Common past, divided memories: historical memory of the Polish minority members in Lithuania Ruta Kazlauskaite University of Helsinki Faculty of Social Sciences Political Science, MA in ERI Master’s Thesis March 2011 Tiedekunta/Osasto ҟ Fakultet/Sektion – Faculty Laitos ҟ Institution – Department Faculty of Social Sciences Department of Political and Economic Studies TekijäҏҟҏFörfattare – Author Ruta Kazlauskaite Työn nimiҏҟ Arbetets titel – Title Common past, divided memories: historical memory of the Polish minority members in Lithuania Oppiaine ҟ Läroämne – Subject Political Science Työn lajiҏҟ Arbetets art – Level Aikaҏҟ Datum – Month and year Sivumääräҏҟ Sidoantal – Number of pages Master’s Thesis March 2011 119 Tiivistelmäҏҟ Referat – Abstract The Master’s thesis examines historical memory of the Polish minority members in Lithuania with regard to how their interpretation of the common Polish-Lithuanian history reiterates or differs from the official Polish and Lithuanian narratives conveyed by the school textbooks. History teaching in high schools carries a crucial state-supported role of “identity building policies” – it maintains a national narrative of memory, which might be exclusive to minorities and their peculiar understanding of history. Lithuanians Poles, in this regard, represent a national minority, which is exposed to two conflicting national narratives of the common past – Polish and Lithuanian. As members of the Polish nation, their understanding of the common Polish-Lithuanian history is conditioned by the Polish historical narrative, acquired as part of the collective memory of the family and/or different minority organizations. On the other hand, they encounter Lithuanian historical narrative of the Polish-Lithuanian past throughout the secondary school history education, where the curriculum, even if taught in Polish, largely represents the Lithuanian point of view. The concept of collective memory is utilized to refer to collective representations of national memory (i.e. publicly articulated narratives and images of collective past in history textbooks) as well as to socially framed individual memories (i.e. historical memory of minority members, where individual remembering is framed by the social context of their identity). The thesis compares the official national historical narratives in Lithuania and Poland, as conveyed by the Polish and Lithuanian history textbooks. The consequent analysis of qualitative interviews with the Polish minority members in Lithuania offers insights into historical memory of Lithuanian Poles and its relation to the official Polish and Lithuanian national narratives of the common past. Qualitative content analysis is applied in both parts of the analysis. The narratives which emerge from the interview data could be broadly grouped into two segments. First, a more pronounced view on the past combines the following elements: i) emphasis on the value of multicultural and diverse past of Lithuania, ii) contestation of “Lithuanocentricity” of the Lithuanian narrative and iii) rejection of the term “occupation”, based on the cultural presuppositions – the dominant position of Polish culture and language in the Vilnius region, symbolic belonging and “Lithuanianness” of the local Poles. While the opposition to the term of “occupation” is in accord with the official Polish narrative conveyed by the textbooks, the former two elements do not neatly adhere to either Polish or Lithuanian textbook narratives. They should rather be considered as an expression of claims for inclusion of plural pasts into Lithuanian collective memory and hence as claims for symbolic enfranchisement into the Lithuanian “imagined community”. The second strand of views, on the other hand, does not exclude assertions about the historically dominant position of Polish culture in Lithuania, but at the same time places more emphasis on the political and historical continuity of the Lithuanian state and highlights a long-standing symbolic connectedness of Vilnius and Lithuania, thus, striking a middle way between the Polish and Lithuanian interpretations of the past. Avainsanat – Nyckelord – Keywords collective memory, historical memory, history textbooks, Polish minority, Lithuania Säilytyspaikka – Förvaringställe – Where deposited Helda Muita tietoja – Övriga uppgifter – Additional information Table of Contents …………………………….………………..……..…………… .ii List of Tables …………………………………...…………...…………….…......... iii Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW: COLLECTIVE MEMORY STUDIES......................... 6 2.1 Mnemonic communities and memory transfer…………………………...