Išgyventoji istorija Lietuvoje tarpukariu: vaidmenys, patirtys, vadovėliniai pasakojimai ir atminimo politika

• Safronovas, Vasilijus
• Kilinskas, Kęstutis
• Mačiulis, Dangiras

LTPožiūris į istoriją gali būti dvejopas. Vieni tapatina istoriją su praeities įvykiais, todėl mano, kad istorija tiesiog „įvyko“ pagal kažkokią logiką, ir mes galime ją tik išaiškinti, atskleisdami loginį „raktą“. Tas „raktas“ vis keičiasi, priklausomai nuo laikotarpio ir pažiūrų - tai ir Dieviškoji valia, ir evoliucijos teorija, ir lemtis, ir racionalūs išmintingų žmonių apskaičiavimai ar planavimai. Šio požiūrio į istoriją šalininkai dažnai kalba apie „teisingą“ istoriją ar jos „iškraipymus“, o kartais atsiduria ir apkasuose, gindamiesi nuo tų ar puldami tuos, kurių istorija „neteisinga“. Kiti savo ruožtu į istoriją žiūri ne kaip į praeities įvykius, o kaip į pasakojimą apie juos (nuo graikiško žodžio ' ioropia - žinios, paremtos tyrimu, stebėjimu, ir pasakojimai apie tokias žinias); pasakojimą, kuris visada yra nulemtas pasakojančioje perspektyvos, atlieka skirtingas funkcijas ir dviem skirtingais momentais, kai tas pats žmogus bandys papasakoti tą pačią istoriją, gali būti pateiktas nevienodai, nes gali skirtis situacija, kurioje jis tai pasakos, ar pasakotojo auditorija. Pagal šį požiūrį, ne tik žmonių bendruomenės, bet ir pavieniai žmonės vadovaujasi nesutampančiomis istorijomis, pasakoja skirtingus dalykus apie praeitį, netgi apie tuos įvykius, kuriuos du žmonės išgyveno kartu. Šio požiūrio šalininkai rečiau užsuka į apkasus. Jie kalba apie tai, kad (su)gyvenimo, arba bendros istorijos kūrimo ir palaikymo, esmė - mokėjimas įsiklausyti į tai, kas skirtingoms pusėms svarbu, gebėjimas nugludinti aštriausius kampus ir susitarti.Nors akademinėje erdvėje jau ne vieną dešimtmetį tvirtai dominuoja antrasis požiūris į istoriją, pirmojo šalininkai tikrai negalėtų skųstis mažumos statusu. Šią knygą skiriame abiejų požiūrių šalininkams. Joje rašome apie tai, ką žmonės išgyveno, kas jiems buvo svarbu ir dėl ko jie ginčijosi. Nesutarimai dėl istorijos nėra ta tema, kurią turėtumėme apeiti. Atvirkščiai, kviečiame skaitytojus suvokti, kaip tie nesutarimai veikia ir kodėl jie yra „natūralūs“, o tada galbūt panorėti peržengti gynybines linijas ir pradėti artėti prie sutarimo, kuris, manytumėme, yra bet kokio viešo bendrabūvio pamatas. Knyga gimė kaip mokslinio tyrimo rezultatas. Tyrimo idėja atsirado 2018 m. Pateikę projekto paraišką, finansavimą projektui įgyvendinti gavome iš Lietuvos mokslo tarybos. Klaipėdos universitete veikiančiame Baltijos regiono istorijos ir archeologijos institute šį tyrimą trejus metus vykdė trys skirtingose akademinėse terpėse subrendę, tik iš dalies sutampančius interesų laukus turintys ir skirtingu metu akademinį kelią pradėję istorikai. Kęstutis Kilinskas šioje knygoje yra IV, VII ir IX skyrių pagrindinis autorius, taip pat prisidėjęs prie pirmųjų trijų skyrių, Dangiras Mačiulis - I, II ir III skyrių pagrindinis autorius, Vasilijus Safronovas - V, VI ir VIII skyrių autorius, prisidėjęs prie visų kitų skyrių turinio. Jis, kaip projekto vadovas, taip pat bandė suartinti autorių skirtybes taip, kad skaitytojui jos kuo mažiau kristų į akis. [Iš Pratarmės]

