Heritage Voices: Stsiapan Stureika on the condition of Belarusian heritage

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: Our conversation today will be about the condition and multidimensional challenges of Belarusian heritage. However, before we get on to the particulars, I would like to start with you and your practice as a heritage theoretician and ambassador. You are based at the European Humanities University in Vilnius – can we say that it is a Belarusian university in exile?

Stsiapan Stureika: Exactly. This is what we call ourselves.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: Since when have you been situated in the Lithuanian capital? What does the heritage community look like at the university?

Stsiapan Stureika: The university was founded in 1992 in Minsk as an institution with a very serious mission at its core: to bring to Belarus a Western way of thinking, Western philosophy, sociology, ideas of how the modern world works. Belarus used to be a part of the Soviet Union, so we were subject to a Marxist-Leninist ideology and methodology across science and academia. Out of this came a mission to detach the intellectual sphere in Belarus from that way of thinking and to show a Western alternative.

However, in 2004, the university was shut down due to the situation of President Lukashenko’s rising authoritarian power. As a result, we became the first university of this kind in Europe closed due to political reasons, in this new European era of history. The university received a huge wave of international support and we resettled to Vilnius. And it is written in all our documents that we are willing to return to Belarus once the situation improves. Unfortunately, since then, the situation has only degraded and today we are not the only university in Europe which is in exile in this or another way, one only has to look at the case of the Central European University.

We have two major departments, one for social sciences and another for humanities, where studies in cultural heritage belong. We had already started heritage studies in Minsk with the help of the French embassy and from some French universities, such as Bordeaux.

The programme was modified many times and three decades have passed since it was launched. Nowadays, we try to do our best in developing critical heritage studies and delivering the newest ideas.

I’m not going to tell you that the cultural heritage world is very dynamic. Although we always talk about conservation, the meaning of conservation is very different from decade to decade. Our mission is to work on the development of heritage thinking among our young professionals. If we talk about BA- and MA-level students, we aim to show them the whole complexity of the heritage world and make them realise that heritage can be used for the purposes of development. That’s the most crucial thing.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: Do students come from Belarus or from Lithuania?

Stsiapan Stureika: Around 80-90% students each year come from Belarus.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: And which language do you teach in: Belarusian?

Stsiapan Stureika: In Belarus we mostly speak in Russian. So, the main language for our programmes is Russian, although we have a goal for internationalisation. Each year we have more and more courses in English and of course in Belarusian as well.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: Vilnius gives you an observational perspective on what is happening with regards to heritage in Belarus. We have already talked about the condition of heritage non-governmental organisations in Belarus in the context of the project “Mapping of the Central and Eastern European non-governmental heritage sector”, led by the Europa Nostra Heritage Hub in Kraków, in which you participated as a researcher. Now I would like to ask you more broadly about the heritage sector in Belarus as a whole. What is its condition? What are the current challenges?

Stsiapan Stureika: The good news for me is that the whole sphere is developing. It’s not frozen at all. There are new projects initiated every year, most of them under a government umbrella. There are also private initiatives. And in terms of involvement of civic activists, there is space for improvement. People are willing to invest their time and sometimes money into heritage.

I always underline that visiting cultural heritage sites is probably the last remaining safe option of celebrating our Belarusianness, our identity. Any other options could be suspicious to the government. At the very same time, all limitations arising from our political situation are also in place; they are very much a reality.

The biggest challenge for the heritage field, in my opinion, is a lack of publicity. In the political climate that we have, the first mission of the government, of the state, is to limit communication and to build a hierarchy of communication.

So, each new initiative coming from the general field of cultural heritage, such as music, theatre, environmental activities, or even sports associations, must conform to this hierarchical structure: in terms of communication, in terms of explaining what you are going to do and why it is necessary, etc.

The communication must be done according to certain rules of the political regime like the one we have. As such, any serious debate about heritage values and about our values is practically impossible. For instance, it’s impossible to refer to any Western experience, to say “look, they have some new schemes of heritage governance”. In Berlin, they recently opened a new museum where they’re exploring the topic of post-colonialism. It is simply impossible to discuss this in Belarus. And in this sense, infiltration of new knowledge and of new ideas is very limited, although, again, we have a demand for this.

We have a number of very talented heritage managers who are able to employ new ideas in their practical daily life. But, again, it must be done in some very sophisticated way, based on a certain hierarchy. This is the main challenge.

And the Iron Curtain, well, who would have thought that we will use this term again, not jokingly, not as a metaphor, but in a very strict and serious way. The Iron Curtain is raising or falling, I don’t know how to say it better.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: Maybe you could give some examples, what is in the spotlight of the government right now and what is neglected in terms of heritage?

Stsiapan Stureika: Well, if we speak stereotypically about Lukashenko’s political regime and his love for the Soviet Union and his attachment to Russia, then one might be surprised to see the actual state of cultural heritage in Belarus. We have several flagship ideological projects which are in the media, and they are really very ideologically biased. Like the building of a new National Historical Museum in the centre of Minsk, or massive Victory Day celebrations on 9 May.The scale of the celebrations was never so high and so broad as this year, and every new year brings new records.

