English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

this article analyses how the changes in the dominant attitude of local soviet writers were encouraged, screened or restricted by the Writers Union [WU] through mechanisms of planning, control and even through measures of creating a secure daily environment. the author looks at the tensions and conflicts between writers of different generations, observing less ideology in the younger generation than in their predecessors since the development and dissemination of national images among the declared values of communism were increasing. the union as a system covered both aspects – conformism and the escape (manoeuvre). though the WU had a strong mechanism of control, it managed to ensure for the writers such a model of adaptation where even those, who were subject to restrictions, had a possibility of remaining within the official structure, through certain compromises, while actually avoiding involvement in dissident activities or samizdat publishing. introduction in august 1940 a group of Lithuanian intellectuals, most of whom were writers, went off to Moscow “to bring back stalin’s sunshine”, at the same time asking for Lithuania to be incorporated into the ussr. Forty eight years later in early June 1988 a few members of the local literary elite joined the initial Sąjūdis Group and from thenceforth stood in the vanguard of the national revival. these two historic moments, witnessing two contrary breaking points in history, when Lithuanian writers were active participants in events, naturally give rise to the question of how the status and role of writers and their relationship with the soviet regime changed. Giving more attention to the officially recognized writers and their institutional platform – the Writers union of the Lithuanian ssr, it becomes reasonable to analyse how the dominating attitudes of writers were changing in the late soviet period as compared with the early pre52 VIlIUs IVAnAUskAs vious period, what attitudes were like and how such positions were encouraged, screened or restricted by the Writers union or closely related institutions through mechanisms of planning, control and daily security mechanisms. considering examples, where in the late soviet period some local writers published works transfused with ethnic and historical nostalgia, influencing considerably the mobilisation of national identity, and the situation where some writers either experienced restrictions because of unsuitable creative work, or devised an appropriate form of creation for both parties – the authorities and the public, it is relevant to analyse properly the impact of the Wu on the activities of a writer. the union, which sought to ensure social status for writers, applied certain measures of control, trying to squeeze separate writers into the framework of socialist realism. therefore, it is interesting to follow the development of this relationship at various periods, in particular in the post-stalinist times, which in this article is termed ‘the late soviet period’. For example, applying the earlier mentioned anthropological description of the late socialist epoch 1, introduced by the researcher of the soviet period alexei Yurchak, which is significantly different from other Soviet periods, the myth of the stagnant monolith of the soviet system is disrupted, leading to methodological approaches for defining dynamic processes in the routine Soviet environment, gradually receding from official rituals and submerging into informal personal relations. in discussing the role of the Wu, the impact of outside controlling institutions is assessed, as well as the changing socio-political context, paying attention to several generations of writers, specific features of which were an integral part of the soviet periods in general. relations between generations witnessed the dynamics of literature as such, and opportunities existed for the Writers union to react to the changing environment, including the intensification of national processes, as well to protect or restrict authors, who did not fit properly within the framework of socialist realism. the article uses data gathered by the author during a postdoctoral fellowship at the institute of international relations and political sciences of Vilnius university, in addition to material collected in Lithuanian and Russian archives, interviews with cultural figures, his dissertation defended in 2008 on the model of nomenklatura 1 a. Yurchak, Everything Was Forever, Until It Was no More: the last soviet Generation (princeton, 2005). 53 Lithuanian WRiteRS and the eStabLiShment duRinG Late SociaLiSm activities, and qualitative methods, observations of other researchers, memoirs of witnesses of soviet times, diaries, and so forth. 