An Escape from the Embrace of Politics. A Study into the Cultures of Remembrance as a Means to Encourage a Historical Dialogue in Lithuanian-Russian Relations (original) (raw)
Related papers
Parliamentary Studies , 2022
This article is focused on the most visible narratives about Lithuania's trauma experiences-deportations under Stalin, the anti-Soviet partisan war and the Holocaust. These hegemonic traumatic experiences were essential for the processes of Lithuanian statehood since 1991. 'Separate memories' about the Soviet crimes, associated with the deportations under Stalin and anti-Soviet partisan war, and the Holocaust, were developed in Lithuania. Even though these memories are associated with separate memory regimes, they intersect and often conflict with each other. How were memory regimes, associated with these hegemonic memories, develop? Which actors affected the development of these regimes in separate trajectories? How did these memory regimes get into conflict, and what were the consequences of these conflicts? Is multidirectional memory, when different traumatic experiences 'talk' to each other, possible in Lithuania? The goal of the article is to survey the dominant memory regimes in Lithuania and assess their influence on the development of the Lithuanian statehood. The main research findings highlight the importance of geopolitical developments and international actors for the processes of mnemonic conflicts and mnemonic cooperation locally. In the case of Lithuania, major geopolitical developments coincided with the creation of major trauma narratives. The participation of international actors in the creation of major trauma narratives has resulted in both mnemonic conflicts and mnemonic cooperation.
Memory cultures and politics of history. A plea forpolish-russian cooperation
2011
Once upon a time a Russian and a Pole laid the foundations for modern sociology. Their names were Pitirim Sorokin and Florian Znaniecki. After years of 'dependent development' of Polish and Russian social sciences it is high time we came back to the forgotten classics. A joint study of memory cultures and politics of history is a very good point to start with. It seems there are some lessons we can draw from the noble sociological ancestors. First is quite straightforward: we should communicate with one other, as they did. There is no intellectual creativity without constant cooperation. In a long exchange of letters, both scholars expressed great interest in one another's 'theory, their growing friendship, and a deep and grave concern with the general development of sociology' (Vaitkus, 1994. P. 230). Thus-and this is the second point-rather than imitating Western theoretical perspective we should try, drawing on it, to develop our own independent standpoint, which will combine both theory and research. Third, following in Sorokin's and Znaniecki's footsteps, we should look at society in its entirety. On this view, memory is not some self-contained phenomenon, but a part of broader social processes. Accordingly, in our paper we present a general research-program to analyze memory cultures. In this, we begin by sketching possible approaches to study phenomena in question; we go on, then, to construct a perspective, which will allow us to define and explain memory culture and politics of history in Poland and Russia. Approaches to memory In analyzing social practices connected with a national past, social scientists can employ a wide range of approaches. In the first place, they can make use of sociology of memory and memory studies in general, the field that exploded in the early eighties (
Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization, 2011
Over the past several decades, the "politics of history" has become a significant aspect of domestic politics and international relations within Europe and around the world. The politicizing and instrumentalizing of history usually pursues two main objectives: first is the construction of a maximally cohesive national identity and rallying the society around the powers that be; second is eschewing the problem of guilt. The two are clearly interlinked; having liberated oneself of the sense of historical, political, moral or whatever responsibility, it is arguably much easier to take pride in one's newly minted "unblemished" identity based on the celebratory interpretation of one's country's "glorious past." This article intends to explore how the memories of some momentous developments in the tumultuous 20th century (above all, the experience of totalitarian dictatorships, World War II, the "division" and "reunification" of Europe, the collapse of the Soviet Union) and their historical interpretations relate to concepts of national identity in the post-Soviet lands.
