Dr. Tetiana Hranchak on memory and media literacy, in the wake of war
Posted February 11, 2025
Dr. Tetiana Hranchak on memory and media literacy, in the wake of war | February 2025 marked the third anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a critical moment of instability and uncertainty for many scholars forced to seek new homes and academic communities abroad. Three years later, as a visiting assistant teaching professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Dr. Tetiana Hranchak shared a reflection on the impact of the war on her academic work and activism.
Can you share more about your academic work and activism prior to the war in Ukraine and leaving your home country?
All my professional life before the war I was engaged in scientific and teaching activities. For more than 20 years, I worked as a senior researcher and a head of the department for the V.I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine, elaborating on issues at the intersection of History, Political Science, Social Communications, and Cultural and Memory Studies. And I have more than 10 years of experience teaching as an assistant professor and professor at the Kyiv National University of Culture and Arts. I was engaged in expert activities, being a member of two specialized scientific councils for dissertation defense, and a member of the expert group for evaluating the effectiveness of scientific institutions in the field of socio-humanitarian sciences, contributing to the publication of several scientific journals as a member of their editorial boards, and taking part in project evaluation as an expert of the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation. In the civil sector, I was a member of the Board of the Ukrainian Library Association. At the research level and in the applied dimension within the Ukrainian Library Association, I paid attention to the involvement of cultural institutions, primarily libraries, in the implementation of the politics of memory.
My life in Ukraine was stable and successful.
What were the initial impacts of the war on your work? What were the most immediate implications and concerns for you and your colleagues conducting research on historical memory and political and cultural communication?
First of all, the war demonstrated the urgency of the issues I was working on. Russia is waging a genocidal war, trying in every way to distort and erase information about the past of Ukrainians and Ukraine. My research, which originally came from personal interest, converted into a means of countering the aggressor. I felt an extraordinary pressure of responsibility and the need to do more, including telling the world about what was happening and about the achievements and experiences of Ukrainians to safeguard against potential illusions and misinformation. At the same time, on the eve of the invasion, I came across a lot of information in the media about the risks of the war. This included possible directions of attack, among which Kyiv – the city where I lived – was mentioned, as well as Russia’s plans to seize Kyiv within a week, and Russia’s preparation to destroy Ukrainian identity and Ukrainians who disagree with the concept of the “Russian world.” The reality of the risks was evidenced by the evacuation of embassies in Kyiv as well as the loud threats of the Russian authorities. Frightened for my safety by the possible start of hostilities near Kyiv, and Russia acts of terror against Ukrainians, I made a decision to leave Kyiv and search for shelter in the US. As a result, my entire previous life was wiped out. Along with losing my home, I lost both jobs and am now connected to Ukraine solely through my public work within the Ukrainian Library Association. The philosophical question “who am I” has acquired a practical meaning for me, as it has for many of my colleagues.
How have you adapted your work to better understand or make sense of the war context? How is this reflected in the work you currently do at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and outside of the university space?
The focus of my research has changed under the influence of the war. It is difficult for me now to imagine myself immersed in something unrelated to the war. This war will change the world we live in, wherever we live in this world, and I do not want to ever have the remorse of conscience that I did not do something when I could. So, with the beginning of the war, the task of reporting the truth about Russian-Ukrainian relations, the nature of Russian aggression, and the information and communication tools behind it came to the fore. There was a rethinking and a new discovery of Ukrainians themselves. The war focused the spotlight on us and became a magnifying glass that allowed us to take a closer look at who we are, understand our own values and hopes, and see the sources of resilience and revival. My research aligns with the focus of the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs at Maxwell School, which promotes a culture of understanding and cooperation in a global world, explores ways to harness the synergies of diverse peoples, states, and cultures to address global challenges, and creates an environment conducive to revealing the potential of individuals and communities. I enhanced the Institute’s comprehensive agenda by launching and teaching the course “History of Ukraine in European Context” and by running the Ukrainian Culture and Conversation Table. Additionally, I contribute to the Institute’s leadership in policy expertise by providing commentary on current issues of the Russian war in Ukraine for the media, and by participating in relevant programs and workshops, including the National Security Management Course, Spring 2024, and the wargame “Global Perspectives on Ending the Russia-Ukraine War,” August 2024.
Have you noticed any trends over time with respect to the importance placed on media literacy and political communication studies within the academic space and among students?
Nowadays, the issue of media literacy is one of the most relevant in the academic environment and faculty are making efforts to create, support, and sustain space for discussions in which students can explore different ideas and ways of their dissemination. In this context, they strive to preserve academic freedom as a key value for the evolution of scientific ideas. Today, the values of academic freedom are under attack through Russia’s attempts to use the advantages of a free academic environment for information manipulations and propaganda. Therefore, issues of media literacy, in particular the skills of recognizing reliable information and sources, understanding the context of their creation, the importance of maintaining the accuracy of wording, and the validity of statements, acquire additional value.
What long-term effects do you think the war will have on national memory and reshaping cultural identity for Ukrainians and members of the wider diaspora? How has this perhaps already manifested?
This will depend on how the war ends. Russia’s victory in the war and our failure to condemn it, would lead to the cleansing of the national memory of Ukrainians. Already today we see the construction of an alternative information reality in Russia, in which war is called a “special operation,” aggression is called defense, occupation is called liberation, and the construction of a parallel reality and manipulations are called the defense of historical truth. One can be sure that this concept will be imposed on all Ukrainians as a condition for survival under Russian occupation. Through Russian agents of influence within the framework of the “culture beyond politics” and “science beyond politics” approach common in the West, this alternative information reality will eventually be implemented into global scientific trends and will claim to replace an objective vision of the crimes committed by Russia.
We have already dealt with such an approach in the case of the Russian Empire and the USSR, and we see evidence of its effectiveness, in particular, in the fact that the terms “Kievan Rus” and “post-Soviet space” are still used in academic circles. We can see the result of Russian systematic efforts in promoting their version of history and agenda in the narrative of Russia’s contribution to the victory over Nazism, despite the fact that all the people of the former USSR participated in the suppression of Nazism, and the losses of Belarusians and Ukrainians exceed those of Russia.
On the other hand, Ukraine’s defeat would be a traumatic experience that could be too painful to discuss, which could lead to its silencing in families and ultimately to social amnesia, as happened with the Holodomor, when millions of Ukrainians died due to an artificial famine organized by the Soviet totalitarian regime. The revival of the historical memory of the Holodomor took place only after the restoration of Ukraine’s independence.
What are your hopes for the future of Ukrainian higher education? Have they changed over time and over the course of the war?
I mostly hope that Ukrainian education – and not only higher education — will exist. This would mean that Ukraine will survive and remain as an independent state. I dream that Ukrainian faculties will be actively integrated into global scientific and educational processes and that their voices will be heard, and not lost, in the general scientific discourse. The war proved the importance of exchanging ideas and communicating one’s vision to colleagues abroad. This is a lesson that I hope we will still have a chance to put into practice.
Are you a SAR network member interested in writing a Network Reflection? We would love to hear from you. Please email us at scholarsatrisk@nyu.edu w