of patriotic values. There is also an additional factor of external influence, which includes the covert use of smartphones and the imitation of maps of other informants during the drawing process. In many cases, the border of the country was depicted very precisely and about 5-6% of the maps demonstrated informants’ mutual influence by the depiction of the same rare objects or the similar style of the image. Maps specifics have been determined by the particular city, university, specialization, and researcher as well. All of these methodological aspects should be taken into account in subsequent sociological construction of mental mapping systematics on a comparative basis.
Conclusion
Being an important research instrument in other social sciences, mental mapping remains one of the least developed methods of sociology. Under the rapid development of the visual approach and the broader realm of visual culture in modern societies, mental mapping is becoming a promising element of visual sociological methodology, along with photography, video, cognitive mapping, and graphic or digital data representations.
The collective identity and the problematics of societal integration are among the most relevant fundamental concepts in the perspective of mental mapping’s sociological adaptation, particularly due to new theoretical developments, emphasizing the interconnection of identity and “politics of dignity,” (Fukuyama, 2018) which is consonant with Ukrainian social changes of the recent years.
The empirical case of mapping the national identity of Ukrainian students showed that symbolically and schematically their self-definitions represented by a variable complex of the national flag, red hearts, the city of Kyiv, and smiling people against the landscape background of Dnipro River, Black Sea, Carpathian Mountains, completed by images of the Sun, trees or flowers, and painfully separated from the conflict zones. The patriotic and optimistic leitmotifs of maps, which are expected to characterize young people in general, nevertheless demonstrate the certain trend of further overcoming the blended identification practices towards a more unified civil-national identity, providing the strengthening of social consensus and solidarity. Actualization of this trend depends on many factors, such as the end of the war, progress on declared aims of membership in NATO and European Union, the success of economic, political, and cultural reforms, decrease in emigration flows and demographic crisis.
Despite the different advantages of mental mapping (flexibility, technical simplicity, and sensitivity), it still has such limitations as the complexity of visual data interpretation, statistical non-representativeness, and dependence on other methods. Regardless of some limitations, inherent in any research method, mental mapping is dynamically evolving in the new contexts of digital technologies, spatial analysis, embodied topologies of cultural scenes, and existential consequences of social acceleration and deceleration counter-processes. These emerging realities, which are becoming more complex, multidimensional, reflexive, and sensory, outline the main perspectives for the development of the mental mapping method and visual sociological paradigm.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
Funding
ORCID iD
