Academic culture, boundary-crossing and pop-up

Sini Mikkola

The cult of the temporary

In 2015, The Guardian published an article discussing the pop-up phenomenon, referring to it as a ‘cult of the temporary’. This phenomenon, increasingly adapted in our culture during the past decade or so, can be seen as one method for arranging various short-term activities and creating temporary spaces for both commercial and cultural events.

In academia, the method or culture of the pop-up has already been in use for some time – though under slightly different description, such as ‘ad hoc’. Particularly in planning and developing teaching and in administrative tasks, ad hoc working groups are constantly being created for innovating and carrying out various tasks. In research, however, the pop-up culture seems to be a less valid culture to implement – even though academic work nowadays is most often project-based, and thus based on temporariness. During their career, a scholar may lead separate and even unconnected projects, one after the other. At the same time, the temporary, project-based working culture in academia favours not only developing ever-new insights, but also the crossing of boundaries. This is evident particularly when we consult the strategies of the funders of research.

The Finnish Academy, one of the most notable funders of academic research in Finland, explicates: ‘We promote the impact and renewal of research by encouraging researchers to submit boundary-crossing funding plans that involve risks but are of high scientific quality’. Even more explicitly, the current strategy of the Kone Foundation, another notable funder, states: ‘We value multidisciplinary approaches and bringing together unexpected perspectives. Alternative viewpoints and the challenging of norms help us understand the world better. […] We encourage researchers and artists to cross the boundaries between art and research and between various areas within art and research – as well as across national borders’. Interdisciplinarity, among other factors, is thought to enhance the effects and impact of research in the scientific community and beyond academia.

For a scholar, especially a young one, the risk involved in the project culture – the crossing of boundaries and creating unexpected perspectives – may be a very personal one. As a result of the often extremely high expectations laid on scholars from the very beginning of their career, they learn to perform in ways which live up to these expectations. Thereby, the planning of research may not be guided by the genuine interests and outlook for career advancement of the researchers themselves, but rather by those of others, such as project leaders and funders. (For reference for the thoughts in this chapter and more on the risks of interdisciplinarity for young researchers, see Dr Mona Mannevuo’s blog post.) 

Crossing boundaries between past and present, east and west

Whereas jumping from one project to another is the norm for the vast majority of young scholars, a small minority work in permanent positions as lecturers or have hopes of professorships after their tenure tracks. I belong to this smaller group since, despite being a young scholar, I work as a university lecturer in church history at the UEF. In this position, far-reaching research plans can be made without having to worry, for example, about funding. However, the time available to be used on factual research is, in practice, very limited. Despite this, the pressure to get a certain amount of research published every academic year is constantly present. In these conditions, I have noticed that joint research, even if executed in a pop-up style, is one interesting and fruitful way to get research done.

During the last two years, I – as a historian – have been reorienting my research towards the present, mainly due to the explosion of the Covid-19 pandemic. From the very beginning of the pandemic, I felt curious about how the Lutheran parishes would arrange their services, and especially celebrate the Eucharist, during these exceptional times. After discussing these interests with my colleagues from different disciplines in informal coffee table discussions, I learned that several of them had thought of similar issues and were interested in doing research together. Interdisciplinarity as such was familiar to me, since I had previously combined theories and methods of, for example, gender studies and systematic theology with church historical research (as in my doctoral thesis on the sixteenth-century reformer Martin Luther’s anthropology), but I had no experience of working in an interdisciplinary group. Also, the step from the Reformation Era to this day was a rather big one to take. I have summarised some of the feelings that arose during the research process in a post published in Finnish on Akatemian jalkaväki’s blog.

Together with my colleagues from the fields of practical theology, Orthodox theology, and social sciences, we ended up forming not one but several pop-up research groups that have conducted questionnaires, written articles and applied for funding. Some research outputs have been published (in Finnish, like this article on communality during the pandemic in the Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCF) and the Orthodox Church of Finland, or this article on the experiences of vicars of Eucharistic services in the ELCF), while others are yet to be published.

