Mnemonic Conflicts and Cooperation in Memory Politics: Development of Narratives about Historical Traumas in Lithuania after 1991

Dovilė Budrytė
{"title":"Mnemonic Conflicts and Cooperation in Memory Politics: Development of Narratives about Historical Traumas in Lithuania after 1991","authors":"Dovilė Budrytė","doi":"10.51740/ps.32.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is focused on the most visible narratives about Lithuania’s trauma experiences—deportations under Stalin, the anti-Soviet partisan war and the Holocaust. These hegemonic traumatic experiences were essential for the processes of Lithuanian statehood since 1991. ‘Separate memories’ about the Soviet crimes, associated with the deportations under Stalin and anti-Soviet partisan war, and the Holocaust, were developed in Lithuania. Even though these memories are associated with separate memory regimes, they intersect and often conflict with each other. How were memory regimes, associated with these hegemonic memories, develop? Which actors affected the development of these regimes in separate trajectories? How did these memory regimes get into conflict, and what were the consequences of these conflicts? Is multidirectional memory, when different traumatic experiences ‘talk’ to each other, possible in Lithuania? The goal of the article is to survey the dominant memory regimes in Lithuania and assess their influence on the development of the Lithuanian statehood. The main research findings highlight the importance of geopolitical developments and international actors for the processes of mnemonic conflicts and mnemonic cooperation locally. In the case of Lithuania, major geopolitical developments coincided with the creation of major trauma narratives. The participation of international actors in the creation of major trauma narratives has resulted in both mnemonic conflicts and mnemonic cooperation.","PeriodicalId":443984,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Studies","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parliamentary Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51740/ps.32.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article is focused on the most visible narratives about Lithuania’s trauma experiences—deportations under Stalin, the anti-Soviet partisan war and the Holocaust. These hegemonic traumatic experiences were essential for the processes of Lithuanian statehood since 1991. ‘Separate memories’ about the Soviet crimes, associated with the deportations under Stalin and anti-Soviet partisan war, and the Holocaust, were developed in Lithuania. Even though these memories are associated with separate memory regimes, they intersect and often conflict with each other. How were memory regimes, associated with these hegemonic memories, develop? Which actors affected the development of these regimes in separate trajectories? How did these memory regimes get into conflict, and what were the consequences of these conflicts? Is multidirectional memory, when different traumatic experiences ‘talk’ to each other, possible in Lithuania? The goal of the article is to survey the dominant memory regimes in Lithuania and assess their influence on the development of the Lithuanian statehood. The main research findings highlight the importance of geopolitical developments and international actors for the processes of mnemonic conflicts and mnemonic cooperation locally. In the case of Lithuania, major geopolitical developments coincided with the creation of major trauma narratives. The participation of international actors in the creation of major trauma narratives has resulted in both mnemonic conflicts and mnemonic cooperation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
记忆政治中的记忆冲突与合作:1991年后立陶宛历史创伤叙事的发展
这篇文章的重点是关于立陶宛创伤经历的最明显的叙述——斯大林统治下的驱逐,反苏游击战争和大屠杀。自1991年以来,这些霸权的创伤经历对立陶宛建国进程至关重要。关于苏联罪行的“单独记忆”,与斯大林统治下的驱逐、反苏游击战争和大屠杀有关,是在立陶宛发展起来的。尽管这些记忆与不同的记忆体系有关,但它们相互交叉,经常相互冲突。与这些霸权记忆相关的记忆机制是如何发展的?哪些行为者以不同的轨迹影响了这些政权的发展?这些记忆机制是如何陷入冲突的,这些冲突的后果是什么?当不同的创伤经历相互“交谈”时,多方向记忆在立陶宛可能吗?本文的目的是调查立陶宛的主要记忆制度,并评估它们对立陶宛国家发展的影响。主要研究结果强调了地缘政治发展和国际行为体对地方记忆冲突和记忆合作过程的重要性。就立陶宛而言,重大的地缘政治发展与重大创伤叙事的产生同时发生。国际行动者参与重大创伤叙事的创造,导致了助记冲突和助记合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Apie doros ir idealios politinės santvarkos provaizdį Mnemonic Conflicts and Cooperation in Memory Politics: Development of Narratives about Historical Traumas in Lithuania after 1991 1945 m. lapkričio 29 d. – gruodžio 1 d. Amerikos lietuvių kongresas Čikagoje ir jo reikšmė JAV lietuvių politinei veiklai Disinformation Narratives in Public Communication of Lithuanian Political Leaders during the COVID-19 Pandemic Menas – pilietiniam pasipriešinimui Lietuvoje. Filmas istorijos pamokoje
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1