ASMENYBĖS SOVIETMEČIO LIETUVOS ISTORIJOS POLITIKOS LAUKE: ELGSENOS STRATEGIJOS IR GALIMYBĖS IŠLIKTI1
THE PERSONALITIES IN THE POLITICAL FIELD OF SOVIET LITHUANIAN HISTORY: BEHAVIOURAL STRATEGIES AND CHANCES OF SURVIVAL

Summary/Abstract: towards the rules of thinking and behaviour that were established during the Soviet period (at times consciously and forcefully creating these rules). Several types of personalities may be distinguished within the political field of Lithuanian history of 1944–1956: 1) ‘the demiurge of historical politics’ (Antanas Sniečkus); 2) ‘the authorities of the interwar epoch’ (Konstantinas Jablonskis, Ignas Jonynas, Augustinas Janulaitis); 3) ‘the ideological agents’ (Povilas Pakarklis, Stasys Matulaitis); 4) ‘the outsider of the science of history’ (Justas Paleckis). The new important players within the political field of Lithuanian history of 1956–1990, are: 1) ‘the God Janus’ (Juozas Jurginis); 2) ‘the mathematician who was allowed to act widely’ (Jonas Kubilius); 3) ‘the divine and demonic film director’ (Vytautas Žalakevičius); 4) ‘the poet in the golden cage’ (Justinas Marcinkevičius). While comparing the two chronological periods and the lives of personalities who were active then, the following qualitative shifts may be distinguished: in the first period the ‘strategies of success’ of all personalities (except the case of Sniečkus and partially of Paleckis) turned into failures; in other words, the Soviet system withstood the attempts of certain individuals to ‘test’ its stability. During the second period certain people who were not engaged in the historical research, except Jurginis, appeared in the field of historical politics. Their works in the artistic and academic fields gained not only public recognition, but also became the catalysts of historical consciousness. The behavioural strategies of the personalities who actively participated in the field of historical politics during 1956–1990 underwent radical changes. The direct confrontation was replaced by the ability to conform and to ‘sacrifice the pawns in the name of queen’; simplification, hierarchization and the ability to manipulate (treachery) became the common trait of the personalities who acted in public space. It is important to note that the solution to the tension or conflict between the personality and the repressive system also depended on the third actor – the public’s wish or ability to evaluate the ‘success story’ and the results of activity of a certain personality. The activity of the personality presumably resulted in the symbiosis between the Soviet ideology and Lithuanian nationalism that enabled to preserve some images of the Lithuanian past, who were created in Lithuania during the interwar period. On the other side, such interplay of two diametrically opposing ideologies made the postulates of Lithuanian nationalism serve the Soviet system. The above mentioned insights about the symbiosis between the Soviet ideology and Lithuanian nationalism simply serve as a tentative hypothesis which requires further research.

• Details
• Contents