Postcolonial theory has recently come under critique as an interpretative scheme applied to Eastern Europe and particularly Ukraine. However, a closer look suggests that the critique applies only to some aspects of the approach, such as a focus on power relations and representations, while the key question should be rephrased as whether the Ukrainian subject was constituted as a colonial subject. A range of empirical material from 1920s Ukrainian discourses, both Soviet and emigre, is analyzed to shed light on how Ukrainians constructed their subjectivity as “a site of disorder” (Dipesh Chakrabarty), splitting themselves into uncultured peasant masses to be modernized and erased as a voiceless subaltern subject, on the one hand, and modernizing elites, on the other. This split can be understood as an epitome of the colonial condition.

中文翻译：

---

自我意识形态：在他人现代性中建构现代乌克兰主体

后殖民理论最近受到批评，成为一种适用于东欧特别是乌克兰的解释方案。然而，仔细观察表明，批评仅适用于该方法的某些方面，例如着重于权力关系和代表制，而关键问题应改写为乌克兰主体是否构成殖民主体。分析了1920年代乌克兰话语中的一系列经验资料，包括苏联和阿米格雷，以阐明乌克兰人如何将其主体性建设为“无序之地”（Dipesh Chakrabarty），将自己分裂为未耕种的农民群众，使其现代化和消灭一方面是无声的次要主题，另一方面是精英的现代化。这种分裂可以理解为殖民地状况的缩影。