Pop-up research based on personal interests and existing collegiality

In the collection, Controversies and Interdisciplinarity: Beyond Disciplinary Fragmentation for a New Knowledge Model (2020),it is noted that the need for ‘real and sincere cooperation between experts from different disciplines’ is one of the key factors in investigating the complex phenomena and problems of today’s world. From the viewpoint of a historian, this notion can also be applied to investigations of the past. In the context of this writing, however, I would like to emphasise the phrase ‘real and sincere’. I believe it refers to the situation where interdisciplinary interests arise from the margins or on the fringes and are, thus, not rushed or otherwise compelled.

This is what happened in our pop-up research groups, which were created more by accident than design. I think we have had a fruitful opportunity to work together precisely because we had a shared curiosity that arose quite unexpectedly as the global situation changed. The already-existing academic relationships and collegiality, under the auspices of the School of Theology, have been vital. The crossing of boundaries has also been made possible by the working environment, which encourages boundary-crossing but does not compel it. As to whether our pop-up groups will transform into more long-term ones, this remains to be seen and depends on various factors. Even this short-term collaborative work and crossing of boundaries has, however, given me much food for thought for my further research and encouragement for using the collaborative method of the pop up in the future as well.

Dr Sini Mikkola is university lecturer in church history at the UEF. Her research interests include the Reformation era, Lutheran theology on the human being, gender history, Covid-19 and the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland. 

East and West from Russia and Ukraine

Teuvo Laitila & Heta Hurskainen

If the position of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) towards the West and East could be characterised by one word, it would be ‘mission’. Since the start of its missionary work, the East – Siberia, Alaska, Korea and Japan in the early 20th century – has been the ROC’s direction, with more recent efforts being directed towards Southeast Asia. The West has been a contested missionary direction. Since the Russian religious-philosophical thinkers of the 19th century, the ROC has struggled for deciding whether to cooperate with the western tradition of Christianity or challenge it by claiming the authentic interpretation of Christianity and contesting the secular beliefs and values of the West, which are the present emphases in the ROC’s western discourse.

This categorisation also encompasses the space ‘in between’, covering Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova. The Russian World concept of the last decade endeavoured to gather these areas together with an emphasis on common Slavic roots stemming from the ‘Kievan baptismal font’.

Curanovic (2018) proved how the ROC has not turned Ukraine into an object of its mission. Brotherhood between the two nations does not serve as a solid foundation for a common mission nor is the clash of two civilisations reason for the ROC to fulfil its mission in Ukraine. Rather, Ukraine is seen as a place where foreign influences are gaining space for themselves. According to the ROC, Europe’s secularised and fallen moral influence on Ukraine should be resisted; Catholic proselytism, which also takes place through the Greek Catholic Church, is foreign, misleading and not valued positively, as well as the latest but not the least confrontation. According to the ROC, the influence of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its actions should not have reached Ukraine in the form of granting autocephaly for the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. All the mentioned influences are not wanted in this ‘in between’ space from the perspective of the ROC, but the Ukrainian space itself does not need a mission, as it belongs neither to the West nor the East.

Finding a way to balance the perspectives of not considering Ukraine as missionary land and Ukraine as influenced by the West is not easy. In Ukraine, the ROC uses a similar tactic as in its argumentation on homosexuals: the ROC condemns the acts and inclinations but invites people to repent and connect with the True Orthodoxy in the ROC. This kind of sentiment leaves little space for dialogue with the multiformity of Orthodoxy in Ukraine. If the theological bases of ‘people of the good will’ for the Soviet times’ cooperation with atheistic authorities were strongly built, then could these bases be used in present day as well? Lines are drawn deep nowadays. According to the ROC, actions and ideology must be shared in order to cooperate. If so, how can there be cooperation with Ukraine, which belongs to this shared ‘in between’ but is influenced by the West?

