Minties kolektyvizacija : cenzūra sovietų Lietuvoje

LTKnygos tyrimo objektas nėra vien rutininės tekstų ar vaizdų uždraudimo praktikos, daugiausia atliekamos Glavlito, t. y. cenzūra siaurąją prasme. Cenzūra čia tiriama kaip iš skirtingų, tarpusavyje ne tik bendradarbiavusiųjų, bet neretai konkuravusių ar netgi konfliktavusių ideologinės kontrolės institutų sudarytas mąstymo ir jo viešos raiškos disciplinavimo mechanizmas. Be Glavlito, partinės valdžios ideologinių skyrių ir sovietų slaptosios policijos ideologinės kontržvalgybos padalinių sudėtine šios tarpinstitucinės sistemos dalimi laikomas ir įvairialypis redaktorių korpusas, kurį reprezentavo periodinių leidinių ir leidyklų redakcijos, teatrų, kino, radijo ir televizijos meno ir redakcinės tarybos, kiti panašaus profilio institutai. Ideologinės kontrolės veikimas dažniausiai atskleidžiamas analizuojant cenzūrines situacijas, susiklosčiusias dėl konkrečių asmenų mėginimų peržengti senas ar nustatyti naujas leistinumo ribas. Knygoje narpliojamos jų aplinkybės ir kartais netikėtos atomazgos patvirtina, kad sovietinė cenzūra toli gražu nevisada buvo racionaliai sutvarkytas, sklandžiai vykstantis ir valdomas procesas. Kita vertus, tiriamos ne tik cenzūrinės situacijos ir jose atsidūrusių asmenų elgsenos, bet ir ieškoma jų veiksmus paaiškinti galinčių motyvų. Šia prasme itin daug dėmesio skiriama sovietų Lietuvos kultūros lauko veikėjų (menininkų, mokslininkų, žurnalistų, administratorių) grupinei diferenciacijai, kurią lėmė skirtinga patirtis, išsilavinimas, estetinės ir pasaulėžiūrinės orientacijos, kultūrinio kapitalo dydis.Knygoje taip pat rekonstruojamos kintančios netiesioginio ideologinio reglamentavimo formos, aprėpiančios tokius dalykus kaip vidinis ir viešas kūrinių recenzavimas (kritika), autorių viešinimo laipsnio nustatymas per kūrybines sąjungas, parodų komitetus, kitus žemesnio lygmens institucinius darinius. Nepamirštas ir toks iki šiol mažai tyrinėtas cenzūros veiksnys kaip "liaudies balsas iš apačios", išreikštas aktyvių skaitytojų ir žiūrovų laiškuose, įsiskaudinusių pareigūnų skunduose ir kituose panašaus žanro dokumentuose. [Anotacija knygoje]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Cenzūra; Ideologinė cenzūra; Glavlitas; Sovietizacija; Rėžimas; Kontrolė; Menas; Mokslas; Visuomenė; Censorship; Ideological censorship; Glavlit; Sovietization; Regime; Control; Art; Science; Society.

