| Abstract [eng] |
A glance at the personalities ofthe Soviet epoch enables a better understanding of this period as a unique socio-cultural and socio-political epoch and allows to fundarnentally con tribute to the on-going debates regarding resistance, conformance and collaboration while introducing a new empirical view into these debates. The analysis of an individual's situation under the circumstances of occupation enables a dialogue between the confronting schools of totalitarianism and revisionism, and at the same time it often helps to solve empirical problems and allows to replace ad hoc evaluative interpretations with reasoned opinions. The concept of personality used in this article is in qualitative opposition towards homo sovieticus. The 'strategy of a personal/professional success' which also includes its antithesis, failure, is of utmost importance here. The point of discussion here is not only a personal ability to actively participate in the then public space and the formal discourse, but also the capability to demonstrate a specific opposition 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 polities' (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 Mareinkevičius). 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 seeond period certain people who were not engaged in the historical research, except Jurginis, appeared in the field of historical polities. 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 'sacrifiee 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 aetivity 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 oftwo diametrically opposing ideologies made the postulates of Lithuanian nationalisrn 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. |
