sign in sign up
<<
Home , Lithuanian language, Petras Cvirka, Popular Front of Latvia, Virgilijus Noreika

Cultural Policy in since the 1980s: An Investigation into the Effects of Cultural Policies on National Identity

MA Thesis in European Studies Graduate School for Humanities Universiteit van Amsterdam

Author Laisvė Linkutė Student number 10394192

Main Supervisor Dhr. Dr. G..A. Snel Second Supervisor Dhr. Dr. M.E. Spiering August, 2013

1 Laisve Linkute 10394192

In memory of my father

2 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Contents:

Abstract: ...... 4 Introduction: ...... 5 First chapter: Lithuania in the Union ...... 9 Second Chapter: Transition to democracy ...... 22 Third Chapter: Lithuania in the EU ...... 33 Conclusions: ...... 47 Bibliography: ...... 49

3 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Abstract:

The aim of this thesis is to answer the question: how has Lithuanian national identity been affected by cultural policies in 20th-21st centuries (under the Soviet rule; in independent Lithuania; and within the EU context)? 20th century saw two big changes in Lithuania‘s history: in early 1940s Lithuania was occupied by the and in 1990s it became independent again. After both of the events the political system in Lithuania changed, so did the cultural policy. Another big change awaited the country in the 21st century – Lithuania became a member of the in 2004. This investigation will analyse how the different cultural policies affected national identity during the period of Soviet occupation and in independent Lithuania. The thesis is split into three chapters, each of them analyses different periods of time: the first one encompass Soviet Lithuania, the second covers the early years of independent Lithuania and the third one investigates the developments after entering the EU. Each of them will look at the development of cultural policy and will investigate how those policies affected national identity. Finally, this thesis will draw a conclusion on the given findings of each chapter.

4 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Introduction:

Research Question: How has Lithuanian national identity been affected by cultural policies in 20th-21st centuries (under the Soviet rule; in independent Lithuania; and within the EU context)?

Log line: ‘Socialist in content but national in form’ – the ultimate Soviet Union formula for its local cultures…however, every nation sought to preserve its ‘content’ - national identity. The thesis brings us to the period of the Soviet rule in Lithuania; and explores how the representation of the national identity via culture has changed together with the independence and the years of transition all the way to the membership in the EU.

Argument: I will look into how Lithuanian national identity has been affected by cultural policy. I will argue that the 'national identity' has been identified differently in different circumstances by the different governing powers, and I try to detect how it was positioned vs. ‘Soviet identity' and later on vs. ‘European identity’. Moreover, I will detect institutional changes over time. Three important changes of the system will be presented: first, after the Soviet occupation; second – after the collapse of the Soviet Union and third – after entering the EU.

Clarifications of the Study: National identity is ‘the sense of belonging, which one feels to a particular group of people’ (nation) or a country (state) as a whole (Cox 2012; Dictionary 2013). It encompasses culture, traditions, language and politics. It is ‘a construction of natural and cultural factors’ (Mutanen 2010: 28). Thus, we see that culture is part of national identity. The latter, by no means, can be influenced by various cultural changes, as well as changes in cultural policy. Cultural policy can act in both ways – it can weaken or break national identity; or it can preserve and promote national identity. Today, one of the aims of Lithuanian cultural policy is ‘to preserve and promote…national identity’ (Liutkus 2010: 5). Therefore, the topic is very fruitful and will allow us to approach national identity from the perspective of cultural policy. Due to Lithuanian history, the changes in Lithuanian cultural policy have been very sharp. Thus, in this thesis we will see the Sovietisation of cultural policy and, later, the development of Lithuanian national cultural policy. This thesis will show

5 Laisve Linkute 10394192 how differently national identity has been addressed in the state and in the cultural policy due to the political changes.

Research Field: Existing studies on Lithuanian national identity cover the whole 20th century, therefore I will be able to rely on them. However, there is a need for research to cover the last two decades of the present century. Among many works, I have found studies by researchers Eglė Rindzevičiūtė (2008) and Vilmantė Liubinienė (1999) to be very useful and accurate. Moreover, very beneficial research has been carried out by Lithuanian Culture Research Institute (LCRI), which investigates Lithuanian culture, development of art and philosophy, and their links with presence and contemporary world‘s cultural changes. LCRI looks into Lithuanian culture and analyses its links with political and social state development. On the other hand, there is a lack of academic studies on cultural policy after the 1990s. Where academic literature is lacking, I will use various non-governmental reports and other resources. Especially helpful will be the reports by the Council of . It is important to acknowledge that the lack of academic resources on the can be a disadvantage to this thesis, but at the same time it highlights the need for this study.

Methodology: This investigation was conducted using qualitative methods of analysis. Through the careful investigation only relevant, up-to date and informative books and articles have been selected. My primary sources will be official documents regarding culture published by the Soviet government, Lithuanian government and the EU. I will also use valuable memoirs and personal opinions of important people of the time in order to illustrate my arguments. Memoirs and newspaper articles presented some challenges, in terms of bias. However, this kind of material will provide the investigation with relevant insights into the events and allow seeing the events through the witnesses’ eyes. Thus, they can be a useful addition to scholarly works. To minimise the possible bias that these materials might bring to this research, only well-known and respected newspapers and memoirs were used. My secondary sources will be historical/political books and journal articles, which would provide me with the information about the actual changes in society. I am aiming to use information about various controversial events, discussions and propaganda as examples. As I will study three different periods of time, I will be able to apply discourse analysis and see how national culture was positioned vs. Soviet culture and vs. European culture.

6 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Literature: My analysis was supported by various kinds of sources. I will mostly rely on the official documents regarding culture published by the Soviet government, official documents published by Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Lithuania and also documents published by the EU. Some of the literature that I used was in Lithuanian. Being a native Lithuanian speaker I had no problems analysing the documents in their original language. I was able to access the documents published by Lithuanian government, and the EU easily. Moreover, I used some Lithuanian academic journals which I accessed via university library. To mention but a few: LIMES: Cultural Regionalistics, Philosophy. Sociology, Central Europe. Moreover, two books are worth mentioning too: The and the End of the by Gerner and Hedlund (1993) and The Baltic States: Years of Dependence 1940-1990 by Misiunas and Taagepera (1993). While both studies accurately depict the most important moments of the Soviet regime in Lithuania, the latter one is also almost always cited by other academics writing about the Baltic countries and the Soviet Union. I will also rely on the reports by Council of Europe completed in 1997 and 2010. These reports provide useful information about the changes in the field of culture during the time. It is a pity that there is no academic research specifically addressing the topic of cultural policy in Lithuania during the two decades of independence. Thus the field of cultural policy in Lithuania is still relatively unexplored and remains a fertile ground for future research.

Structure: The thesis will be structured around the three chapters, each one of them focusing on a different period of time.

Chapter 1: This chapter will deal with the period under the Soviet rule, with a specific focus on the last two decades. I am going to look at the cultural policies implemented by the USSR government in Lithuania. Consequently, I am going to capture the role of Lithuanian national identity in Soviet culture. To give the reader a clear perception of the change, I will introduce the interwar system of cultural policy in Lithuania. Then I will proceed with the overview of the Sovietisation of cultural policy. Lithuania was occupied by the Soviet Union for a period of almost fifty years, and the policy softened only in the middle of 1980s. The collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s was a significant event in world history. The fall of the empire finally ended the and gave birth to fifteen independent countries. Since then, scholars, journalists, politicians and former residents of the USSR have been discussing why it did collapse. Primarily, causes were economic and political, such as the breakdown of the ‘command economy' and the opening of the political system. (reconstruction) and (openness), new policies introduced by the

7 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Soviet leader Gorbachev, gave a rise to many nationalist movements in the USSR. On the other hand, so called 'revolution from above' was also taking place. Hence, the ultimate Soviet formula ‘socialist in content but national in form’ was slowly losing its meaning. Glasnost made it possible for national culture to be expressed more freely. The work by Eglė Rindzevičiūtė (2008), which analysed the construction of Soviet cultural policy, will be of paramount importance here.

Chapter 2: This chapter will include time period from 1990 to 2004 and will reflect on the transition to democracy. When Lithuania gained independence in 1990 de jure and 1991 de facto the government was keen to reform the cultural policy. Urgent democratic reform was needed and various politicians, intellectuals, cultural workers and society representatives started to debate which way is the best. This chapter will give the reader a clear overview of how a new cultural policy was formed and implemented, what happened to the old institutions and what model of cultural policy has been chosen. The chapter will focus on questions such as: How was the field of cultural policy reformed in post-Soviet Lithuania? What events led to transformation of Lithuanian cultural policy? Did Lithuania get rid of the old system? What happened to the Soviet institutions? Is there any continuity? What role did national identity play in the formation of the new state cultural policy?

Chapter 3: Third and the last chapter of this thesis will focus on the developments of Lithuanian cultural policy since Lithuania joined the EU. Lithuania became a member of the EU in 2004 and had to adjust its cultural policies to the values and legislation endorsed by the EU. So how does it frame national identity? What was the impact of the membership on Lithuania’s legislation concerning culture? Moreover, the ‘crown’ project of European cultural policy European Capital of Culture (ECOC) 2009 will be presented. This was the biggest cultural event in Lithuania since the accession to the EU. Various sides of the event will be represented and it will be linked to national identity and cultural policy in Lithuania. Dr Chiara de Cesari’s course ‘European Cultural Policy’ was a source of inspiration for parts of this chapter, especially the part dealing with the European Capital of Culture project.

8 Laisve Linkute 10394192

First chapter: Lithuania in the Soviet Union

Cultural policies have been and are used to create, shape and strengthen national identities. This is also true in the case of Lithuania. The Republic of Lithuania was created in 1918 but it did not last long. The Second World War brought the first Soviet occupation in 1940, followed by the occupation of Nazi between 1941 and 1944, after which the Soviets moved in to consolidate the Lithuanian regime for more than forty years. The main focus of this thesis will be to examine the cultural policies adopted in Lithuania since the 1980s and to investigate what effect these policies have had on national identity. Although the focus of our study is on the last few decades, we cannot escape examining the entire Soviet period in Lithuania. This is mainly for two reasons: first, cultural policy developments in the 1980s cannot be fully understood without background knowledge of the events in the previous decades; second, the Soviet regime changed significantly over the fifty years in which it was present in Lithuania, and these changes were also reflected in cultural policy. If we were to only look at the period since the 1980s, we would run the risk of being biased or mistaken in our analysis. The Soviet regime was very harsh at the beginning of the 1940s and reasonably softer by the 1980s. Therefore, we have to take this shift into account. This chapter will serve as an introduction to the following chapters, and will look at the development and formation of cultural policies in Lithuania under the Soviet regime. It will provide us with relevant background information, which will be essential when looking at the influence of the Soviet cultural policies on Lithuanian identity. Although the chapter will be organized chronologically, it does not aim to provide a precise chronological overview. Instead, this chapter will provide the reader with the sufficient background information for the post-1989 era and show how the development of the cultural policy has shifted during the years. It will specifically look at what kinds of cultural policy existed before the Soviets, how culture was perceived, what cultural policy consisted of, how it was organized and what the Soviets did regarding the national culture in Lithuania. Still today there are discussions in the Lithuanian public sphere wondering if there was a Soviet culture, and if so, what kind of culture was it? Did it exist in Lithuania? Or was it Russian culture, just radically ideologized and adapted to its totalitarian project? Or maybe it was an absolutely new, exceptional culture, erasing everything that existed before including traditions and history? Maybe it was imperial culture, which became very radical? (Donskis 2008). These and similar questions are discussed from time to time on TV programmes or in the articles by popular Lithuanian philosophers. While there is no one answer to these questions, it is clear that the Soviet cultural system had left a huge print on Lithuanian society and its way of living (Alekna 2003). These questions are also important, because they help us understand that cultural policy in the USSR was very specific thing, which was perceived differently

9 Laisve Linkute 10394192 by the society in those years. As mentioned before, the chapter will be structured chronologically: first, it will look at the formation of cultural policy in the Soviet Union; later, the developments of cultural policy in inter-war Lithuania will be shortly presented, followed by an examination of the developments of cultural policy in Soviet Lithuania.

Cultural Policy in the Soviet Union The October Revolution of 1917 determined the socialist character of the development of society in the Soviet Union. Similarly, the conditions for the transformation of culture along socialist lines were created. According to Rindzevičiūtė, ‘[i]n the young Soviet Union, the governance of culture and the means by which it would be accomplished became an enormous organizational project that, since the late 1920s, had been part of the broader logic of central planning and directing’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 68). She adds that in the historiography, the descriptions of Soviet cultural policy usually begin with the intention of the communist revolution government to transform Russian society by erasing class differences – a new Soviet society was envisioned as egalitarian, undivided by class or ethnicity (ibid.). The oppressed working class, ‘the producer of real economic value’ was especially important according to Marxist theory – deprived workers were to be educated, enlightened about their historical mission and granted access to the standards of life and culture, that previously were available only for the bourgeoisie and the elite(ibid.). The empowerment of the working class was a cultural project in which society would be organized around secular, ideological principles of and ruled by one Party (ibid.). Thus, Rindzevičiūtė argues, that the communist political change was seen as a social and cultural revolution. This cultural revolution did not mean the creation of an entirely new culture, but rather the subverting of an existing one: ‘that is, transforming culture (both as art and a way of life) from an instrument of capitalism into an instrument of socialism’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 68-69). To achieve this, ‘bourgeois ideology’ was replaced with ‘socialist ideology’, which primarily meant the of culture (as arts and education) by expanding access, and the political loyalty of cultural operators (Kim 1967: 17; Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 69). To achieve the so called ‘democratization’, extensive organizational networks were established, which also ensured the channelling of propaganda (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 69). Other objectives of Soviet cultural policy were social, economic and political, such as to overcome the illiteracy problem, reduce alcohol consumption and last but not least, to gain the trust of the workers for the Party. In many ways, this project was similar to the Western attempts at civilizing the poor: since the 18th century many enlightened industrialist and land owners were trying to do the same. Hence, Rindzevičiūtė argues, ‘the model of Soviet cultural policy combined important features of European

10 Laisve Linkute 10394192 modernity. What made Soviet cultural policy special was the creation of strongly centralized governing bodies, which spanned enormous organizational networks to achieve their goals’ (ibid.). Another important goal of the Soviet cultural policy was an artistic mission. At first, this project engaged Russian avant-garde artists, whose goal was to revolutionize the arts within their own fields. According to Rindzevičiūtė, Lenin’s deputy of enlightenment and supervisor of the arts, between 1918 and 1929 Anatolii Lunacharsky, supported this particular artistic experiment and the individual freedom of artists (Holter 1970: 266; Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 69). However, after Lenin’s death, the Soviet government introduced stricter measures to control the form and content of art. The experimental style of modern art was considered to be too similar to that of the ‘enemy’ capitalist world. Later on, Stalin clearly stated what had to be altered: modern art had to change in line with the Social realism, based on the formal qualities of the 19th century neoclassical and academic styles. For Stalin, language as a form of expression had to be transparent and effectively carry the intended message. After Stalin’s decree On the Reconstruction of Literary and Art Organizations (1932) was promoted as the state policy (Bown 1998; Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 69-70). Some art forms were heavily promoted, whilst others were not desirable and so were forbidden. Socialist realism (or soc-real) was supposed to glorify the working class and its struggle for emancipation. In fine arts, modern styles such as Impressionism and Cubism were not appreciated. The art work was supposed to be: i) proletarian: art relevant to the workers and understandable to them; ii) typical: scenes peoples’ everyday lives; iii) realistic: in the representational sense; iv) partisan: supportive of the aims of the state and the Party. The same trends were visible in music: classicism was favoured and experimentation was discouraged. In theatre, operas and ballets were the most encouraged genres, whilst plays were often censored or forbidden (Edmunds 2010; Streikus 2010; Zaborskaitė 2010). What is important to note, is that artists were defined as workers of cultural enlightenment and were employees of the state. According to Rindzevičiūtė, ‘this was a clear sign that culture was about to be rationalized as a domain governed by economic logic and run in accordance with scientific rationality’ (2008: 70). Thus, the state ruled by the Communist Party was the only patron of the arts, responsible for providing artists and other cultural workers with the salaries, workplaces and homes. Basically, artists were given a higher professional status in society, which at the time was already held as desirable (ibid.). One Lithuanian painter anonymously expressed his opinion that an artist should no longer be ‘a scruffy and hungry individual who lives in an attic, but a clean, cultural worker, who has his own rights and responsibilities’ (Kalpokas 1935: 61). Thus, we see a paradox in this situation: after the Soviet occupation artists got the higher status in the society, they had become employees of the state, however, their freedom of expression was constrained. Furthermore, it is argued that it would be wrong to think that