ENThe book introduces the results of the study the most important aims of which were: to explore the transference and adaptation of the ideological censorship model in the Soviet-annexed Lithuania, reconstructing the general trends of its institutional development before 1990; to identify and discuss the most important areas where the censorship was exercised - the ideological control of artistic creation and presentation, the daily oversight of the media (periodicals, radio and television), the censorship of the humanities and social sciences; to discuss the prevailing strategies of how the participants of the public sphere of the Soviet period related to the ideological censorship. The object of this study encompasses more than just the routine practices of prohibiting texts or views, mostly performed by the Glavlit, i. e., censorship in the narrow sense of the word. Here, censorship is studied as a mechanism for disciplining thinking and its public expressions, consisting of different institutes of ideological control that were not only cooperating, but often also competing or even conflicting with each other. Besides Glavlit, ideology departments of the party government and the ideological counterintelligence subdivisions of the Soviet secret police, this inter-institutional system is perceived to include a varied corpus of editors, as represented by the staff of the periodicals and book publishers, artistic and editorial boards of the theaters, cinemas, radio and television, other institutes of similar profile. The exercising of the ideological control is usually revealed in the analyses of the censorship situations that occur when particular people attempt to cross the old limits of permissibility or establish new ones.The book explores their circumstances and sometimes unexpected outcomes, which confirm that the Soviet censorship was by far not always a rationally organized, smooth and controlled process. The study does not reject the premise that the censorship decisions could have been contradictory, and the ideological control chaotically organized or simulated. On the other hand, the censorship situations and the behavior of persons within them is not simply studied, but also analysed in terms of motives that might explain their actions. In this sense, I paid particularly close attention to the group differentiation of the cultural field agents (artists, scholars, journalists, administrators) in Soviet Lithuania based on varied experience, education, aesthetic and worldview orientation, the amount of cultural capital. The book also reconstructs the shifting forms of indirect ideological regulation, including, for example, insider and public reviews of works (criticism), the level of publicizing authors through artistic unions, exhibition committees and other institutional units of lower levels. So far little research has been focused on "grassroots voice" as a censorship factor, expressed in letters from active readers and viewers, complaints from hurt officials and other documents of similar genre, and this study attempts to fill this gap. The main body of sources of the study are archival and published documents of the institutions that participated in the various steps of the censorship process - the ideological departments of the central and local level apparatuses of the Communist Party of the USSR, the Glavlit of the USSR and of the LSSR, the KGB, the Ministry of Culture, publishing houses and periodicals, and other censorship institute of lower levels.The other body of sources consists of published memoirs and non-structured memoiristic accounts taken down in the form of interviews with persons who either worked in the system of Soviet censorship or encountered it directly. The study revealed that the beginning of the more effective functioning of the censorship in the Soviet Lithuania appears related to the general spurt of sovietization that took place in the annexed territories in 1948-1949. The control of the public space was greatly enhanced in the early 1950s by the repressions against the leaders of publishing houses and by engaging their staff into the system of ideological censorship; by the more systematic removals of the pre-occupation period literature from the major libraries; and by the much greater party apparatus’ attention to the political regulation of the cultural field. One may assert that the essential premise of this shift was the fact that the cadre of the Stalin’s first generation joined the institutions of the ideological sector of the regime. On the other hand, the Stalin’s first generation of the intelligentsia of the Soviet Lithuania was not so numerous, and the distinctions between the various segments of the official cultural field were not so prominent as to prevent the charismatic First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Lithuanian Communist Party (CC of LCP) from effectively managing the situation during the period of the Thaw, when the mechanism of the ideological censorship was temporarily out of order.Unlike in the neighboring Latvia, where the local Glavlit was taken hostage in the battles of the competing factions of the nomenclature, the Lithuanian Glavlit after the brief setback in 1955-1956 humbly returned to its usual modest role, i. e., timely and accurate notification to the leaders of the CC of LCP about intolerable digressions from the limits of the ideological discourse which now was being shaped not only in Moscow but also in Vilnius. The local party apparatus, with the help of Glavlit and the KGB which returned to the field of the ideological censorship in the 1960s, neither relaxed too much nor went too dramatic and thus smartly avoided such crises as erupted in Latvia in the late 50s and 60s. As it focused its full attention on the control of the public space in Vilnius, the party apparatus underestimated the importance of Kaunas (the so-called "temporary capital city" of the interwar independent Lithuania). The several events of various origins that accidentally coincided with one another in the spring of 1972 was a painful lesson that encouraged to ruthlessly put an end to the experiment of the Thaw that went on for much too long in this corner of the empire. However, even the temporarily tougher censorship after the spring of 1972 did not undermine the unwritten contract between the participants of the public space and its controllers. In exchange for the regard to the essential rules of public speaking, the tolerance to the various forms of expression continued to be rather high, and the members of the cultural elite maintained the possibilities to actively participate in creating the contents for the discourse that would match the political interests of the regime. [...]. [Extract, p. 393-395]