Twentieth-Century History

Soviet history becomes a multiple resource for recognizing or defining the contemporary threats to Lithuania as well as leading to specific strategies. All this combines (1) the successful experience in the demolition of the Soviet system; (2) the perception of an ongoing Cold War; and (3) the escalation of a sense of blame for the Soviet period. By applying discourse analysis, this article reveals some dominating post-Soviet trajectories of those Soviet Lithuanians working in the field of culture who participated in the national revival. The analysis shows how a few key analytical categories (totalitarianism, ethnicity) are practically exploited in these trajectories and how they influence the growing usage of the politics of history in the Lithuanian public sphere.
Ethnic mobilization activities engaged in during Soviet times by some intelligentsia members
became favorable criteria for engaging in the national revival movement at the end of the 80s.
Capital conversion, being the face of changes or even being the moral authority (for example,
Justinas Marcinkevičius or Vytautas Landsbergis) apparently legitimized their authority and
the cultural leaders‘ exclusive right to articulate the foundations of a new system or to openly
criticize the weakening Soviet system. The national question for a time overlapped with the
ideas of a free market and liberalism. Today we observe the process of trying to move away from
the dominance of the liberal path, calling it the wrong trajectory on which to proceed in the
post-Soviet period (“we fought for different Lithuania”). This re-positioning includes a wide
range of Soviet intelligentsia members who were also part of Sąjudis. This new position shares a
critical approach towards Western influence. Their rhetoric evokes parallels with the past (e.g.,
the old empire has been replaced by a new empire; a new center is aspiring to greater power, etc.). Their cultural-social capital provides them with the legitimacy to articulate emerging
political threats and gives them an opportunity to become saviors again and to use their know
how of the 80s in a new situation.However, these cultural leaders not only pose challenges but also face them. A neoconservative line actively emphasizes the responsibilities of cultural leaders who once served the Soviet system and demands that this fact be appropriately evaluated in contemporary society. This line
uses ‘totalitarianism’ as a practical category, aiming ro reveal the ‘evil empire’ and calling for a
preventive strategy against current Russian imperialist designs. It also sees the “self-centered”
trajectories of former Soviet cultural elites as inadequate in the context of geopolitical rivalries
and growing tensions between the Russian world and U.S. allies. In this perspective the “ethnicity” category is seen as promoting localism and preventing rapid westernization. The neoconservative line also attempts to correct the development of Lithuanian liberalism by criticising
the latter‘s too strong enagagement on behalf of the right to individual self-expression and too little regard for collective engagement. By working out these influences of two competing lines of post-Soviet intellectual development, the politics of history in Lithuania will carry on at a high level and will further use “Soviet history” and “Soviet experiences” as a resource for political or personal strategies.

Review on two books about US academia and sovietology during Cold war  in Lithuanian historical studies, 19, 2014 .

Michael Kimmage, The Conservative Turn: Lionel Trilling, Whittaker
Chambers, and the Lessons of Anti-Communism, Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2009. 419 p. ISBN 978-0674-032-58-3
David Engerman, Know Your Enemy: The Rise and Fall of America’s Soviet
Experts, Oxford University Press, 2009. 480 p. ISBN 978-0199-832-47-7

Writers, as authors and active participants in the political-cultural system, played important  role  in  expressing  Lithuanian  national  identity  under  conditions  of  the
Soviet period, both legitimising and dismantling the system, being noticeable through involvement in creating Soviet identity not only in the development of Soviet Lithuanian identity, but also inevitably forging a link to the process of formation of the
“Soviet nation” in general.
This monograph is about four generations of Soviet Lithuanian writers, their multifaceted relationship with the system and changes in this relationship, about atmosphere  at the Union of Writers, gradually establishing dominating views and often imposing discipline, also about important shift in culture and circumstances of writers in the 1960s,  which  less  than  twenty  years  later  had  obvious  impact  on  another  breaking
point in the years of Atgimimas.
Lithuanian ethnic particularism in the Soviet period, analysed through activities of writers and scope of their literature, have embodied expressions of national identity
in four stages (transformations), marking relationship between the titular Lithuanian culture and Soviet national policy: 1) legitimisation of the Soviet system and redesigning of the titular culture (along with the nation itself) (Stalinism); 2) recognition of
the titular culture on the union level (late 1950s and 1960s); 3) increase of authentic ethnicity and its related deviations (1970s and 1980s); 4) birth of political nationalism,  which included images and symbols of ethnical particularism, eventually forming a narrative of the “oppressed nation” (late 1980s).
The comparative perspective used in this research demonstrated that Lithuanian
particularism was not favourable towards formation of a type of the Lithuanian individual indifferent to their local space, gravitating towards metropolis or marking diaspora
with an identity of the “imperial Lithuanian” or “imperial Lithuanian author”, and did not reach the intensity of formation not only like that of the “imperial Jew”, but of another titular culture as well – the “imperial Georgian”. In those circumstances it meant forfeiture of some opportunities (which is demonstrated by relatively limited presence of Lithuanian literature on the union level) and separation from particular practices of cultural “assimilation”. However, Soviet universalism, as a factor affecting local cultural
establishment, maintained important positions throughout the entire Soviet period via established Sovietization, dissemination of Soviet standards and constant focus on creation of Soviet society and maintenance of commonality, being continuously present both as a realized threat by cultural workers and as pragmatic opportunity.

