Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
Paveldo industrija Lietuvoje
Get PDFThe article aims to review the situation of the heritage industry in Lithuania after 1990. The article consists of the sections on the logic of terms and theoretical contexts, the study of the heritage boom and the rise of economic value in heritage protection, and the identification of heritage producers and users.
The section on the logic of terms gives definitions and explanations of such concepts as "heritage," "heritage industry," and at the same time, theoretical contexts are clarified.
The study of the heritage boom and the rise of economic value in cultural heritage protection analyzes the socio-cultural situation of the end of the XXth century, changes in the conception of cultural heritage protection from a conservation position to cultural heritage management. In this section, the rise of the heritage industry under the influence of the heritage boom is identified and described. At the same time, connections of the heritage industry with changes in historical sense are defined.
The study of heritage industry producers and users describes them according to three fields: culture, politics, and business. It indicates that the heritage industry is most frequent in show business and the service industry.
The conclusions indicate that the origin of the heritage industry in Lithuania dates from 1998. It is closely connected with the rise of economic and purchasing power of the population, and then people could spend more time and money on leisure and entertainment, including cultural heritage. At the same time, changes in historical sense are observed. But all those changes did not affect the situation of Lithuanian heritage protection. The heritage industry in Lithuania occurred not in the contexts of cultural heritage management but in leisure and entertainment marketing
Stačiatikių Bažnyčios Lietuvoje istorijos peripetijos 1918-1940 metais (Apie Andriaus Marcinkevičiaus daktaro disertaciją „Stačiatikių Bažnyčia Lietuvoje 1918-1940 m." ir jos gynimą)
Get PDFSavilaidos termino genezė: nuo avangardinės poezijos rinkinių pavadinimo iki lietuviškojo naujadaro
Get PDFThe genesis of the Lithuanian neologism "savilaida" has not been studied by the science of history, though such studies would allow reasonable answering to the questions of expedience of the usage of the term and uniqueness of its object. The article aims at analyzing the history of the origin of the Lithuanian term "savilaida" and its genesis in the Soviet society.
The spread of samizdat neologism in Soviet society was a complicated historical process, determined by a number of external and internal factors. In the 40s, the coinage of "samizdat" by Moscow poet N. Glazkov promptly spread among the cultural sets of Russia, whereas in the second half of the 50s, it reached a part of Lithuanian intellectuals mostly through relations with the Russian creative intelligentsia. At the meeting point of the 60s and 70s, neologism "samizdat" became more widely known in Lithuania through the circulation of the Russian samizdat and a growing number of broadcasts of the Western radio stations, which provided such material. At the beginning, it referred to the Russian samizdat; however, at the start of the 70s, the concept of "samizdat" included the Lithuanian underground press as well.
With the growth of samizdat and intensification of its influence in society, in the first half of the 70s, the Lithuanian term "savilaida", which, above all, described the particularity of production and spread of the underground press, was coined. The term became more widely known in Lithuania after finding its way to the West, from where this neologism reached Lithuania through the broadcasts of radio stations and the emigration press. In the second half of the 70s, this neologism became widely known in the Lithuanian samizdat, yet it was not used on a mass scale within the entire Soviet period due to various circumstances.
The term "savilaida" was not widely used in Soviet Lithuania due to a few reasons. First, the underground press was quite often construed as a continuation of the partisan struggle of 1944-1953 or even the traditions of "knygnešiai" (Lith. book smugglers) of the 19th century. A part of press publishers, multipliers, and distributors contributed to the partisan press or came in contact with it in 1944-1953; therefore, the entire press circumventing the Soviet censorship and published without the knowledge of the authorities was generally referred to as the "underground press". Second, the term "savilaida" is a word-for-word translation of the Russian term, a linguistic "loan-translation", thus deliberate avoidance of the usage of this neologism was preconditioned by the resistance against the Soviet system and its actively executed Russification. Frequent use of the new term in the underground was also blocked by a sense of self-defense.
Adaptation of the neologism in Soviet Lithuania demonstrated the emerging need to name the new phenomenon of the underground press, which was attached greater and greater importance in society. Therefore, regardless of the linguistic aspects (the term "savilaida" is a verbatim translation from another language; furthermore, the number of neologisms with the component "savi-", which are to be avoided in linguistic terms, keeps growing), the usage of the term samizdat in Lithuania has the traditions of nearly half a century, and its use in scientific discourse is historically reasoned
Keletas pastabų dėl Janinos Varnienės knygos. - Rec.: Trumpas istorijos kursas. Vilnius, 2006. 438 p.
