Kilmės įrašas: komunikacija ir kultūrų hibridizacija Lietuvoje

LTMonografijoje nagrinėjama metadiskurso - didžiojo istorinio pasakojimo, kuriuo save įrašo tauta į istoriją, - reikšmė ir globaliame pasaulyje iškylanti būtinybė perskaityti lietuvių sukurtą naratyvą „Aušroje“ (1883) naujai. Tekstu užrašyta kultūrinė tapatybė yra susijusi su bendruomenės kolektyvine atmintimi ir sąmone, mitais, simboliais, žmonių tarpusavio ryšiais: su savimi, kaimynais, kitomis valstybėmis. Keliamas klausimas, kokią reikšmę dabarčiai turi bendros lietuvių ir lenkų istorinės patirties užmarštis? Kultūros semiotika leidžia suprasti konkrečios kultūros pasaulėvaizdį ir kultūrinį kontekstą, o semiotinis tyrimas - tekstą nagrinėti iš vidaus. Retoriškai klausiama, ar toks tekstas, formavęs tapatybės logiką ir savasties būtinybę kolonizavimo metu, neįtvirtino kultūrų hibridizacijos ir neįvardijo kolonijinio subjekto, veikiančio dabartyje, vaidmens? Subjektas (individas, tauta) konstruoja save per skirtumą ir todėl jam reikia kokio nors kito/kitų tam, kad imtų semiotiškai egzistuoti. Knygos skyriuose parodoma, kaip toks tapsmas gali tapti dvilypis, susidūrus su asimiliavimo kaltinimu ir išstūmimo veiksmu. Aptariama ir gretinama keletas tekstų: Motiejaus Strijkovskio „Kronika“ ir Alberto Vijūko-Kojelavičiaus „Lietuvos istorija“, Teodoro Narbuto „Lietuvos istorija“, juridinis diskursas -1791 m. gegužės 3-iosios Konstitucija, Abiejų Tautų tarpusavio įsipareigojimas, kuriuose „iki“ „Aušros“ programos buvo aprašyta lietuvių tautos ir istorijos genealogija.

ENFirst, it should be stated that the conception of “origin”, as a ground zero and historical genealogy, has been lent from Jacques Derrida, who - while deliberating on the relationship between writing and speech - asked “where” and “when” they began. He found it apparent that issues of origin were inseparable from the metaphysics of presence; hence, the two empirical questions invite the following two: what are the definite locations and what is the definite time of the first phenomena of writing in the world? The inquiry into origin does not seek for events nor structures but rather plainly avoids the alternative to history and essence. Consequently, it is impossible to use any structural analysis to explain a transition from one structure to another; here, an external, irrational and disastrous fact must come into play (Derrida, 2006). Though, what is it? Where and how could it be detected? We do understand that the use of narratives in the creation of cultural identity substantiates the psychological need for self-identification of society; however, this dangerous detective quest concerns the exploration of differences between the identity of “I”, as defined in contemporary society, and the identity of a collective individual particular to conventional society as well as ways, in which the discourse legitimises the emergence of a new structure. As a phenomenon most frequently targeted by social sciences, identity is investigated from different angles by psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, philosophers, anthropologists, historians and researchers representing other fields. However, it is recognised that interdisciplinary insights are still insufficient, and aspects particular to the formation of the identity phenomenon have not yet been systematically disclosed.In this case, identity was perceived as a person’s capacity to describe self and respond to the question “who am I?” as a person’s awareness of self and the depiction of the wholeness of a human. Modernity has been perceived as a post-traditional order that departs from the reality established by traditions and customs and opposes conservatism, which regards the past as a central and privileged dimension. Conservatism eliminates the possibility of a different viewpoint, which could reflectively revisit ancient works produced by own kin and actualise the issue of historical genealogy. It is apparent that without the investigation into distorting trends, the deliberations gravitate towards the propensity for constant (self-)restoration of the Lithuanian tradition - which is programmed by the wording of the 19th century Aušra (1883) defining national revival heroes - as an invariable historical model, which would be a part of the cultural identity of Lithuanians. Societies with colonial experience used to perceive identity as an earlier developed phenomenon and a survival condition that demands constant efforts under circumstances of external threat. However, the comparison of historical discourses and symbolic structures that emerged during various periods reveals saltatory transitions in history from one discourse to another as a social reality is continuously created, and a newly born society immediately launches the process of degradation of its new mode of existence. In contemporary societies, where the Western individualism emphasised a person’s identity of self, an expanse emerges for new identities, norms, cooperation and substantiality innovations aiming to define the idea of society.In cases where cultural identity is perceived as a process that turns us into what we are, i.e. the result of our action, a narrative is anticipated with a vision of life’s changes in the form of repeating cycles, divides and turning points that contain paradigms, which open up opportunities for greater awareness and self-sufficiency. The textual expression of the contemporary Lithuanian nation preserved the conservatism of tradition, which, as the essential objective of cognition in terms of cultural identity and selves as Lithuanians, considered the necessity to learn the ancient ways of ancestors, i.e. Lithuania’s emprises in auld langsyne and creations of our honourable forefathers (Aušra, 1883), returning to the mythical beginning of all beginnings, to the ground zero of non-origin. Historiography maintains the predominant holistic view that the nationalism of the 19th century manifested in a small group of Lithuanian intellectuals attempting to muster forces to unify for the preservation and enlargement of the national heritage. This issue became paramount to heroes of the national revival, particularly Jonas Basanavičius, who construed the Polish language and culture as destructive to the ethnic Lithuanian language, basing it on the necessity to redeem the rights of Lithuanians to their history and territory. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the contraposition manifested itself through the use of Polish speech and writing among educated Lithuanians, who spoke Lithuanian at home, while Poles were referring to themselves as Lithuanians without being able to speak Lithuanian.