| Abstract [eng] |
This thesis examines narratives used in public discussions over the commemoration of twentieth-century Lithuanian historical figures that are concidered controversial. Drawing on theories of collective memory and research on how national heroes are formed, the thesis explores how these narratives are employed to defend existing sites of memory and to support the need to establish new forms of commemoration. The analysis focuses on two groups of figures. The first consists of writers who were elevated during the Soviet period in Lithuania – Salomėja Nėris, Petras Cvirka, and Justinas Marcinkevičius. The second includes figures who are commonly associated with nationalist ideals – Kazys Škirpa and Jonas Noreika, also known as Generolas Vėtra. Drawing on literary scholar Alan Kirby’s typology of national heroes, the thesis treats all five individuals as national heroes, while emphasizing that this status emerged for different reasons, including their perceived contributions to Lithuanian independence, their role in shaping national self-awareness, and their symbolic relevance within the national narrative. The analysis looks at how narratives are used to support the commemoration of these figures, paying particular attention to which narratives are specific to individual cases, which tend to repeat within the same group of heroes, and which are shared across both categories.This comparison helps shed light on why sites of memory associated with controversially evaluated twentieth-century figures remain important in Lithuanian society. Methodologically, the analysis employs Kenneth Burke’s Dramatism within Catherine Kohler Riessman’s narrative analysis framework to examine how meaning is rhetorically produced in public statements about the commemoration of controversial heroes. Burke’s model is based on five elements – act, scene, agent, purpose, and agency – which allow for close attention to how responsibility, motivation, and context are constructed. In this study, Burke’s five-question system is used to trace the underlying messages advanced by commentators and to identify the narrative logic shaping their arguments. The findings demonstrate that despite divergent ideological trajectories and distinct historical narratives surrounding these figures, commemoration support rely on similar argumentative mechanisms. Common narratives emphasize the importance of historical memory, collective responsibility, the recognition of accomplishments, and the complexity of historical circumstances. This suggests that, regardless of ideological orientation, there is a broader tendency within society to justify controversially evaluated heroes in order to safeguard national memory and separating historical contributions from personal mistakes or morally problematic choices. Discussions of commemoration frequently highlight collective involvement and the difficult historical conditions under which individuals were required to make ambiguous decisions. The study encourages discussion on how engaging more closely with the arguments used in discussions about controversial historical figures could contribute to a more multidirectional understanding of collective memory. In this context, disagreements over memory politics may become an opportunity for discussion and the search for common ground, rather than a competition over dominant narratives. |