Get PDF
Istorijos mokslo ir audiovizualinės istorijos santykis Lietuvoje: nuotolio mažėjimas?
Get PDFThe article is aimed at enumerating the barriers to cooperation between audio-visual communications specialists and formal historians in Lithuania in the 1988-2005 period, determining preconditions for overcoming these stumbling blocks and demonstrating the gap between these two spheres plus the consequences of its narrowing for audio-visual work. Documentary films and documentary-type cultural programs in which recognizable historical reports are discernible and which were made in the 1988-2005 period were used to achieve these aims.
Stumbling blocks for historians preventing cooperation with audio-visual communications specialists are held to be the following: an arrogant position on the part of academics in regard to mass media, the inappropriate application of scientific standards in judging films and programs due to a lack of understanding of the individual specific features of the cinema and television, and the failure of historians to popularize their research. Stumbling blocks on the part of audio-visual communications specialists arise from the artistic / individual / creative documentary tradition in Lithuania which developed during the Soviet period. This tradition gave rise to attempts to transform history to conform more to the author\u27s vision of the past than to provide information based on the latest advances of formal, academic history. By trying to consider history emotionally and subjectively, the authors of Lithuanian documentary films and programs in the period of national revival and the first years of independence (till 1993) usually failed to provide a new, individual take on the history of Lithuania; rather, they reproduced interpretations of Lithuanian history produced in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
The enhanced role of historians in the creation of Lithuanian documentary film and television is connected with changes in self-conception among audio-visual communications specialists (authors and their "supervising" critics) as well as among historians; these changes were visible by 1993. Out of this cooperation between audio-visual communications specialists and historians, there appeared works in Lithuanian audio-visual culture in which, because of the specific nature of cinematic and television methods, "neuralgic" themes in terms of historical consciousness were actualized (popularized), single-sided assessments of the past were rejected, and a history "open" to multiple viewpoints and to corrections in the future was created, thus demonstrating the problematic nature of history and more closely approaching the status of a scientific reconstruction
Naujo istorijos žinių struktūrinimo modelio paieškos. - Rec.: Grigaravičiūtė S. Istorijos žinios ir jų struktūravimas. Vilnius: Vilniaus pedagoginio universiteto leidykla, 2006. 60 p.
Get PDF"Mus vienija alus ir pergalės"? arba Sportas ir lietuviškoji tapatybė
Get PDFHaving reached its strategic objectives (membership in the EU and NATO), Lithuania encountered the problem of a trawl for new societal development visions. That is why the Lithuanian mentality, facing such strong challenges as EU integration and globalization, is in quest of national identity components "inventory" and reevaluation in the context of new circumstances.
In this regard, sport, universally accepted as a substantial component of national identity, becomes actual for knowledge. Unfortunately, in Lithuania by now, academic writing on this subject astonishes at its fragmentary nature and confines it mainly to the factography, while sport-minded individuals are professionally over-engaged. Therefore, preliminary research has shown that sport, as a socio-cultural phenomenon in the field of interdisciplinary studies, is non-existent in Lithuania. Considering what has been said, we may state decisively that the present article will be one of the first attempts to define and evaluate the role of sport in society and the sphere of politics in a broader way. It will also be the first attempt to search for the roots of broadly entrenched stereotypes and assessments about the involved subject.
One of the most vivid stereotypes that embody Lithuanian sport specifics is the affirmation that basketball is the Lithuanian national religion. Paradoxically, Lithuanians fancy themselves due to basketball victories, but perhaps they are better known for football defeats. In opposition to the rest of Europe, basketball truly is the most popular sport in Lithuania, yet till now, nobody has tried to analyze the historical and socio-cultural reasons for such a phenomenon in a more thorough way.