2 the role of writers in the early soviet period after the occupation of Lithuania in 1940, and later the restoration of the soviet regime in 1944, intellectuals became involved in legalising the new order and were responsible for developing proper projections of the ‘new subject’, for the formation of collective memory and expectations; that is, they were supposed to become key instruments for the inculcating the doctrine of the soviet regime. as stressed by one of the proponents, writers were granted a higher status than other cultural workers and were considered to be ‘engineers of the soul’. the role of a writer may be considered as a metaphor of the cultural worker in Soviet times, and the Writers union of those times as a reflection of cultural organisations supposed to give an organisational form to any activities of cultural workers. the more so that the role of the Writers union in the public life of the republic was of great importance for defining the official circle of writers as well as the scope of their activities, not only providing a platform for prose writers and poets, but also covering a wider cultural environment – experts in the Lithuanian language, literary criticism, translators, directors or controllers of particular spheres of culture, who were entitled to membership of the Writers union. the primary task of the writers was related with the legitimisation of the new regime. in 1940, the famous writers petras cvirka, Salomėja nėris, antanas Venclova and others went to bring ‘Stalin’s sun’ to legitimise the regime. With the start of the second soviet occupation, Korsakas Korsakas, the executive secretary of the Writers union mentioned in his speech at the meeting of writers on 26 september 1944: ‘our expedient and productive work is needed in many spheres of activities. First of all, it is expected by the Lithuanian people, who are longing for free and living speech from Lithuanian writers after three years of German occupation .... the Lithuanian countryside is currently involved in restoring the harm and damage done by the occupants to the peasants in the sphere of agriculture – a 2 this fellowship was funded by the european union structural Funds project ‘postdoctoral Fellowship implementation in Lithuania’ within the framework of the Measure for enhancing Mobility of scholars and other researchers and the promotion of student research (Vp1-3.1-MM-01) of the program of human resources development action plan. 54 VIlIUs IVAnAUskAs writer is expected here as well, who may personally depict, the great social reconstruction’. 3 this portrayal of the status quo was related to the tradition of socialist realism in literature, which could not be overstepped and which always had to be coordinated with ideological principles, giving priority to class struggle and the rejection of bourgeois nationalism. it is no coincidence that direct declarations of ideology in the activities to consolidate the regime and protect collectivisation processes brought in during the soviet times, in developing a new subject, in fighting against national enemies, were appreciated and stimulated further not only at the beginning of the regime but also throughout the stalinist period. it was very important to strike the right note and create, with great caution, works on topics which did not glorify the party, stalin, the introduction of collective farms, and such like directly. the storm of criticism reached even the ‘Muscovites’, who had proved their loyalty to the soviet system time and time again. 4 actually all poets and writers published works glorifying the regime, even such talented authors as nėris and cvirka were forced to demonstrate their loyalty. it should be noted that such declarative works helped to promote new leading writers, who demonstrated their loyalty through their biography and oeuvre (aleksandras Guzevičius, teofilis tilvytis), and thus were praised by and involved in nomenklatura circles. in the post-war period, projections of the “new subject” as formulated by the ussr writers and other cultural workers were immediately transposed into the cultural area of the republic. respectively, performances or films were produced on the basis of such creations (e.g. Boris polevoi or nikolai ostrovskii) also encouraging the involvement of local authors in depicting the ‘new subject’ (tilvytis or Gudaitis–Guzevičius) where the characters complying with communist values took pride of place. soviet Lithuania’s Writers union was established by writers, who participated in 1940 in the enforcement of the soviet occupa3 ‘tarybinių rašytojų pareigos ir uždaviniai’, Tarybų Lietuva, nr. 93, (1944 m. spalio 8 d.). see LMa, f. 34, ap. 1, b. 1, l. 27. 4 For example e. mieželaitis’ critique in 1946. in other words, a later biography of mieželaitis witnesses that he considerably evolved, rejecting primitive Sovietism; when head of the Wu in the 1960s he personally supported the development of Lithuanian philology. otherwise, critics of literature in assessing his talent acknowledged that the power of his talent was too exaggerated by the system (interview with Vanda Zaborskaitė). 55 Lithuanian WRiteRS and the eStabLiShment duRinG Late SociaLiSm tion and

Lithuanian Writers and the Estab lishment during Late Socialism: The Writers Union as a Place for Conformism or Escape