LTŠio straipsnio autorius siekia pagrįsti žemaičių bendruomenės ir žemaičių tapatybės kitimo amžių tėkmėje tezę, tvirtina, kad dabartinė žemaičių bendruomenė, lyginant ją su baltų genčių laikotarpio žemaičių bendruomene, yra patyrusi labai ženklią transformaciją. Todėl, kalbant apie dabartinių žemaičių tapatybę, negalima remtis nei baltų genčių laikotarpio, nei XIII a. žemaičių sociokultūrinėmis charakteristikomis, nei tuometiniais santykiais su lietuviais. Bandant apčiuopti dabartinių žemaičių tapatybę, būtina išsiaiškinti: kiek žemaičių tradicinė kultūra ir žemaitiškoji savimonė yra nutolusios nuo visos lingvistinės aukštaičių bendrijos (įskaitant dzūkus ir suvalkiečius) ir ar tai gali būti rimtas argumentas dabartinius žemaičius vertinti kaip atskirą etnosą? Kaip, žvelgiant iš žemaičių kalbinio, kultūrinio taško, požiūrio į aukštaičius, jų tarpusavio stereotipizavimo ypatybes, galima apibūdinti dabartinių žemaičių tapatybę? Kokia yra iš to išplaukianti žemaičių savimonė — etninė ar regioninė (subetninė)? Siekdamas išsiaiškinti išsikeltus uždavinius, autorius bando glaustai apžvelgti svarbiausius etninės bendruomenės savasties (būdingumo) požymius — savimonę, kalbą ir simbolių respektavimą, atkreipia dėmesį taip pat ir į žemaitiškuosius stereotipus bei jų tradicinės kultūros ypatybes. Straipsnyje autorius remiasi paties atliktos žemaičių apklausos duomenimis. Iš viso apklausta per 600 abiejų lyčių, visų amžiaus grupių, įvairių socialinių sluoksnių Akmenės, Skuodo, Kretingos, Telšių, Kelmės, Šilalės, Raseinių, Tauragės rajonų ir Šiaulių bei Klaipėdos rajonų žemaitiškųjų seniūnijų vietinių gyventojų. Taip pat remiasi ir kitų autorių atliktais tyrinėjimais, ypač tais, kuriuose kalbama apie žemaičių dalyvavimą etniniuose procesuose. [Iš straipsnio, p. 21]
ENIn Lithuania, like in other European countries, with the conjunctural emergence of the issue of the identity of minorities and regional communities in the late 20th century and the search for ‘minor homelands’, the Žemaitijan community was first regarded as an ethnic community rather than a regional, cultural group. Basically, it was argued to be equal to the Lithuanian ethnic community. The starting position for such a claim was the argument of some Lithuanian archaeologists that, during the period of the Baltic tribal unions, a discrete Žemaitijan ethnic unit existed, dating back to the 5th century AD. Another argument in favour of restoring the Žemaitijan identity was the idea of the Žemaitijan dialect being not a dialect but a separate language of the Baltic family. By way of appealing for the reconstruction of the authentic Žemaitijan identity, some members of the Žemaitijan community argued that the said identity was refuted during the consolidation of the Lithuanian nation at the turn of the 20th century, and therefore they proposed to reconstruct it. In the arguments of radical Žemaitijan figures, one can see the efforts to selectively use the postulates of two opposing camps — the Constructivists and the Primordialists — for the interpretation of the concept of the nation. By claiming that the Žemaitijans were included in the Lithuanian nation as an artificially created entity through usurping the right of Žemaitijans to be on the same level as the Lithuanian ethnic identity, they simultaneously tend to rely on the essential statements of the Primordialist camp. This is about the naturalness of the Žemaitijanness and a long-time parity-based existence of the Žemaitijan nation and the Žemaitijan language next to the Lithuanian nation and the Lithuanian language. In addition, the ethnicity of Žemaitijans is claimed to have not not changed over the centuries.The author of the article tends to remain more in favour of the hypothesis about the existence of the Žemaitijans as a separate ethnic community (tribe) during the period of the Baltic tribal unions than to reject it. However, the opinion of researchers about the existence of the Žemaitijan ethnic unit several centuries ago is not a proof that a separate Žemaitijan ethnic identity different from the Lithuanian one still exists today. The Žemaitijan tribe which had once existed was closest to the Lithuanian tribe in its language and culture, and therefore, in the course of the millennial history, it consolidated with the Lithuanians into one ethnic unit and changed its ethnic self- awareness. According to a representative survey, about 96 percent of Žemaitijans currently consider themselves Lithuanians, although they very clearly respect their dialect and traditional culture. The prevailing conviction in the community is that Žemaitijans need to use their dialect more boldly in public places, and not only in their own region, but throughout Lithuania. However, the absolute majority of Žemaitijans reject the idea of creating a common Žemaitijan language. The main reason is that the Žemaitijan dialect consists of a number of smaller subdialects, and therefore it would be difficult to come to an agreement. Moreover, there does not seem to be a need to create a second standard language in Lithuania.Even the absolute majority of linguists of Žemaitijan descent believe in the existence of the Žemaitijan dialect but not of a separate language. Although Žemaitijans are the most stereotyped community in Lithuania, both Lithuanians from other regions when they stereotype Žemaitijans and Žemaitijans who stereotype other Lithuanians use much milder simplified images than when stereotyping people of other nations. This leads us to believe that, in the process of stereotyping, Žemaitijans regard Lithuanians from other ethnographic regions not as strangers, but as different ones among their own people. The Žemaitijan community consider the symbols of the Lithuanian state, all Lithuanian political and cultural figures, and national heroes as their own, and not strangers. These facts testify to the identity of the present Žemaitijans being not in opposition to the Lithuanian identity and lead to the conclusion that the identity of the present Žemaitijans is regional (subethnic), but not ethnic. [From the publication]