The aim of the article is to discuss the formation of Lithuanian national identity in the interwar period (1918-1940). The article analyzes the changing relationship between ethnic and religious aspects of Lithuanian identity and considers a thesis of change of Lithuanian self-unerstanding from ethnic-confessional to national-civic. Drawing on Smith, the author argues that the interwar years might be understood as a period of transition which delineates the two dimensions of Lithuanian identity neither of which becomes dominant in the period: the ethnic-confessional and the national-civic.
Processes of increasing integration and globalization and their influence on nation-state sovereignty, political subjectivity and citizenship are analyzed in the article. The formation of common European identity is discussed. It emphasizes the loosing role of national factor and its transformation into multiculturalism. The concept of allegiance is particularly useful for understanding the complex and problematic relation between a national citizenship, a nation state, and a transnational or supranational policy. The general hypothesis is that European allegiance does not depend on how people look at European integration. How a public understands the European Community or Union (EC, EU) in a general way is most likely largely inconsequential. The extend to which people are attached to locality, region or country is arguably not directly related to their "European" attachment. Instead, European allegiance must be viewed as originating in national allegiance. National allegiance, in turn, is contingent on national social and economic performance. European integration, therefore, depends on a double allegiance, consisting of a primary allegiance to the nation-state and its political elite and secondary allegiance to the EC or EU. ; Europoje egzistuoja keli identiteto sluoksniai: europinis, Rytų ar Vakarų Europos, Europos Sąjungos (toliau – ES), regioninis, nacionalinis. Stiprėjant integracijos tendencijoms postmodernioje Europoje, kyla naujo kolektyvinio, europinio identiteto klausimas. Kartu didėja sąvokų europietis ir Europos nacionalinės valstybės pilietis sampratos skirtumai, kinta tapatumas su savo šalimi. Europos Sąjungos raidoje reikšmingas yra dviejų lygių identitetas, sudarytas iš pirminio, t. y. tapatumo su savo nacionaline valstybe, ir antrinio, t. y. tapatumo su Europos Sąjunga, kaip platesne nei nacionalinė valstybė, esybe. Europietiškų ir nacionalinių interesų konfliktas gali sukurti vadinamąjį "pasidalinto lojalumo" psichologinį reiškinį. Stiprėjant integracijos procesams postmodernioje Europoje, nacionalinis veiksnys išsilaisvina iš politikos ir besivienijančioje Europoje transformuojasi į multikultūralizmą. Nacionalinių kultūrų įvairovė bei joje pasireiškianti kultūrų vienybė yra Europos turtas bei jos tolesnio klestėjimo pagrindas.
We can distinguish different approaches to European identity in contemporary Lithuanian and European discourses. Western scholars, such as Jacque Derrida, Jürgen Habermas, Gerard Delanty, Soledad Garcia, Cris Shore and others, stress (and question) the political and economic basis of European identity. This approach is revealed in both normative discussions and actual policies of European identity, and is supported by public opinion surveys, which attest to the mostly pragmatic motivation of citizens of the European Union to identify with "Europeans." Traditionally, Lithuanian intellectuals tend to consider "Europeanness" more as a cultural, but not a political or economic phenomenon. This Lithuanian attitude is greatly influenced by the tradition of philosophy of culture, which thrived during the interwar period in Lithuania. The philosophers, among which the most important were Antanas Maceina, Stasys Salkauskis and Vytautas Alantas, created their definitions and visions of nation, state and culture. They shaped a whole framework of nationalist thinking and provided later generations with powerful rhetoric, strongly expressed in the Lithuanian debates in the last decade of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, this traditional approach to Lithuanian identity has been modified during the twentieth century. First, the debates about national identity continued abroad, mostly in the U.S., after the Soviet occupation where a liberal approach to national identity took shape. In the 1980s, the secession from the Soviet bloc facilitated the circulation of Western liberal ideas, developed both by Western scholars and Lithuanian emigrant intellectuals. These ideas, though contested by nationalist approaches, became more and more usual in Lithuanian "identity talk." Additionally, European integration influenced a more pragmatic attitude towards national identification, as well as acknowledgment of its situational character and relativist nature. This shift is well reflected not only in the writings of intellectuals, but also in the public opinion surveys. The cultural grounds of political identity gained a new meaning, yet continued to matter.It would be impossible to provide a thorough analysis of the extensive discussions during the century. Therefore I will concentrate on the debates that took place from the 1980s to the end of the decade. I have chosen this period for several reasons. First, these debates in a way encompass the ideas and problems that were formulated throughout all the previous years. The period is important also, since the entire Lithuanian tradition of both nationalistic thinking and thinking about nation starts being reconsidered, supported or criticized. Yet, paradoxically, the issue of Lithuanian national identity and its relation to other regional identities, and what is most important in my case, to European identity, has not gained proper attention among Lithuanian scholars. Identity studies, though extremely popular in the West, are only at the initial stage in Lithuania. Additionally, studies of the problems related to nationalism, which would stimulate to analyze the relation between national and supra-national identities, are still rare in Lithuanian academic discourse.Speaking about European identity is very complicated, since there is any consensus neither about its content nor functions. Scholars argue about it from very different and often contradictory perspectives. Some of them understand European identity as the factor that strengthens national feelings (Louis Snyder, Jennifer Welsh), others as a real supra-state identity, potential to diminish dangers of nationalisms (Jürgen Habermas, Jacque Derrida). The others see European identity as the utopian aim, created by elites (Cris Shore, Gerard Delanty). While some thinkers call for concrete policies of the promotion of European identity, which consist mostly of ideological revision of history and cultural policies, similar to those of nation states (Simon Mundy), others criticize the policies just because of the ideological dimension and accuse European identity of being manipulative (Antje Wiener, Cris Shore).The arguments try to solve the tension between economic, political and cultural grounds of European identity. All of them see European history as ambivalent, which may both support and undermine European integration. On the one hand, the history of Europe is the history of many nationalisms, of the fight between political and cultural units for the right of self-determination. Obviously, this "history of conflict" hardly could serve as the ideological glue for European integration. On the other hand, the history of Europe is the history of Western civilization that has developed on the basis of Christian religious and antique philosophical traditions, Renaissance's humanism, and Enlightenment's rationality. The aspects of a shared ethical system, rational reasoning and cultural heritage are often employed to create the illusion of inherited, long lasting "cultural" or "ethical" Europe. Many of the EU's programs stimulate this re-invention of a cultural European tradition, in Eric Hobsbawm terms, while emphasizing the presence of a common cultural heritage in all European countries. Nevertheless, many countries may still interpret that "common European heritage" not only as evidence of the mentality "we, Europeans," but also as a reminder of past conflicts, when that cultural tradition was imported or even coercively imposed. In this way a shared "European culture" is biased by the potential for completely different interpretations and may serve to absolutely different political and social goals.Since the beginning, the debates about European identity have been significantly stimulated by actual political and economic reality. European identity has been widely discussed, opposed and promoted during the last decades as related to the issues of the political legitimacy of the European Union. The problem of European identity gradually has become an object of the EU public policies. Discussions about European identity far transcend the boundaries of the Western Europe and are particularly important in Central East Europe. Namely, in this region, which witnessed late modernization, and late creation of modern nation states, Europeanness was a crucial question. Europe has always existed as a notion that reflected different countries in different periods. The "mirror" of Europeannes was one in which features of some nation were seen, or to put it into other words, Europeanness was one of the instruments in the creation of the notion of national identity.The question of Europeanness has been very significant in the understanding of Lithuanian identity. Because modernization entered Central East Europe as an imported phenomenon, most of the countries felt like smaller brothers of the bigger Europeans. Here Europeanness played an important role in the construction of the sense of national pride. To be Lithuanian has never been to be European, to be equal. In the nationalist discourse it was either to be "less than European," or "more than European."It is possible to distinguish two types of "European talk" among Lithuanians. While one "we, Europeans" means "we, non-Russians" and distinguishes Lithuanians as those of higher working morality and tolerance, the second "we, chasing the train of Europe" connotes continuous backwardness and a desperate need to transcend the "own" in order to overtake "them." In this talk we can note that Lithuanians see themselves positively as Europeans only in contrast to "non-Europeans," usually Russians. Meanwhile, Lithuanians do not conceive themselves as full-value Europeans when comparing themselves with Western Europeans. Paradoxically, this allows Lithuanians to think of themselves as "more Europeans," since then such national values as "spirituality" and the legendary history of the "pagan empire" is juxtaposed against rational and pragmatic, even de-spiritualized "Europeans of the EU."This often painful question of what does it mean to be European for a Lithuanian, sometimes tends to diminish the European dimension in general, and some different regional identity, for example, "Baltic" identification, comes to the fore. I will show how biased the question of Baltic identity is. While the future of the Baltic region (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), shaped by a common sad past, is an object of a political skepticism, for the same reason it wins the hearts of people, of which about 80% identify themselves as Balts. Nonetheless, despite abundant manifestations of national victimization, considering the western Other was necessary to define Lithuanian national identity. As David Laitin (2000) puts it, "[t]o an important degree, then, it is the Eastern Europeans who have a stronger interest in a utopian vision of "Europe" as a well-defined (and easily mimicked) culture than culturally secure Europeans who are citizens of the West European states." ; Vakarų Europos akademiniame ir politiniame diskursuose europinio identiteto analizė dažniausiai siejama su ES politinio teisėtumo, nusakančio dalyvavimo demokratijos stygių, problema. Tuo tarpu Lietuvoje europinio identiteto problema dažniau diskutuojama pasitelkiant tautinės identifikacijos problematikos prizmę. Abiem atvejais itin pabrėžiama tautinio identiteto politinės ir kultūrinės reikšmės apmąstymo būtinybė kaip neišvengiama europėjimo ir globalėjimo procesų pasekmė. Pagrindinis dėmesys kreipiamas į paskutiniojo dešimtmečio diskusijas, jas analizuojant tarpukario ir pokario laikotarpiais plėtotų idėjų kontekste. Pirmojoje straipsnio dalyje pateikiama Vakarų Europoje vykstančių diskusijų, politinių programų ir viešosios nuomonės apklausų rezultatų analizė siekia suformuoti konceptualinį ir istorinį pagrindą tolesnei Lietuvos situacijos studijai. Pirmiausia apibrėžiamos pagrindinės sąvokos ir nustatomi kertiniai, problemiški intelektinių diskusijų taškai. Nubrėžus šią konceptualinę koordinačių ašį, pereinama prie viešosios nuomonės apklausų rezultatų analizės. Apklausų rezultatai analizuojami ir lyginami su intelektualų ir politikų įvardintomis aprašomosiomis ir normatyvinėmis vizijomis. Šitaip pamėginsiu patikrinti, kiek diskusijose ginamos identifikacijos versijos sutampa ar skiriasi nuo viešojoje nuomonėje funkcionuojančių sampratų.
The presence of linguistic diversity in Europe in general, and in the European Union in particular, is an important social, cultural, economic and political fact of life, and one which has significant implications both for Europe itself and for many other parts of the world. One of the important issues raised by the European integration is that of languages and in particular how the European Union institutions can cope with language diversity. The article analyses the importance of language diversity in Europe and its impact on individual and national identity. The nature and perspectives of the phenomenon are explored, the integration process in Europe accelerating. Language policy pursued by the European Union is analysed and assessed by institutional, democratic, cultural and legal aspects. It is aimed to draw guidelines for extended European Union language policy. ; Kalbos - svarbus Europos Sąjungos prioritetas. Kalba yra neatsiejama mūsų tapatybės dalis ir tiesioginė kultūros išraiška. Europos Sąjungos kalbų politikos tikslas – skatinti užsienio kalbų mokymą ir mokymąsi ES ir sukurti visų valstybių narių kalboms palankią aplinką. Užsienio kalbų žinios yra vienas iš svarbiausių įgūdžių, kuriuos įgyti turi visi ES piliečiai, siekdami turėti daugiau mokymosi ir įsidarbinimo galimybių besimokančioje Europos visuomenėje. Bendravimas užsienio kalbomis – vienas iš 8 svarbiausių gebėjimų, reikalingų norint gerinti švietimo ir mokymo kokybę bei veiksmingumą. Šiame straipsnyje aptariami Europos kalbų instituciniai, demokratiniai, kultūriniai ir teisiniai aspektai. Išsamiai analizuojami kalbos ir identiteto, kalbos ir nacionalumo sąsajų klausimai, kurie laikomi esminiais, siekiant suprasti šiandieninę Europos kalbų įvairovę. Trumpa Europos Sąjungos valstybių narių nacionalinės kalbų politikos vystymosi apžvalga aiškiai parodo, kad kalbų politikos tema visose Europos valstybėse pasižymi aukštu emociniu lygiu. Į šį faktorių reikia atsižvelgti priimant Europos lygmens sprendimus. Turėtų būti siekiama išvengti vienpusių reforminių pasiūlymų (pvz. šiandieninių Europos Sąjungos valstybinių kalbų skaičiaus sumažinimas). Kalbos turi svarbią reikšmę formuojantis ne tik individo, bet ir nacionalinės valstybės identitetui. Todėl, sumažinus valstybinių kalbų skaičių Europos Sąjungos šalyse, neatitiktų kalbos politikos tendencijos, būtų apribojama piliečių teisė būti renkamiems į Europos Parlamentą, ir paaštrėtų ar kiltų nepasitenkinimas egzistuojančia demokratija, ne visi piliečiai galėtų skaityti jiems galiojančias teisės normas gimtąja kalba. Saugojant valstybines šalių narių kultūras formuojasi kultūrinis Europos identitetas. Todėl straipsnyje ypatingas dėmesys skirtinas Europos Sąjungos šiandieninės kalbų politikos sistemos pagrindimui, akcentuojant savitą Europos Sąjungos charakterį.
