| Abstract [eng] |
Soviet WWII Monuments in Vilnius: Competing Discourses Analysis Relationship with the past is an important political, cultural and identity-forming part of every country. Lithuania is trying to define this relationship with the Soviet epoch to this date. Due to different and various reasons, the state of the Soviet heritage in Lithuania, especially Vilnius, has of late become a concern: to some it is a historical and cultural heritage, a symbol of the victory in World War Two, to others -- an expression of Russian might and crimes against humanity, a sign of disrespect for Lithuanian independence. So, considering the unceasing discussion and the volatile culture of memory, this work takes a look at the Soviet monuments dedicated to WW2, those still standing and the ones already removed from public places. The object of research: monuments to Soviet soldiers at the Antakalnis, Nemenčinės and Panerys memorials, sculptures on the Green Bridge and monument to I. Černiachovskis. The variety of discourses and polemics related to historical memory forces one to understand and discuss what these debates and the quantity of their versions tell us about us and our culture of memory, what this interest in Soviet monuments tells us about the audience and its expectations. Taking this into consideration, the principle goal of this work is revealed -- the analysis of the competing historical memory discourses and the disclosure of their versions. The work is based on the studies of municipal anthropology and historical memory: spatial practices (creative, art actions, spontaneous acts and expressions of vandalism) connected to the central monuments and symbolic rituals (official and social commemoration of the Victory Day) connected to peripheral monuments are analysed, relationship between the Soviet monuments and the city public space is examined, problems of representations and interpretations connected to the monuments are explored, analysis of the narrative surrounding the monuments is carried out. The variety of conflicting and competing discourses, their topicality and appearance during certain time periods, prove that different evaluations of the Soviet heritage are at work in those discussion conflicts. It is evident that the society is divided into two groups: one group declares itself "for" the preservation of such heritage as an important part of cultural memory, the other group expresses itself "against" it, punctuating a threat to Lithuanian politics and security raised by those monuments. It is obvious that former Soviet sculptures in the city center experienced regular and active attention, and the monuments to Soviet soldiers at cemeteries found themselves in the centre of attention only during the May 9 commemoration of the Russian Victory. The circulation of discourses proves that the monuments from the Soviet period in the city centre are considered as witnesses of the Lithuanian traumatic experiences and signs of the occupation and Soviet terror, which leads to discussions about their status and values, while the monuments at the cemeteries are appraised not only as a symbolical mark of memory and piety for the perished, but also as part of Russian national identity and communality, so their preservation is not questioned. Analysis of the memory of culture and competing discourses is important to help to weigh the identity change and questions of its assertion in the state. National identity is constructed through the relationship with the Soviet past and Soviet heritage existing in the present. Activity and profusion of discourses prove that the Soviet heritage and its evaluation remains a particularly sensitive topic. |