11 Laisve Linkute 10394192

‘Soviet cultural policy was an effective action characterized by a well-defined system of organizations, all of which succumbed to central control’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 70). In reality, the Soviet governance of culture was far from being a well-planned action. Largely, the organizations simply ‘evolved’ in an unplanned and unsystematic way (ibid.). The development of the Soviet cultural policy at the time was divided into stages: the first stage of cultural construction lasted from 1917 to 1927, the second from 1928 to 1958, and the third stage followed and was believed to be ‘the present stage’1 (Zvorykin, Golubtsova, Rabinowitch 1970: 14-16). The first period marked the introduction of Soviet socialist culture and was the beginning of the cultural revolution. The most important issue at the time was to decide on the basis and general lines of cultural development of the new society. During this period, all the cultural elements inherited from the old society were assimilated and made available for the masses. Moreover, the previously mentioned illiteracy problem was tackled (ibid.). The second stage of the cultural revolution was marked by the extensive transformation of culture on purely socialist lines. In this period the cultural policy concentrated on: training a new educated class from among the ranks of the workers; gaining the whole- hearted support of the pre-revolutionary intellectuals for the Soviet cause; introducing universal seven-years schooling throughout the country; raising the level of science and of artistic culture; eliminating the cultural inequality between intellectual and manual workers, between towns and villages and between the different peoples of the USSR; organizing creative co-operation amongst Soviet peoples in all fields of cultural activity; improving the material bases of culture so as to make it possible to satisfy the basic cultural requirements of the population, fostering national artistic creation; and, lastly, establishing and extending international cultural contacts (Zvorykin, Golubtsova, Rabinowitch 1970: 15). The third stage was the concluding stage of the cultural revolution, and was devoted to transforming socialist culture into communist culture. The system for managing culture that was created in the 1920s and the ‘30s evolved over the years, but, it remained mostly unchanged until the late 1980s. Over the years, its basic components included: i) creation of a broad network of state cultural institutions with a strong educational component; ii) formation of a strict, centralized administration and ideological control system; iii) enactment of corresponding regulations; and iv) support for classical or high culture that was perceived as loyal or neutral in content (Compendium 2013). To deal with the cultural policy, the Ministry of Culture of the Soviet Union was established in 1953. Later on, such an institution was established in every Soviet Republic.

1 The source, ‘Cultural Policy in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’, by Unesco was written in 1970s. Thus, it was believed that now (in 1970s) is the last (third) stage of the cultural construction in the Soviet Republics. It is not specified how long it was due to last.

12 Laisve Linkute 10394192

The Ministry was responsible for the fine arts, art education, libraries, museums, cultural education, book publishing, television, radio and cinema (public broadcasting was removed from its control in 1958) (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 72). The system of the so-called ‘creative unions‘ covering the main art forms was primarily concerned with controlling the artistic community and intelligentsia and organizing their professional activities according to the needs of the Communist Party. After the control loosened in the late 1950s and early ‘60s, Khrushchev’s reforms and Khrushchev’s Thaw raised aspirations for liberalism in cultural life. However, this was followed by Brezhnev‘s zastoi (stagnation) with his slogan of creating a new identity - ‘the Soviet People‘. The system finally changed in the mid-1980s, with the Gorbachev reforms. Gorbachev initiated real changes that decreased ideological pressure on the mass media and administrative control over cultural and educational institutions. Later on, the intelligentsia, artists, and cultural workers became the ones that supported perestroika (reconstruction) to the greatest extent. The period of Soviet cultural policy ended in 1990, with the Law on the Press and other Mass Media, which eliminated state censorship and proclaimed abolition of ideological control not long before the collapse of the Soviet Union itself (Compendium 2013; Ivanauskas 2011a: 98-99).

The development of cultural policy in Lithuania Soviet cultural policy had been imposed in all the Soviet Republics including Lithuania. In the early Republic of Lithuania, which emerged in 1918, the notion of national culture was based on folk art and the Lithuanian language. This idea was disseminated both within the country and abroad (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 54). As Rindzevičiūtė puts it: [t]hese two were chosen as the basis for a ‘national culture‘. The significance of folk art was motivated by a political need to establish and argue the historical continuity of ethnic Lithuania. Eager to transform its citizens into conscious ‘‘, the government prioritized the 19th century‘s old folk culture: language, handicrafts and music (2008: 54). Cultural artefacts were also used as signifiers of sovereignty. In the interwar period, cultural matters were managed mainly by short-term organizational bodies. After gaining independence, the first administrative state body was created in 1918 specifically for cultural matters, with the provisional Lithuanian government establishing the Art Department. Unfortunately, the department existed only until 1919. The main aims of the post-1918 governments were to educate the illiterate sections of the population, to propagate the idea of a national Lithuanian culture, as was to be distinguished from Russian and Polish cultures, and further, to develop the professional national culture at home and abroad (ibid., 55). Until 1926, cultural matters were managed by the Department of General Matters at the Ministry of Education. Amid growing dissatisfaction with the work of this department and a general desire to have a governmental body designated specifically for cultural

13 Laisve Linkute 10394192 affairs, the Art Department was established under the Ministry of Education in the same year. However, this department was also short-lived: on 17 December 1926 a coup d’etat brought the authoritarian president Antanas Smetona (1874-1944) to power and the cultural administration experienced further changes due to the imposition of the soft authoritarian regime. The Art Department was abolished and cultural affairs were transferred back to the Department of General Matters, which was also abolished in 1931. So, by 1926, the Department of General Matters and both the first and second Art Departments had both been founded and had failed resulting in little progress (Anušauskas et al. 2005: 25; Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 55-59). The devolution of the state administration stimulated civic self-organization, and gave way to various societies. The Society of Creators of Lithuanian Art was recreated and became ‘a major agent in supporting cultural life and representing Lithuania abroad for the remaining few years of independence’. In addition, in 1930 the Independent Artist Society was established as an alternative to the more conservative Society of Creators (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 55). Between 1918 and 1940, the most important cultural organizations and cultural initiatives were generated by private individuals and public associations rather than by government. In fact, the government frequently had to be persuaded to support its cultural representation abroad. It was often emphasized that the main responsibility was within society: ‘the role of the government in culture is completely insignificant compared with the role of society…the biggest job should be done by society itself‘(Mačiulis 2005: 42). Interwar Lithuanian state cultural policy was organized around the idea of ‘establishing, disseminating and maintaining national culture as a basis of sovereignty’ and this task was delegated to public associations and not central administrative bodies (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 62). According to Mačiulis, the authoritarian Lithuanian government did seek to influence public associations; however, it did not try to replace them with state alternatives. The government’s view on civil self-organizations was positive, and organizations themselves were regarded as a positive feature of society (Mačiulis 2005: 42). As Rindzevičiūtė observed: ‘[i]n the late 1930s, in particular, the government increasingly expressed its support of the emergence of larger, integrated organizations of cultural operators. This ‘mildly’ authoritarian Lithuanian government, so to speak, preferred to govern ‘culture’ as an organization’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 62). Nevertheless, what is important, is that the arts were not seen as a sphere which demanded direct control from the state (ibid., 63). This changed in June 1940, with the first Soviet Occupation. Shortly after the occupation, the new communist government, controlled by , was installed. However, the non-communist cultural operators were not prepared to face the Soviet methods of governing culture. It was particularly difficult as they were ordered ‘to explicitly declare political loyalty, while limits were set for both the content and form of expression’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 62-63). The Soviet

14 Laisve Linkute 10394192 regime operated with a large bureaucracy, which aimed to implement centrally defined rationales of state cultural policy. This was in sharp contrast to the interwar government, and sudden centralization overwhelmed the Lithuanian cultural operators. One of the extreme examples mentioned in Rindzevičiūtė’s book: ‘the purge of staff took place alongside with the purge of museum exhibits and library funds’ (2008: 64). By June 1941 1,118,542 books were withdrawn and 42, 515 kg of publications destroyed, and between 1944 and 1956 a further 7,343,683 publications were withdrawn (Sinkevičius 1994; Vilnonytė 1994; Anušauskas et al. 2005: 128). Moreover, in the long run, the employees of interwar organizations, who were initially retained, were soon replaced with far less qualified individuals, who ‘politically deserved’ a position. Usually the head of the library (or similar institution) would be replaced with ‘a nearly illiterate communist’ (Pšibilskis 1989 cited in Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 64). At first, cultural operators tried to behave in a way that they were used to – they accumulated a wealth of experience by taking initiatives and self- organizing in a rather unregulated sphere of pre-war cultural organizations. However, they had soon learned the new limits and revised their habitual behaviour. This process was extremely painful and demoralising to many (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 64). Soviet re-occupation in 1944 was harsher than before: the cooperation of the Baltic states with the Hitler’s regime made the Soviets even more antagonized. Consequently, the purges and repression started again. Surprisingly quickly the Soviet authorities reinstalled their administrative structures, mindful that they had to deal with a heavy shortage of loyal, qualified staff, a collapsed economy and the resistance of the population. Thus, the following were established: The Agency for Cinematography, The Agency for Art Affairs (which consisted of the following departments: the Republican Agency for Supply of Theatres, the Republican House of People’s Creation, agencies for personnel, theatre, music, school, fine arts, and repertory companies), and the Committee for Cultural Enlightenment Enterprises. The Agency for Art Affairs also controlled the Composers’ and the Artists’ Unions (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 67). As mentioned above, the Ministry of Culture of the Soviet Union was established in 1953. However, according to Rindzevičiūtė, the establishment of the ministry did not entail significant changes in the work of previously existing governmental agencies: ‘it seems as if the ministry was expected to make the work of separate agencies more efficient and effective’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 71). As archival documents reveal, the main task of the ministry was to work towards establishing the legitimacy of the communist rule, though it was not an easy task. The Soviet government was perceived as illegitimate by the majority of the Lithuanian population (especially its intelligentsia); Soviet reforms, such as collectivization, were resisted. Thus, in the beginning the Sovietisation of the museums proceeded slowly, as it took some time to come up with a revisionist version of Lithuania’s past (Anušauskas et al. 2005: 126-129; Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 73). It is important to understand that cultural policy and culture were perceived differently back then. For example,

15 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Rindzevičiūtė mentions, that after Stalin’s death in 1953, and particularly during the de-Stalinization of post-1956, Soviet cultural policy in Lithuania came to be ‘gradually reformulated as a means of improving the everyday life of the citizens’ (2008: 80). To quote Juozas Banaitis, the third Lithuanian Minister of Culture: You know how culture in the countryside is changing. Spectators sit in a hall, without coats, it is warm, and everybody is nicely dressed. It is not like it was before, when everyone was freezing and wearing coats, while smoke kept coming from the entrance hallway. We are already moving forward ( quoted in Jakelaitis 1986: 133). Moreover, when talking about the Soviet Union as a collective corporation, Rindzevičiūtė mentions that ‘cultural policy thus was about enlightenment, instruction, discipline and repression‘(2008: 250). This gives us a very different impression from the one that we are used to today. So how was the culture created? And what kind of culture can we find in Soviet Lithuania? The artists were ordered to praise the regime. For some, particularly younger artists, this was not too hard a thing to do –they were quickly involved in, for example, painting propagandist posters for various events. Also, there were supporters of the regime. Famous in Lithuania were the poet Salomėja Nėris and writer Petras Cvirka. Thus, they could idolize the regime in the press and various journals. However, according to Streikus, it was not enough: these figures were already known as the supporters of communism, their influence was limited, and there was a need for some new authoritative authors that would support the regime (Streikus 2007). All authors were called to publicly show their affiliation to the regime. Some answered the call, but overall the participation was low. Thus, at the annual writers’ meeting in 1941, the attendees were reproached for hiding their unwillingness to write under various guises, such as mental illness (ibid.). As in other Eastern and Central European countries under the Soviet occupation, two cultural systems formed quickly: one official and the non-conformist underground movement. However, whilst the official cultural system was more or less the same in all Soviet Republics, the underground culture was different on many levels (Zaborskaitė 2008). In Lithuania, the Catholic press comprised a large part of underground culture. Katalikų Bažnyčios Kronikos [The Chronicle of the Catholic Church] was one of the most known underground journals. There were also some secular journals, such as Aušra [The Down], Perspektyvos [Prospects], Alma Mater. The groups, supporting underground culture would usually form in places such as universities and publishing houses. Students and lecturers would participate in secret meetings, where they would share forbidden literature and discuss the news. Most notable was which encouraged students to know and to value national culture and resist the regime (Zaborskaitė 2008; Ivanauskas 2011b: 135). Therefore, lecturers were regularly fired and students were

16 Laisve Linkute 10394192 often expelled from the university. Various publishing houses, such as Vaga and Mintis were also known supporters of underground culture, especially non-conformist art (Zaborskaitė 2008). In the 1970s and ‘80s folk culture was revived: young people would join folk ensembles, ecological groups, and hiker clubs, for example, all of which fostered the old Lithuanian folk culture. The youth would share secret information during the hikes to historically significant natural objects, such as old mounds, hills and lakes (Mičiulienė 2012; Ramonaitė 2011: 41-44). As their activities conformed to the slogan ‘socialist in content, national in form’ they were allowed and even encouraged (Lithuanian folk culture is closely related to paganism, so was seen as a good opposition to Christianity). Zaborskaitė argues that underground culture allowed people to survive the regime and was a premise to the rise of independence movements later on (Zaborskaitė 2008).

Policies on language and religion As mentioned above, in earlier times in Lithuania, the notion of national culture was based on folk art and the Lithuanian language. This raises a question: what were the language policies in the country? And how did the Soviets deal with the dominant religion in the country – Catholicism? The aim of this section is to provide the reader with basic information about the policies on language and religion in the Soviet Union and how they were applied in Soviet Republic of Lithuania. Analysis of these policies deserves a study of its own and is therefore left out if this thesis. The ambition of this section is quite limited, and thus it will be based on a limited amount of sources. The section will rely on Ihor .Gawdiak’s chapter ‘Nationalities and Religions’ from Soviet Union: A Country Study2 and Misiunas and Taagepera’s book The Baltic States: Years of Independence 1940-1990. According to Gawdiak, the Soviet attempts to develop a coherent policy toward nationalities and religions were largely unsuccessful: Official policies and practices have not only varied with time but also have differed in their application from one nationality to another and from one religion to another. Although all Soviet leaders had the same long-range goal of developing a cohesive Soviet people, they pursed different policies to achieve it. For the Soviet regime, the question of nationality and

2 The author Ihor Y. Gawdiak was a senior research analyst at the Library of Congress Federal Division Washington DC, USA. The Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress (USA) published a series of works called ‘The Country Studies’ between 1986 and 1998. Due to the lack of funding, the project was suspended and online versions of books previously published in hard copy were put on the Library of the Congress website. The works are freely available for use of researchers and no copyright is claimed on them (FRD 2008; Ihor Gawdiak 1991; Ihor Gawdiak and Helen Fedor 1994: 453; The Library of Congress 2010a; The Library of Congress 2010b). ‘

17 Laisve Linkute 10394192

religion were always closely linked. Not surprisingly, therefore, the attitude toward religion also varied from a total ban on some religions to official support of others (1991: 195) He notes that according to the Soviet Constitution, everyone was a citizen of the USSR and a member of a certain nationality (Gawdiak 1991: 195). Although nationalities were technically equal under the Constitution that was not true in the real life: 15 nationalities had union republic status (including Lithuania), others however, had a lower status. There was some contradiction in Lenin’s thoughts and actions: he was sure that sooner or later all nationalities would unite and become one, nonetheless, he wanted the USSR to be set up as a federation of equal nations. This explains why, during the Lenin’s rule various nationalities had substantial freedom (Gawdiak 1991: 195-196). Stalin’s methods on the other hand were different: Stalin’s watchwords regarding nationalities were centralism and conformity. Although Georgian, Stalin pursued a policy of drawing other nationalities closer to the Russian nationality (sblizhenie3…). He looked toward Russian culture and language as the links that would bind different nations together, creating in the process a single Soviet people who would not only speak Russian but also for all intents and purposes be Russian (Gawdiak 1991: 196). was executed thoroughly and in all areas of life. For example, non-Russian people were removed from high positions and replaced with native Russians or Russified people; school pupils had to learn Russian; then Russification reached its extremes when Ukrainians were cruelly repressed with famine in 1932-1933. The policies very successfully extinguished the non-Russian elites (Gawdiak 1991: 196). Moreover, Gawdiak stresses that ‘Russian history was glorified, and Soviet power was identified with Russian national interests. In the post – World War II victory celebration, Stalin toasted exclusively the Russian people while many other nationalities were punished as traitors’ (1991: 196). During the Khrushchev’s Thaw the regime abolished some of the toughest policies against nationalities but nevertheless, Khrushchev implemented a ‘policy of merger of nationalities (sliianie4...)’ and carried out the laws ‘that further favoured the over native languages’ (Gawdiak 1991: 196). Khrushchev’s years saw many experiments with Lithuanian education system. For example, Russian, which has been

3Sblizhenie Literally, drawing together. A Soviet policy of bringing the diverse nationalities into a close socialist community by gradually reducing ethnic differences of individual nationalities. The policy was included in the 1961 party program (Country Data 1989). 4sliianie Literally, blending, merging. A theory that all Soviet nationalities could be merged into one by eliminating ethnic identity and national consciousness. Adopted by Stalin and included in the 1930 party program, its intent was to achieve a single Russian-speaking, Soviet nationality (Country Data 1989).

