| Abstract [eng] |
This thesis, “Occupied or colonised? Looking for signs of Lithuania's postcolonial condition”, aims to answer the following question – how do signs of the country’s postcolonial condition manifest through collective memory discourses? In order to find an answer, two case studies are used – the places of memory dedicated to Petras Cvirka, and Jonas Noreika and Kazys Škirpa. By employing Critical Discourse Analysis in the media, the goal of this thesis is to look for signs of Lithuania’s postcolonial condition that lie at the core of ontological insecurity, which stems from traumatic Soviet and Holocaust heritage and results in clashes over collective memory. The aim is to show: a) how the postcolonialism manifests itself in public discourse via the media; b) the postcolonial lens being a valid tool in analysing issues surrounding ontological security, as well as collective memory and trauma. The relevance of this thesis stems from the fact that only in the past decade did the postcolonial lens begin to expand to include the post-Soviet space. A crucial factor on why it has been missing is external (Western monopoly of the postcolonial critique), but also internal (the difficulty of internalising colonialism in Lithuania itself). So far, only few authors in Lithuania have used the theory in the local context, while also employing only limited methodological tools (mainly by looking at literature). This is where this work hopes to push forward the discourse surrounding postcolonialism in Lithuania. The key pillars that serve as reference points to look for signsof postcolonialism in the discourse are based on definitions established by David Chioni Moore et al, which lay out the parameters for postcoloniality in the post-Soviet space. These include the desire for a mythic set of heroes, mimicry (either the fear of repeating the behaviour of the Soviets, or resulting in the “desire to replace one homogenising view of the world with another” (Salumets)), tensions between the desire for autonomy and a history of dependence, the myth of silent or passive resistance, and invocations of disease, body, and violence to describe non-physical processes (such as memory). These manifestations of postcolonialism have prevented the country from processing and dealing with traumatic history, leading to ontological insecurity, as any moves to challenge the postcolonial effects on Lithuania’s collective memory are seen as destructive to the society’s image of ‘self’, leading to “actors acting out” (Subotić). This ‘acting out’ results in subsequent street protests and discursive clashes in the media. This contentious past then affects both societal cohesion and politics domestically, but also impacts Lithuania’s international relations. Adding the postcolonial lens that may help understand the roots of ontological anxieties. Understanding them can thus lead to a better response – either by internalising or defusing them, or using other means that are beyond the scope of this paper. According to Mälksoo, “as ontological anxiety is, to an extent, quite simply inevitable, it would be wiser to acknowledge and come to terms with it, instead of entertaining a pipe dream of a perfectly ´securable´ identity and its beholder´s historical memory.” An interdisciplinary approach combining research into collective memory and trauma, ontological security, and postcolonialism could lead to a more fruitful discussion on how to deal with contentious past, potentially moving beyond the current dichotomies of ‘good versus bad’ collaboration, keeping/destroying monuments, enabling/avoiding discussions, resisting/internalising different narratives, etc. This could be just one of many examples for a potential path forward that may become the focus of further studies. |