If Russia pretends to be sure that Russia exists ‘in between space’ and can thus implement a policy towards the East or West, then Ukraine’s existence as a historical entity can be challenged—and has been challenged—both politically and ecclesiastically. For the ROC, the Ukrainian Orthodox are part of the Russian Orthodoxy, and all claims to the contrary border on creating a schism. Thus, the Ukrainian Orthodoxy must first establish itself prior to asserting its independence from the ROC and Russia.

The ROC’s metanarrative defending the inclusion of Ukrainian Orthodoxy into the Russian one portrays a linear transformation of Christianity, from the baptism of Kyiv people around 988 CE through the establishment of Muscovite Rus in the 14th century and the Moscow Patriarchate in 1589 to the hegemonic claims of present post-Soviet ROC over the ‘Russian World’. This narrative makes Russia the East for those Ukrainians who argue that they are a separate nation and culture, not a subdivision of the ‘great Russian’ people.

Ukrainians critical of Russia assert their dissociation from the East by resorting to Westernising rhetoric, such as defining Ukraine culturally and politically as an extension of the West, with the European Union or some older entity enabling a linkage to the West.

Separating Ukraine and Ukrainians from their Russian ‘East’ is far from simple and usually ignores the fact that from the late 17th to the late 20th century most of the territory of present Ukraine was held continuously by the Russians or the Soviets. 

During that time, several attempts to establish a separate Ukrainian identity were made, even though most of the people we now call Ukrainians did not consider such identity in modern national terms; rather, they were ‘locals’ trying to cope with the changing circumstances. Concepts such as ‘East’ or ‘West’ were of little use except for major 20th-century conflicts, Ukrainian–Russian civil and independence wars from 1917 to 1921, the Second World War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. During these events, a part of Ukrainians nationalised their history and ‘found’ their allies in the West and their enemies in the East. Notably, Ukrainian Orthodoxy was an exception; its enemy was the Moscow Patriarchate in the East, but its ‘West’ was global Orthodoxy, especially the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

After the Ukrainian independence in 1991, observers both in Ukraine and abroad argued that Ukrainian politicians and the people in general are divided between the Russophone ‘West’ and Russophile ‘East’. In other words, attitudes towards things Russian were the decisive factor in the Ukrainian conceptualisation of East and West.

This finding is only partially true. Ukrainian Orthodoxy and Ukrainian politicians are highly conscious of their audiences, and select their words accordingly, creating divisions into the ‘East’ or ‘West’ as they find appropriate. Only global politics and western media essentialise East and West, arguing that this or that statement of a bishop or a politician is indicative of his, rarely her, support to the East or the West.

This does not mean that Ukrainians are turncoats of sorts who do not care what the East and West concepts represent. However, what they mean when talking about, for example, ‘western’ values or ‘eastern’, usually Russian, menace begs further investigation. For instance, it is evident that while Ukrainian Orthodoxy dubs the events of 2013–2014 centring on Maidans as ‘revolution of dignity’ or ‘revolution of values’, dignity and values are considered from a rather conservative Orthodox perspective. ‘Values’ may include a western conception of democracy, but they do not exclude eastern, Orthodox, conceptions of, say, family and sex roles. Thus, to make sense of Ukraine and its relations with ‘East’ and ‘West’, we have to understand their variations and limits. 

Teuvo Laitila, PhD, is Assistant Professor in Orthodox Church History and Comparative Religion at the UEF. His research interests include religion-state relations in Ukraine and the Balkans, antisemitism from the Baltic to Bulgaria, and folk or ‘lived’ Orthodoxy in Karelia.

Heta Hurskainen, ThD, is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at the UEF. Her research interests are in ecumenical relations of Orthodox and Lutheran churches, questions of Orthodox migrants, and in Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy, as well as their relations with politics.

Where East Meets West

East Meets West

Heta Hurskainen

I welcome you to read our blog, “East Meets West”!  The blog’s hub is the School of Theology at the University of Eastern Finland (UEF). Despite the word “Eastern” in the name of the university, our School of Theology offers both Orthodox and Western theology to study and research. East meets West at this university – it’s especially true in this blog!

