cultural policy in Lithuania since the 1980s: an investigation into the effects of cultural policies on national identity

(1)

1 Laisve Linkute 10394192

Cultural Policy in Lithuania 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.J.A. Snel Second Supervisor Dhr. Dr. M.E. Spiering

August, 2013

(2)

(3)

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 Soviet Union 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 European Union 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.

(5)

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

(6)

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 Europe. It is important to acknowledge that the lack of academic resources on the subject 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.

(7)

7 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 Baltic States and the End of the Soviet Empire 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 Cold War 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. Perestroika (reconstruction) and Glasnost (openness), new policies introduced by the

(8)

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 Vilnius 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.

(9)

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 Germany 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

(10)

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 communism 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 democratization 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

(11)

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) Socialist realism 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

(12)

‘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.

(13)

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 ‘Lithuanians‘, 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

(14)

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 Moscow, 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

(15)

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,

(16)

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 Vilnius University 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

(17)

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 Y.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).

(18)

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).

Russification 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 Russian language over native languages’ (Gawdiak 1991: 196). Khrushchev’s years saw many experiments with Lithuanian education system. For example, Russian, which has been

3

Sblizhenie

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).

4

sliianie

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).

(19)

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 Balts 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

(20)

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 Poland, 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,

(21)

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.

(22)

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 Eastern Europe 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

(23)

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 Singing Revolution 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: Estonia, Latvia 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 civil resistance’ 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 Vytautas 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).

(24)

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)

(25)

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 Government of Lithuania 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;

(26)

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 go 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 Russia in 1922 and in Lithuania between 1940-1944 ( Rindzevičiūtė 2012: 566)

cultural policy in Lithuania since the 1980s: an investigation into the effects of cultural policies on national identity