18 Laisve Linkute 10394192 mandatory in all schools since 1938, became a ‘voluntary’ language at non-Russian schools and the Lithuanian language became selective in Russian schools (Gawdiak 1991: 197; Misiunas and Taagepera 1993: 195). As Misiunas and Taagepera observe: ‘The realities of Soviet life, however, put pressure on the to become bilingual, while no such pressure was out on Russian residents in the Baltic republics’ (1993: 195). It is no secret that Russian was the common language in every republic and the only language in military, scientific research and high technology (Gawdiak 1991: 197-198). When Brezhnev came to power in 1964 the policies toward nationalities became strict again. A renewed Russification campaign once again became visible in the late 1970s and remained so until 1986. The increase in the use of the Russian language was particularly noticeable in the educational system and the media (Misiunas and Taagepera 1993: 296). Playschools were to use Russian for a half a day, whilst in high schools a minimum of two subjects were supposed to be taught in the language. Russian became mandatory and was taught from the first grade onwards. Moreover, Russian moved to more informal settings, such as amateur theatrical groups etc. (Misiunas and Taagepera 1993: 212). Atheism had the status as the official doctrine of the USSR and was highly propagated. During Lenin’s rule, church-goers were persecuted and their religions mocked. To encourage the ‘correct’ beliefs from the young age atheism was extensively propagated at schools (Gawdiak 1991: 198). Nevertheless, the outcome and the effectiveness of such policies are generally unclear: The regime’s efforts to eradicate religion in the Soviet Union, however, have varied over the years with respect to particular religions and have been affected by higher state interests. Soviet officials closely identified religion with nationality. The implementation of policy toward a particular religion, therefore, has generally depended on the regime’s perception of the bond between that religion and the nationality practicing it, the size of the religious community, the degree of allegiance of the religion to outside authority, and the nationality’s willingness to subordinate itself to political authority (Gawdiak 1991: 198). In this way, the regime would be disproportionately harsh to the small religious groups which are very closely associated with a specific nationality. Moreover, if the group had ties with a foreign religious authority like the Pope, even stricter measures would be taken (ibid.). Lithuania, unfortunately, fell in this category because the leading Catholic Church had very deep native roots. Nationalism and religion were closely interconnected, to such an extent that some of the clergy took part in the guerrilla resistance between 1944-1953 (Misiunas and Taagepera 1993: 124). Thus, Misiunas and Taagepera write, ‘This nationalism made the Church a prime target of the Soviet campaign against Lithuanian national culture…The first step, which the Soviets started in 1944, was to try to create a ‘national church’ that would be forbidden to have any ties with the Vatican’ (1993: 124-125). Numerous

19 Laisve Linkute 10394192 bishops were unsuccessfully pushed to denounce the Pope, with some of them arrested and others fleeing to the West (Anušauskas et al. 2005: 131; Misiunas and Taagepera 1993: 124-125). Soviets somewhat tolerated Catholicism in Soviet Lithuania; however a large number of the clergy was imprisoned, many seminaries closed, and secret agents infiltrated those remaining (Gawdiak 1991: 199-200; Misiunas and Taagepera 1993: 125; Ramonaitė 2011: 37). Other changes included: the government’s support for religious groups and payment of the priests’ wages was abolished; church holidays were eliminated; religious leaders banned from the army and government institutions; and the social and educational functions of the Church cancelled. The faithful were harassed: those who attended mass were followed and could easily get fired from their jobs, especially those working at schools, universities and as civil servants. Although anti-Catholic actions in Soviet Lithuania decreased in number and intensity after the Stalin’s death, the strict measures against the church started again in 1957 and were sustained through the Brezhnev years (Anušauskas et al. 2005: 130-131; Gawdiak 1991: 200; Ramonaitė 2011: 37-39). In the words of Misiunas and Taagepera: In the early 1980s a new propaganda approach to Roman Catholicism manifested itself in Lithuania. The earlier line that religion was a remnant of the past which was dying out had virtually become untenable in the face of increasing evidence of popular identification of Roman Catholicism with Lithuanian nationalism. While the process was far from being as developed as in neighbouring , it apparently caused concern to the ideological establishment. Increasingly, works appeared which stressed a historical accidental association between Lithuanian nationalism and Roman Catholicism (1993: 297). This argument became very popular during the 1984 celebration of the 500th anniversary of the death of St. Casimir, Lithuania’s patron saint. The celebrations were of great significance to the people of Lithuania. Later, Pope John Paul II revealed that he was not only denied permission to attend this commemoration, but also was prohibited by the Soviets from attending the commemoration of the 600th anniversary of Lithuania’s Christianization in 1987 (Misiunas and Taagepera 1993: 297). Catholic parishes represented a grassroots institution, the existence of which was under the threat of Soviet rule. In the 1980s, the support from the Church was especially significant (Misiunas and Taagepera 1993: 84-85). This chapter showed that introduction of Soviet cultural policy in Lithuania was a difficult task, for both the Soviets and Lithuanians. The new system was imposed very quickly, radically and did not resemble the model of cultural policy that was seen before. The impact of the policies was very harsh on Lithuanian society, particularly on artists and creatives. It is believed that Lithuanian society today can still feel the consequences of Soviet cultural policy. However, it also shows that Lithuanian national culture was always there - it did not miraculously emerge at the end of the 1980s. Of course, it was suppressed,

20 Laisve Linkute 10394192 forbidden and cultivated secretly, but it was present and was of paramount importance to the emergence of independence movements in late 1980s. The next chapter will show how Soviet cultural policy was abolished in Lithuania, and new, state policy imposed.

21 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Second Chapter: Transition to democracy

During the years of the Soviet Occupation, cultural policy in the Soviet Republic of Lithuania was shaped according to official communist ideology. Consequently, Soviet Lithuanian cultural policy was not only tightly ideological but also highly inefficient. Thus, after Lithuania regained independence (in 1990 de jure and 1991 de facto) it was clear that the state cultural policy needed urgent democratic reform (Rindzevičiūtė 2012). Waiting ahead there was a lot of work: The main cultural issues after the Declaration of Lithuanian Independence in 1990 were related to: creating a culture legislation system; defining the role and responsibility of the state, counties and municipalities in the administration of culture; establishing new models of management in cultural institutions; enhancing the role of arts associations; elaborating a national heritage protection system; creating specific bodies for evaluation of culture and art (expert commissions, arts councils, self-government organisations); and strengthening the importance of NGOs for culture (Liutkus 2010: 3). So how was the field of cultural policy reformed in post-Soviet Lithuania? What events led to transformation of Lithuanian cultural policy? Did Lithuania get rid of the old system? What happened to the Soviet institutions? Is there any continuity? What role did national identity play in the formation of new state cultural policy? These are the important questions that need to be answered in this chapter. To achieve this aim, I will first look at the important events and developments that led to the formation of state cultural policy. A lot of attention will be devoted to the 1st Congress of Lithuanian Culture because it was a key event that influenced the creation of Lithuanian state cultural policy later on. Next, the chapter will look at the development of institutions. I aim to find out what system was created and why, what institutions were transformed and abolished. The last section will present various changes in the policy that took place up to 2004. As mentioned in the introduction, this will characterise the period roughly from 1990 – the collapse of communism in Lithuania to 2004 – the year Lithuania joined the EU. More than two decades have already passed since the democratic transformation began in in general and in Lithuania in particular (1988-1989). Whilst vast volumes of research about democratic transformation in the Eastern European countries have been written, it is surprising that so little has been published about the democratization of the state cultural sector: only non-academic reports have been published on democratization of Lithuanian state cultural policy. Other studies focus on consolidation of the political system, conformity to international standards, the development of civil society, integration of ethnic minorities, and democratization of ex-authoritarian regimes (Norkus 2008; Rimkus 2010; Rindzevičiūtė 2012; Zielonka and Pravda 2001; Uhlin 2006). Therefore this analysis will draw

22 Laisve Linkute 10394192 on various documents issued by the Ministry of culture, journal and newspaper articles and Council of Europe reports.

Inspirational events The reforms in cultural policy had actually begun in the years of perestroika. At the end of 1980s many important events, commonly referred as the took place. The term Singing Revolution not only refers to the actual singing but also to the peaceful nature of the independence movements in three Baltic states: , and Lithuania (Thomson 1992). One of the opposition movements that led to the restoration of independent Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and which are considered to be ‘highly successful examples of ’ was the Lithuanian movement Sąjūdis5 (Beissinger 2009: 232). Sąjūdis introduced ‘the first signs of another outlook on the organisations and administration of the cultural policy in the state and society‘ (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 26). The movement was established on June 3, 1988 after the meeting of Lithuanian intellectuals at Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. The meeting was called to debate the further destiny of Lithuania (Lietuvos Sąjūdis 2013a; Ramonaitė et al. 2011: 311- 315). Initially, representatives of science, arts and culture were due to talk about the fate of culture, economic reforms, political changes etc. at the debates entitled ‘Are we going to overcome the bureaucratism?’(Lietuvos Sąjūdis 2013a). However, speakers started to discuss the news and the direction of Lithuania in the context of Gorbachev’s reforms. After the stormy discussions the decision to form the Sąjūdis movement was taken. Many Sąjūdis members were well known intellectuals, musicians, poets, writers, composers and other people that were primaraly associated with culture. They were well educated and anti-communist, and therefore they were keen to participate in Sąjūdis activities (Jankauskas 2011: 163; Lietuvos Sąjūdis 2013a; Ramonaitė et al. 2011: 311-315). Huge imput into the activities of Sąjūdis was made by Lithuanian philosophers Bronislovas Genzelis, Arvydas Juozaitis, Bronislovas Kuzmickas, Jokūbas Minkevičius, Romualdas Ozolas and Radžvilas (Jankauskas 2011: 163). During the 1988 Sąjūdis organised rallies through the whole Lithuania (Sąjūdis Rokiškio Krašte 2013). In the rallies people would not only talk about political problems, but also discussed the revival of Lithuanian culture, preservation of Lithuanian heritage and ecological problems. The movement denounced the programme of the Communist Party of Lithuania which only emphasised economic matters. In its own programme Sąjūdis stressed that it is important to restore the Lithuanian language as the official

5 Sąjūdis (initially known as the Reform Movement of Lithuania, Lithuanian: Lietuvos Persitvarkymo Sąjūdis) is the political organization which led the struggle for Lithuanian independence in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Sąjūdis was created on June 3, 1988. Its goal was to seek the return of independent status for Lithuania (Lietuvos Sąjūdis 2013; Vardys and Slaven 1996).

23 Laisve Linkute 10394192 language, to foster Lithuanian culture and spiritual values, to promote nationalism, to respect human and citizen rights, to seek social justice and to care about the society and state (Lietuvos Sąjūdis 2013a; Sąjūdis Rokiškio Krašte 2013). The leader of Sąjūdis said at the inaugural meeting of the movement that ‘we live in the ruins of culture. These are the ruins of our [Lithuanian] traditions, customs, way of life and communication’ (Landsbergis 1988 quoted in Lietuvos Sąjūdis 2013b). The few years before independence were characterized by great public interest in the heritage and current position of national culture and history simulated by Sąjūdis. Artists and creators have played a very important role in the struggle for independence. Society was greatly concerned about culture: public discussions and forums on culture were held in magazines and on TV, various clubs and societies for cultural heritage were coming into being, creative unions were leaving Soviet organisations one after another (Cultural Policy in Lithuania6 1997: 10). The highly popular cultural monthly Kultūros Barai [Domains of Culture] raised society‘s interest by regularly publishing roundtable discussions with leading Lithuanian cultural operators (Rindzevičiūtė 2012).

1st Congress of Lithuanian Culture A very important event in this period of time was the 1st Congress of Lithuanian Culture, held on 18-20 May 1990 in Vilnius. The Congress was inspired by Sąjūdis and was seen as a continuation of it (Respublika 2009). Although it was called the first Congress of Lithuanian Culture, historically, this was the ninth Congress of Lithuanian Culture: the previous ones were held in interwar Lithuania annually between 1925- 1930, the 7th in 1932 and the 8th in 1935. However, nobody wanted to emphasize the tradition of the congress, because this could have aroused suspicion of society that the state is returning to old ideological confrontation (Stoškus 2013). As Stoškus explains: ‘whereas the 1st post-communist Congress, that continues the tradition of Sąjūdis meetings was supposed to demonstrate the solidarity of the nation and testify its wish to create democratic, decentralized, controled by free citizens and ensuring the national tradicions cultural policy‘ (Stoškus 2013). Krescencijus Stoškus, philosopher, humanitarian and the chairman of the council of the Congress of Lithuanian Culture remembers ‘We have never had a better situation…People of culture were very active then. Even people from abroad wanted to visit the Congress’ (Stoškus quoted in Respublika 2009). The Congress took place during the Russian economic blockade7; however, the athmosphere was filled with emotion and the idea that Lithuania was an independent

6 The Council of Europe report Cultural policy in Lithuania was published in 1997 and devotes its main attention to the period between 1990 -1995. Therefore the authors distinguish only two periods of the development of the cultural policy in Lithuania. The report was completed by a group of experts of the Council of Europe: Ms Ritva Mitchell, Ms Ruta Caupova, Mr Peter Kraun, Mr Bill Dufton, Mr Iikka Heiskanen, Mr Aldan Walsh. Special thanks goes to Mr Viktoras Liutkus, who is the also the author of the Council of Europe report on Lithuanian Cultural Policy in 2010 (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997). 7 After the Lithuanian declaration of independence in March of 1990, Gorbachev declared an economic blockade on Lithuania between April and late June (Kramer 2003: 211)

