Sovietmečio atmintis – tarp atmetimo ir nostalgijos

LTSovietmečio kolektyvinė atmintis ir materialusis bei nematerialusis jo paveldas yra skirtingai matomi tiek iš "vidaus“, tiek ir iš išorės“, o įvairių kartų, patirties ir politinių pažiūrių žmonių skirtingai interpretuojami ir prisimenami, todėl šiandien tampa keistu tradicijų ir tęstinumo, atmetimo ir pertrūkių mišiniu, ir tuo skuba pasinaudoti ne tik įvairios politinės, kultūrinės, bet ir ekonominės grupės. Nesena sovietinė mūsų senelių ir tėvų bei mūsų pačių praeitis viešajame diskurse arba ignoruojama, vengiama prisiminti, arba tampa ideologinių klišių rinkiniu politikų rankose, tačiau asmeninių preferencijų lygiu, priešingai, ji gali kelti stiprią, nors ir užslėptą nostalgiją. Tai, kad to laikotarpio reiškinių ir objektų pripažinimo paveldu klausimas tik pradėtas analitiškai svarstyti, rodo vis dar gajų istorinės sąmonės jautrumą patirtoms istorinėms traumoms, ir tai neleidžia užmegzti dialogo su skaudžia ir sudėtinga praeitimi, geriau ją pažinti. Straipsnyje analizuojama nepriklausomos Lietuvos gyventojų kolektyvinėje atmintyje vykusi požiūrių į sovietinę epochą kaita. Bandoma išryškinti svarbiausius jos bruožus bei charakteristikas, ypač kreipiant dėmesį į kultūrinės (viešosios) atminties formų ir reprezentacijų pokyčius, taip pat svarstomos sovietinės epochos prisiminimų ir paveldo panaudos galimybės formuojant naująjį tapatumą. Išskiriami trys svarbiausi sovietmečio atminties matmenys - trauminis, kontroversiškas ir kasdienybės.Reikšminiai žodžiai: Sovietmetis; Kultūrinė atmintis; Nostalgija; Kultūros paveldas; Tapatumas; Collective memory; Identity; Cultural heritage; Nostalgy; Soviet period; Sovietinė Lietuva; Soviet Lithuania; Cultural memory.

ENAs we know, the feeling of belonging to the same society determines how the common past is remembered (or forgotten). As with ‘cultural heritage', a few mandatory, quite controversial things, i. e. continuation and at the same time interruption and distance, are needed in order to understand the phenomena of ‘collective memory'. Aside from context, heritage, and tradition, memory is usually associated with something close, intimate, and everyday. For example, the heritage boom in Western Europe has been caused by changes in how heritage itself is understood. This primarily appeared after it began to relate to the heritage of the elder generation, i.e. that of the parents and grandparents. Hence, a question arises: how will the ‘our parents' heritage' appear to post-Communist Lithuanian society? The answer is obvious but not comforting: the Soviet era. However, in order to find and evaluate everyday objects or phenomena, there is another mandatory requirement - it should have some kind of tangible chronological and psychological distance. That distance remains problematic when talking about the Soviet era. What mental shifts can be observed in recollecting the Soviet era? What ways of treating the Soviet memory and heritage would permit future generations to understand this contradictory era? What should be considered ‘familiar' and what ‘foreign' in the consciousness of the Soviet era? Actually, the relationships that we associate with the Soviet era are especially complicated. We seldom identify them as distinctly foreign, dreadful (especially the Stalinist period), or even mysterious.Let us take the example of the doublethink phenomenon of Soviet's consciousness, i.e. the frequent discrepancy of that time among thoughts, words, and actions. On the other hand, it also seems like part of us and familiar. We still live in a cultural environment that was mostly formed during the Soviet era. We feel nostalgia for our own past, which the market used gingerly in the beginning but is now using more and more intensely, for example, ‘Soviet' meat products or other well-known brand names from the past. The changes in collective memory are, in turn, also felt by those figures from the past who, after the restoration of independence, were unambiguously judged by society to have consciously and intensely collaborated with the former regime and therefore had to temporarily withdraw to the periphery of the public space or strove to rewrite their official biographies, but today they are beginning to ever more boldly reinterpret the Soviet era in a more favourable light to themselves when they write and publish their memoirs. In short, the memory and heritage of the Soviet era is a strange mixture of traditions and continuation, rejections and interruptions. That is what the mass culture is playing around with. This paper considers the collective memory and tangible heritage of the Soviet period in contemporary Lithuania. Through consideration of several case studies, the article examines the strategies that different social groups have adopted to negotiate and accommodate such a contradictory heritage. [From the publication]