ENThe field of memory studies, to which this book belongs, is by no means a newly emerging research area in Lithuania. Such research also exists for the period of Lithuanian history between the two world wars: historians have previously studied state holidays and commemorations, campaigns to mobilise the nation in which various images of the past were actively used or employed for propaganda purposes, and the use of images of the past for various purposes in Lithuania’s main towns. Nevertheless, few of the previous studies looked at the role of different actors in the field of public memory by relating the ways in which the events of the past were represented, who did so, and why. This situation sometimes gives the false impression that Lithuanian society was united in its evaluation of the same past events. Moreover, it is a promising topic that enriches our knowledge. The study of it can provide answers not only about which individual heroes or events from the past circulated in the public sphere, or when and how (to which studies of the public memory are often limited), but also about individual sections of society and their relationships to each other. Finally, a study can provide more credible arguments for todays debates, some of which have been going on for many decades, about what should be remembered, what should be celebrated, and why. This book attempts to build a bridge between Lithuanian society in the interwar period and the historical imagination of its dominant part. It presents the results of an investigation in which we looked not only at how national history was told, but also why it was told in a certain way, and who did it. Looking at Lithuanian society in the interwar period, we assume that there are no universal narratives of history, but always someone’s’ narratives that circulate in certain milieus and are relevant in certain periods.For historians, therefore, these narratives can help paint a picture of society at a particular time. It also explains our desire to present a series of coexisting narratives behind the collective memory, rather than a single dominant narrative. The book thus presents research that attempts to show how certain sections of Lithuanian society (individual and collective social actors and institutions) contributed to the common understanding of history that emerged in society in the period between the two world wars. Based on the understanding that information about lived events is more relevant than events in the distant past, we focus exclusively in our book about the influence of different actors on the historical imagination on events from lived history. On one hand, we examine how the narratives about the past that circulated in Lithuania during the interwar period reflected the events experienced by people then or by the generation of their parents and grandparents. On the other hand, we are interested in how those who had lived during important historical events influenced the public definition and understanding of those events. We feel that this research focus complements the existing research on the historical imagination in interwar Lithuania, since historians have so far been interested mainly in symbols and images from the distant past, that is, from the times of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in interwar Lithuania. Much less is known about the representation of the more recent past. The main sources we have used are archival documents, memoirs, the newspapers of various political parties, speeches and articles by public figures and politicians, the journals of various public associations, and speeches and articles by their members.We are also interested in sources relating to the main institutions (schools, the Catholic Church, the army), such as history textbooks used in schools or in the army, and the role played by their members in various commemorative events and rituals. By narrowing the scope of the study in this way, we hope to be able to compare the role of institutions in shaping the relationship with the past, that is, what we usually call the official’ memory, with the role of individual and collective social actors in shaping this relationship. Schools, the Catholic Church and the army were chosen, because they represented (or, in the case of the Catholic Church, dominated) the state. In addition, the activities of other important institutions that represented the state (such as the War Museum in Kaunas) have already been studied in detail in this regard. Individual and collective actors include politicians, political parties, various public associations (such as the Lietuvos šaulių sąjunga [Lithuanian Riflemens Union], other paramilitary groups, associations of war veterans, various youth organisations, etc), and groups of people coming together on special occasions (such as committees organising public commemorations). It is understandable that, when studying the collective memory of past eras, historians often do not have the opportunity to ask people about their memories. Therefore, the main way of finding answers is to analyse the public discourse at the time, which was not always open and was frequently censored. By examining the public discourse, we have identified a dozen specific storylines involving events from lived history. [...]. [From the publication]