Žemaitiškosios tapatybės ženklai: tarmė ir charakterio stereotipai

LTŽemaitiškumą derėtų suprasti ne kaip etninę (prilygstančią lietuviškumui) kategorija, o kaip regioninės (lokaliosios) kultūros lygmenyje pasireiškiantį tapatumą - savęs išskyrimą iš kitų lietuvių ir bendrų bruožų su savąja regionine bendruomene suvokimą. Aišku, kad kultūrinė tapatybė ir etninė savimonė yra bene pačios giminingiausios sąvokos, vis dėlto jos nėra tapačios ar sinoniminės. Nors Lietuvoje vyrauja etninė-prigimtinė lietuvių tapatybės samprata, bet tarp etnologų vyrauja įsitikinimas, kad, į šį klausimą žvelgiant etnokultūriniu požiūriu, tapatybės gali būti įvairios. Pastaruosiusdu dešimtmečius regioninės tapatybės bei lokalinių bendruomenių studijoms didelį dėmesį skyrė ir užsienio šalių autoriai, savo darbuose pripažindami, kad regioniniai identitetai Postmoderniosiose visuomenėse atgyja įvairiausiomis formomis, reiškiasi pretenzingai ir reikalavimai juos įteisinti įgyja politinės veiklos atspalvių. Kaltinimai valstybės centralizavimu, reikalavimas pripažinti ir suteikti teisių tapatumų įvairovei atvedė prie diskurso apie "vidinį kolonializmą", "kultūrinį genocidą" ir "istorinio ištaisymo būtinybę". Regioninės tapatybės problemų tyrėjų nuomone, kartu su globalizacijos procesu, vadinamuoju globalios valdžios susiformavimu, lygiagrečiai atsiranda vietinės institucijos, atstovaujančios "dialektinio visuomenės modelio interesams". Toks fenomenas netgi įvardijamas terminu "glokalizacija". [...]. [Iš teksto, p. 159]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Žemaičių tapatybė; Žemaičiai; Žemaičių charakterio stereotipai; Stereotipai; Samogitian identity; Samogitian dialect; Samogitian character stereotypes; Stereotypes.

ENOn the grounds of fieldwork results, the author strives to generalize in ethnological terms the verbal expressions of Samogitian singularity and differences from other Lithuanians, manifested in chief qualifications of Samogitian identity, which carry special value for Samogitians: namely, the dialect and the real or imaginary features of Samogitian character. The basis of the research material consists of the survey carried out in 2001-2004 among the Samogitian inhabitants by the author and his assistants. In total, 611 individuals of both sexes, different age groups and various professions were interviewed in Akmenė, Kelmė, Klaipėda, Kretinga, Plungė, Raseiniai, Skuodas, Šilalė, Tauragė districts and the western part of Šiauliai district. Data recorded by other researchers (ethnologists, linguists, and folklorists) and relevant to the topic in question, was used as well. The Samogitian identity is viewed in this study not as an ethnic category (equal to the Lithuanian identity), but as an identity manifested on the level of regional (local) culture: i. e. as self-detachment from other Lithuanians and perception of the qualities common to ones own regional community. As revealed by the analysis of responses given by the Samogitians questioned according to the prearranged questionnaire, the majority of Samogitians maintain that essence of the Samogitian qualities is hidden in the peculiarities of dialect and in the features of their character. The Lithuanian inhabitants that perceive themselves as Samogitians primarily define such affiliation by differences in speech, i. e. the capacity of speaking the Samogitian dialect. Respecting this dialect is an inherent condition of such self-identification. The absolute majority of individuals identifying themselves as Samogitians maintain the Samogitian identity to be unmistakable provided the person in question not only can, but willingly does speak his/her native dialect (including on public occasions).The Samogitian speech as the essential mark of identity is highlighted not only by the local inhabitants of the Samogitian region, taking part in the interviews, but also by the Samogitians living outside its borders. Such self-perception is illustrated by numerous similar verbal expressions. Individuals having rejected some features of the dialect, partly forgotten the Samogitian lexis and using certain mixture of Samogitian and the literary Lithuanian, are still regarded as Samogitians, although not as absolutely genuine ones. The individual self-consciousness and place of birth or residence play significantly inferior role in perception of the Samogitian identity. A person declaring his/her Samogitian self-identification, but incapable of speaking the dialect, would not be regarded as Samogitian by the absolute majority of Samogitians. Only very small minority of the local inhabitants of Samogitia is inclined to relate belonging to the Samogitian community primarily with the fact of being born or living in this region. In terms of Samogitians themselves, no ethnographic peculiarities like traditional food, clothing, architecture, ways of farming or even customs may be regarded as special signs of the contemporary Samogitian identity. The existing system of regional stereotypes as expressions of world-view of the regional communities can be regarded as a vivid component of the local sub-cultures. Members of these communities use stereotypes primarily to elucidate the group self-identification. This is conformed not only by phrases, sayings or proverbs used by the locals to characterize a "different" Lithuanian, but also by the circulated samples of small folklore genres, chiefly, by the anecdotes.Not only Samogitians, but also other Lithuanians are inclined to consider certain behavior patterns and traits of individual character, allegedly typical to the whole Samogitian community, to be inherent part of the Samogitian identity. Persistence in striving to achieve one's aim, stubbornness, slow manner of thinking and acting are recognized as chief qualities of the Samogitian character. Along with these stereotypes, the image of Samogitian as a hard-working, patriotic, yet not particularly sophisticated individual is somewhat less prominent in both the mentality of representatives of other Lithuanian regions and of the Samogitians themselves. Radical, especially negative, images of Samogitians are very rare among Lithuanians. According to some Samogitians, their identity has been more or less violated in the course of the last century. Therefore certain ideas promoting broader public usage of Samogitian dialect, raised by some leaders of the Samogitian cultural movement, tend to be supported by a considerable part of the Samogitian society. Some Samogitians regard the image of themselves presented by the entrenched stereotypes as somewhat distorted, and argue for correction of the public Samogitian image. [From the publication]