The Soviet and German occupations during World War II, the anti-Soviet resistance and its repression through mass deportations after World War II have become pivotal traumatic events with a long-lasting impact on political identities in Lithuania. The losses resulting from these traumatic events were substantial. According to Lithuania's Genocide and Resistance Research Center, during the Holocaust, 240,000 people (200,000 Jews) were killed. In 1944-53, during the second Soviet occupation (the first one was in 1940-41), 186,000 were arrested or imprisoned, and 118,000 were deported. An estimated number of 20,500 anti-Soviet partisans and their families were killed during an intense war of anti-Soviet resistance. Many of those who were deported after World War II were either active resistance fighters themselves or related to someone who was an active resistance fighter. After the restoration of independence in 1991, there was a clear focus on the losses experienced during the Soviet occupations. The German occupation, including the Holocaust, received less attention. But this is starting to change, albeit slowly, as the memory of the Holocaust is becoming integrated into national history and memory. The losses experienced during the Soviet occupations became part of commemorations that started during the initial stage of democratization in the late 1980s. The lifting of censorship during the glasnost period under Mikhail Gorbachev unleashed an enormous wave of popular interest in the anti-Soviet resistance and its suppression, and the mass deportations carried out under Stalin. The repression and mass deportations under Stalin started to be called genocide. This term was borrowed from the Lithuanian diaspora, which had used it to gain political currency during the Cold War. This was the beginning of a long lasting " fighting and suffering " memory regime, with the focus on the suffering experienced during the Soviet occupations and the admiration of armed anti-Soviet resistance. The first open public commemorations of mass deportations began in the late eighties. Many Lithuanians made pilgrimages to deportation sites in Siberia and Kazakhstan, erecting crosses and building monuments at former prisons and forced labor camps. The remains of former prisoners and deportees were brought back to Lithuania. The first museums commemorating the losses experienced under Stalin and the anti-Soviet resistance were opened. In the late nineteen nineties, the Lithuanian state started to institutionalize the memory of anti-Soviet resistance fighters. In 1999, the Lithuanian parliament voted to make a declaration to defend the sovereignty of Lithuania that was signed by anti-Soviet resistance fighters in 1949 a legal document, thus emphasizing the importance of the anti-Soviet resistance for post-Soviet Lithuanian identity. In 1997, a new memory day entered Lithuania's national calendar: the Day of the (anti-Soviet) Partisans (the fourth Sunday in May). The Lithuanian parliament declared 2009 the year of Lithuania's freedom fighters, and revisited the 1949 declaration, describing it as " essential to Lithuanian statehood. "
Facing the modern movement: Post-Soviet laboratory of memory. Case of Lithuania
2008
An objective of the paper: social attitudes towards built legacy of second half of 20 th century in post-soviet area. The case of Lithuania was taken as a reflection of the processes in all ex-soviet block. Rather poor quality of construction and materials, saturation with communist ideology and consequently "bad" politicized memories, seems inseparable from Soviet time architecture. However, despite of being "post-soviet" this legacy reflects a certain period of architectural and cultural development and naturally deserves of being listed as a heritage. The paper discloses the recent tendencies implying that successful preservation of this dissonant heritage greatly depends on social attitudes. First of all it means reshaping the collective attitude/memory, i. e. finding a way to neutralize the negative connotations with political past, and to make these spaces to represent the general history of architecture and culture.
The Baltic States and Moscow’s 9 May Commemoration: Analysing Memory Politics in Europe
Europe-Asia Studies, 2007
This article develops a three-level framework for analysing the role of memory in contemporary European politics. It tests the utility of this framework based on the three Baltic states and their public and political debates around the World War II anniversary commemorations in Moscow in 2005. Existing concepts for analysing the impact of memory on policy decisions are discussed first on the levels of domestic politics and bilateral relations. The article then provides a framework for researching a lesser acknowledged third level of memory politics within European institutions. The dilemma felt by the three Baltic presidents over whether or not to attend the Moscow ceremonies provides a unique opportunity to look at all three levels and demonstrate their relevance for understanding future memory struggles in an enlarged Europe.
The Politics of Memory: Remembering the Baltic Way 20 Years after 1989
Europe Asia Studies, 2012
On 23 August 1989, two million Balts joined hands in a human chain that stretched through Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. How has this phenomenon of solidarity against the Soviet regime and historical remembrance of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact been narrated and commemorated in the 20 years that followed? This article highlights the memory and commemoration of the Baltic Way in Latvia and identifies agents and contesting narratives in memory politics. It introduces the concept of commemoration spectacle, a collective ritual untethered from the burdens of the past or ‘grand narratives’ of history, which subsumes struggles over memory beneath show and spectacle.