Santykio su praeitimi bruožai Klaipėdos mieste XX-XXI a. sandūroje

LTStraipsnyje, taikant viešosios atminimo kultūros tyrimo metodologiją, gilinamasi į santykio su praeitimi linkmes ir pokyčius Klaipėdoje XX–XXI a. sandūroje. Apibūdinama palaipsnio Klaipėdos lituanizavimo ir mentalinio pasisavinimo raida XX amžiuje; paskutinis XX a. dešimtmetis pristatomas kaip Klaipėdos lituanizavimo kulminacinė ir baigtinė stadija. Išskiriamos kelios grupės, siekusios viešai fiksuoti savo grupinius atsiminimus, apžvelgiamos jų realizuotos atminimo praktikos. Svarstoma, kokie „vokiškosios“ Klaipėdos praeities elementai ir kodėl buvo įvesdinti į viešąją atminimo kultūrą. Apibūdinamos dabartinės kraštotyrinio praeities pažinimo, profesionalios istoriografijos ir viešosios atminimo kultūros tendencijos. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Atminimo kultūra; Atminimo kultūra, kolektyvinė atmintis, Klaipėda, lituanizavimas, mentalinis miesto pasisavinimas; Klaipėda; Kolektyvinė atmintis; Lituanizavimas; Collective memory; Culture of remembrance, collective memory, Klaipeda, Lithuaniztoon, mental appropriation; Klaipėda; Lithuanization; Remembrance culture.

ENThe author of the article, applying the research methodology of public remembrance culture, goes deep into the orientations and changes of the relationship with the past in Klaipėda at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries. In order to characterize the development of Klaipėda’s mental appropriation in the 20th century, the last decade of this century is viewed as the final and culminating stage in the city’s Lithuanianization. Three factors were important for Klaipėda’s mental appropriation: 1) the content and direction of public communication, authorized by the regime; 2) favourable social medium in Klaipėda, in which the specific meanings that maintained this content could actively circulate; 3) the influence of this social medium on local communication. These three factors merged together in the late 1960s–early 1970s, and Klaipėda’s "Lithuanian" past established itself in the city’s public communication, reaching the culmination in the last decade of the 20th century. During 1988–1991, the function of date legitimating subordination of Klaipėda region to Lithuania was reinstated to January 15, 1923; the so-called "Act of Tilsit" became relevant as additional basis of legitimacy. […] Lithuanization of the understanding of the public past was initiated by certain associations, formed in Brezhnev era, and the members of these associations were ethnographers, intellectuals, and some part of the city administration nomenclature. These associations, members of which still hold important positions in the city, strongly affected the culture of public remembrance at the end of the 20th–the beginning of the 21st centuries.The fact that the identity ideology of these associations is based on the inter-war national way of thinking, on the one hand, and that in the professional Klaipėda’s historiography denationalization tendencies became obvious at the beginning of the last decade, on the other hand, very clearly distinguishes different conceptions, concerning Klaipėda’s past, by ethnographers and professional historians and provokes their conflict. While the "Lithuanian" conception of Klaipėda’s past dominates, it seems that interests of this structure of associations to let in the "German" past of the city are still to a large extent utilitarian. […] However, most commemorative symbols, described in the article and embodying these memories, do not play an active part in the culture of remembrance. None of memorial symbols, emerged after the declaration of Lithuania‘s independence, is geared to the rituals and ceremonies. Commemorative rites are almost exclusively connected only with those memorial symbols which were associated with such rites in the inter-war or post-war periods (this can be explained as the impact of tradition). Such a phenomenon could witness that the majority of groups (the offspring of the Prussian Lithuanians are the only exception) which install new memorial symbols have no identity ideology that would lead (through political instrumentalization) to the new forms of social consolidation or would be used to shape new valuable orientations. On the other hand, as facilities of public communication develop, this phenomenon could witness that the needs of the same political instrumentalization, based on nationalistic ideas, lose their relevance. [From the publication]