Писатели как создатели и активные участники политико-культурной системы
играли важную роль в выражении национального самосознания в условиях советского времени, легитимируя и разрушая систему, тем не менее, эта роль была заметна и при включении в создание советского самосознания: при содействии  не только развитию литовского национального самосознания, но и при неизбежном формировании отношений с самим процессом создания общего «советского народа».
Данная монография описывает четыре поколения литовских советских писателей, их неоднозначные отношения с системой и перемены в этих отношениях, постепенно тверждающее доминирующую точку зрения и часто дисциплини-рующее окружение союза писателей, а также произошедший в 80-х годах важный перелом в сфере культуры и в окружении писателей, который после непол-ных двадцати лет оказал значительное влияние на другой перелом, случившийся  в годы возрождения.

Литовский  этнический  партикуляризм,  анализируемый  через  деятельность
писателей и поле литературы, в советское время воплощал проявление нацио-нального самосознания на протяжении четырех этапов (трансформаций), отме-чающих  отношения  титульной  литовской  культуры  с  советской  национальной политикой: 1) легитимация советской системы и (пере)конструирование титуль-ной культуры (а вместе с ней и нации) (сталинизм); 2) достижение признания титульной  культуры  на  союзном  уровне  (вторая  половина  60-х  и  70-е  годы); 3) рост аутентичного этнического самосознания и связанное с этим процессом увеличение девиаций (отклонений) (80-е – 90-е годы); 4) рождение политичес-кого национализма, в том числе включение в него сформированных в советское
время образов этничности и символы партикуляризма и формирование наррати-ва «угнетаемого народа» (вторая половина 90-х годов).

Writers were among the most publicly recognised intellectuals in the USSR. They actively participated in indoctrination practices that reflected strict mechanisms of control and censorship and provided prestige and authority in society. This article analyses how local writers in Lithuania who were part of the establishment during late socialism developed a multi-faceted relationship with the system. The perspective of different generations reveals the rise of ethnic (local) interests and the disconnection of everyday life from official goals. It also shows that writers who worked in official channels reduced their participation in indoctrination processes and significantly influenced the mobilisation of national identity.

Straipsnyje analizuojamas šiandienės Rusijos vidaus struktūrinių veiksnių ir vidaus veikėjų poveikis nacionalinės ideologijos paieškai ir " ru-siškojo konservatizmo " linijos formavimui, nužymint ir šios ideologijos sąsajas su Rusijos užsienio politika. Pagrindinį dėmesį skiriant Rusijos po-litikai nuo Gruzijos ir Rusijos karo 2008 m. iki 2016 m. yra išryškinama, kaip Vladimiro Putino režimas, atsakydamas į vidaus politikoje kylančias įtampas, susijusias su: 1) Rusijos režimo struktūros specifika, silovikų do-minavimu; 2) etnofederalizmo struktūra ir stiprėjančiu nacionalizmu bei 3) ideologijų konkurencija, vis aktyviau imasi eurazianistinę kryptį transfor-muoti į valstybine doktrina tampantį " rusiškąjį konservatizmą ". Šiai anali-zei yra naudojamos vidaus ir išorės struktūrinių veiksnių poveikio politikai (pvz., Walterio Carlsnaeso konceptai), etnofederalizmo tyrimų bei neforma-lių ryšių teorinės priegos. Straipsnyje tvirtinama, kad Rusijos vidaus struk-tūriniai veiksniai formuoja Rusijos eurazianistinę kryptį kaip dominuojančią politikos doktriną, kuri apibrėžia (riboja) Rusijos užsienio politikos balan-savimą ir padeda paaiškinti jos dinamiką. Parodoma, kaip pastarųjų metų Rusijos agresyvėjanti užsienio politika tampa persmelkta valdžioje neoimpe-rialistų vizijos apie " stiprią, konservatyvią ir alternatyvią Rusiją " , kuri lemia Vilius Ivanauskas – humanitarinių mokslų daktaras, VšĮ " Rytų Europos studijų centras " vyresnysis politikos analitikas (el. paštas: vilius.ivanauskas@gmail.com).

