Cultural heritage embodies a community’s history, traditions, identity, and memory – making it a frequent target in conflicts. While the importance of protecting cultural heritage is recognised in the SDGs and by international and military organisations, International Development has yet to fully acknowledge its importance. Drawing on the cultural resilience of Ukrainians amidst – and beyond – Russia’s full-scale invasion, Sophia Anders, a research student at LSE’s International Development Department, aims to challenge this and explores how cultural places foster resilience, community cohesion, and nation-building.
Cultural heritage as an overlooked dimension in International Development Studies
Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has not only devastated lives and infrastructure, but has also damaged at least 476 cultural sites (as of January 2025) and over 2,000 cultural institutions (as of October 2024). Despite this, Ukrainians continue to engage in cultural activities and find creative ways to safeguard their cultural identity. From digital museums about the war to musical performances in shelters, cultural expression has not only persisted but indeed evolved and is often seen as a form of resistance and resilience. In Ukraine, especially in the current context, cultural activity seems to strengthen community cohesion and foster a sense of “agency” and “civicness”. This challenges traditional disaster studies, which assume that culture and creativity only resume after a crisis has subsided.
However, the Russian regime’s attempts to erase Ukrainian identity are not new, nor are Ukrainians’ cultural responses to the Russian threat. The denial of Ukrainian statehood has been part of Russia’s “Russkiy Mir” (“Russian World”) discourse since the early 2000s. Overt military aggression dates to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its war in Donbas in 2014, the aftermath of which saw a surge in Ukrainian cultural and creative expression. This elicits more fundamental questions about the role of culture in affirming national identity, community cohesion and nationhood.
While Ukrainian cultural practice is currently receiving a significant amount of international attention – and for good reason – Ukraine is not an isolated case. Cultural heritage has been deliberately targeted in many other conflicts, including in Ethiopia, Syria, and Nagorno-Karabakh. International organisations, such as UNESCO or the OECD, have long recognised the role of culture in development, and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) consider culture to be a pillar of resilience and community strength. Even military institutions acknowledge this; protection of cultural heritage has, for instance, been a feature of the UK’s military strategy since 2017. Yet, International Development Studies tend to sideline culture and the arts, treating it as an afterthought rather than an integral part of social and economic development.
Researching culture in International Development through the lens of community- and nation-building
A central strength of International Development Studies is the interdisciplinary nature, providing a unique opportunity to study the intersection of culture, community-building, and nationhood. Culture evolves over time and can differ across places. It is impacted by and concurrently reacts to crises. It shapes power, knowledge, and social structures. However, culture is not merely an abstract concept. It also manifests itself materially – in museums, exhibitions, music, art, and more. Just as culture is dynamic, nationhood is fluid and can be analysed from various perspectives, including top-down, bottom-up, or historical approaches. The multidisciplinary nature of International Development can help to capture the complexity of these interactions.
My research is set to begin by examining the historical production of local knowledge about the “community” and the “nation” across Ukraine’s regions. One powerful example of cultural places shaping identity are Ukraine’s museums of local lore. These institutions have long served as repositories of regional knowledge and identity, traditionally curated by members of the local community. Under Soviet rule, they were repurposed to promote socialism in the regions, but following Ukrainian independence, they reclaimed their role in preserving local heritage. Today, these museums offer a glimpse into the past and a space where history is reimagined in the present.
Yet, they remain largely overlooked across disciplines. Western scholarship has paid little attention to them, and the few English-language studies that exist focus almost exclusively on Russian local museums. With many of Ukraine’s local cultural places already destroyed, documenting what is left is becoming increasingly important to safeguard the diversity of Ukrainian cultural expression and history. Several initiatives are currently working on digitalising Ukrainian cultural heritage, but local archives and exhibitions have not been systematically included – something I hope to contribute to throughout my PhD.
Overall, integrating cultural heritage into International Development Studies helps acknowledge the important role that culture plays in shaping societies and identities. It allows to appreciate culture’s potential to strengthen resilience and bring people together in times of crisis.
The views expressed in this post are those of the author and in no way reflect those of the International Development LSE blog or the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image credit: