Postsovietinis tranzitas: nuo Sovietų Sąjungos žlugimo iki karo Ukrainoje: atmintis, paveldas, tapatumas buvusioje SSRS
LTHumanitarinių mokslų daktarės, kultūros istorikės Rasos Čepaitienės knyga, skirta komunistinės idėjos (pa)likimo aptarimui postsovietinėse šalyse. Tai daugiaaspektis tarpdisciplinis tyrimas, skirtas požiūrių į sovietinę epochą analizei itin plačiu geografiniu ir tematiniu pjūviais. Jo tikslas – ambicingas ir intelektualinių iššūkių nevengiantis mėginimas panagrinėti, kas gi per pastaruosius trisdešimt metų vyko buvusių sąjunginių SSRS respublikų atminimo kultūrose ir kultūros paveldo politikoje. Knygoje analizuojama, kaip sovietmečiu kurtas simbolinis kraštovaizdis, žlugus jį palaikiusiai sistemai, pamažu virto materialiosiomis ir nematerialiosiomis praėjusios epochos liekanomis. Jos šiandien (per)interpretuojamos, (per)vertinamos, pritaikomos, perdirbamos, komerciškai išnaudojamos, apleidžiamos ar ištrinamos, o dalis jų patenka ir į paveldosaugos ar muziejininkystės akiratį. Knygoje atskleista ir susisteminta daugybė naujos, platesniam skaitytojų ratui nežinomos ar menkiau žinomos informacijos. Gausią medžiagą suvaldyti autorei padeda ir kelionių į postsovietines valstybes patirtis, lankymasis daugelyje knygoje išsamiau aptariamų objektų ir muziejų. Tai padaro šį tyrimą svariu indėliu į postsovietinių studijų bendrai ir sovietinio paveldo Lietuvoje konkrečiai analizę, o aistras dažnai tebekeliančius pavienių epochos reliktų tvarkybos ar pašalinimo klausimus leidžia pamatyti platesnėje lyginamojoje perspektyvoje.
ENThe monograph is dedicated to the analysis of the legacy of the communist idea. It is a study on how the material and immaterial vestiges of these ideas are being (re)interpreted, (re)valued, applied, refined, preserved, abused, abandoned or erased. The memory and both material and immaterial legacy of the Soviet regime, which was able to transform following the death of J. Stalin and remain a stable and powerful participant of the Cold War of a few more decades, are still relatively vivid in the region. The industrial, social and residential infrastructure built at that time remains an integral part of both urban and agrarian landscape of post-socialist and post-Soviet countries, even though they’re being gradually overshadowed by more recent buildings and structures. The urban public sphere, more in some places than others, is marked with remnant signs of ideology and propaganda of the past. Their perception is often determined not only by the current notions of the official state history policy, but also the citizens’ subjective sense of the temporal distance from this controversial epoch, often dependent on their personal experience – positive or negative – of that period, inevitably drawn through the filter of current values, norms and sociopolitical conjunctures.The object of the study: formation and change of the symbolic Soviet landscape following the collapse of the system that created and retained it. The main goal of the study: to conduct an analysis of the original and replaced meaning and function of the symbolic Soviet landscape, and to discern the essential trends of its change in Lithuania and other post-Soviet countries, beginning with the origins of the deconstruction process in 1989, and ending with 2022. This also required in-depth research of the commemorative cultures and history policies of these countries, as well as relevant external and internal sociopolitical factors that determined their local or regional particularity. During the Soviet era, a totalitarian system was created and put in place, which sought to govern and control all spheres of life, and to implacably extend its influence across the world, establishing itself as one of the contemporary geopolitical powers. It formed as a separate and particular type of civilization, creating a special culture, language and way of life, social norms and values, ideological meta-narrative and myths, aesthetics, rituals and ceremonies, signs and symbols. This culture was expressed materially and otherwise through the semantically coherent symbolic landscape it created, which came to define the living spacetime of Soviet citizens. The notional content of this landscape reflected and embodied the ideocratic nature of the system and the symbolic, national and historical policies required for its consolidation, which changed somewhat throughout the decades, depending on both internal and external needs and interests of the regime.The perpetual process of giving sense to these ideas and establishing them within the public sphere controlled by the regime was meant to ensure the stability of the system, as well as form and maintain the collective identity of Soviet citizens. Thus, despite particularities of the local culture, forms of visual culture where being constantly implanted and multiplied across the member and autonomous republics of the USSR, as well as the post-war satellite states in Central and Eastern Europe. Everywhere, this led to similar results – the inevitable typing and standardization of the symbolic landscapes of these countries, which allowed to easily recognize and decipher their essential elements and semantics. The sovietization of the public sphere began immediately after the October Revolution, when V. Lenin initiated the plan for “visual propaganda” in 1918. Initially, the regime attempted to totally reorganize the public sphere and subjugate it to the need for a collective identity and legitimation of the Bolshevik government, while at the same time (albeit not always successfully) eliminating the cultural strata of the earlier epochs. The aesthetic forms of the symbolic Soviet landscape were spread from the “Center”, although local administrative entities, created on an ethnic cultural basis, were allowed to incorporate some particular, national features into it. This was especially noticeable in the socialist realist program, embedded in the Soviet culture approximately since 1932; in the visual arts, the program was directed towards employing the classical forms of the European civilization for the need of the Soviet regime, which begat the so-called “Stalinist architecture”.