In 2003, after a 64-year long break, the Lithuanian national basketball team won the European championship golden medals. That stimulated strong, but momentary manifestations of "emotional community." The last-mentioned victory was turned to account by politics for political needs (for instance, political image mintage) not related to the victory itself. In turn, everybody who was engaged with "extrinsic" state affairs at the moment of triumph was criticized. The symbolic "appropriation" of past and present sport achievements assumes various forms in politics. A characteristic example is the first in Europe impeached President Rolandas Paksas, who during his election campaign successfully played on his acrobatic flying qualifications, thus refreshing a strong association in historical consciousness connected with the interwar period Lithuanian heroes S. Darius and S. Girėnas, who overflew the Atlantic.
During the Soviet times, sport had to serve state image and communist ideology needs. Nevertheless, Lithuanians had been trying to round representative commands on republican and local levels (incorporating local foreign-born). In the Soviet Union, something similar was maybe succeeded only by Georgians and Armenians. So we may raise a hypothesis whereby the last-mentioned ability reflects Lithuanian communist leaders and/or sport functionaries\u27 acceptance of such kind of "nationalism." Although the present affirmation is difficult to prove without deeper investigations, it played a crucial role, in contrast to other Soviet republics, in sustaining and reinforcing Lithuanian national identity under the circumstances of Sovietization.
The same sportsmen\u27s political-ideological stance was of no particular importance because the main thing was the openness of the same victory to the nation\u27s treatments about resistance to the occupant (victories over CSKA like victories over the Soviet army, and victories over Dinamo like victories over the KGB). Hereby in Lithuania, sport obtained the same strain of cultural resistance.
After regaining independence, Lithuanian sport was forced to switch from state-regulated infrastructure to the private sector. This process was painful. More than one and a half years of lasting boycott of international sports federations almost ruined the Lithuanian sport system. Sudden changes harmed the sphere of sport much stronger than other reformatted spheres. Recovering from the boycott-induced crisis, not every branch of sport managed to adequately readjust to the new conditions.
In comparison with the Soviet times, management, advertisement, and mass media created images of separate branches of sports and sportsmen, playing a huge role in this sphere today. An illustration of this is the growing gap between the fast crisis-overcoming basketball and other fields of sport (especially football, which due to weak management, lost its once-possessed high rates).
Today, interest in sports is highly reduced. That can be attributed to the tenacious Lithuanian habit of linking sports with contraposition to foreigners. Till now, the tendency still persists to take more interest in Lithuanian participation in international competitions than in national championships. The latter are becoming an object of interest for a very small part of society (the only exception might be the Lithuanian basketball league super final, which usually reflects the animosity between the two biggest towns: Vilnius and Kaunas). In turn, the marginal fan groups, which kept a clear nationalistic orientation from Soviet times, have an ideological potential to migrate towards Euro-skepticism, anti-globalism, and xenophobia.
Regardless of the huge former importance of sport in sustaining national identity, nowadays, only in case of a signal victory, sport is able to rally strong "emotional communities." As a matter of fact, modern-day Lithuanian general public\u27s interest in sports is rather occasional, maybe even an accidental phenomenon that possesses no endurance in daily life. The "sport-loving nation" stereotype was shaped by mass media because even sports contest visiting rates, generally mouthy and inflated in official protocols, prove the slight popularity of sport in Lithuania in comparison with other East-Central European countries
Lietuva Vidurio ir Rytų Europoje XVI-XVIII amžiuje: „feodalinė reakcija" ar periferinis kapitalizmas?
Get PDFThe subject of the article is the historiography analyzing the development of the socio-economic order of Central and Eastern Europe in the 16th-18th centuries and specifically two competing theoretical approaches: the Marxist concept emphasizing the role of inner causes and of the capitalist world system (CWS) stressing external causes. The problem that the article is concerned with is the nature of the second serfdom in Central and Eastern Europe in the 16th-18th centuries: was this refeudalization in the Marxist sense, or peripheral capitalism in the CWS context? In Marxist historiography (beginning with Friedrich Engels), the concept of the second serfdom means the process of refeudalization. The neo-Marxist CWS theory of I. Wallerstein, applying an approach, suggests looking at the phenomenon of the second serfdom from the global perspective, describing it as an expression of peripheral capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe. The article compares the explanation I. Wallerstein provides of the second serfdom in Central and Eastern Europe (especially in the Polish-Lithuanian state) with earlier interpretations of it (especially in Marxist historiography) and attempts to provide an answer that will bring greater focus to later investigations by establishing greater explanatory power of the comparative conceptions