Šiuolaikinai dzūkai ir suvalkiečiai

LTReikšminiai žodžiai: Dzūkai; Suvalkiečiai; Tapatybė; Papročiai; Tradicijos; Kultūra; Amatai; Turizmas; Tyrimai; Dzūkija; Suvalkija; Dzūkians; Suvalkians; Identity; Customs; Traditions; Culture; Crafts; Tourism; Research; Dzūkija; Suvalkija; Lithuania.

ENPeculiarities of regional culture in one or another aspect have been discussed by nearly all ethnologists of Lithuania and a number of other researchers of culture and society, which makes it highly difficult to provide a brief historiographic survey on the subject. I would like to analyse just one aspect. What is the difference between a Dzukian and a Suvalkian? The search for an answer requires some discussion of what a Dzukian and a Suvalkian represent. Subjects analyzed in identity studies determine the view on the structure of an identity and aspects of the study. According to Andre Gingrich (2006) in addition to various aspects an identity also comprises 'sameness' (belonging to a group) and exceptionality (from other groups and people), for instance, based on studies of Petras Kalnius (2002) where identity is considered to be multifaceted, the heterostereotypes known in presentday regional groups of Lithuania do not indicate internal antagonism, injustices of the past, unequal positions in economic, political or cultural life of Lithuania. The most typical features of a Lithuanian according to Dalia Senvaityte's (2006) study of Lithuanian students would be diligence, jealousy, selfishness, indifference and miserliness. My data proves that symbols of Lithuanian citizenship existing in various components of the identity are important to Lithuanians. Further research into the regional identity also reveals a broader cultural and social context describing specific features of a person's life and relevant issues of present-day Lithuania. This study will contribute to investigations of shaping and the identity of known features of individual people and 'imagined communities' as well as tendencies of such shaping. The identity of people residing in small towns and villages has been analysed. The aim of this study is to disclose aspects of identity of Dzukians and Suvalkians in the present-day.The questions raised would firstly reveal the basic motives significant to people in describing their identity and, secondly, help to define what distinguishes daily life of individuals. A strategic methodological framework was established for the ethnographic and further research enabling us to complete the above-mentioned tasks. In 2006-2007 in all districts of Dzūkija and Suvalkija ethnographic field enquiry was conducted on the grounds of the methodological program I had developed for that purpose. Its objectives were listed in the questionnaire titled 'Local Communities'. The questionnaire served as a basis for the research. It integrated open and closed questions. A structured interview was substantially supplemented by respondents' accounts which constituted the main part of the ethnographic research. The structured interview was used as a basis for developing maps of the atlas. Such interview was combined with open questions to make the ethnographic text more versatile, disclosing a deeper experience of the local communities and comprising a larger part and more relevant issues of the researched culture. An ethnographic fact is identified as soon as you manage to assemble a scattered thought. We attempted to make an objective ethnographic study. Research into your own culture presents one of the key problems, i.e. to maintain a distance between the researcher and the respondent which is an essential condition in order to document an objective ethnographic text or receive results yielding a deeper insight into the local culture as a separate object and its specific features among other phenomena. People of different education and age were interviewed observing ethical rules. A generalised and synthesised result of the research is provided in maps of the present study.Two thirds of the respondents are closely related to the area where they were bom, where they live, have their family roots and in the dialect of which they speak to each other. Conducting the ethnographic enquiry we interviewed 73 residents of Dzūkija and Suvalkija from 24 localities of the respective areas. The majority of them were middle-aged and elderly women (70%). In Suvalkija we interviewed 22 women and 7 men and in Dzūkija 29 women and 15 men. The land, 'home', language and family tie people to the area they live and describe specific features of their regional identity. The land, language and family as components of the regional dependence were mentioned less often in Dzūkija than in Suvalkija. In Dzūkija the land was mentioned by 23% and in Suvalkija by 38% of the respondents, the language was specified by 5% and 10% respectively whereas the family was identified by 20% of people in Dzūkija and 25% in Suvalkija. A particularly large number of respondents in Dzūkija associate their identity with the 'home' (32%) whereas in Suvalkija only 17% support this position. Residents of individual villages and small towns along the borders and in peripheries do not define motives for their regional dependence. One third of the respondents relate their identity only with the nationality. People in Dzūkija are more closely linked to their 'home' than the 'land'. It might be explained by the fact that the land in Dzūkija is infertile, highly forested and produces lots of forest-related products which often feed people. In Dzūkija the language as a component of the identity is distinguished less than in other regions. In my opinion this indication (which in Aukštaitija constituted 45% and in Dzūkija merely 5%) was affected by the fact that there were 32% of non-Lithuanian respondents in Dzūkija and in Aukštaitija they accounted for 7%. In Suvalkija we did not meet non-Lithuanian respondents. [From the publication