24 Laisve Linkute 10394192 country ready to create its own culture. Moreover, Stoškus said that this was the first and the last time when the Congress and the Ministry of Culture were working together on such good terms (Stoškus 2013). Thus, we see that society, cultural workers, artist and intelligentsia were very interested in the the 1st Congress of Lithuanian Culture. Of course, there was a part of society that did not care much, but the ones that did showed their interest in the future of Lithuania‘s culture. The importance of the Congress is emphasised in various sources (Rindzevičiūtė 2012: 14; Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 31-32). Democratisation of culture was of paramount importance in the Congress, which was attended by around 3000 cultural operators. The idea of the Congress was born spontaneously: cultural intelligentsia, artists, representatives of education and science were preoccupied with the situation of Lithuanian culture. They understood that after regaining the independence, the situation of culture in Lithuania needed to be discussed, various problems had to be addressed and ways to deal with them found. The key goals of the Congress were to review and assess the cultural situation Lithuania, the effects of the Soviet occupation on culture, outline the guidelines for cultural development, attract the attention of the to the most important problems (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 10; Liutkus 2010; Rindzevičiūtė 2012: 565). The Congress did not pass any documents in the form of resolutions, because opinions and suggestions were presented to the Congress in the form of Provisions, prepared by participants, public organisations and cultural workers (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 32). The Provisions attempted to define what objectives of culture should be worked out first. Important problems and needs for culture were specified in the Provisions; however, they were suggestions, not the obliging documents. From the point of view of cultural policy, The Program of Cultural Development in Lithuania was one of the main documents (projects) of the Congress. The document presented the general principles of cultural development (decentralisation, autonomy of cultural individuals, financing of culture guarantee by state, free competition of creative work and ideas, etc.) and the concrete objectives for corresponding culture and art areas (ibid.). It also suggested developments regarding the establishing and reorganisation of some cultural institutions. However, it failed to give the more comprehensive description of the guidelines of legal regulation of culture. The Program defined the orientations of state cultural policy for the first years of independence, and together with the Provisions became the starting point in preparing the programmes of the Governments (ibid.). The Congress proceedings were published later on as a solid volume. Today, the publication serves as an important historical source. Many of the views voiced in the Congress remained rather negligible in relation to the official state cultural policy later on, although, they were legitimate and were repeated during the coming decades (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 10, 31-32; Liutkus 2010; Rindzevičiūtė 2012: 565-566). The Congress was very important and inspiring event at the time;

25 Laisve Linkute 10394192 nonetheless, from today’s perspective its role seems ambiguous. For example, in the interview in 2009, Stoškus said that ‘Maybe the 1st Congress was more theatrical, filled with many nice speeches and sometimes naïve illusions’ (Stoškus cited in Respublika 2009). Furthermore, in the words of Giedrius Kazimierėnas, painter, professor at Vilnius Art Academy and member of the Commission of Congress of Lithuanian Culture: ‘The 1st Congress had a spirit. Afterwards the white book with all the reports was published. I do not know if somebody read that. But it is left for the history now’ (Zemlickas 2002). The 1st Congress formulated the perspectives of Lithuanian culture – it was envisioned that the culture should thrive freely. Nevertheless, it did not as expected: ‘new economic and social factors influenced the development of Lithuanian culture in the 1990s, which faced problems such as privatization of cultural institutions, free market processes, reform of the administrative system, changing status of culture institutions, etc.’ (Liutkus 2010: 3). To sum up, we can see that part of society cared for culture, especially intelligentsia, artists, cultural workers, philosophers etc. However, the newly created republic of Lithuania had to face other problems, and in the economic hardship culture was not a priority.

Institutional changes During the period after the declaration of independence culture experienced many unavoidable and necessary changes: ‘[D]ue to the influence of economical, administrative and financing reforms, it [culture] has had to adjust itself to market conditions, and to the norms and requirements prescribed by numerous laws’ (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 10). These changes affected the situation of culture, the infrastructure of institutions and the directions of the organisation and administration of culture. Reforms resulted in changes of the status of creative unions, the status of the artists and the social conditions, and provisions for the consumption of culture by the public. So what were the most important changes in the field of state cultural policy? How was the Lithuanian state cultural policy democratised? It has been noticed that after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the communist regimes in the Eastern Europe, many of the Soviet organisational structures did not disappear but were subverted according to the particular country’s needs (Bunce 1999). The institutional framework of Lithuanian state cultural policy was no exception either. As one cultural worker put it in the interview on de-sovietisation of Lithuania: ‘the giant cultural infrastructure remained exactly the same and nothing had changed’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2009: 196). There is some truth in this statement, as only those organisations which were solely involved in ideological control were abolished – Glavlit8 was

8 Glavit is the acronym of the Main Administration for Literary and Publishing Affairs which existed in Soviet in 1922 and in Lithuania between 1940-1944 ( Rindzevičiūtė 2012: 566)

26 Laisve Linkute 10394192 closed down in February 1990 while the Communist Party was banned in 1991 (Truska 1997: 217). Unfortunately, lustration9 law has not been implemented and a lot of former members of the Communist party continued their activities in government organisations, including the cultural sector (Rindzevičiūtė 2012: 567). Two important features of the post-Soviet transformation of the state cultural policy could be distinguished – decentralisation and symbolic renaming of the Soviet cultural organisations. On the ministerial level decision-making was decentralised10. The regulations of the Culture Congress stated that ‘in order to democratise Lithuania’s cultural policy state dictatorship is rejected’ and the highest power was granted to ‘parliamentary institutions’, ‘democratic elections’ and ‘decentralised cultural life’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2008: 566). According to the first Lithuanian government programme ‘State cultural policy is based on provisions of a person’s freedom of self-expression, the spontaneity of cultural development, the openness of the national culture, its modernity, democracy and decentralisation’ (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 28; The LR Government Programme 1991: 40). The most important characteristic of the Government Programme was that it obliged the state to stop the direct interference in many areas of culture and art (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 28). The Soviet system of cultural policy was hierarchical – the Soviet Lithuanian Minister of Culture had to report to the LSSR Council of Ministers and to the All-Union Ministry of Culture in Moscow. The principle was in fact called ‘democratic centralism’; however, in reality it guaranteed the rationalization of top-down decisions. The centralised system of cultural policy can be compared to a Russian nesting doll: ‘the all-union organs encompassed the republican organs, which in turn encompassed the local authorities’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2012: 566). In order to democratize the system of cultural policy political and administrative centralisation was to be eliminated as well as the centralised control of the content. The process accelerated with the creation of the Lithuanian branch of the first original public organisation in USSR ‘The Soviet Fund of Culture’11 in 1987 and the creation of independence movement Sąjūdis in 1988 (Lietuvos Sąjūdis 2013; Rindzevičiūtė 2012: 567). One of the first cultural organisations which broke away from central All-Union structures was the Lithuanian Artists’ Union (11 March 1989). Later on it was followed by other creative unions (Trilupaitytė 2002). The democratisation of Lithuanian state cultural policy carried on with the ministry

9 ‘refers to the process of screening groups of people for previous acts of collaboration under the communist regime (especially acts of collaboration with secret police) and in turn disqualifying members of these groups from holding high level positions in the public sector’ (Appel 2005: 383). 10 Two types of decentralization occurred: first, decentralization of decision-making process; second – decentralization of the cultural administration. 11 The Soviet Fund of Culture was funded by philanthropist George Soros and was created in Moscow in 1986.

27 Laisve Linkute 10394192 reform. After the declaration of independence the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Education were merged together into the Ministry of Culture and Education. Twenty-eight-year-old historian Darius Kuolys became the first minister of culture and education (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 34; LR Government 2013; The Ministry of Education and Science 2013). Between 1988 and 1995 the functions of the ministry were gradually expanded as many independent bodies were abolished and their functions assigned to the ministry. For example, Lithuanian Committee for Cinematography under the Lithuanian Council of Ministers was abolished in 1988 and responsibilities were given to the new Cinema Division at the Ministry of Culture (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 32-33). In 1994 the Ministry of Culture and Education were separated into the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Education and Science. Another important development was the establishing of the Department of Cultural Heritage Protection. Overall, the Ministry was responsible for implementing state policy in spheres in art and photo art, literature and printing, theatre, music, cinema, libraries, museums, cultural centres, copyrights and youth matters (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 34). The second feature of the post-Soviet transformation of the state cultural policy was symbolic renaming of Soviet cultural organisations. The status of ‘Soviet Republic’ was changed into ‘Lithuanian National’, for example the Republic Art Museum became the Lithuanian National Art Museum etc. One might get an idea that this was an artificial reform, however, one should not be quick to judge: ‘it should be regarded not as a case of superficial reform but as very important discursive strategy. It legitimised the inherited Soviet organisational structures, networks and hierarchies and safeguarded their perpetuation’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2009: 198). Nonetheless, this method failed to preserve houses of culture, which were very popular in the USSR. Cultural centres met the cultural needs of the community: fostered ethnic culture, amateur art, organized various entertainment and educational programmes (Lietuvos Respublika 2004). This happened naturally: the houses of culture exercised social function and were more preoccupied with amateur activities than high culture and eventually this niche was filled with the pop culture from the West (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 158; Rindzevičiūtė 2009; Rindzevičiūtė 2012; White 1990). Let us come back to decentralisation. To achieve decentralisation in decision making process, the decision-making power was vested to the members of expert commissions and art. The subordinate institutions, such as museums, were granted more power (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 28-29; Rindzevičiūtė 2012: 567). Decentralisation of the cultural sector was a complex assignment: the cultural sector was good with regulation, but not with financial matters. That is why ’the state funding of culture

28 Laisve Linkute 10394192 was reconceptualised and reframed into project and program based funding through an arm’s-length12 body’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2009: 196). In years to come, other arm’s length funding bodies were set up such as the Media Support Foundation in 1996 and the Foundation for Support of Art and Sports in 1998. Only the organisations which had ‘national’ status were additionally financed straight from the state budget: Lithuanian National Philharmonic Society, Lithuanian National Opera and Ballet Theatre, Lithuanian National Drama Theatre, National Museum of Lithuania, Lithuanian Art Museum, M. K. Čiurlionis National Museum of Art, National Museum Palace of the Grand of Lithuania and Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania (Rindzevičiūtė 2009: 197; Rindzevičiūtė 2012). Moreover, there is a further problem with financing: while in theory both private and governmental organizations should have an equal right to get funding from the state, in practice the financing ‘continued to follow Soviet administrative patterns of funding’ therefore ‘the most finance was channelled to the cultural organisations which were located at the top of the hierarchy of the centralized Soviet system’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2009: 197). Thus, the state funding goes to the National Philharmonic Society, National Museum of Lithuania, the Lithuanian National Opera and Ballet Theatre. In addition, many of the experts’ council members were the members of the ex-Soviet creative unions and lobbied their own interests (Lubytė 2008; Rindzevičiūtė 2009: 197). Other established bodies include: the Culture and Art Council, number of expert commissions at the Ministry of Culture and at state cultural institutions, various commissions at self-government level. These bodies still play a role in the cultural sector but not the major one- mostly they are advisory bodies. Nevertheless, they do not correspond to the arm’s-length model (Liutkus 2010: 4). It is also important to mention that because of decentralisation the civil society was stimulated by declaring a public right to establish cultural organizations. The first non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were funded by the Open Society Fund- Lithuania, founded by George Soros13, and by the Ministry of Culture. The private funding was very limited, because of the economic crisis in 1993 when the Lithuanian economy shrunk by 16.2 % (OSFL 2013; Kasekamp 2010: 181). Hence, we see that the new institutional system maintained some aspects of the old system. Of course, at the top of the hierarchy was the Lithuanian government and not the USSR officials. This without doubt is the most important change. Although the numbers of new bodies were established and some were abolished, the most important cultural organisations were transformed by changing their names. The relationships between institutions remained very similar to those of the USSR despite

12 Arm’s-length principle: ‘this valuation principle is commonly applied to commercial and financial transactions between related companies. It says that transactions should be valuated as if they had been carried out between unrelated parties, each acting in his own best interest’ (OECD 2007). 13 George Soros, supporter of democratic ideals, has established a philanthropic organization, the Open Society Foundations in over 70 countries. The OSF supports democracy and human rights (George Soros 2013)

29 Laisve Linkute 10394192 decentralisation: with the ministry making top-down decisions. The system is often critiqued by cultural workers. For example in the words of Kazimierėnas: The ministry [of Culture] seeks to maintain central management pyramid, well known from the Soviet times. At the top is the minister with small group of people and they make the decisions. Of course, there is an expert council formed by the minister and accountable for the minister. And the minister does not have to listen to the council or take into account their opinions. That is the disadvantage of the system. The central management pyramid is not appealing to the society anymore. I would call this a rough structure of governance, when the decisions are let down from the top. Any societal organisations can influence the ministry (Kazimierėnas quoted in Zemlickas 2002). To summarize, pre-1990 society cared a lot about culture and had many high hopes as to how the culture would be managed in the independent Lithuania. Nevertheless, implementing these ideas in reality was not as easy as it seemed to be at the beginning. In addition, in the newly created Lithuanian state culture was put into shade because the government was dealing with more urgent economic problems. In cases where the Government designed a programme for culture, various provisions were not implemented due to the economic and social reforms between 1991-1993 (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 29).

Cultural policy changes This section will take a brief look into the most important government programmes for culture and other documents issued between 1991 and 2004. Due to the time and space limits, only the most important facts will be summarized. In the period between 1990 and 1996 six governments had taken the office. The programmes of all governments had a section on culture; however, the most significant ones among them were the 1991 and the 1994 programmes. Both of them stand out because the others did not declare the state objectives for culture and directions for its development in as much detail (Cultural policy in Lithuania 1997: 27; Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė 2013). The 1991 Government Programme Market. Democracy. Freedom was very innovative because there were no similar statements about the objectives of the cultural policy before. As was mentioned earlier, the 1991 programme committed the state, that is the Ministry of Culture and other institutions, to stop direct regulation and interfering in various areas of culture and art. Furthermore, the cultural policy provisions of the 1991 programme were of paramount importance, because: ’it formulated and united the most important components needed to implement of cultural policy during period of transition from a centralized socialist system to a democratic state’ (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 28). To give an example, it was emphasised how important it is to create laws on culture, to have a dialogue with society, and to have open and de-ideologised culture and art; the programme also

30 Laisve Linkute 10394192 decided on the mode of cultural management and modification of its infrastructure, modification of cultural funding and creation of the mechanism for decision-making (Cultural Policy 1997: 28-29). The main aim of the 1994 Government programme was to ensure a historical continuity of the Lithuanian culture. The programme of 1994 was largely based on the 1991 Government programme but included a wider range of activities. It showed that cultural heritage, its preservation, restoration and the links between cultural and educational institutions and international cooperation are areas that need a lot of attention but failed to include Lithuania’s national minorities, cultural information and the public mass media (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 30-31). It is acknowledged by Liutkus that ‘the government’s 1994 programme was the first legal document which underlined the task to “complete the model of Lithuanian cultural policy’’’ (2010: 4). In practice the ‘model’ was understood as a document, ‘where cultural policy objectives, guidelines and tasks for particular cultural sectors and cultural development should be indicated’ (ibid.). The further development of the model was outlined in the Principles for Lithuanian Cultural Policy 2001. The document stated that one of the most significant tasks needed for further cultural development was decentralisation of the cultural administration. It also renewed cultural policy objectives, for example, to preserve cultural heritage and cherish the identity of the national culture, to develop an information society, to guarantee participation in cultural life, to encourage the openness of national culture and its representation abroad etc. (Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė 2001). Decentralisation, however, proved to be another difficult task: A challenge was posed by the process of decentralisation and the redistribution of financial and managerial responsibilities between different level of government – state, counties and municipalities. A longer- term objective has been to move all territorially decentralised art and cultural institutions (cultural centres, public libraries, museums etc.) under the jurisdiction and financial control of the municipalities (Liutkus 2010: 4). Democratisation proved the same: according to the Guidelines for alteration of Lithuanian cultural policy 2010 ‘full democratisation of the governance of culture as the ‘‘development of self-regulation of culture’’ was not yet achieved’ (Rindzevičiūtė 2012: 568). In addition, it was suggested that ‘in Lithuania, the model and institutional character of cultural implementation that was inherited from Soviet times was never in essence changed and cultural self-regulation was not ensured’ (Lietuvos Respublikos 2010: 3-4).In order to accelerate the process of democratisation of the state cultural policy it was recommended to establish an independent Cultural Council which would ensure the separation of policy formulation and implementation. In words of Rindzevičiūtė: In this way, decentralization remained the most important aspect of democratization that was explicitly framed as a problem and debated by Lithuanian cultural policy-makers and

31 Laisve Linkute 10394192

cultural operators. Perceived as somewhat urgent, the other three important aspects, ethnic diversity, social equality and the economic uses of culture, were nonetheless also very important (2012: 568). Overall, this chapter showed how the early Lithuanian state dealt with the leftovers of the Soviet cultural model. The first section emphasised the role of Sąjūdis and 1st Congress of Lithuanian Culture in the transition period. Both Sąjūdis and the Congress showed society‘s interest in culture. However, the first government programme did not reflect on the provisions of the Congress. The implementation of policy changes at first was difficult too, mainly because of economic and social problems. The second section presented institutional changes. While the original model was anticipated, the practice shows that the model of cultural policy in Lithuania still has similarities with the Soviet model. The state is a decision-maker and has a leading role in most matters of culture administration, financing and information dissemination (Liutkus 2010: 4). The last section looked at the most important policy changes. It was concluded that decentralisation and democratisation proved to be difficult tasks that still need to be completed. In the following chapter we will see how the membership in the European Union has affected cultural policy in Lithuania. The chapter will focus on the new developments which took place after 2004 and will focus on culture, emigration, national identity and international cooperation.

