| Abstract [eng] |
The object of this thesis is the construction of collective trauma using verbal or textual means during the Rebirth (Atgimimas) period (between 1987 to 1991). The changes of discourse in the late Soviet period provided an opportunity for local public figures to raise topics concerning traumatic experiences of the Lithuanian people. The forced collectivization of agriculture, mass deportations and the repression of the anti-Soviet resistance were three major discourses that appeared during this period. Although they played a vital role in criticizing the Soviet system, they were represented by different groups and had a different effect on the society. Combining critical discourse analysis with the theory of cultural trauma (Alexander), this paper analyzes how members of a collective feel and react towards horrendous events in the past that leaves certain marks upon their group consciousness and how these memories change and modify collective identity. Alexander’s theory focuses on two major aspects: carrier groups, which play a vital role in communicating a painful collective experience, and the reception of the trauma narrative in a given society. Empirical data was gathered mostly from major newspapers and journals (“Literatūra ir menas”, “Pergalė”, “Kultūros barai” and others), public speeches and various texts that were published during the Rebirth period. The gathered data shows that the collectivization of agriculture was the first traumatic experience to occur in the public discourse and it was strongly represented by the writers guild. Mass deportations followed but unlike the collectivization discourse, it did not have a specific group that would publicly represent and therefore was more universal. The repression of the anti-Soviet resistance was not widely discussed and worked rather as a supplement for the deportation discourse. On the other hand, the data and historical events indicate that everything changed after the restoration of Independence of Lithuania when the mass deportations and the anti-Soviet resistance became part of the new collective memory in the new political regime. This partly contradicts J. Alexander’s theory about the successful consolidation of the collective trauma experience in the memory regime. Therefore, the experience of Sąjūdis in Lithuania shows that the main determinant of what events become remembered as ‘traumatic’ is the political success of the carriers or the iconicity of the event and the prominence of certain individual ‘martyrs’ or the political expediency of advancing that particular event in view of the conjuncture of political forces, etc. On the whole, it is possible to assert that J. Alexander’s cultural trauma theory is applicable to the Lithuanian context. Although new research on the social and political processes that took place during the Rebirth period is on the rise, the first decade of independence is still under-researched. The existence of such a systematic political analysis would make it possible to explain the development of identity and the institutionalization of memory after the 1990s. One of the main aims of this work was to try to link the collective traumatic narratives of the Rebirth with their institutionalization after the 1990s. An additional study of the press during the period after the declaration of independence would not only complement this study, but at the same time contribute to a better understanding of the integration of traumatic experiences into the public memory field. |
