XIX a. Lietuvos pasakojimo likimas po 1990 m.: tarp funkcionalumo ir inercijos

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Vidurio Rytų Europa; Tautiniai naratyvai; Nacionalinės istorijos; Tarpdisciplininiai tyrimai; Central Eastern Europe; National Narratives; National Histories; Interdisciplinary Researches.

ENThe dominant contemporary narrative of Lithuanian history is strongly related to the 19th century. The reasons of this situation can easily be explained. First, the present day Lithuanian nation and its historical self-awareness is a product of this controversial age which “happily ended” with the restauration of the state. The historical situation conditioned that the most important forms of the new Lithuanianism appeared under the Russian rule i.e., under oppressive conditions rather than during the revival of the nation. The new Lithuanian nation, which in Czesław Miłosz’s words during the 19th century transformed from the political civilization participant (the Grand Duchy of Lithuania) destroyed by Russia, Prussia and Austria into a “product of philology” (i.e., from the ethnopolitical into ethnolinguistic community), had to start the historical narrative anew. This study attempts to find out the changing directions of Lithuanian representation during the 19th century, the major arguments and attitudes by focusing on the issues of clearly understandable functionality (or more obscure dysfunctionality of the national narrative). Ways to find acceptable answers to these questions are rather speculative yet unavoidable in situations when instead of limiting analysis to the existing images it is necessary to explain why contrary to the expectations something is missing in our historical imagination. First, the changes of the narrative of the Lithuanian freedom and independent state after 1990 are analyzed aiming to find out what narrative of the past was required by the desirable visions of the future and how the passion for the new freedom influenced the reflection of the past. During the 20th century, Lithuanians repeatedly lost their freedom and repeatedly restored their statehood. Therefore, even three national holidays are associated with the beginnings of statehood.By undertaking the analysis of contemporary representations of the 19th century Lithuania (seen as the époque of fall, captivity and liberation) it is necessary to have in mind that the changes in representations might have been influenced not only by a quarter of a century elapsed from the new Lithuanian freedom and restoration of independent state (after 1990) or by the present day political difficulties. During this time, the great 19th century finally crossed the limits of the cognitive memory commonly associated with 3-4 generations. It distanced so much that remained exclusively in the realm of cultural and written memory. After 1990, the representation of the 19th century has been changing and new confronting directions of interpretation appeared. It is likely that the skills and happenings of the past which rescued Lithuanians in the conditions of fall and subjugation do not function or suit when it is necessary to create a state and community based on the civil identity. The commemoration of the millennium of Lithuania and the history of the old GDL better suited the new needs at least at the meta-narrative level and have been much more strongly represented. Attention to the 19th century diminished whereas more signs of thought inertia emerged. What is acquired by the nation during the long decades of oppression is not always suitable for the construction of the new state and the nurturing of political nation. The renewed narrative of freedom is certainly functional in the context of the present challenges as well as the rechristianization of the Lithuanian history of the 19th century. The atheist indoctrination of the soviet times distorted the Lithuanian narrative even more than the Marxist internationalization. Thus Valančius’s apotheosis reached higher heights than the narrative cherished by the nationalists of the February 16th.25 years of freedom have shown that the national consciousness traumatized by captivity and occupations inevitably begins to excessively fetishize the statehood and state. An individual, individual’s privacy, quality of democracy, moral principles and law seem to be downgraded or at least underexplored. There is an evident lack of attempt to interweave these matters related with the historical heritage into the fabric of memory. Under these circumstances, even the question of what is more important, statehood or human rights, evoke if not an outrage, at least public annoyance. Thus besides the two fateful and functional directions of the national narrative, the study also seeks to analyze why the representation of capitalism, individualism and free civil society was not renewed. The declaration of the values of neo-capitalism and liberal democracy in the political reality did not affect the national narrative. This can be treated as a certain dysfunctionality between the current expectations and past narratives. The changes of national narrative after 1990 revived an old debate. However, the distancing past and the process of national identity formation which ended before the Second World War have made the discussions more complex and involving more contradictory issues which were underexplored in earlier times and which should successfully develop in the positive climate of the European Union. [From the publication]