32 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Third Chapter: Lithuania in the EU

Third and the last chapter of this thesis will focus on the developments of Lithuanian cultural policy since Lithuania joined the EU in 2004. In the previous chapters it has been established that national identity played a fundamental role during the Soviet occupation and in the liberation process. After gaining independence, people, especially intelligentsia, had high hopes about the future cultural policy in Lithuania. However, the reality of the early years of independence was not so nice and bright. Not all of the voices in the society were heard and not all of the ideas concerning cultural policy were implemented. Moreover, economic and social problems always went first, thus the implementation of cultural policy in Lithuania was struggling. It was also found that Lithuanian cultural policy model still has similarities with the Soviet model and that democratisation of cultural infrastructure was not fully achieved by 2010. The aim of this chapter is to understand how the EU membership has influenced Lithuanian cultural policy and, consequently, national identity. For the purposes of this chapter we need to establish again the meaning of the term ‘national identity’. As mentioned in the introduction of this thesis, national identity is ‘the sense of belonging, which one feels to a particular group of people’ (nation) or a country (state) as a whole (Cox 2012). According to Anderson, the nation is an ‘imagined community’, whose members will never meet or interact with most of the other members, but they all have an image in their minds of the community they belong to (1997: 44). Thus, ‘national identity’ is the sense of belonging which people feel towards an ‘imagined community’ of their nation. It is a ‘construction of natural and cultural factors’ which covers culture, traditions, language and politics (Mutanen 2010: 28). This chapter will firstly look at an important post-2004 phenomenon – emigration – linked to both membership in the EU and national identity. The first section will explain the link between membership in the EU, national identity and cultural policy. Second, this chapter will take a look at various policy developments since 2004. Then, the aspect of increased international cooperation and one of the main cultural events, Vilnius European Capital of Culture (ECOC) 2009, will be examined. Previous chapters saw an increasing awareness of national identity which reached the apogee during the fall of communism and the creation of independent Republic of Lithuania. In this chapter we will get to know what happened next.

EU as a threat to national identity This section will look into another aspect of the membership at the EU – the growing emigration and the fear that Lithuanian national identity will be lost. It is not surprising, that after 50 years of closed borders people were keen to see the world or even use the opportunity to live elsewhere. Before Lithuania joined the EU in May 2004, to start a life and find a job abroad was more or less difficult. When Lithuania joined

33 Laisve Linkute 10394192 the EU, the number of emigrants increased. The , and were the first ones to open their labour markets fully, thus at the beginning, these countries were the primary targets of Lithuanian migrant workers (Focus Migration 2007). Later on, , and Germany also became the top countries for emigration (European Migration Net 2012). According to statistics, during the last ten years more than 300.000 people emigrated from a country with total population of 3.4 million, while more than 200.000 left Lithuania since the accession to the EU in 2004. As some people did not declare their departure, the actual number is probably much higher ( 2011; Liutkus 2010: 14; Statistics Lithuania 2012). In general, emigration is not a new phenomenon in Lithuania’s history dating to 19th century: until 1990s emigration was mainly political, while since 1990 – mainly economic (Kuzmickaitė 2003). What makes the society worry is that more and more highly qualified people are emigrating – the so called ‘brain drain’ is happening. For example, in the period between 2001 and 2005 20.9% emigrants had a university degree (Focus Migration 2007). The number of young people choosing to study abroad increased 1.5 times since 2007 - at the moment 11 000 Lithuanian students are enrolled in universities abroad (Veidas 2013). Most of them are not planning to come back to Lithuania because of the better opportunities to make a career abroad and most importantly, because of the better wages. When choosing between starting salary of 2000 pounds and of 2000 Litas (aprox. 500 pounds) per month, most of the young people choose the former (Veidas 2013; The Graduate 2013: 6). Furthermore, Lithuanians choose to emigrate because having a diploma does not guarantee you a good job in Lithuania – stories about some employers asking people to have a higher education degree to work as a cleaner are common. Therefore, many Lithuanians with a university degree emigrate and become unskilled workers abroad (Didžiokaitė 2013: 58-59). Emigration is often discussed in media, Parliamentary sessions, Lithuanian embassies abroad, films, TV ads, arts etc. It was also the main topic of 2012 Parliamentary elections (Tvaskienė 2012; Venckute 2009; Žukauskaitė 2006: 38). Didžiokaitė notes that emigration is discussed not only because of its popularity and its impact on the economy: but it is also linked to a decline of civil consciousness and national identity…Hence, emigration in the Lithuanian context was and still is very much problematised because it is seen either as result of declining importance of ethnicity and national identity, or as a cause of such decline (2013: 47). One repetitive idea that can be found on these discussions, is the idea that Lithuanians abroad will lose their national identity, their ‘Lithuanianess’[lietuviškumą] (Didžiokaitė 2013: 57; Vasiliauskaitė 2006: 14; Venckutė 2009). Emigrants are considered to be the most vulnerable group: it is perceived that they would eventually adapt to the new surroundings and habits of the country they reside and would lose their identity and their culture. This is not exclusively related to emigration. Entering the EU can be perceived as

34 Laisve Linkute 10394192 threat to national identity at home too. Questions such as: What does it mean to be a Lithuanian today?, Can Lithuanianess be European? Has Lithuanianess to be European? What challenges await our national identity in the EU and in the globalizing world?, are discussed by the society and by academics in Lithuania (Vasiliauskaitė 2006: 14). National (and European) identities are ‘not finite and static but changing, constantly shaped and reconstructed’ (Astra 2010: 49). Various modern cultural changes influence national and European identities (ibid.). Lithuanian national identity has experienced all these changes too. After the collapse of the Communism formation of Lithuanian identity on the basis of inter-war state or the Grand- was not possible. Astra writing about the Lithuanian relationship with Europe notes: The Lithuanian relationship with Europe is based on the historical and ideological reasons. On the other hand, it also highlights the state of Lithuania as a European advantage against Russia, located outside of Europe. Lithuanian identity was formed in ethno-cultural, political and historical consciousness, in the common historical destiny of the basis, while the presence of the Europeans is much more perceived as a political imperative. The geographical centre of Lithuania had the assignment of symbolic meaning in shaping a European dimension in Lithuanian identity. As being geographically in Europe, Lithuanians are necessarily Europeans (2010: 52-53). Thus, we see that Europe played a role during the process of formation of national identity in the 20th century Lithuania. In a constructivist line of reasoning, the collapse of the communism in Lithuania and restoration of independence had a symbolic meaning of ‘a return to Europe’ (Gerner and Hedlund 1993: 67; Usenko 2006). Thus, Lithuanians saw themselves as Europeans not only because of the historical grounds but also in opposition to the Soviet Union and later on to Russia. There was a need to identify with Europe. According to Liubinienė, who analysed national identity in Lithuania during the process of change, during the rebirth of Lithuania the awareness of national identity became very strong. Liubininienė acknowledges that at the end of ‘90s national identity has weakened (Liubinienė 1999: 108-109). In the study of Lithuanian national identity written in 1999, it was acknowledged that in Lithuania, where there is a tendency for national identity to become weaker during peaceful times as in comparison to the strong national identity during the rebirth, entering the EU may stimulate national awareness and strengthen national identity (Liubinienė 1999: 110). It is also noted that: [u]sually the national identity strengthens when there is some external threat for its extinction. Joining the European Union might not bring such a threat. But we could predict that, depending on this, in the future the number of discussion on the question on national identity, urging people to preserve and strengthen it, might increase (Liubinienė 1999: 110).

35 Laisve Linkute 10394192

This is more or less what happened. In fact, Lithuania is not a Eurosceptic country: 90% of voters in the accession referendum in 2003 voted in favour of the membership (BBC 2003). However, Lithuania is a small country which has been occupied number of times. Before the Soviet Occupation, Lithuanians lived under the rule of the Russian Empire for more than hundred years – from 1795 to 1918. . Both times Lithuanian national identity and culture were suppressed and both times another – Russian or Soviet culture was imposed (Gerner and Hedlund 1993: 51-55). Therefore even the slightest threat to Lithuanian national identity and culture makes society alert. What is the role of cultural policy in this situation? First, it may be that people are afraid that national identity will be lost when living abroad, because Lithuanian cultural policy does not reach that far and it is not easy to maintain ‘Lithuanianess’ in a foreign country, where the access to Lithuanian books and cultural events is limited. Second, this shows that the effects of cultural policy in Lithuania are merely cosmetic and this is reflected in the society’s fear that Lithuanian national identity will be lost due to growing cooperation with Europe, growing emigration and growing integration. As will be shown in the next sections, cultural policy still struggles to get enough financing, which affects various projects including those promoting the preservation of national identity; whereas projects such as Vilnius ECOC 2009, which endorse European national dimension, are being financed. While for some this is a nice opportunity to connect with other cultures in Europe, others see this as a direct threat to national identity.

Entering the EU Already in 2002 the State’s Long-term Development Strategy stated that the main goals of Lithuanian cultural policy are ‘to preserve and promote common European cultural values and national identity, to warrant its prolongation, openness and competitiveness in contemporary Lithuanian, European and the World cultural context’ (Liutkus 2010: 5; Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas 2002: 35). We can see that European values became addressed, which was not the case before. In 2004 Lithuania joined both the EU and NATO and became a member of Schengen area in 2007 (Europa 2013a). These organizations do not regulate cultural policy directly and this was also emphasised in the State’s Long-term Development Strategy: ‘The EU purposely does not create common EU cultural policy, but encourages the Union with cultural diversity of member states, therefore, Lithuanian state is mostly responsible for Lithuanian cultural identity, preservation of its cultural values, development and dissemination’ (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas 2002: 35). However, it was stressed that new connections and the exchange channels that have newly opened will influence Lithuanian culture. Consequently, Lithuanian culture will become more open to the world itself, thus it will need more supervision. What concerns legislation, the state entering the EU has to take into account the EU’s legal acts and integrate them into their own laws (Rimkus 2010: 2). No significant

36 Laisve Linkute 10394192 problems have been encountered there. In fact, Lithuania was presented with many opportunities to use money from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Capital of Culture programmes (ibid). After the Maastricht Treaty introduced supranational competence on culture in 1992 the EU started to address culture with the new eagerness (Sassatelli 2009: 52-53). According to The Amsterdam Treaty 151 (ex Article 128/Maastricht Treaty): ‘The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore’ (Amsterdam Treaty 1997). Sassatelli explains the article: ‘”Cultures” are …referred to in the plural, and the emphasis is on their diversity, as confirmed by the following clauses, where the mandate to “respect and to promote the diversity of its cultures” are reiterated’ (2009: 52).The second point of the Treaty states: Action by the Community shall be aimed at encouraging cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, supporting and supplementing their action in the following areas: improvement of the knowledge and dissemination of the culture and history of the European peoples; conservation and safeguarding of cultural heritage of European significance; non- commercial cultural exchanges; artistic and literary creation, including in the audio-visual sector (Amsterdam Treaty 1997 Article 151). Thus, we see that that European cultural policy is a new initiative which aims to thicken European identity which is needed for legitimation of the EU as something more than just an economic union. In words of Sassatelli: The EU has recently introduced a cultural policy. This includes symbolic initiatives, among which is the creation of the ‘European Cities of Culture’(ECC), that are a primary example of EU attempts at awakening European consciousness by promoting its symbols, while respecting the content of national cultures. This goes together with the realization that the idea of ‘Europe’ as the foundation of an identity is key for legitimation of the EU (2002: 435). One might observe that the aim of the USSR was to create the ‘Soviet people’ by using the famous motto ‘National in form and socialist in content’ whereas the EU wants to create a strong union with citizens having European identity and uses the motto ‘United in diversity’ (Herzog 2010: 15; Europa 2013a). However, the EU motto celebrates diversity of culture: ‘It signifies how Europeans have come together, in the form of the EU, to work for peace and prosperity, while at the same time being enriched by the continent’s many different cultures, traditions and languages’(Europa 2013a). After the collapse of communism in 1989, the need for diversity in European became visible. Thus, the motto ‘united in diversity was added in order to stress ‘the subsidiarily [sic] principle and its fundamental respect for

37 Laisve Linkute 10394192 differences’ (Fornäs 2012). As Fornäs puts it ‘[t]he inner regional fragmentation of the continent – in languages, cultures and nations - was to be reinterpreted from an impediment to integration into its most valuable resource, in line with the enhancement of plurality and multiculture that developed in Central and East Europe after the post-communist turn’ (2012). The motto ‘united in diversity’ has been attacked by various scholars because of its ambiguity. Sassatelli explains that over the time in the EU documents two notions of culture have emerged - ‘culture as a way of life and culture as the production of artefacts and events’ (2009: 74). In the first notion, diversity is ‘a matter of external relations, being framed as an obstacle to economic rationalization’; it is tolerated and seen as an element of richness, but also as a hindrance to successful communication (ibid.). At the same time, it is unavoidable, because it is linked with ‘national “traditions and identities”’ (ibid.). Diversity is seen differently in the notion of culture as artefacts being produced and experienced: it is seen as an asset, and is celebrated and considered as a ‘richness since it is about multiplication of available cultural ‘goods’, whether high art masterpieces or popular “hits”’ (ibid.). This latter nation of culture is the appropriation for European identity (ibid.).

Cultural legislation after 2004 As the EU does not regulate Lithuanian cultural policy, all the initiative was left for the government. The 15th Government in its programme for the year 2008-2012 established the following cultural policy aims: ‘to enhance the role of the Ministry of Culture in development of national cultural programmes; to improve national and humanistic nurture programmes; and to integrate cultural and educational policy aims’(Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė 2013; Liutkus 2010: 15). Various cultural policy problems and questions, for example, investment and financing of cultural sector and state support for art and artist, were addressed in the Government’s programme. In 2010 Seimas (the Parliament of Lithuania) adopted the already mentioned Guidelines of Alteration of Lithuanian Cultural Policy (Liutkus 2010: 15). This is the last and very important document regarding the legislation on culture adopted by the Parliament (ibid., 29). The document started discussions between politicians, the society and artists. Some critics attacked the document; some later critiqued the implementation of the policies. The opinions varied: for some it was like ‘Noah’s ark’ for Lithuanian culture, whilst others said that the document is weak, filled with symbolic promises (Latėnas 2012; Rimkus 2010:2; Vildžiūnas 2010). The main problem appeared to be the implementation of the policies: the Guidelines of Alteration of Lithuanian Cultural Policy easily identified the biggest drawbacks of Lithuanian cultural policy model; however, it was difficult to find the specific measures to improve it (Vildžiūnas 2010). Thus, the main aim of the document was to renew the Lithuanian cultural policy model and to meet the following objectives:

38 Laisve Linkute 10394192

to enhance culture and cultural policy as strategic guidelines for the state; to reform culture management; to improve financing of culture; to implement protection of copyright and related rights; to form an integral system of heritage protection; to increase access to culture and the whole country; and to strengthen dissemination of Lithuanian culture abroad (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas 2010; Liutkus 2010: 15). The Guidelines of Alteration of Lithuanian Cultural Policy particularly stressed the need to reveal, preserve and develop society’s cultural identity. It is stated that young people, who do not feel bond with the cultural traditions, are at risk to lose their identification towards the community, the nation, their environment and even their own identity (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas 2010). Most importantly, the Guidelines of Alteration of Lithuanian Cultural Policy address the emigration problem: Nevertheless, huge emigration wave following the successful integration in the European Union shows weakened cultural community, dependence to Lithuanian cultural space, strengthening wish to take advantage of the freedom of movement and seek personal material gain, new experiences. Emigration also indirectly shows decreased prestige of Lithuanian culture and weakened motivation to identify with Lithuanian culture (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas 2010). It is suggested, that this challenges to interpret the concept of Lithuanianess differently: the idea of identity linked with territory should be changed into the idea of identity which is more dynamic, networking, and open to the process of modern society (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas 2013). Moreover, it is emphasized that cultural policy should not be limited to the territory of Lithuania, but to cover the whole net of emigration by creating and supporting Lithuanian cultural space (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas 2013).Thus, we see that entering the EU did not change the legislation of Lithuanian cultural policy a lot. The EU was seen as an opportunity to get more financing for culture. However, the document expressed the need to reformulate the idea of Lithuanian national identity and to make Lithuanian cultural policy more open and available for people living abroad.