If we examine conservation project programmes, there are several projects aimed at the conservation of our beautiful medieval, late medieval castles from the period of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the heritage of Rzeczpospolita.

And Nesvizh Castle together with Mir Castle, they continue to be the flagship heritage sites in Belarus. All other castles are being restored such as the Kreva and Halshany Castles. Not to mention Grodno Castle, the castle of Stefan Batory, whose conservation is in full swing. In terms of restoration of church buildings, many of them are already in the ownership of the relevant parishes. Some of them are still owned by the state, and yes, some money is spent on conservation, but less than we would like.

If we speak about intangible heritage, the National Inventory for Intangible Heritage is growing. More and more local traditions are being included. And most of these traditions are based on Belarusian ethnographic heritage, something that has absolutely no connections with current ideology.

So you see, the situation on the ground is not so tragic.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: And what about heritage professionals? Did many people decide to leave the country?

Stsiapan Stureika: Yes. That’s a real tragedy, because raising money for doing some conservation is only part of the problem. The second issue is having talented managers and talented people on the ground. And the cultural heritage field is not so popular among today’s students, unlike other programmes. I see from our admission campaigns that from year to year we have programmes where students are growing in staggering numbers. We have programmes in IT, business, design, or media studies. And these are the subjects which are attracting talented youth. Unfortunately, cultural heritage is not among these top-wanted fields. So, in this sphere, it is twice as difficult to retain talented people, to create an environment for them to work and to express their creativity. In this sense, unfortunately, we have a disaster on our hands.

In last five years, the majority of these bright, talented people who are fountains of creativity, they were really visible. As a result, they became the first target for politically related repressions. And so many specialists are already being fired, just because they somehow expressed many years ago their interest in different political ideas. Many of them – I’m not talking about those who ended up in prison, as we also have such cases – were forced to leave the country, and they now settle in Poland or in Lithuania. Others are still working, but at half-steam, as they cannot express themselves properly like they used to. However, there is one positive thing about this situation. Some of these people are able to work in the private sector in Belarus. Private businesses related to cultural heritage, starting from tourism to handicrafts and etc., private initiatives have received a really capable workforce.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: Can you say a bit more about the private sector? I think this is something that I wasn’t really aware of, that the private sector in the field of heritage is developing in Belarus.

Stsiapan Stureika: First of all, tourism: all types of tourism, ecotourism, cultural tourism. People are running their small manor houses, or other historic buildings. With all corresponding services, such as local sightseeing, exploring local crafts and local cuisine etc. That means they’re working on the creation of identity for these smaller places. And their impact is huge. We have private architectural companies working for new construction in city centres. They’re also helping the owners of heritage sites to do repairs, reconstruction and sometimes conservation work.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: From what you are saying right now, a reader may get the impression that the situation is really not that bad.

Stsiapan Stureika: This is what I think. Look, we have a normal country with a somehow unbalanced economy, but it still works, with people willing to live their lives to the full who are very capable and talented. We’re missing just one thing: freedom. You cannot express yourself. This is the biggest trauma and the biggest issue. And if you cannot express yourself or if you try to express yourself, you will be punished. And so, we have political prisoners. We have people fleeing abroad. That’s the biggest problem and the challenge for us. Otherwise, the country is a very nice place to live and work.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: So, what would be the crucial message for our international readers, those reading the interview about Belarusian heritage?

Stsiapan Stureika: Not to forget about our existence as such. Because in the minds of so many, even politicians and high-ranking officials, we are already non-existent. We are kind of a part of Russia. And so, all decisions regarding support to our civil society are also somehow attached to the situation in Russia. We are struggling to keep our identity. But I want to use another word: we are subjects as such, we are actors. And there needs to be support for those spots and those hubs where our identity and our subjectivity is developing. These infrastructural points of our political and cultural and other types of subjectivity are being preserved and even developed to support this. And this will pay off in the future, like it was with the previous falling of the Iron Curtain for Baltic states or Poland.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: Support can be expressed in many ways. Perhaps there are some specific actions that could be taken, like networking or some projects initiated between universities? Is there something like this going on? Maybe you want to do something but you can’t reach partners in other countries? Is funding a barrier?

Stsiapan Stureika: I have never – or almost never – felt that I was somehow excluded because of my “Belarusianness”. Just before the start of this interview, we have discussed a possible partnership. And obviously it’s difficult. Not because I’m from Belarus and you don’t want to support me. But it’s a hard way of accumulating partnerships, one by one, with small scale projects. We already have so many well-established institutions, starting from my university and independent media working from abroad. Unfortunately, one of the main Belarusian cultural institutions in Vilnius was forced to close its doors recently.

