"Historical" diasporas in modern Lithuanian society

Straipsnyje aptariama diasporos sąvoka, pasitelkiant įvairius akademinius šalti- nius. Autorė pritaria nuostatai, kad diaspora yra ypatinga socialinė ekonominė sociumo būsena atskirtyje nuo pagrindinio etninio arealo arba visiškai be jo. Diasporos egzistuoja ne savo šalyse kaip mažumos, išsaugodamos savo etninį arba etnokonfesinį identitetą bei bendruomeninį solidarumą. Remiantis Lietuvos etninių grupių tyrimu, išskiriami istorinių diasporų adaptacijos ypatumai. Pasirinkdami vieną svarbesnių identifikacijos kategorijų, istorinių diasporų nariai minėjo etnines, tuo tarpu lietuviai, rusai, lenkai - socialines grupes.Some of the sources define the diaspora as a process of dispersion of a community, as well as the process of cohesion of groups deriving themselves from this community and living outside their country of origin, in places new to them (in the status of national or cultural minorities). The absence of both moral and cultural support of the "national fireplace" has made diasporas look for strength in themselves, in their own community. Preservation of one’s own identity under such conditions becomes a factor of constant reflective and strict regulation within the community. Objectives of adaptation that would not lead to assimilation and dissolution are not formulated very intensively to immigrating groups and minorities, which feel the power of the "native fireplace" behind them. The main characteristic of the Diaspora is the compe­tence to find its own place in the community’s system regarding division of labor and social roles of the host country (Tartars, Karaites - as perfect security of Lithuanian Dukes, Jews - as artisans and financiers), as well as to find particular cultural and psychological characteristics. The problems of Diasporas were not so sensitive in post-industrial communities. Diasporas should choose between emigration and life in the status of the Diaspora. According to a research on adaptation among ethnic groups in Lithuania the respondents were asked to name the most important category from the list. It appeared that there was no single prevailing category. Lithuanians, Russians and Poles were pointing to some social group, while the members of the historical Diasporas, namely Tartars and Jews, were naming some category of ethnic type. It was only among the Tartars and Jews where there were a few individuals who noted that they most strongly identify themselves with an NGO (there were almost no such choices in other surveyed groups). Also, it can be noted that there is a clear tendency among the Diaspora members to associate the typicality with their own ethnic group. The other groups did not have such a coherent model or understanding of their ethnic typicality. These data allow us to discuss the "new Diasporas" and elaborate on the new quality of the phenomenon under analysis. The "new Diasporas" are in the process of formation, and therefore it is possible to discuss this newly emerging phenomenon which expressive combines both characteristics of the "classical Diaspora" and absolutely new features