IN the CAPTIVITY of the MATRIX on the Boundary of Two Worlds: Identity, Freedom, and Moral Imagination in the Baltics 38

IN THE CAPTIVITY OF THE MATRIX On the Boundary of Two Worlds: Identity, Freedom, and Moral Imagination in the Baltics 38 Founding Editor: Leonidas Donskis, Professor and Vice-President for Research at ISM University of Management and Economics, Lithuania. Associate Editor Martyn Housden, University of Bradford, UK Editorial and Advisory Board Timo Airaksinen, University of Helsinki, Finland Egidijus Aleksandravicius, Lithuanian Emigration Institute, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania Aukse Balcytiene, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania Stefano Bianchini, University of Bologna, Forlì Campus, Italy Endre Bojtar, Institute of Literary Studies, Budapest, Hungary Ineta Dabasinskiene, Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania Pietro U. Dini, University of Pisa, Italy Robert Ginsberg, Pennsylvania State University, USA Andres Kasekamp, University of Tartu, Estonia Andreas Lawaty, Nordost-Institute, Lüneburg, Germany Olli Loukola, University of Helsinki, Finland Bernard Marchadier, Institut d’études slaves, Paris, France Silviu Miloiu, Valahia University, Targoviste, Romania Valdis Muktupavels, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia Hannu Niemi, University of Helsinki, Finland Irina Novikova, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia Yves Plasseraud, Paris, France Rein Raud, Tallinn University, Estonia Alfred Erich Senn, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA, and Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania André Skogström-Filler, University Paris VIII-Saint-Denis, France David Smith, University of Glasgow, UK Saulius Suziedelis, Millersville University, USA Joachim Tauber, Nordost-Institut, Lüneburg, Germany Tomas Venclova, Yale University, USA Tonu Viik, Tallinn University, Estonia In the Captivity of the Matrix Soviet Lithuanian Historiography, 1944–1985 AURIMAS ŠVEDAS Amsterdam – New York, NY 2014 Cover illustration: The Library Courtyard of Vilnius University in 1979, the 400th anniversary of the founding of the university. Photo by Vidas Naujikas. Translator Albina Strunga Layout Tomas Mrazauskas The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 978-90-420-3911-7 E-Book ISBN: 978-94-012-1193-2 © Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2014 Printed in the Netherlands CONTENTS Acknowledgements vii Introduction 1 Historiography 5 PROLOGUE What Forms had Lithuanian Historiography Taken on Prior to the Soviet Occupation? 13 CHAPTER 1 Characteristics of Soviet-Era Lithuanian Historiography 23 External Characteristics 25 Internal Characteristics 40 CHAPTER 2 Formation of the Official Historical Discourse (1944–1956) 59 Position: Factors that Formed the Discourse 62 Opposition I: The Challenge Posed by the Older Generation of Historians (“Lost in Time and Space”) 76 Opposition II: The Stance Taken by the “Ideologically Oriented Humanists” 87 Opposition III: “An Outsider” Who Wanted to do Small but Good Deeds in History 97 The Search for Turning-Points in the Evolution of Soviet-Era Lithuanian Historiography: 1956 (?) 104 CHAPTER 3 Processes within the Official Discourse (1957–1985) 115 Historians’ Behaviour Models and the Official Discourse 117 Scholars’ Attempts at Correcting the Official Discourse 123 “Janus” Challenges the Community of Historians and the Official Version of the Past 129 Tensions in the Historians’ Community in the 1970s–1980s 145 CHAPTER 4 “Syntheses of History”: Expression of the Official Discourse and the Search for Alternatives 155 The Periodization Model in Soviet-Era Syntheses of Lithuanian History 157 The Spatial Model in Soviet-Era Syntheses of Lithuanian History 177 The Search for Alternative Periodizations and Spatial Models 183 CHAPTER 5 Alternatives to the Official Discourse in Research on Feudalism 197 Features of Research on the Rise of Serfdom in Lithuania 199 The “Latently Operating Paradigm” in Research on Early Grand Duchy of Lithuanian Society 209 Conclusions 217 EPILOGUE A Glance at Post-Soviet Lithuanian Historiography 223 Endnotes 233 References 259 Index 277 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS When looking back on the road travelled, one appreciates not just the dis- tance covered, but also those who accompanied and helped one make the journey possible. Many friends and colleagues offered me their invaluable assistance dur- ing preparation of the Lithuanian and English language versions of the book, reading the drafts, sharing their ideas and expressing their valuable advice. In this respect, I would first of all like to thank Alfredas Bumblauskas, Sigitas Jegelevičius, Rasa Čepaitienė, Antanas Kulakauskas and Šarūnas Liekis. I am indebted to them, but they are not in any way responsible