In Greek Antiquity, it was believed that the universe required an equal quantity of both order and chaos to be balanced. In Hesiod’s Theogony, the creation of the universe is born out of disorder, as a struggle for power arises amid the gods. Yet from this disorder emerges the very structure of the universe. The personification of Earth (Gaia) is brought into existence, and from her, the sea, sky, mountains, and ultimate framework by which mankind would emerge.

This analogy is the manner in which I view the approach to Rusyn identity. We require two contrasting approaches – the performative and the deductive – which I will introduce here. These approaches would evoke (but not be limited to) questions of “high art vs low art”, “street smart vs classically educated”, and “conservatism vs progressivism”, and perhaps more importantly, the question of “absolutism” as a whole.

Performative identity before all else, is a restrictive approach that must be taken in gradual doses. It is the idea that one’s Rusyn identity is based merely upon upbringing and geographical context, hence reducing the interactions in which one widens their intellectual and spiritual pursuit. By defining one’s identity in a one-dimensional sense, the opportunity for intellectual growth becomes significantly limited. Performative identity is to be Rusyn solely “when the occasion allows” or when it is highlighted publicly. These contexts might be, for example, a folk festival or religious service. After all, how many people do we know whose Rusyn identity is centered mainly around yearly pierohy festivals, and other remnants of the old world?

Though certainly acceptable and often enjoyable, these methods are often limited to a narrow cross-section of individuals. They presume a specific upbringing, religious affiliation, age group, and location, which leaves us with a question. What about those outside of these groups?

Secondly, performative identity is often centered around preservation, rather than advancement. This might include passing on recipes, reviving traditional music and dance, and the remembrance of one’s deceased relatives. While performative identity is essential in the blending of “chaos and order”, it should not be the end goal. This is not to say that honoring one’s ancestors is to “live in the past”, or that aspects of traditional folk culture are now “archaic”. Yet these aspects alone leave much to be desired. The weakness of the performative approach is its insistence on nostalgia, leaving us with a sense of uncertainty after the emotions have waned. This is especially true for diaspora Rusyns who may already view the homeland as something distant and separate.

Deductive identity, on the opposite end, is the higher pursuit of intellectual, spiritual, and social enlightenment in regard to one’s Rusynness. It must be willingly undertaken and transcend an individual’s own personal cultural context. Deductive identity is an entity completely separate from contemporary sociopolitical ideologies, for they will simply distort what is a far more complex, multi-dimensional history. Practicing deductive identity is, rather, to discern the meaning of being Rusyn, regardless of surface-level factors. It is, therefore, seeking to decipher the timeless essence of our people and the components that lie therein.

The deductive approach is one that is never strictly black and white. So often are we bombarded by debates over who is qualified to speak on an issue, or who can call themselves “Rusyn”, leading to the never-ending cycle of existential crisis. A force that hinders actual progression and free thought. Thus, we should not ask, “Can I be truly Rusyn as someone born abroad?” or “Is my Rusynness valid, despite only recently learning of my origins?” Rather, we should ask questions such as: “By what means can a universal sense of Rusyn identity be established?” and “What will become the spirit of our people?” That is, will the approach be one that is purposely bold and extravagant in expressing our pride? Or will it be a more reserved and scholarly one, with sentiments an underlying —but not flamboyant —force at play? It is possible that the average person may gravitate towards neither extreme, but allow for their identity to flow freely without neither theatrical overemphasis nor rigorous, high-structured pursuits. Nonetheless, we will inevitably encounter all of these possibilities, therefore, it is important to analyze the nature of both sides.

Throughout time, we have undoubtedly defined our youth as a time of passionate vocalization, and outward expression oblivious to the more structured world. It is no wonder authors, composers, and philosophers have mourned the departure of youth in their works. Furthermore, we have sought to preserve our younger years through our physical appearance, the vocabulary we use, and in retaining nostalgic hobbies and interests. Imagine, for a moment, your first thought upon reading the phrase, “I didn’t choose to be Rusyn, it was merely by chance. Our beauty, our traditions, our intrigue.” Your instinctive reaction may very well be to cringe or to roll your eyes. And why so? This bold, in-your-face sense of pride is an acquired taste, often characteristic of younger generations. While it is not refined nor academic by nature, it evokes an assertion of one’s identity in the face of opposition.

In addition to the Rusyn who is idealistic at heart, we require one who is all-business, a sort of practitioner of stoicism. They may even be in opposition to the former, viewing them as frivolous and sheltered in terms of focus and approach to the Rusyn cause. This individual is one who is eloquent and versed in some discipline whether it be through vast personal experience (a type of “street smart”) or through intensive scholarly pursuit. It should be noted that “scholarly” need not refer to the classically educated, i.e, one who holds a degree, but also one who has allotted their time to independent study in a given specialty. They may be genealogists, historians, political scientists, linguists, folk artists, and the list goes on. Their focus is not as much on pride, or even preservation, as it is on creating something new. They are careful in utilizing contemporary technology so as to not fall victim to quickly passing trends, therefore recognizing that “relevancy” is a hopeless cycle, detracting from the intended outcome and making many social causes appear identical to one another.

Both the performative and deductive are essential and deeply compatible by nature. One cannot be had without the other, nor outweigh the other to the extent that it becomes a caricature of Rusynness. The more detailed answer may, in part, be a question of age and level of knowledge. Cultural identity is not a pastime, but rather a lifelong commitment. It is the oxygen, the life-sustaining force that both binds people and separates them. A weapon to be used wisely.