………………….8 2.2 Remembering and forgetting: competing memories and political use of collective memory………………………………………………………………………………………………..15 2.3 The role of school history education in transmitting collective memory…………...……...21 3 THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES ................................. 26 3.1 Interpretive political science……………………………………...………...……………...26 3.2 Textbook analysis: methods and materials ....................................................................... 28 3.3 Interview analysis: methods and materials ....................................................................... 32 3.4 Ethical issues .................................................................................................................. 37 4 LITHUANIAN AND POLISH HISTORICAL NARRATIVES .......................... 39 4.1 Lithuanian historical rendering of the Lublin Union ......................................................... 39 4.2 Polish historical rendering of the Lublin Union ................................................................ 47 4.3 Lithuanian rendering of the Polish-Lithuanian uprisings and Lithuanian national revival in the 19th century.... ……………………………………………………………………………………..55 4.4 Polish rendering of the Polish-Lithuanian uprisings and Lithuanian national revival in the 19th century……………………………………………………………………………………………64 4.5 Lithuanian rendering of the “Vilnius Question” ................................................................ 68 4.6 Polish rendering of the “Vilnius Question” ....................................................................... 80 5 INTERVIEW ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 91 5.1 Meanings of Polish-Lithuanian unification…………………...………………..………......92 5.2 Memories of the 19th century…….…………….......………………………………..……...93 5.3 Memories of the Polish-Lithuanian interwar conflict...........................................................95 5.3.1 Family memory and contestation of the "occupation" narrative……………………..96 ii 5.3.2 Challenging the "Lithuanocentricity": localness and belonging……………………..98 5.3.3 "Vilnius was Polish, but Vilnius - that's Gediminas"…………..…………………….99 5.3.4 Mnemonic socialization at school and continuity of historical memory……..……..101 5.3.5 Other environments of mnemonic socialization…………………..………………...103 5.3.6 Contemporary fears and historical analogy…………………………..……………..105 5.3.7 Interview analysis: conclusion……………………………………………………...106 6 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………...110 7 REFERENCE LIST .......................................................................................... 113 List of Tables Table 1: Individual interviews with Polish minority members………..…………... 35 Table 2: Narratives in textbooks, historiographies and interviews………………..108 iii 1. Introduction One of the consequences of the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union and the re- establishment of the independent Lithuanian state in 1990 was the revival of the old historical animosities between Poland and Lithuania, particularly on the issue of the interwar conflict over Vilnius. The contestation of the two national narratives of the past, buried under the ideological dogmatism of the “friendship of the socialist nations” during the Soviet era, suddenly re-emerged to the surface of political discussions once the processes of democratization had begun to gain momentum. After Poland took over Vilnius and its surrounding area in 1920, the two countries officially remained in a state of war until 1938. Soon afterwards, the World War II began, bringing about the terrors of totalitarianism and the Soviet occupation in the case of Lithuania, while Poland became a Soviet Satellite state. The mutual dialogue on common historical past and memory remained frozen for 50 years. Poland strongly supported Lithuania’s independence in the turbulent years of the late 80s-early 90s. However, the common task to agree on the contents of a bilateral treaty in the early 1990s turned out to be a challenging endeavor, requiring extensive negotiations and difficult compromises on both sides. A strong contributing factor to the uneasiness of the negotiation process was a series of autonomy resolutions in 1989- 1991, proclaimed by the Polish political activists in the south-eastern Lithuania, who, paradoxically, with the backing of the Soviet authorities, sought to establish an autonomous region, which was possibly to remain within the borders of the Soviet Union. On 23 May 1990, the Šalþininkai district declared itself a Polish National Territorial District where the Soviet constitution had to remain in force. On 7 October 1990, delegates from Vilnius, Šalþininkai, Trakai and Švenþionys districts proclaimed a Polish National Territorial District in the Republic of Lithuania. A