ENTo conclude, although some of the authors’ interpretations can be questioned, the book is very timely, well-written, and thought-provoking. It certainly marks the qualitative development of studies of Lithuanian national culture beyond internalist, institutional accounts of folk culture and language-based ethnic nationalism by explicating underlying social mechanisms that enabled these particular discourses of national culture to rise to prominence. As such, Davoliūtė’s study is an important step toward the acknowledgment of a greater social complexity underpinning Soviet and post-Soviet culture, and will certainly stimulate further studies in this direction. [Extract, p. 488]