Inexterminable soviet-time

Sovietmetis nenuėjo į praeitį - jis išliko kultūroje, anais laikais augusių ir brendusių, partinio gyvenimo patirtį įgavusių žmonių atmintyje ir veikia kaip ypatingas individualaus bei grupinio tapatumo savikūros veiksnys. Tai socialinei grupei, kuri aktyviausiai savaip prisimena praeitį ir sugeba tais prisiminimais veikti visuomenės sąmonę, lemta įtvirtinti bendresnio istorinio supratimo "rėmus". Prisiminimų ir istorinio naratyvo rašymui būdingas paradoksas - nors tapatumai (per)kuriami prisimenant, tvarkant praeitį, tačiau jų kūrimas nukreiptas ateitin ir siekia toje ateityje įsitvirtinti. Istorija "permetama" į ateitį kaip naujos pasaulėvokos struktūra, laiduojanti asmeninio tapatumo stabilumą, dermę, prasmingumą, o sykiu ir legitimuojanti naujus socialinių sluoksnių santykius bei politinės galios pobūdį. Legitimacinis politinis aspektas ypač ryškus buvusių komunistinės nomenklatūros atstovų prisiminimuose - pasitelkiant ir įtvirtinant "tyliosios rezistencijos" bei "darbo Lietuvos žmonių labui" nuostatas pateisinama tai, kad buvusioji komunistinė nomenklatūra tapo naujo politinio elito branduoliu ir sustiprino savo politinę ekonominę galią. Lyginant funkcionierių, rašytojų atsiminimus ir literatūrologų darbus ryškėja tam tikra nutylėjimo ar užmiršimo ekonomika. Valdžiusieji tebevaldo praeities archyvą, pasiremdami nebyliu sutarimu su valdytaisiais dėl bendresnio prisiminimo vyksmo pobūdžio - neprisimenant, kaip buvo tampama patikimais sovietinės valdžios žmonėmis, kaip buvo prižiūrima kūrybinė veikla, kaip buvo kaupiami partiniai bei ideologiniai nuopelnai, laidavę socialines padėtis, kaip konkrečiai buvo atlyginama už nuleistų užduočių vykdymą.The Soviet-time have not receded to the past, this time have remained with us in our culture and the memory of people who grew and matured with the experiences of a life controlled by a single party; the Soviet-time is still a factor influencing the evolution of personal and group identities. In (re) writing identities, the past is continuously re-written and re-evaluated in the attempt to justify personal biographies and memories on a more general historical basis. Identities are also created in the reminiscences of one’s personal life and the history of the State, the general attitude to the history of the State being determined by the entirety of those reminiscences. The social group most active in publicizing its reminiscences of the past and in influencing the minds of the population, particularly the minds of the academic elite, will establish the framework for the more general perception of history. A paradox typical of writing memoirs and historical narratives: while identities are (re)created in the process of recollection, the aim of such creation is directed towards the future with the aim of consolidating one’s positions there. The past is remembered by shifting its values or forgotten intentionally in order to consolidate one’s future image and the concept of history supporting it. History is transposed to the future as a system of the new worldview to guarantee the stability, harmony and meaningfulness of one’s personal identity and to legitimate the relations of the new social groups and the nature of the new political power. The aspect of legitimation is especially prominent in the memoirs of the representatives of the former communist nomenclature: the notions of “silent resistance” and “work for the benefit of the Lithuanian working people” are used to justify the political and economic power of the former communist nomenclature and all sorts of party functionaries that form the core of the new political elite. The notion of “silent resistance”, which is found in the works of some literary scholars, aims to justify the preservation of the symbolic and academic capital amassed in the Soviet-time and its rendering into a new symbolic capital in order to safeguard and consolidate their academic positions. The memoirs and works by literary scholars based on interpretation from the positions of “silent resistance” highlight various forms of resistance to the Soviet regime, which obscure and make it possible to forget the specific strategies for getting on well with the authorities used to ensure the possibility of advancing their careers and of engaging in the area of research. Analysis of the memoirs of writers, literary scholars and functionaries formerly in charge of culture and the press reveals a certain economy of concealment and forgetfulness. By tacit agreement with the former subordinates on the general nature of memories, which makes it possible to forget the way the trust of the Soviet authorities was earned, to forget the control imposed on creative activities, the way ideological credit was gained to ensure social position and to forget the remuneration for the implementation of the orders from the above, the former functionaries are still in charge of the memory and archives of the past containing the biographies of these subordinates. While the publications of the memoirs of the former elite is increasing, there is a dearth of critical literary analysis which would help the reader understand the strategies of creating such literature, would teach the reader to recognize the pits of suppressed and “forgotten” facts, the wilful or unintentional traps of “silent resistance” and would explain the nature of the legitimizing historical narrative and memoirs