This translation was generated using artificial intelligence. We strive for accuracy and quality, but automated translations may contain errors. You can read the original text here.

Standard theories of national identity resemble outdated software that “freezes” when applied to the real world. A new, pragmatic approach to identity is needed – one in which sober cost-benefit analysis replaces rhetorical slogans, writes Piotr Rudkowski.

The events of 2020 and 2022 have brought the question of Belarusian identity to the fore, forcing society to search for new reference points. The problem, however, is that standard theories of national identity increasingly resemble outdated software that “freezes” when applied to the real world.

Popular theories – from Benedict Anderson’s “imagined communities” to Ernest Gellner’s modernism – often prove analytically weak. The main problem with existing approaches is that scholars have done less to enrich analysis than to redefine the concept of the nation and surround it with an aura of innovation.

Without engaging in a detailed critique of existing theories, I will outline an alternative approach here – what I call the “pragmatics of identity” – which can serve as a tool for the rational analysis of issues of national identity. The second part will illustrate how this approach works, using the Belarusian case as an example.

The Pragmatics of Nation-Building (National Revival)

The key question here is: which model of nation-building is most viable in the long term? Or, put differently: by what criteria can we rationally assess and compare identities and their components?

National identity rests on two key elements: distinctiveness and coherence. Distinctiveness answers the question: “how do we differ from others?”

Since the answer to this question is typically elaborate and involves a set of markers, coherence plays a central role in the structure of identity – the internal consistency of this answer and the compatibility between individual markers.

A brief note on types of markers is necessary, as distinguishing them is important for assessing their pragmatic value.

Markers can be insular or semi-insular. Insular markers are those specific to a single community and clearly distinguish “us” from “them”: for example, the Polish language in the case of Poles, or Lithuanian for Lithuanians. Semi-insular markers, by contrast, extend beyond a single nation and are therefore less effective as distinguishing markers – such as Catholicism in the case of both communities.

Another important axis is the distinction between empirical and abstract markers. Empirical markers are readily observable and easy to identify – language being a typical example. Abstract markers, however (such as “industriousness” or “hospitality,” sometimes cited as traits of Belarusian national character), lack a clear and stable form and cannot be directly observed.

Finally, markers also differ in their durability. Some are durable and long-term in nature – such as language or religion. Others are ephemeral and situational: sporting successes may trigger a surge of national pride, but this effect is typically short-lived.

There is no single formula for national identity, just as this process cannot be fully programmed. In practice, it is partly spontaneous and partly managed: depending on the context, one component may dominate. Without going into detail, we can note the following.

At the level of identity: the more distinctive and coherent it is, the more likely it is to be durable and resilient.

At the level of markers: the more widespread and entrenched insular, empirical, and durable markers are, the more resilient the identity based on them is.

What underlies these observations? Several cognitive mechanisms are at work here.

Firstly, semi-insular markers can generate cognitive dissonance: they are meant to serve as markers of distinctiveness, yet are also found among “others”. This weakens their identificatory strength.

Secondly, people tend to rely on what is easier to perceive (the so-called WYSIATI principle – “what you see is all there is”). Therefore, empirical markers are more effective than abstract ones: they are easier to notice, name, and incorporate into the symbolic construction of “us”.

Thirdly, the principle of cognitive economy plays an important role: the easier something is to recognise, the more likely it is to be used and remembered.

The Belarusian Case

There are many potential markers of Belarusian identity, and their possible combinations are virtually unlimited. Here, however, we will focus on the most typical ones:

• Belarusian and Russian languages
• the white-red-white flag and the Pahonia; the red-green flag and the state emblem (“Rising Sun”)
• national revival and Soviet-centric historical narratives
• Greek Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Catholicism
• vyshyvanka and localist identity

Applying the typology proposed in the previous section, we can conclude the following. The Belarusian language is an insular, empirical, and durable marker: it clearly distinguishes “us” from “others”, is easily recognisable, and can be transmitted across generations. Russian is empirical and durable, but only semi-insular, and therefore less effective as a differentiating marker.

The same logic applies to symbolic markers. The white-red-white flag is insular, recognisable, and potentially durable. The red-green flag and the state emblem (“Rising Sun”) are empirical and durable, but difficult to treat as insular: they emerged and functioned for decades in the Soviet context, where their primary role was to reinforce identification with the “Soviet people” rather than express distinct national identity.

Historical narratives combine both empirical and abstract elements (meanings and their material embodiments: names, monuments, dates). The national revival narrative is more insular, while the Soviet one is semi-insular. Vyshyvanka and localist identity are insular and empirical, but ephemeral: they depend on fashion and context.

Hence the conclusion: markers differ not only in content, but also in their effectiveness in enabling coherent identification – this is the key to their pragmatic assessment.

In a pragmatic assessment, special attention should be given to “I-D identifiers” (insular & durable): the Belarusian language, the white-red-white symbolism, and the national revival narrative. They have the greatest identificatory potential, combining distinctiveness, durability, and visibility.

However, in the current context, this is a “costly” choice: for the majority of Belarusians, these markers are not part of everyday practice, and their diffusion requires time and sustained effort, with no guarantee of success – neither in terms of mass acceptance nor institutional consolidation.

Hence the key dilemma. From a pragmatic perspective, the choice is not between “good” and “bad”, but between two different distributions of costs and benefits – a cost-benefit trade-off.

The first option is the “premium foundation” model: reliance on I-D markers. If successful, it yields a robust, coherent, and durable identity. However, the cost is high: its diffusion and consolidation require years, if not decades, and even then success is not guaranteed.

The second option is the “ad hoc foundation”: reliance on more accessible, often semi-insular or ephemeral markers. These are easier and quicker to activate – they align more closely with existing practices and require less cognitive effort. However, such an identity is generally less resilient: it is less capable of withstanding external pressure and can be easily eroded or transformed.

This is the essence of the pragmatic choice: not between “good” and “bad”, but between speed and durability, between accessibility and depth. This choice cannot be avoided – it can only be made.