Dissemination of financial means Twenty years after gaining independence financing of culture and the arts still encounters problems. During the years of independence the Ministry of Culture have tried to enhance participation of the third14 sector

14 Third sector is ‘voluntary or non-profit sector of an economy’ (Business Dictionary 2013). In Lithuania, as in Italy and some other Central and Eastern European countries, an initiative ‘aiming to stimulate intervention in favour of the arts while offering the freedom to choose which art organization to support’ has been introduced (Klamer, Mignosa and Petrova 2010: 10). It allows 2% of your tax payments to be given to non-profit organizations from which you can choose the ones that are operating in fields of the arts and culture (ibid.).

39 Laisve Linkute 10394192 and have tried to take an innovative approach to financing by funding new programmes, such as youth festivals, ethnic projects, young artists’ programmes. Various forms of culture funding exist in Lithuania, for example, programme funding, project funding, grant-based funding and institutional funding. The ministry adjusted its policy to introduce new policies and set up 35 new programmes which it supports and manages. To mention but a few: Programme for Document Acquisition in Public Libraries and Centralised Subscription of Databases Programme for Partial Compensation for Expenses of Dissemination of Professional Stage Projects, Programme for Commemoration of Anniversaries of Distinguished Personalities who have contributed to the Lithuanian Culture and History, Projects on Cultural Heritage of Significance for Lithuania Located Abroad (Liutkus 2010: 35-38; Ministry of Culture 2012; Rimkus 2010: 3). The projects cover many areas, including publishing, cinema, ethnic minorities, heritage, regional culture, national minorities, young artists and many more15 (Ministry of Culture 2012). National identity is fostered through the programmes that preserve heritage, regional culture and national minorities and also, through the programmes that support young Lithuanian artists, who create for both Lithuanian and foreign markets. For example, Ethnic Culture Programme covers range of ethnographic, folk activities, including special projects for Lithuanian dialects or old crafts, while Regional Culture Programme encompass the symbiosis of theatre, literature, architecture and music from various regions in Lithuania and neighbouring countries. Both programmes are keen to foster Lithuanian national identity and intercultural cooperation in Lithuania, to familiarize (young) people with Lithuania’s history and heritage (Ministry of Culture 2009; Ministry of Culture 2012; Ministry of Culture 2013). Furthermore, in the Council of Europe report, Liutkus acknowledges that ‘[t]he importance of private initiatives in the financing of culture and the arts has increased during recent years’, however, ‘there are no clear indicators on private financial support for culture and art institutions. Scientific research studies on private support of culture are still insufficient’ (2010: 37). Thus, we see that the direction of financing was tilted the other way and some innovation had taken place, and that private funding is becoming more and more important. Recent financial crisis affected the budget available for culture and changed society’s habits. Due to the economic recession in 2008, when GDP increased only 3.2% while in the previous years the percentage was 8.9% the Ministry of Culture noted in the Annual Report that : …[t]he beginning of the economic crisis influenced the 15th Government’s measures and determined the rise in prices of cultural goods and services. Probably some cultural goods and services may be inaccessible for part of society…The beginning of the world economic crisis in 2008 aggravated the implementation of the Ministry’s programmes in 2009 and will

15 To see a full list check Financed Programmes at the website of Ministry of Culture: http://www.lrkm.lt/index.php?2334777561

40 Laisve Linkute 10394192

hinder the realisation of strategic goals of the cultural policy during the coming few years (Liutkus 2010: 35). Thus, according to data collected by the Ministry of Culture, the number of visitors at various museums and cultural events had decreased at the end of 2008, when the economic effects of crisis became visible (2010: 35). According to various statistical data16, until the start of the crisis the part of money Lithuanians would spend for culture and recreation was growing – the average person would spend 6.2% for entertainment and culture (e.g. cinema, museums, theatre, festivals etc.) in 2006 and 8.1% in 2008. However, this growth was very small in comparison with other European countries. In 2009 increasing prices of cultural services and decreasing wages (the average pay at the time was 2056 Litas per month, which is around 596 ) made it impossible for many people to attend cinema or cultural events, with the tickets being priced 22.2 Litas (6.43 Euro) and 50 Litas (14.50 Euro) per event respectively (Statistics Lithuania 2013; Swedbank 2010). Moreover, the Ministry of Culture does not receive direct funding from the EU structural funds because it does not have rights to administer the assets of these funds. For example, EU support for heritage and culture objects, such as manors, churches and museums, are administered by the Ministry of Economy (BNS 2013a). Thus, the Ministry of Culture has to work closely with the Ministry of Economy or various municipalities to get at least some money (BNS 2013b; Igorius: 2012; Rimkus 2010: 3). Distribution of assets by the Ministry of Economy determined many defective decisions and the assets were distributed ineffectively: many churches, libraries and other heritage buildings are in state of emergency, however, it is not a priority of other ministries (Domeikaitė 2013). The Ministry of Culture hopes to get the right to administer the assets in the period between 2014-2020; however, the decision will be made by the government. In the opinion of the Vice-minister of Finance Rolandas Kriščiūnas, the establishment of a new administrative chain would be a huge challenge to any ministry and the government is afraid that the Ministry of Culture would not be able to administer the assets in the right way (Igorius 2012). At the moment (as of May 21, 2013) the debates about the assets of the EU structural funds are taking place; however, there is an opposition from the officials, who do not want to give money to the Ministry of Culture (BNS 2013b). According to the Minister of Culture Šarūnas Birutis: ‘If culture will not have financial support from the EU, state budget...we will not be able to fix cultural infrastructure’ (quoted in BNS 2013b). To sum up, financing is still one of the biggest struggles, which delays the implementation of the cultural policy. Culture is very sensitive field, which always gets wronged in the presence of economic hardships. In addition, in the presence of crisis the society itself is not keen to spend on culture. The Ministry of Culture

16 The data used is published by Swedbank, the biggest Scandinavian in Lithuania. Sources such as Eurostat, FACUA, Ministry of Culture, Statistics Lithuania are acknowledged, together with the biggest ticket selling companies in Lithuania UAB Tiketa and UAB Bilietai LT and the bank itself.

41 Laisve Linkute 10394192 is not able to administer the assets of the EU structural funds and the government is not keen to let it do that. Therefore, we see that culture still remains not a priority of the government.

International cooperation Lithuania pursues cultural foreign policy since 1991. Before that, the period between 1987 and 1991 witnessed an expansion of international cooperation in the sphere of culture (Cultural Policy in Lithuania 1997: 10). This was only natural thing to happen, because international cooperation in the Soviet Union was very limited. Direct contacts began only after 1968, during the Thaw. However, many attempts by the Baltic performers to participate in Western musical life met obstruction from the authorities. For example, the Lithuanian Virgilijus Noreika and Lithuanian bass Vaclovas Daunoras are known for giving some performances outside the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, they have experienced difficulties in performing outside the Soviet Union until 1979 (Misiūnas and Taagepera 1993: 241-243). Misiunas and Taagepera note: ‘In spite of such pettiness, Soviet artist and their art continued to reach the West far more widely than earlier [after 1968], and began to create a modernist Baltic image distinct from the general Soviet one’ (1993: 243). During the two decades of independence more than 30 intergovernmental agreements regarding the culture have been signed with foreign countries. The Ministry of Culture has thus expressed interest in interregional cooperation with Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Russia, , and European Cooperation with the Council of Europe, the EU, Nordic Council of Minister, the Council of the States and UNESCO(Liutkus 2010: 10). To represent and disseminate Lithuanian culture abroad, the Lithuanian institute has been set up in 2001 in Vilnius and reorganised in 2008 into the International Cultural Programme Centre (ICP Centre), which coordinates various EU programmes, such as Culture 2007, Media 2007, Media Mundus and Europe for Citizens (2007-2013), and promotes the Lithuanian art abroad(The ICP Centre 2013). Unsurprisingly, because of the membership in the EU international cooperation has boomed since 2004. This is reflected in the Ministry’s (which is the main financial supporter of cultural co- operation) budget: 5 092 000 Litas were allocated to cooperation in 2005 and the amount jumped to 10 1454 000 Litas in 2008 (Liutkus 2010: 10). Another positive feature of the membership at the EU is the various cultural programmes, which became accessible (or more accessible) for Lithuanian society and state after 2004. For example, Lithuanian students got an opportunity to participate in the student exchange programmes Erasmus, Comenius, Grundvig (Švietimo mainų 2013a; Švietimo mainų 2013b; Švietimo mainų 2013c). Moreover, various European cultural events started to be held in Lithuania, for example, a meeting of the European Council of Artists Artists Exploring Europe: Artistic Careers and Higher Art Education in

42 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Europe, which was held in 2004 (Liutkus 2010: 11). The gain of these events is double: not only Lithuanian artists, cultural workers and society are able to attend the events, which would be too expensive for many, if they were held abroad, but also this increases awareness of Lithuania and Lithuanian culture abroad. However, we have to be aware that the EU ideals of cultural diversity are being disseminated through these new channels for cultural collaboration. Thus, not only Lithuanian culture is being disseminated abroad, but also European cultures and ideals reach Lithuanian artists and society. While trying to popularise Lithuanian culture abroad, Lithuanians cannot escape meeting the other cultures and being influenced by them.

Vilnius European Capital of Culture 2009 Nevertheless, the biggest European cultural event was Vilnius European Capital of Culture 2009. The goal of Vilnius ECOC 2009 programme, which attracted various Lithuanian and foreign artists, writers, actors, performers, students from European higher arts schools, the local community and various social groups, was to ‘establish long lasting cooperation between Lithuanian and foreign artists, between professors and students of art schools and to present variety of Lithuanian culture to participants from abroad’ (Kvietkauskas quoted in …2009: 67). The European Cities or Capitals of Culture (ECOC) programme, launched in 1985, today is considered to be one of the most successful European cultural initiatives (Staiger 2012: 19). Designed to foster European integration and to enhance European identity, the programme has been struggling with these goals ever since. As Mittag observes: ‘the implementation of the ECOC concept was initially considered as a mean to enhance European identity’ (Mittag 2013: 39). However, scholars notice, that later on the European dimension of the project lost its importance and the project became ‘a vehicle of urban regeneration…a catalyst of image purposes and tourism promotion…’ (ibid.). Besides European dimension, the ECOC mission is ‘to highlight the richness and diversity of European cultures and the features they share, as well as to promote greater mutual understanding between European citizens’ (Sassatelli 2009: 83). Here again, the motto ‘united in diversity’ becomes important. The programme is minimally regulated and financed by the EU, thus it: makes space for an array of different approaches and contents: it then becomes a representation of how the European cultural space is held together by this diversity. Therefore, it also hints at the difference between European and the national cultural spaces, between Europeanization and nationalization. In the European cultural space, it is the attitude to diversity that makes it European, not the finding of a common cultural content (Sassatelli 2009: 107-108).

43 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Thus, we see that while the programme emphasizes European dimension, it cannot escape the diversity of cultures: European dimension in the projects is achieved by using the content of different cultures. The promotion of European identity, cultural cooperation and exchanges were also reflected in Vilnius ECOC 2009. The idea to host the ECOC was born in 2001, in anticipation of Lithuania’s accession to the EU. That year the Minister of Culture discussed the opportunity with the European Commission and in 2004 the nomination of Vilnius for the 2009 title was submitted. In the initial stage, the ECOC was seen as ‘an opportunity to increase the visibility of the city and its culture in Europe’ and as an opportunity to strengthen ‘the identity of the city abroad’ (McCoshan et al. 2010: 46). According to the Ex-Post Evaluation of 2009 ECOC to DG Education and Culture of the European Commission, the ‘promotion of the European dimension of and through culture’ was ‘not specifically highlighted in the objectives of ECOC’, however, it was concluded that ‘[t]he European dimension was an essential element in Vilnius’ (ibid., 54, 60). For example, the European Schools of Arts projects, such as the festival Neu Now Vilnius’09 had a strong European dimension (ibid., 60). According to Rolandas Kvietkauskas, the director of Vilnius ECOC 2009 programme, the impact of the event was very positive: Vilnius experienced largest ever cultural program. Artists were provided with a possibility to implement more ambitious projects with international partners. New spaces for culture emerged, larger audience of cultural events developed, new traditional events were introduced. Citizens were invited to take part in large scale volunteers program. Vilnius became more internationally known destination that helped to keep tourist flow from different countries (quoted in European Commission…2009: 67). About 100 projects, more than 1500 cultural events were held in Vilnius and attended by 1.5 million visitors from Lithuania and other countries. Vilnius ECOC 2009 was supported by the Lithuanian Government and Vilnius Municipality (they allocated 34 million Litas), the EU and the Ministry of Culture, which has dedicated to this event 27% of its budget in 2009 (Liutkus 2010: 11). Nonetheless, the project could not escape scandals. Part of the society and some politicians were not happy about the high amount of money allocated to the project. The Prosecutor General’s Office has started the pre-trial investigation because of the illegal waste of assets, though the investigation was terminated. The media has highly escalated the scandal; therefore the image of the project was very controversial (Delfi 2012). It is important to mention, that the project took place in 2009 when the economic crisis in Lithuania was very intense. There was an opinion that in the presence of crisis such high amounts of money could be used elsewhere. Thus, the scandal of illegal waste of assets strengthened the feeling that the money should have been used for something else (even though the investigation was terminated). On the other hand, the organizers of the

44 Laisve Linkute 10394192 project also had to work in the presence of crisis. According to the Vice Mayor of Vilnius and the Chairman of the Board at the public organisation Vilnius European Capital of Culture (in Lithuanian Vilnius Europos Kultūros Sostinė - VEKS) Gintaras Babravičius the project was not sufficiently funded and, therefore, the cultural programme was reduced. According to the Ex-Post Evaluation of 2009 ECOC, ‘[]hilst most of the activity related to the European dimension was retained, the eventual cultural programme was less relevant to the objective of supporting the social and economic development of the city’ (McCoshan et al. 2010: 55). Nevertheless, Gintaras Babravičius believed that Vilnius ECOC 2009 was a successful project (BNS 2009). The event was controversial and many different opinions were stated. However, the organizers of the event evaluated the event as successful and same was stated in the European Commission publication on the various ECOC’s. This has to be assed critically, because the organizers and European Commission can be biased in this case. The Ex-Post Evaluation of 2009 ECOC acknowledges that there were many failures, however only successes were registered. According to evaluation, the reason behind this seems to lie ‘in the commitment of the individual cultural operators’ (McCoshan 2010: 63). Most of them revealed that they tried ‘to implement their activities largely through their own efforts’ (ibid.). More than 300 private operators supported the event and, in order not to damage their reputation on the international scene, would often take a ‘risk of proceeding with an event despite not having secured the funding for it’ (ibid.) It was concluded that there were severe problems in governance and it was stressed that the legacy for Vilnius ‘as a whole’ was not clear (ibid., 62-63). One of the biggest losses was the missed opportunity to involve the community into the event (ibid., 63). To sum up, there is no doubt that entering the EU has positively affected international and European co-operations. These are only a few examples but in reality many more events and projects had taken place. One of the most important cultural events was Vilnius European Capital of Culture 2009. The event was controversial and many different opinions were stated. The organisers evaluated the event positively; however, major financing problems indicate that this was a missed opportunity. To conclude, this chapter reviewed the 9 years of the Lithuania’s membership at the EU. The first section dealt with emigration as a threat to Lithuanian identity. It was acknowledged that entering the EU and growing emigration are perceived as the threats to Lithuanian national identity. Furthermore, it was stated that having in mind Lithuania’s historical experiences this is not an unexpected reaction. Second section dealt with various documents and policies. It was found that the EU legislation have not impacted Lithuanian cultural policy a lot. The Guidelines of Alteration of Lithuanian Cultural Policy addressed the emigration issue in Lithuania and stated that the prestige of Lithuanian culture has diminished. Moreover, it also expressed the need to reformulate the idea of Lithuanian national identity and to make Lithuanian

45 Laisve Linkute 10394192 cultural policy more open and available for people living abroad. Later on in the chapter, the financial situation was analysed. Unfortunately, the implementation of Lithuanian cultural policy was touched by economic crisis. Not only was the budget of the Ministry of Culture affected but so was the budget of society, which became less able to afford to attend cultural events. Finally, Vilnius ECOC 2009 was presented and its advantages and disadvantages discussed. While the event successfully promoted European dimension the overall success of it is doubtful.