Unfortunately for us, at the beginning of 2025, the Trump administration came to power and they made several cuts in funding. It’s not a secret that our civil society was and still is highly dependent on this type of funding. And so many projects and many initiatives were forced to cease existing.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: By networking, I don’t just mean being part of projects as representatives of Belarusian academia, but realising projects with a focus on Belarusian heritage.

Stsiapan Stureika: These aspects of Belarusian heritage actually go into the mainstream of international scholarship. Not just by the nationality of the researcher, but by the topic that is being present in international discourse, essentially meaning material in English. I’m observing this tendency and I evaluate it as a positive achievement of this situation. You know, jokingly, I noticed that in Hollywood movies, more and more Belarusians appear as the main bad characters. Back in the years, only Russians were playing this role. Today, for us, it’s not bad. And, yes, we became more and more visible.

Academics from Belarus and other people active in the public sphere, in culture, in heritage, they flee from Belarus and they settle in Poland or in Lithuania, mostly. Germany and Spain are also popular destinations, but with incomparable numbers. Once settling in Poland or in Lithuania, and once being admitted to media discourse or discourse in academia, they start making their conclusions and their observations with these Polish or Lithuanian eyes. And they start seeing Belarus from these Polish or Lithuanian perspectives. Unfortunately, this leads to multiplication of stereotypes. Like today in our conversation, there are stereotypes about us. So, overcoming of the stereotypes must be done. I think overcoming this would be useful in our relationships. But doing this, even within the expert circle, it requires a special effort. Belarus is still an unknown country. Even in Poland, despite all the connections. And if we speak about networking and new projects focusing on this non-biassed view of Belarus, this would help us.

That’s the first thing. The second thing I’m observing is that if we speak about our efforts, then we are still a country of bicycle inventors. We’re reinventing our bicycles on a daily basis. We are missing very much an institutional memory which has to be written and learned, both in politics and in the cultural sector! This is a challenge. But it’s something that we really can manage. To see our “self-ness” not as something that takes shape in the present day, but as something that is lasting. That we have the history of national music, history of cultural heritage preservation, which I’m working on. A history written and done in a way – I’m trying not to overuse the word decolonisation – but here exactly this word can be used.

It’s not that we are, or were a colony of Russia. Of course, there are discussions about that, but I’m not going to go there now. It’s about building the new narratives of national culture and national history, built from the national perspective, but not limited to this ethnographic perception of Belarusianness. Because if we say “let’s have a true Belarusian cuisine” this basically means peasant meals, mostly, and it’s already a somewhat colonial stereotype.

Or it is practically impossible to explain in Poland or in Lithuania that 90% of Belarus is a Russian speaking country. I mean, it’s easy to explain this as a fact. But people in Poland or in Lithuania, they don’t understand this fact. They interpret this fact as something obvious. “You were conquered by Russia, Russia is occupying you, they are forcing you to speak Russian”. And they are very surprised and disappointed that most of the Belarusian diaspora, the new Belarusian diaspora, is Russian speaking. But there’s nothing wrong with these people. This is also a part of a Belarusian culture, this is how it exists today.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: Is the younger generation encouraged to learn the Belarusian language?

Stsiapan Stureika: It depends. Sometimes an opinion could be heard in Belarus that back in the days during Soviet Union, Belarusian language was the language of the village. Perhaps today, Belarusian is the language of the cities. And in the city, you will easily find Belarusian speaking people rather than in a village today. It’s now vice versa. But then again, the Belarusian language in Belarus not only has a communicative, but also very strong symbolic function.

So, when I speak about 90% and 10%, it’s about the number of people who use Belarusian daily as their main means of communication. But it doesn’t mean that 90% do not love and cherish and never use Belarusian. They do. The language is a very strong component of our identity. It’s probably in the core of our identity, but rather in a symbolic sense.

Every three or six years, we have a new accreditation of our programmes at the university, and we always have to answer the question: what is the language of instruction during your classes? And it’s impossible to give a short answer, because half of the group may speak Belarusian, the other half of the group may speak Russian, while we discuss texts in English and sometimes presentations are done in English. And then questions and answers are simultaneously in Belarusian, Russian or English. In one class. This is our reality. And experts always write in their recommendations: “Please specify the concrete language of instruction in your classes”.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: To wrap up the conversation, you were saying that decolonisation of thinking of heritage is needed. So my question is, have you already started this process at your university? Is it already ongoing or this is a plan?

Stsiapan Stureika: Absolutely. It was in our mission from the very beginning, and this is why we were closed in Minsk back in 2004. We do it also in terms of research topics. For instance, I am now preparing a new book about the history of cultural heritage preservation in Soviet Belarus from the 1960s to the beginning of the 1990s, a time when Belarusians realised that their heritage exists on a mass scale.

The main achievements in this field were done even before Perestroika, and Perestroika only showcased that this shift is already taking place. If we are to speak about Belarusian academic discourse, my university is the only independent Belarusian academy where all these discussions could take place.

Katarzyna Jagodzińska: Thank you very much for the interview.