Lietuvos jaunimo etnografinis-lokalinis tapatumas XXI a. : geografinės apibrėžtys ir kilmė

Abstract

Straipsnyje, remiantis 2004–2006 m. autorės surinkta medžiaga, siekiama išsiaiškinti jaunimo žinias apie Lietuvos teritorijos suskirstymą į etnografines sritis, nustatyti etnografinius- lokalinius tapatumus bei kriterijus, kuriais remiantis šie tapatumai konstruojami. Apibendrinti respondentų atsakymai rodo, kad jaunimas aiškiai išskiria keturias etnografines sritis – Aukštaitiją, Dzūkiją, Suvalkiją ir Žemaitiją. Klaipėdos kraštą jie dažniausiai linkę priskirti Žemaitijai. Savo etnografinę priklausomybę jaunimas grindžia, kilme, gyvenamąja vieta bei kultūra. Etnografinės tapatybės pasirinkimui, jos tvirtumui didelę įtaką turi gyvenamoji vieta, sėslumas, šeimos etnografinė sudėtis

Youth ethnographic-local identities and the meaning that young people give to an ethnographic dependency is the object of this research. The aim of the study was to find out respondents’ knowledge about dividing Lithuanian territory into ethnographic regions as well as to define motivations of youth self-identification with an ethnographic group. While performing this investigation, the following goals were pursued: to find out the criteria of ethnographic-local identities according to the respondents’ answers, to explore the influence of origin and geographical criteria on the construction of ethnographic identity as well as to analyse the influence of family’s ethnographic composition and location of the youth ethnographic-local selfidentification. The article is based on an investigation performed in 2004–2006, in which first- and second-year students of different specialities of the Vytautas Magnus University took part and filled in 607 questionnaires. From the analysis of data, the following conclusions have been drawn: the youth know four ethnographic regions: Aukštaitija, Dzūkija, Suvalkija and Samogitia. Klaipėda’s territory is usually not singled out as a separate ethnographic district and is considered as part of Samogitia. Noticeable differences are understandable as a result of mixing German and Samogitian cultures. The youth base their ethnographic-local identities on the place of residence and culture. Identities could be grounded on all three or one criteria, and their hierarchic system is distinguished. Youth ethnographic-local identities are influenced by their family composition. Parents’ (grandparents’) identical ethnographic origin helps youth to identify themselves more easily. If there is a clear continuity of a family’s ethnographic origin, it is the most important criterion according to which youth choose their ethnographic identities, and such young people have stronger ethnographic identities.[...]