The author of this article analyzes how Soviet national policy and Jewish
culture’s lack of legitimacy impacted the career paths of Jewish writers living in Lithuania and their relationship with the Lithuanian literary field. The article examines the careers of five Jewish writers – Hiršas Ošerovičius, Jokūbas Josadė, Ichokas Meras, Mykolas Sluckis, and Grigorijus Kanovičius – and their different relationships to the Lithuanian literary field. The author applies an interdisciplinary approach, examining these writers’ strategies within the contexts of Soviet ethnic policy and national processes. Building on previous studies, the article opens up a broader perspective on Jewish writers’ options, constraints, and choices both within Lithuania and at the union level.

Monografijoje „Rusijos raidos scenarijai: implikacijos
Lietuvos ir regiono saugumui“ išsamiai atsakoma į esminius
klausimus, susijusius su Lietuvos (ir visų Baltijos
valstybių) saugumu: kaip Rusijos vidaus politika veikia
mūsų šalies užsienio politiką, kokie esminiai išoriniai ir
vidiniai veiksniai lemia Rusijos užsienio ir saugumo politikos
prioritetus, kokiu ideologiniu turiniu grindžiami
Kremliaus veiksmai tarptautinėje erdvėje, kokį vaidmenį
Rusijos saugumo strategijoje Baltijos valstybių atžvilgiu
atlieka hipermilitarizuota Kaliningrado sritis ir glaudžiai
karinėje srityje su Rusija integruota Baltarusija, kokie yra
galimi Rusijos politikos scenarijai Baltijos šalių atžvilgiu.
Monografijos autoriai – Vilius Ivanauskas, Tomas Janeliūnas,
Gražvydas Jasutis, Laurynas Jonavičius, Laurynas
Kasčiūnas, Vytautas Keršanskas, Linas Kojala. Jie – mokslininkai,
politologai, istorikai, šioje knygoje pateikiantys
įvairiausius scenarijus, kuriuose iš visų pusių nagrinėjama
itin aktuali šiomis dienomis tema – Kremliaus režimas ir
V. Putino vykdoma politika. Pagrindinis klausimas – ką
Lietuvai lemia šie scenarijai?

Soviet intellectuals were closely related with indoctrination practices and the legitimisation of the regime. During post-Stalinism Soviet intellectuals experienced the impact of destalinization by opening more room for the dynamic exchange of ideas and expressions. It is important to explore the Soviet peripheries, which were important for the demise of USSR, and to track down similar manifestations in them. This article pays special attention to those controversial situations in Soviet Lithuania and Soviet Georgia, that showed the shift in ideologies, conflicts in cultural establishment and the lines of cleavage that have emerged within the dissident movements. By embracing the Cold war atmosphere in Soviet peripheries, this article analyses the trajectories of two intellectuals - the poet Tomas Venclova and the literary critic Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who came from the families of cultural nomenclatura in Soviet periphery, but who in the 70’s increasingly moved to the position of dissidents and human rights activists. Bearing in mind that Gamsakhurdia adopted an increasingly harsh nationalist rhetoric and Venclova declared cosmopolitan values, though both became well-known dissidents, the analysis provides the context of cultural process and ethnoparticularism in Soviet Lithuania and Soviet Georgia, revealing the similarities and differences in Tomas Venclova’s and Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s relationship with the cultural establishment and dissident movement. In doing so, this article places these cases in the broader context of ethnic particularism during the Cold War.  The comparison of both cases allows us to argue that cosmopolitanism, especially bearing in mind that Soviet Lithuania was more open to various ideas from the West (if compared with Georgia), felt a stronger disciplining effect than a covered nationalist position.