46 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Conclusions:

To conclude, this thesis aimed to answer the question: how has Lithuanian national identity been affected by cultural policies in 20th-21st centuries (under the Soviet rule; in independent Lithuania; and within the EU context)? The aim was achieved by answering specific sub-questions and analyzing the issues of each period of time in detail. The conclusions from each chapter will be presented in turn. The first chapter dealt with the introduction of the Soviet cultural policy in Lithuania. The overview of the Soviet cultural policy and its goals were presented to the reader. Since the October Revolution of 1917, the governing powers in the USSR were keen to introduce and develop cultural policy, which would fit the socialist ideology. To manage the multi-national Soviet Empire, the formula of ‘national in form, socialist in content’ was applied to all fields of art. Lithuania was occupied by the Soviet Union in the early 1940s. Introduction of Soviet cultural policy in Lithuania was a difficult task, because the cultural policy in interwar Lithuania was managed quite differently. Most importantly, the state’s role in governing culture was very small and the biggest responsibility fell to the public societies. The new system was imposed very quickly, radically and did not resemble the model of cultural policy that had previously existed. The impact of the implemented policies was very harsh on Lithuanian society, especially cultural workers, artists and the intelligentsia. Sudden centralization of cultural policy was introduced, various publications were destroyed, cultural staff was purged and restrictions on language and religion were imposed. Artists had to create using the ultimate formula ‘national in form, socialist in content’, which was very difficult for some. Underground non-conformist culture emerged alongside the official one: underground groups published various journals, organised meetings, revived folk culture and tried to preserve Lithuanian national identity. Thus, Lithuanian culture was cultivated secretly and it became of paramount importance to the emergence of the independence movements in the late 1980s. Second chapter explored how independent Lithuanian state dealt with the leftovers of the Soviet cultural policy model and how the new cultural policy model was introduced. The major role has been played by the independence movement Sąjūdis and the 1st Congress of Lithuanian culture. Both of them showed society‘s interest in culture and the development of cultural policy in independent Lithuania. Members of Sąjūdis and participants of the 1st Congress of Lithuanian culture had high hopes and expectations about future cultural policy, which did not come true in the end. In the early years of independence, economic hardhships made it difficult to implement cultural policy changes. The chapter also analysed the institutional changes – it was found out that the current model of cultural policy in Lithuania still has similarities with the Soviet model. The state plays the major role in matters of cultural administration, financing, information dissemination and is the decision-maker. While new financing

47 Laisve Linkute 10394192 structures were created, in reality most of the financing falls to the cultural organizations that were at the top in the Soviet system too. In the 1990s, decentralisation of cultural administration and democratisation of the governance of culture were two major goals. In the first decade of 21st century both of these aims were not achieved and they both still need to be addressed. Third, and the last chapter of this thesis concentrated on the period after 2004. The chapter dealt with important side effect of the membership – growing emigration. Entering the EU and growing emigration are perceived as the threats to Lithuanian national identity. As was acknowledged in the Guidelines of Alteration of Lithuanian Cultural Policy this indicates the declining prestige of Lithuanian cultural policy and the need to create further reaching cultural space. Moreover, Lithuanian cultural policy still struggles to get enough financing, therefore many projects, including those promoting the preservation of national identity are not sufficiently financed or do not get funding at all. While at the same time, projects endorsing European identity, such as Vilnius ECOC 2009 are being financed. Thus, a part of society sees this as a threat to national identity. The chapter also found out that the EU legislation have not impacted Lithuanian cultural policy a lot. Implementation of Lithuanian cultural policy, however, still struggles. The country was hit by financial crisis in 2008, which affected the budget for culture and the society’s ability to spend on culture. Finally, the chapter investigated Vilnius ECOC 2009. The event was sceptically evaluated by the society due to various scandals associated with illegal waste of assets. On the other hand, the event successfully promoted European dimension and positively affected cooperation with artists from abroad. Overall, this thesis has successfully shown how national identity has been affected by Soviet cultural policy, Lithuanian cultural policy and European cultural policy.

48 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Bibliography:

Books:

Anderson, Benedict. (1997). ‘The nation and the origins of national consciousness’. In Guibernau, Montserrat and John Rex (eds) The ethnicity reader: nationalism, multiculturalism and migration. Oxford: Polity.

Anušauskas, Arvydas, Arūnas Bubnys, Dalia Kuodytė, Algirdas Jakubčionis, Vytautas Tininis and Liudas Truska. (2005). Lietuva 1940-1990: Okupuotos Lietuvos Istorija[Lithuania 1940-1990: the History of Occupied Lithuania]. Vilnius: Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras [Genocide and Resistance Research Centre of Lithuania].

Apanavičius, . (1991). ‘Apie kultūrinio gyvenimo pertvarkymą [On the restructuring of cultural life]‘. In: Kveskienė, G. (ed) Lietuvos kultūros kongresas [Lithuanian culture congress]. Vilnius: LR švietimo ir kultūros ministerija, 812–813.

Bown, M. C. (1998). Socialist Realist Painting. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bunce, V. (1999). Subversive institutions: the design and destruction of socialism and the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cox, J.K. (2002). ‘Nationalism’. In: Snarr, M.T. and D. Neil Snarr (eds) Introducing Global Issues 2nd ed. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Edmunds, N. (2009). Soviet Music and Society under Lenin and Stalin: The Baton and Sickle. London: Routledge.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. (2009). European Capitals of Culture. The road to success: from 1985 to 2010. EU Publications Office.

Gawdiak, Ihor. (1991). ‘Nationalities and Religions’. In: Zickel, Raymond E. (ed) Soviet Union- A Country Study. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.

Gawdiak, Ihor and Helen Fedor. (1994). Nasa Historical Data Book, Volume IV. Washingto, DC: Nasa Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Gerner, K. and Hedlund, S. (1993). The Baltic States and the End of the Soviet Empire. London; New York: Routhledge.

Ivanauskas, Vilius. (2011a). ‘Menininkų rateliai ir kitoniška laikysena: nuo Chruščiovo laikų iki Sąjūdžio[From Chruschev untill Sąjūdis]‘. In: Kavaliauskaitė, J. and A. Ramonaitė (eds) Sąjūdžio ištakų beieškant [In search of the origins of Sąjūdis].Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.

Ivanauskas, Vilius. (2011b). ‘Vilniaus universitetas ir jame iškylančios nekonformizmo salos [Vilnius University and emerging islands of non-comformism]’. In: Kavaliauskaitė, J. and A. Ramonaitė (eds) Sąjūdžio ištakų beieškant [In search of the origins of Sąjūdis].Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.

Jakelaitis, Vytautas. (1986). Juozas Banaitis. Vilnius: Vaga.

Jankauskas, Algimantas. (2011). ‘Filosofai- Sąjūdžio ideologai [Philosophers – ideologist of Sąjūdis]’. In: Kavaliauskaitė, J. and A. Ramonaitė (eds) Sąjūdžio ištakų beieškant [In search of the origins of Sąjūdis].Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.

Kasekamp, A. (2010). A history of the Baltic states. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kim, M.P. (1967). Kul’turnaia revoliutsiia v SSSR 1913-1965[Cultural Revolution in the USSR 1913-1965]. Moskow: Nauka.

49 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Kuzmickaitė, Daiva. (2003). Between two worlds: recent Lithuanian immigrants. Vilnius: Versus Aureus. Lewis, Justin and Toby Miller. (2003). Critical Cultural Policy Studies. Wiley.

Liubinienė, Vilmantė. (1999). National Identity in Lithuania: Processes During the Period of Changes. Open Society Institute: Budapest.

Lubytė, E. (2008). Permainų svoris. Dailės vadyba Lietuvoje, 1988–2006 [The weight of change. Arts management in Lithuania, 1988–2006]. Vilnius: VDA.

Mačiulis, Dangiras. (2005). Valstybės kultūros politika Lietuvoje 1927-1940 metais [State cultural policy in Lithuania between 1927 and 1940]. Vilnius: Lietuvos Istorijos Instituto Leidykla.

Misiūnas, R. and R. Taagepera. (1993). The Baltic States: Years of Dependence 1940-1990. London: Hurst& Company.

Mittag, J. (2012) ‘The Changing Concept of the European Capitals of Culture. Between the Endorsement of European Identity and City Advertising’. In: Patel, K. (ed.), Europeanization and the EU Cultural Policy. European Capitals of Culture. London: Routledge/UACES Contemporary European Studies

Norkus, . (2008). Kokia demokratija, koks kapitalizmas? Pokomunistinė transformacija Lietuvoje lyginamosios istorinės sociologijos požiūriu [What democracy, what capitalism? Post-communist transformation in Lithuania from the perspective of comparative historical sociology]. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.

Pšibilskis, V.(1989). Kultūrinio švietimo įstaigos 1940-1941 metais ir pokario ideologinėje situacijoje [Institutions of Cultural Education in 1940-1941]. Mintys apie Lietuvos komunistų kelius [Thoughts about the roads of Lithuanian Communists]. Vilnius: Mintis.

Ramonaitė, Ainė. (2011).‘“Paralelinės visuomenės“ užuomazgos Sovietinėje Lietuvoje: katalikiškojo pogrindžio ir etnokultūrinio sąjūdžio simbiozė [The Beginnings of ‘Parallel Society’ in Soviet Lithuania: Symbiosis of Catholic Underground and Ethno cultural Movement]. In: Kavaliauskaitė, J. and A. Ramonaitė (eds) Sąjūdžio ištakų beieškant [In search of the origins of Sąjūdis].Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.

Ramonaitė, Ainė, Jūratė Kavaliauskaitė, Algimantas Jankauskas and Justinas Dementavičius. (2011). ‘Susitikimo eiga ir dalyviai [Proceeding of the meeting and participants]’. In: Kavaliauskaitė, J. and A. Ramonaitė (eds) Sąjūdžio ištakų beieškant [In search of the origins of Sąjūdis].Vilnius: Baltos Lankos.

Rindzevičiūtė, E. (2008). Constructing Soviet Cultural Policy: Cybernetics and Governance in Lithuania after World War II. Linköping: Linköping University.

Sassatelli, Monica. (2009). Becoming Europeans: Cultural identity and cultural policies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sinkevičius, K. (1994). Uždrausti autoriai ir leidiniai. [Forbidden Authors and Publications]. Vilnius: LNB.

Staiger, U. (2012) ‘The European Capitals of Culture in Context. Cultural Policy and the European Integration Process’. In Patel, K. (ed.), Europeanization and the EU Cultural Policy. European Capitals of Culture. London: Routledge/UACES Contemporary European.

The Graduate Market in 2013. (2013). London: High Fliers Research Limited.

Thomson, C. (1992). The Singing Revolution: A political Journey through the Baltic States. London: .

Trilupaitytė, S. (2002). Lietuvių dailės gyvenimas institucijų kaitos požiūriu, devintojo dešimtmečio pabaiga – dešimtojo dešimtmečio pradžia [The life of Lithuanians’ art from the perspective of institutional change, the late 1980s–early 1990s]. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Vilnius.

50 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Truska, L. (1997). ‘Glavlito veikla Lietuvoje 1940–1947 metais [Glavlit activities in Lithuania, 1940–47]’. Lietuvos istorijos metraštis, 1996 [A chronicle of Lithuanian history, 1996].

Uhlin, A. (2006). Post-Soviet civil society: democratization in Russia and the Baltic states. London: Routledge.

Usenko, M. (ed) (2006). A Return to Europe, Riga: Museum of the of Latvia.

Vardys, Stanley V. and A. Slaven. (1996). ‘Lithuania: The Move Toward Independence, 1987-91’. In: Iwaskiw, Walter R. (ed) Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania: Country Studies. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress.

Vilnonytė, V. (1994). Knygų naikinimas Lietuvoje 1944-1956 metais [Destruction of Books in Lithuania in 1944-1956]. Lietuvos bibliotekos fondų istorija XX amžiuje, edited by K. Sinkevičius. Vilnius: LNB.

White, A. (1990). De-stalinization and the house of culture: declining state control over leisure in the USSR, Poland, Hungary, 1953–1989. London: Routledge.

Zielonka, J. and Pravda, A., (eds)( 2001). Democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Academic Articles:

Appel, H. (2005). 'Anti-Communist Justice and Founding the Post-Communist Order: Lustration and Restitution in Central Europe', East European Politics & Societies, 19(3), 379-405.

Astra, Lilijana. (2010). ‘Lithuanian Modern Culture and Images under Global Transformation’. LIMES: Cultural Regionalistics, 1, 49-54.

Beissinger, M.R. (2009). 'Nationalism and the Collapse of Soviet Communism', Contemporary European History, 18(3), 331-347. Didžiokaitė, Gabija. (2013). ‘Ethnicity in Lithuanian Emigrants’ Public Letters’. Amsterdam Social Science, 5(1), 47-56.

Fornäs, Johan. (2012). ‘European identification: symbolic mediations of unity and diversity’, Global Media Journal, 6(1).

Holter, Howard R. (1970). The Legacy of Lunacharsky and Artistic Freedom In the USSR, Slavic Review, 29 (2).

Kramer, M. (2003). 'The Collapse of East European Communism and the Repercussions within the Soviet Union (Part 1)', Journal of Cold War Studies, 5(4), 178-256.

Mutanen, A. (2010). ‘About the Notion of Identity’, LIMES: Cultural Regionalistics(1), 28-38.

Rindzevičiūtė, Eglė. (2009b). ‘From authoritarian to democratic cultural policy: making sense of de-Sovietisation in Lithuania after 1990‘. Nordisk kulturpolitisk tidskrift, 12 (1), 191–221.

Rindzevičiūtė, Eglė. (2012). ‘Post-Soviet transformation of Lithuanian state cultural policy: the meanings of democratization’. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 18(5), 563-578.

Sassatelli, Monica. (2002). ‘Imagined Europe: The Shaping of a European Cultural Identity through EU Cultural Policy’. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(4), 435-451.

Vasiliauskaitė, Nida. (2006).’ Eurofobija ir tautinės tapatybės mistika: ar galime prarasti tai, ko neturime?[Europhobia and the mystique of national identity: can we loose what we have not?]‘. Philosophy. Sociology, 34, 14-19.

Žukauskaitė, Audronė. (2006). Vanishing identities in contemporary Lithuanian art. Philosophy. Sociology, 34, 37-41.