The article problematizes the pressing dilemma that the postmodern age is posing to the globalized world in which the nation state is on one side losing its strengths and sovereignty, but on the other side is being strengthened by the unexpected effect of globalization. It is the effect of fighting for one's own identity, with which the national identity of citizens is also becoming stronger. But the other side, which the cosmopolitan standpoint also represents, is trying to open the closed communities of the communitarian type to other horizons, with which the citizens would not have to sacrifice their own identities; they would merely have to admit the inevitability of multi-levelness of identity. The article espouses the thesis that the formation of a cosmopolitan identity, which could be encouraged by a globalized cultural environment of a postmodern age, is not merely a possibility, but a reality, which should also be recognized by political structures. Santrauka Straipsnyje gvildenama dilema, postmoderniosios epochos iškelta globalizuotam pasauliui, kuriame nacionalinė valstybė, viena vertus, praranda savo tvirtumą ir suverenumą, tačiau, kita vertus, yra stiprinama netikėto globalizacijos poveikio. Tai poveikis kovos už savo paties identitetą, su kuriuo stiprėja ir nacionalinis piliečių identitetas. Tačiau kitas aspektas, kurį taip pat reprezentuoja kosmopolitinis požiūris, siekia atverti komunitarinio tipo uždaras visuomenes kitiems horizontams, kuriems piliečiai neprivalėtų aukoti savo pačių identitetų, o tik turėtų pripažinti, kad identiteto daugialypiškumas yra neišvengiamas. Straipsnyje palaikoma tezė, kad kosmopolitinio identiteto formavimas, kuris gali būti palaikomas postmoderniosios epochos globalizuotos kultūrinės aplinkos, nėra vien tik galimybė, bet ir realybė, kurią turi pripažinti politinės struktūros. Reikšminiai žodžiai:komunitarizmas,kosmopolitizmas,kultūra,globalizacija,identitetas,nacionalinė valstybė,postmodernioji epocha First published online: 03 Jan 2014
The article problematizes the pressing dilemma that the postmodern age is posing to the globalized world in which the nation state is on one side losing its strengths and sovereignty, but on the other side is being strengthened by the unexpected effect of globalization. It is the effect of fighting for one's own identity, with which the national identity of citizens is also becoming stronger. But the other side, which the cosmopolitan standpoint also represents, is trying to open the closed communities of the communitarian type to other horizons, with which the citizens would not have to sacrifice their own identities; they would merely have to admit the inevitability of multi-levelness of identity. The article espouses the thesis that the formation of a cosmopolitan identity, which could be encouraged by a globalized cultural environment of a postmodern age, is not merely a possibility, but a reality, which should also be recognized by political structures.
Santrauka
Straipsnyje gvildenama dilema, postmoderniosios epochos iškelta globalizuotam pasauliui, kuriame nacionalinė valstybė, viena vertus, praranda savo tvirtumą ir suverenumą, tačiau, kita vertus, yra stiprinama netikėto globalizacijos poveikio. Tai poveikis kovos už savo paties identitetą, su kuriuo stiprėja ir nacionalinis piliečių identitetas. Tačiau kitas aspektas, kurį taip pat reprezentuoja kosmopolitinis požiūris, siekia atverti komunitarinio tipo uždaras visuomenes kitiems horizontams, kuriems piliečiai neprivalėtų aukoti savo pačių identitetų, o tik turėtų pripažinti, kad identiteto daugialypiškumas yra neišvengiamas. Straipsnyje palaikoma tezė, kad kosmopolitinio identiteto formavimas, kuris gali būti palaikomas postmoderniosios epochos globalizuotos kultūrinės aplinkos, nėra vien tik galimybė, bet ir realybė, kurią turi pripažinti politinės struktūros.