for any of my errors. Besides these people, the entire Vilnius University Faculty of History community deserves a separate mention whose support was felt throughout the time spent researching Lithuanian historiography from the Soviet period. I would also like to express my enormous gratitude to the Research Council of Lithuania, as it is their National Development Programme for Lithuanian studies 2009–2015 which financed the book’s translation, making it accessi- ble to English readers. My sincere thanks also goes to the book’s translator and language editor, Albina Strunga, who worked tirelessly on this project and whose help I could always count on, having found myself in the typically difficult situation of having to transform a Lithuanian text into English. I am also grateful to the talented designer of the book, Tomas Mrazauskas, who did an excellent job stylistically expressing the particularities of the So- viet science matrix. The whole Rodopi publishing house went to great effort to ensure the manuscript of In the Captivity of the Matrix: Soviet Lithuanian Historiogra- phy, 1944–1985 could be released as a book. Many thanks also extend to Eric van Broekhuizen and Leonidas Donskis for including my book in their dis- tinguished series. In writing any book, the sacrifices of one’s closest family are always required, which is why I would like to sincerely thank my parents, wife and daughter for their patience and understanding which enveloped me as I worked on both the Lithuanian and English versions of this text. INTRODUCTION What’s this book about? Before sitting down to write about Soviet-era Lithuanian historiography, I re- called the dark cyberpunk film and the following phrase, “What is the Matrix? It is control”. This particular association stayed with me for a number of years. We can look at The Matrix trilogy as paraphrasing a totalitarian society, surprising us with its accurate insights and unexpected analogies with the history of the Soviet Union. The communist control mechanism that operated in the spheres of public and private life that hid behind a curtain of lies is in many ways reminiscent of the harrowing dystopia depicted in the film The Matrix about a machine-led imprisonment of the human mind. The “thaw- ing” process that was put into motion in the years 1953–1956 by the CPSU elite prompts associations with the Architect’s decision to reload the Matrix in order to destroy all anomalies that opposed the system and threatened its existence, thus recreating the initial programme. The story line of an eventual revolution emerging from the multitude of unresolved problems which man- ages to establish a fragile peace between humans and machines can be likened to the fate of the totalitarian state: Russia turned down the path of democratic reforms, later returning to the “vertical scale of power” in the form of a new Matrix which ideologues offered to the masses. This book is about another, earlier version of the Matrix. It aims to un- veil the formation of the Soviet-era Lithuanian historiographical official discourse (from 1944 until 1985, when the last Soviet synthesis was published), to show how it was affected by the mechanisms that created it, and to discuss what kinds of behavioural models historians chose under the duress of this discourse, thereby answering the question of whether the resulting body of unified claims – texts on the history of Lithuania – offer any alternative cases of independent thinking. In order to realize the afore-mentioned aim of this book, the following questions (divided into five groups) are to be deliberated, which open the way to taking a phenomenological and axiological glance at Lithuanian historiography from the Soviet period: What place and role in the Soviet state’s social system had the Communist Party afforded the science of history? Which institutions formed the official historiographical discourse, which had to live up to the wishes of the Party elite and maintain its vitality? 2 Aurimas Švedas What are the characteristics of the general ideology and methodology of this official discourse that created the past and the thinking “masks” of the scientists who researched this past? What were the ideological and method- ological “errors” made by Soviet-era historians that ended up bringing down the official discourse monolith? What figures, and which conjunctural or non-conformist actions, challenges and conflicts can be considered fateful in the evolution of Soviet-era historiography? Do the general schemes of political and socio-cultural development in the Soviet period and the turning-points therein apply to the science of history in Lithuania in 1944–1985? What are the most important features of the temporal and spatial models in syntheses of Lithuanian history that were released in the Soviet period? To what extent

Load more