The particularity of the blog and its writers are that they represent both Eastern and Western theological orientations and have worked and researched topics together, not just side by side, but together in a creative and critical manner. During the blog’s first year, writers of the blog are affiliated with the School of Theology at the UEF, and the blog aims to bring the particularities of this special hub and its research to a wider conscience.

Joensuu, situated in North Karelia in Finland, is an excellent place to research questions relating to religious and cultural exchanges between the East and West. Today, Karelia is an area situated on both sides of the Finnish-Russian border. Christianity came to Finland at the beginning of the 12th century – from the East in its Orthodox form and from the West in its Catholic form. The two forms met in the part of Karelia that now belongs to Finland. Throughout our history, encounters between the two have not always been peaceful or easy. The political order and societal situations have changed; in fact, even the main form of Western Christianity has changed from Catholicism to Lutheranism, and the Orthodox jurisdiction here has changed from the Moscow Patriarchate to the Ecumenical patriarchate. However, history has also brought with it ways to understand and respect each other.

Joensuu’s city planning itself cements the encounters: At the south end of the street, called “Kirkkokatu” (Church Street), stands a Lutheran church belonging to the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland, which represents 68% of Finns, but at the north end of the same street is the Orthodox Church, belonging to the Orthodox Church of Finland and representing 1% of the Finnish population. Both churches are “state churches”.  Joensuu’s city planning exemplifies how things we expect to be in the East or West are also found in other geographical dimensions. East and West are not just geographically constructed dimensions; they are also, and especially in this blog, fluid dimensions of thinking and creating. Within Western Christianity, culture or religion, you can find Eastern thinking and vice versa.

The School of Theology as part of the UEF belongs to the state university, which makes the researchers independent but not isolated from the society and environment around it. East Meets West is not only about the Eastern and Western branches of Christianity. It is a wider concept under which religions and their connections to the diversity of life can be studied. The focus is on the specifics of East and West connections and the various types of encounters. These encounters take place in the fields of culture, society, history, doctrine, migration, education, politics and their interactions.

The start of our blog takes place at a time when researchers are asking whether we are going into or might even be in a new Cold War era. Instead of encounters, it seems that the different barriers and borders are drawn and demarcated. One example of finding new encounters and drawing new lines is found in Ukraine. The country struggles with itself and with its Eastern (Russia) and Western (EU) neighbours about its political and cultural belonging. At the same time, and already for centuries, its Christianity, mainly Orthodox, has been in the middle of “meet” or “encounters” or “border” of East and West. Orthodoxy is vibrant in the country but not uniform.

In Ukraine, several churches call themselves Orthodox. Ukraine’s orthodoxy is also a platform for juxtaposing between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Just a week before publishing this post, the Ecumenical Patriarchate Bartholomew visited Ukraine. He met with hierarchs and people from the Orthodox Church in Ukraine (OCU), to which the Ecumenical Patriarchate granted autocephaly, full independence, at the beginning of 2019. The Moscow Patriarchate, who had previously reacted to every visit made by the Ecumenical Patriarch to Ukraine, ignored the visit completely. To study the problem more deeply, The School of Theology at the UEF organizes its first “East Meets West” conference, “Ukraine and Russia: always together – always in separation” on 4 October. Our next blog post will also take a closer look at Ukraine, and soon we will also launch a mainly Finnish speaking podcast, “Idän ja Lännen kohtaamisia”, which starts with the focus on Ukraine.

After this focus on Ukraine, the blog will explore other academic aspects of “East Meets West”, while the podcast will continue with themes and approaches for those who want to get acquainted with why and how “East Meets West” matters.

This is a journey on which I welcome you to join. Welcome to our blog!

Author: Heta Hurskainen, blog editor

Hurskainen, ThD is Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology at the UEF. Her research interests are in ecumenical relations of Orthodox and Lutheran churches, questions of Orthodox migrants, and in Russian and Ukrainian Orthodoxy, as well as their relations with politics.