Straipsnyje nagrinėjama problematika yra reikšminga tiriamų medijų auditorijos transformacijos procesų dalis, nes medijų prisotinta aplinka generuoja naujus auditorijos dalyvių elgesio modelius. Keliama problema – šiuolaikiniuose kontekstuose mažėjantis nacionalinio identiteto reikšmingumas, kuris tampa lygiai tokiu pačiu ginčytinu simboliniu kapitalu, kaip ir visos kitos socialinio identiteto rūšys. Ieškoma atsakymų, kokie veiksniai formuoja šiuolaikinio medijų naudotojo tapatybę, kokios vertybės jam yra reikšmingos. Šiuolaikinėje visuomenėje identitetas yra suvokiamas kaip atviras savęs formavimo procesas ir simbolinis projektavimas. Globaliųjų socialinių tinklų plėtra ir tapimas reikšminga šiuolaikinių medijų naudotojų kasdienybės dalimi iliustruoja kintančius nacionalinio identiteto naratyvus šiuolaikinėje visuomenėje.Reikšminiai žodžiai: nacionalinis identitetas, globalizacija, medijų naudotojai, socialiniai tinklai.The forms of national identity in social networksDaiva Siudikienė Summury When investigating the culture of virtuality, one of the main problems is the identity of the contemporary media users and the factors influencing the formation of their identities. In a traditional society, the identity was formatted by the traditional social institutions such as family, church, nation, etc. The nation was defined as a culturally homogenized population living in a defined territory, distinguished by collective cultural identity, common values, traditions, worldview, the same language and history. Today, the individuals live in the environment enriched by the media, and their daily routines are closely related with the practices of media usage. Formation of the identity is now a more personal routine, meanwhile the influence of traditional social institutions and institutional values decreases. In the globalised world the identity as a whole is no more an inherited thing; rather, it is based on the creativity of a person and his choices. Traditionally defined as fundamental, national identity becomes a disputable symbolic capital like the other types of social identity. This new emerging reality forms a multitude of issues. Significant problems are related to the relationship between the supra-national and the sub-national spheres. Is the national indentity still important for the young media users in the era of globalisation, mediatization, and individualization? How the young media users define themselves in the globalised media environment? How the young media users cohere the elements of both local and cosmopolitan culture? What new boundaries develop among social, cultural, and ethnic groupings? The aim of this paper is to discuss the emerging new forms of national identity of the Lithuanian youth as a new media generation. Results of the investigation show that the national identity is under deep consideration among the young media users. It is clear that the national identity should gain more modern forms and be supported by new values in the contemporary dynamic world where the cosmopolitan values correspond to the lifestyles of the young media users much better than do traditional institutional values.
The article problematizes the pressing dilemma that the postmodern age is posing to the globalized world in which the nation state is on one side losing its strengths and sovereignty, but on the other side is being strengthened by the unexpected effect of globalization. It is the effect of fighting for one's own identity, with which the national identity of citizens is also becoming stronger. But the other side, which the cosmopolitan standpoint also represents, is trying to open the closed communities of the communitarian type to other horizons, with which the citizens would not have to sacrifice their own identities; they would merely have to admit the inevitability of multi-levelness of identity. The article espouses the thesis that the formation of a cosmopolitan identity, which could be encouraged by a globalized cultural environment of a postmodern age, is not merely a possibility, but a reality, which should also be recognized by political structures. Nacionalinė valstybė ir kosmopolitinis identitetas postmoderniajame globalizacijos pasaulyje Santrauka.Straipsnyje gvildenama dilema, postmoderniosios epochos iškelta globalizuotam pasauliui, kuriame nacionalinė valstybė, viena vertus, praranda savo tvirtumą ir suverenumą, tačiau, kita vertus, yra stiprinama netikėto globalizacijos poveikio. Tai poveikis kovos už savo paties identitetą, su kuriuo stiprėja ir nacionalinis piliečių identitetas. Tačiau kitas aspektas, kurį taip pat reprezentuoja kosmopolitinis požiūris, siekia atverti komunitarinio tipo uždaras visuomenes kitiems horizontams, kuriems piliečiai neprivalėtų aukoti savo pačių identitetų, o tik turėtų pripažinti, kad identiteto daugialypiškumas yra neišvengiamas. Straipsnyje palaikoma tezė, kad kosmopolitinio identiteto formavimas, kuris gali būti palaikomas postmoderniosios epochos globalizuotos kultūrinės aplinkos, nėra vien tik galimybė, bet ir realybė, kurią turi pripažinti politinės struktūros. Reikšminiai žodžiai:komunitarizmas, kosmopolitizmas, kultūra, globalizacija, identitetas, ...
