Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12259/54423
Type of publication: Straipsnis kitose duomenų bazėse / Article in other databases (S4)
Field of Science: Politikos mokslai / Politic sciences (S002)
Author(s): Statkevičius, Tomas
Title: Atminties politika Baltijos šalyse : dvi probleminės sritys
Other Title: Politics of memory in the Baltic states : two fields of analysis
Is part of: Politikos mokslų almanachas [elektroninis išteklius]. Kaunas : Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, 13 (2013)
Extent: p. 137-158
Date: 2013
Note: e-ISSN 2335-7185
Keywords: Baltijos valstybės;Atminties politika;Postkomunizmas;Tautiniai naratyvai;Baltic states;Politics of memory;Post-communism;National narratives
Abstract: Kolektyvinė atmintis yra būtinas kiekvienos šiuolaikinės politinės bendruomenės požymis. Lietuvoje, ypač Latvijoje ir Estijoje, nesiliaujantys „atminties karai“ sąlygoja augančią atminties ir istorijos politikos supratimo svarbą. Politinio elito konsolidacijos trajektorijos (pirmaisiais pokomunistinės transformacijos metais) ir istorinės sąmonės tradicijos tapo pagrindiniais veiksniais, nubrėžiančiais atminties politikos gaires trijose Baltijos valstybėse. Straipsnyje mėginama palyginti ir apibendrinti Baltijos valstybių atminties politikos raidos tendencijas, išskaidant jas į dvi viena kitą papildančias problemines sritis – sovietmečio patirties aktualizaciją ir tautinio naratyvo patiriamą įtampą istorijos liberalizacijos procese
Collective memory is a necessary attribute to every modern political community. In recent years, never-ceasing “wars of memory” in Lithuania and especially in Latvia and Estonia determine the importance of understanding the policy of history and memory. The trajectories of consolidation of political elite at the beginning of transformation period and traditions of historical consciousness became the fundamental factors which underlie the guidelines of the policy of memory in the three Baltic States. In this article the tendencies of politics of memory in the Baltic States are compared and generalized. By doing this those tendencies are distinguished into two different, although partly complementary spheres: the actualization of soviet memory and the tensions of national narrative that are caused by the processes of “liberalization” of history. Politics of memory are much more liberalized in Lithuania than in Latvia and Estonia. Part of the reason is the successful transformation of former communist party which reinforced the discourse of rehabilitation of soviet memory as stable, industrializing and modernizing period in Lithuania’s history. The “liberalization” could also be felt in terms of deconstruction of national narrative. The most important role is appointed for Grand Duchy of Lithuania as tolerant and legalistic state and the rejection of searching of ethnic attributes of Duchy. In Latvia and Estonia the assertive rejection to partly rehabilitate the Soviet memory still dominates. This was influenced by the absence of sound ex-communist party and tradition of political elite to seclude the parties of Russian minority from ruling coalitions. Soviet history is depicted as an enslavement of titular nations and this depiction consistently supplements the traditional national narrative
Internet: https://doi.org/10.7220/2335-7185.13.6
http://vddb.library.lt/obj/LT-eLABa-0001:J.04~2013~ISSN_2029-0225.V_13.PG_137-158
https://doi.org/10.7220/2335-7185.13.6
Affiliation(s): Politikos mokslų ir diplomatijos fakultetas
Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas
Appears in Collections:Universiteto mokslo publikacijos / University Research Publications

Files in This Item:
marc.xml9.34 kBXMLView/Open

MARC21 XML metadata

Show full item record

Page view(s)

106
checked on Sep 5, 2019

Download(s)

6
checked on Sep 5, 2019

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.