51 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Internet Resources and Press Articles:

Alekna, V. (2003, April 9). Ar Lietuvoje buvo sovietinė kultūra? [Did Soviet Culture exist in Lithuania?]. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from XXI Amžius: http://www.xxiamzius.lt/archyvas/xxiamzius/20030409/mums_01.html

BBC. (2003, May 12). Press Hails Lithuanian Vote. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from BBC.com: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3020243.stm

BNS. (2009, December 29). Projektas „Vilnius-Europos kultūros sostinė“ buvo labai sėkmingas, bet jam trūko lėšų, teigia G. Babravičius [According to G. Babravičius, the project Vilnius ECOC was very successful]. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from 15min.lt: http://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/lietuva/projektas-vilnius-europos-kulturos-sostine-buvo- labai-sekmingas-bet-jam-truko-lesu-teigia-g-babravicius-56-77645

BNS. (2013a, April 12). Kultūros ministras Šarūnas Birutis nuogąstauja, kad kultūra vėl liks be ES fondų lėšų [Minister of Culture Šarūnas Birutis is afraid that culture will not get the money from the EU funds again]. Retrieved July 29, 2013, from 15min.lt: http://www.15min.lt/naujiena/aktualu/lietuva/kulturos-ministras-sarunas-birutis-nuogastauja-kad- kultura-vel-liks-be-es-fondu-lesu-56-325388

BNS.(2013b, May 21). Kultūros ministras: “Jei kultūra neturės ES finansinės paramos – kultūros infrastruktūros nesusitvarkysime“[Minister of Culture: If culture will not have financial support from the EU – we will not be able to fix cultural infrastructure].Retrieved July 26, 2013, from 15min.lt: http://www.15min.lt/naujiena/kultura/ivykiai/kulturos- ministras-jei-kultura-netures-es-finansines-paramos-kulturos-infrastrukturos-nesusitvarkysime-693-337564

Bussiness Dictionary. (2013). Definition. Third Sector. Retrieved July 24, 2013, from bussinessdictionary.com: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/third-sector.html

Compendium. (2013, April 11). Russia. Historical perspective: cultural policies and instruments. Retrieved April 19, 2013 from Conpendium-Cultural Policies-Council of Europe: http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/russia.php

Country Data. (1989). Soviet Union: Policy Toward Nationalities and Religions in Practice. The Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. Retrieved April 27, 2013 from Country-data.com: http://www.country- data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12521.html

Dictionary. (2013) Dictionarys.com’s 21 st Century Lexicon. Retrieved July 24, 2013 from Dictionary.com:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/national identity

Delfi. (2011, October 4). Iš Lietuvos per 10 m. emigravo apie 337 tūkst. gyventojų [337 000 residents have emigrated from Lithuania during 10 years]. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from delfi.lt: http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/emigrants/is- lietuvos-per-10-m-emigravo-apie-337-tukst-gyventoju.d?id=50315220

Delfi. (2012, November 13). Prokurorai nutraukė tyrimą dėl lėšų švaistymo kuriant VEKS svetaines [Prosecutors terminated the investigation concerning the waste of money while creating websites for Vilnius ECOC]. Retrieved June 21, 2013 from delfi.lt: http://verslas.delfi.lt/media/prokurorai-nutrauke-tyrima-del-lesu-svaistymo-kuriant-veks- svetaines.d?id=59980763

Donskis, L. (2008, June 13). Sovietinė kultūra ir sovietinės modernizacijos krachas [Soviet Culture and the Collapse of Soviet Modernization]. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from Balsas.lt: http://www.balsas.lt/naujiena/200340/sovietine- kultura-ir-sovietines-modernizacijos-krachas/rubrika:naujienos-lietuva-komentaraiiranalize-lietuva

Domeikaitė, Audrė. (2013, May 9). Kultūros bendruomenė: jei Europos Sąjungos parama aplenks kultūrą, išeisime į gatves [Cultural Society: if there no EU support for culture, we will riot]. Retrieved July 26, 2013, from 15min.lt: http://www.15min.lt/naujiena/kultura/ivykiai/kulturos-bendruomene-jei-europos-sajungos-parama-aplenks-kultura- iseisime-i-gatves-693-333953#ixzz2a9YlZAOC

52 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Europa. (2013a). Member countries. Lithuania. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from Europa.eu: http://europa.eu/about- eu/countries/member-countries/lithuania/index_en.htm

Europa. (2013b). The EU Motto. Retrieved July 24, 2013, from Europa.eu: http://europa.eu/about-eu/basic- information/symbols/motto/

European Migration Net. (2012). Top 10 destinations. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from emn.lt: http://123.emn.lt/en/emigration/top-10-destinations

Focus Migration. (2007, January). ‘Lithuania’. Focus Migration, 7. Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI). Retrieved June 21, 2013, from focus-migration.de: http://www.focus- migration.de/uploads/tx_wilpubdb/CP_07_Lithuania.pdf

FRD (The Federal Research Division). (2008). 60th Anniversary 1948-2008. Washington, DC: The Library of Congress. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from LOC http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/pdf-files/FRD_broch.pdf

George Soros. (2013). Philantrophy. Retrieved June 22, 2013, from georgesoros.com: http://www.georgesoros.com/

Igorius, Algirdas. (2012, October 7). Kultūros ministerija siekia administruoti ES struktūrinių fondų lėšas [The Ministry of Culture wants to administer the assets from EU structural funds].Retrieved July 26, 2013, from lrt.lt: http://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/kultura/26/5804/kulturos_ministerija_siekia_administruoti_es_strukturiniu_fondu_lesas

Kalpokas, R. (1935). Skatinanti atmosfera meniniam veikimui pagyvinti [The atmosphere encouraging the revitalizing of artistic performances]. Lietuvos aidas.

Klamer, Arjo, Mignosa, Lyudmilla Petrova. (2011). The relationship between public and private financing of culture in the EU. Retrieved July 26, 2013, from klamer.nl: http://www.klamer.nl/docs/kmp.pdf

Latėnas, Faustas. (2010, September 24). Kultūra privalo grįžti į visuomenės lyderius [Culture has to became the leader of society again]. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from delfi.lt: http://www.delfi.lt/archive/flatenas-kultura-privalo-grizti-i- visuomenes-lyderius.d?id=59577443

Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė [Government of the Republic of Lithuania]. (2013). Ankstesnės vyriausybės [Previous Governmnets]. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from lrv.lt: http://www.lrv.lt/lt/vyriausybe/apie-vyriausybe/ankstesnes- vyriausybes/

Lietuvos Sąjūdis. (2013a). ‘Steigiamojo suvažiavimo pirmoji diena [The first day of the founding meeting]’Lietuvos Sąjūdis: Istorija [Sąjūdis of Lithuania: History]. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from lietsajudis.lt: http://www.lietsajudis.lt/index.php/component/content/article/48

Lietuvos Sąjūdis. (2013b). ‘Lietuvos Sąjūdžio iniciatyvinės grupės įsisteigimas ir veikla’ [Self-Establishement and activities of the Lithuanian Sąjūdis Initiative Group]‘. Lietuvos Sąjūdis: Istorija [Sąjūdis of Lithuania: History]. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from lietsajudis.lt: http://www.lietsajudis.lt/index.php/component/content/article/48

Mičiulienė, Jūratė. (2012, February 15). Prie ištakų: nepaklusnieji išaugino Sąjūdį [Looking back: rebellious raised Sąjūdis]. Retrieved June 21, 2013 from Lietuvos Žinios http://lzinios.lt/lzinios/Istorija/Prie-istaku-nepaklusnieji- isaugino-Sajudi-foto

Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Lithuania. (2012). Financed Programmes. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from lrkm.lt: http://www.lrkm.lt/index.php?2334777561

OECD. (2007). Glosarry of statistical terms. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from oecd.org: http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=7245

OSFL. (2013). About OSFL. Retrieved June 6, 2013, from osf.lt: http://www.osf.lt/eng/main.htm

53 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Respublika.(2009, May 9). Solidarizuosimės arba grimsime žemyn [We will identify or we will go down]. Retrieved June 10, 2013, from Respublika.lt: http://www.respublika.lt/lt/naujienos/kultura/interviu/solidarizuosimes_arba_grimsime_zemyn/,print.1

Rimkus, Ignas. (2010). The Implementation of Lithuania’s National Cultural Policy . Summary of Master’s thesis. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from localise-project.eu: http://localise-project.eu/2011/06/21/lithuania-%E2%80%93- research-into-national-policy-community-arts-and-general-country-background/

Statistics Lithuania. (2012). International migration by administrative territory, statistical indicator and year. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from stat.gov.lt: http://db1.stat.gov.lt/statbank/selectvarval/saveselections.asp?MainTable=M3020102&PLanguage=1&TableStyle=&B uttons=&PXSId=6282&IQY=&TC=&ST=ST&rvar0=&rvar1=&rvar2=&rvar3=&rvar4=&rvar5=&rvar6=&rvar7=&rvar8=&rv ar9=&rvar10=&rvar11=&rvar12=&rvar13=&rvar14=

Statistics Lithuania. (2013). Average monthly earnings and indices by administrative territory by administrative territory, statistical indicator and years. Retrieved August 2, 2013, from stat.gov.lt: http://db1.stat.gov.lt/statbank/selectvarval/saveselections.asp?MainTable=M3060827&PLanguage=1&TableStyle=&B uttons=&PXSId=20370&IQY=&TC=&ST=ST&rvar0=&rvar1=&rvar2=&rvar3=&rvar4=&rvar5=&rvar6=&rvar7=&rvar8=&r var9=&rvar10=&rvar11=&rvar12=&rvar13=&rvar14=

Sąjūdis Rokiškio Krašte. (2013). Svarbiausi 1988 metų Sąjūdiečių organizuoti renginiai [The most important events of 1988 organised by members of Sąjūdis]. Retrieved July 26, 2013 from sajudisrokiskyje.lt: http://www.sajudisrokiskyje.lt/sajudzio-istorija/289/

Stoškus, Krescencijus. (2013). ‘Istorija. Kongresas tarp kongresų‘ [History. The Congress between the Congressess]. Lietuvos kultūros kongresas. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from Kultūros Kongresas: http://www.kulturoskongresas.lt/Istorija/

Streikus, A. (2010, July 2). Kultūros sovietizavimo projektai ir pirmieji rezultatai [ Projects of cultural Sovietization and the first results].Retrieved April 19, 2012, from Sovietika http://www.sovietika.lt/356846/straipsniai/stalinizmas/kulturos-sovietizavimo-projektai-ir-pirmieji-rezultatai

Swedbank. (2010). Tik duonai ar ir pramogoms? [For the bread only or for the entertainment too?].Retrieved June 20, 2013, from Swedbank: https://www.manofinansai.lt/lt/menesio-tema/73/tik-duonai-ar-ir-pramogoms

Švietimo mainų paramos fondas [Education Exchanges Support Foundation]. (2013a). Comenius. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from Education Exchanges Support Foundation: http://www.smpf.lt/lt/programos/comenius

Švietimo mainų paramos fondas [Education Exchanges Support Foundation]. (2013b). Erasmus. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from Education Exchanges Support Foundation: http://www.smpf.lt/lt/programos/erasmus

Švietimo mainų paramos fondas [Education Exchanges Support Foundation]. (2013c). Grundvig. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from Education Exchanges Support Foundation: http://www.smpf.lt/lt/programos/grundtvig

The ICP Centre. (2013). About institution. Programmes. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from the ICP Centre: http://www.koperator.lt/en/750643/about_tkpc/about_institution

The Library of Congress. (2010a). Country Studies: Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from LOC http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cs_faqs.html

The Library of Congress. (2010b). A Country Study: Soviet Union (Former): Contents. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from LOC http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html

The Ministry of Education and Science. (2013). The History of Ministry. Retrieved 6 June, 2013, from lrv.lt: http://www.lrv.lt/lt/vyriausybe/apie-vyriausybe/ankstesnes-vyriausybes/

54 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Tvaskienė, Jurga. (2012, October 11). Į rinkimus- pasikinkius emigracijos temą [Emigration – topic of the elections].Retrieved June 21, 2013, from Lietuvos Žinios: http://lzinios.lt/lzinios/Tyrimas/i-rinkimus-pasikinkius- emigracijos-tema/56001

Veidas. (2013, January 8). Ar išsilavinę emigrantai sugrįš?[Will educated emigrants come back?]. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from Veidas.lt: http://www.veidas.lt/tag/studijos

Venckutė, Ieva. (2009, November 17). Emigracija- kelias lietuviško identiteto paieškų link [Emigration: Road to the Search of Lithuanian identity].Retrieved June 21, 2013, from bernardinai.lt: http://www.bernardinai.lt/straipsnis/2009-11-17-ieva-venckute-emigracija-kelias-lietuvisko-identiteto-paiesku- link/35511

Vildžiūnas, Linas. (2010, November 5). ‘Kultūra krizės akivaizdoj [Culture in the presence of crisis]‘. 7 meno dienos [7 days of art]. Retrieved June 21, 2013, from menufaktura.lt: http://www.menufaktura.lt/?m=1052&s=63939

Zaborskaitė, V. (2010, June 5). Nepavergtoji Sovietinė Kultūra [Soviet Culture]. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from Sovietika: http://www.sovietika.lt/250816/straipsniai/atmintis/nepavergtoji-sovietine-kultura

Zemlickas, Gediminas. (2002, January 24). ‘Congress of Lithuanian Culture: an understated interplay of minute of Lithuanian people of culture‘. Mokslo Lietuva, 2(248). Retrieved June 10, 2013, from mokslasplius.lt: http://mokslasplius.lt/mokslo-lietuva/numeriu-archyvas/2002/mokslo%20lietuva%20nr%202%202002.pdf

Official Documents:

Lietuvos Respublika.(2004, July 15). Lietuvos Respublikos kultūros centrų įstatymas [Law on Cultural Centres in the Republic of Lithuania]. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from istatymas.lt: http://www.istatymas.lt/istatymai/kulturos_centru_istatymas.htm

Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas [Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania]. (2002). Valstybės ilgalaikės raidos strategija [State’s Long-term Development Strategy].

Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas [Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania].(2010, July 8). Lietuvos kultūros politikos kaitos gairės [Guidelines of Alteration of Lithuanian Cultural Policy]. Retrieved June 23, 2013, from Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=377620&p_query=&p_tr2=

Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybė [Government of the Republic of Lithuania]. (2001, May 14). Lietuvos Kultūro Politikos Nuostatos 2001[Principles for Lithuanian Cultural Policy 2001]. Retrieved June 18, 2013, from epaveldas.lt: http://www.epaveldas.lt/documents/10165/19809/4.pdf

Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Lithuania. (2009, February 20). Commandment: For ethnic cultural projects OF 2009 co-financed from the state budget. Vilnius.

Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Lithuania. (2013, April 3). Commandement: For 2013 state budget resource allocation to the region cultural projects, culture and reduction of social exclusion. Vilnius.

The LR Government Programme: Market, Democracy, Freedom. (1991). Vilnius, The Parliament of the Lithuanian Republic.

Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties Establishing the European Communities and Certain Related Acts. (1997). O.J. C340/1.

55 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Reports:

Cultural Policy in Lithuania. (1997). National Report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Liutkus, Viktoras. (2010). ‘Country profile: Lithuania’ in Council of Europe/ERICarts Compedium: Cultural policies and trends in Europe, 13th edition 2012. Retrieved June 17, 2013, from culturalpolicies.net: http://www.culturalpolicies.net/down/lithuania_122010.pdf

McCoshan, A., James Rampton, Neinga Mozuraityte, Nick McAteer. (2010). The external evaluation of the ex-post evaluation of 2009 European Capitals of Culture. Final Report to DG Education and Culture of the European Commission in the context of the Framework Contract for Evaluation Related Services and Support for Impact Assessment (EAC/03/06). Ecotex. Retrieved July 24, 2013 from Europa.eu: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/culture/2010/cocreport_en.pdf

Zvorykin, A., Golubtsova, N., Rabinowitch, E. (1970). ‘Cultural policy in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics’. Studies and documents on cultural policies, 8. Unesco.

56 Laisve Linkute 10394192