Transnational migration and the politics of multiculturalism, despite all their discrepancies, are making the cultural dimensions more and more important, as the cultural rights of minorities and immigrants are becoming an essential part of citizenship. The article questions transnational cultural practices in relation to citizenship by exploring two waves of the Lithuanian and other East European emigration to the USA of two periods – after the WWII and after the Cold War. Based on the ethnographic fieldwork done in Chicago in 2006 and 2013 two patterns of transnational culture are revealed – diasporic (homeland) nationalism as well as cultural citizenship. It is sought to prove that the first pattern is shaped in the form of ethno-cultural community in exile and based on the imperative 'to save the national culture' which became under siege in homeland, while the second pattern is enacted as inter-ethnic networking, and it is based on social remittances and habits of moral economy brought from the post-socialist Eastern Europe.
This article provides a fieldwork-based case study for the application of identity empowerment through heritage as a research perspective for the analysis of East European transnationalism seen in Lithuanian immigration in the U.S.A. Two patterns of reclaiming European heritages, 'diasporic' and 'recognitionist', are discussed. The 'diasporic' pattern among more recent migrants embraces a transatlantic heritage in which culture stands for the nation. It is instrumentalised as a claim to retain essential Lithuanianness, and reinforced by the moral imperative to return to the homeland. The 'recognitionist' pattern is exemplified by descendants of earlier East European immigrants, and is focused on family roots, as well as on ethnic history and culture. Transatlantic roots and ethnic heritages of the Lithuanian 'Texas pioneers' are reinforced by belonging to the local United States as migrants strive to achieve re-inscription of that heritage as one that has long been rooted in the local history of Texas.
By arguing for the multicultural dimension to be employed in social policy as well as in social work studies in Lithuania, the article aims at explicit display of arguments for the anthropological perspective and anthropology itself to be applied for the implementation of that dimension. The article discusses applicability of such anthropological essential as sensitiveness to human nature. Conceptualized as analytical perspective of cultural relativism it enables "opening up and voicing" cultures and heritages of the most overlooked and marginalized social groups. Another key point of the discipline is to study people's lives from "their point of view". Such emic approach and prevailing usage of the field research methods enables the most vulnerable groups "to be heard" and it could become critical in particular in solving problems of misrepresentation of those groups. It is also stressed in conclusion that the best use of anthropology in multiculturalism-enhanced social work is its fieldwork-oriented methodology. So it could be the most instrumental as applied science, i.e. by monitoring social mobility, integration/segregation, acculturation processes and conflict situations of subaltern, migrant and minority groups as well as by being able to provide counseling, reconciliation and to develop multidimensional tolerance by using particular culture informed knowledge as well as skills of intercultural dialog. ; Laikantis nuomonės, kad Lietuvos socialinėje politikoje ir socialinio darbo studijose būtina taikyti multikultūrinį požiūrį, šiame teoriniame straipsnyje siekiama pateikti keletą argumentų "už" ir, juos svarstant, atsakyti į klausimą, kaip antropologinė perspektyva ir pats antropologijos mokslas gali buti panaudotas šiam požiūriui įgyvendinti. Straipsnyje pristatomos tokios principinės antropologinės nuostatos kaip jautrumas žmogiškajai (kultūrinei) prigimčiai – žinomas kaip kultūrinio reliatyvizmo principas, jis "atveria" pačių labiausiai užmirštųjų ir atstumtųjų socialinių grupių kultūras kaip lygiavertes. Kita nuostata – metodologinė, siekianti pažinti kultūras ir visuomenes jų pačių požiūriu, t. y. taikant eminę perspektyvą bei antropologinius lauko tyrimo metodus, kurie padeda "išgirsti" pačias pažeidžiamiausias grupes. Tai itin svarbu siekiant išvengti dažnai pasitaikančio iškreipto minėtų grupių problemų pateikimo. Šios ir kitos straipsnyje pateiktos antropologinės nuostatos bei analitinės perspektyvos yra kaip argumentai "už" ir būdai, kaip įgyvendinti multikultūralizmo aspektą socialinėje politikoje ir socialiniame darbe. Straipsnis baigiamas išvada, kad efektyviausia, ką antropologija gali duoti įgyvendinat multikultūrinę dimensiją Lietuvos socialinėje politikoje bei socialinio darbo studijose, yra jos metodologinė orientacija į lauko tyrimus. Todėl ji gali geriausiai pasitarnauti kaip taikomasis mokslas, pvz., vykdant socialines atskirties, pažeidžiamų, "balso neturinčių" grupių, migrantų bei mažumų socialinio mobilumo, transmigracijos, integracijos/ segregacijos, akultūracijos stebėseną, taip pat ir konfliktinių situacijų reguliavimą, paremtą konkrečių (pvz., konfliktuojančių) kultūrų pažinimu bei tarpkultūrinio dialogo išmanymu.
The Centre of Social Anthropology (CSA) at Vytautas Magnus University (VMU) in Kaunas has coordinated projects on this, including a current project on 'Retention of Lithuanian Identity under Conditions of Europeanisation and Globalisation: Patterns of Lithuanian-ness in Response to Identity Politics in Ireland, Norway, Spain, the UK and the US'. This has been designed as a multidisciplinary project. The actual expressions of identity politics of migrant, 'diasporic' or displaced identity of Lithuanian immigrants in their respective host country are being examined alongside with the national identity politics of those countries.
The aim of the article is to delineate contours of certain social strategies, images and discourses as well as cultural practices related to the Lithuanianness, as culture and heritage imagined, constructed and contested in and among different waves and generations of the Lithuanian Americans. The period, the wave of immigration, the way it happened and in particular the rooted-ness in the American soil are basic markers for a distinct pattern of Lithuanianness to be recognized. Any one of these patterns falls into the ascription of a certain social strategy, ideology and politics of identity and is motivated and re-enforced by 'symbolic capital' taken from 'repository' (Castells 1997) of national or ethnic heritage. Consequently, the Lithuanian heritage gains its meaning as well as any item of the national 'repository' becomes imagined, (re) constructed and circulated differently among at least four generations of the Lithuanian descendants, who started to settle in the United States in 1860's as economic immigrants, continued in the late 1940s as political DPs (who have moved from displaced person's camps in Germany) and do continue up to the recent wave of post-Soviet Lithuanian immigration. Lithuanianness as ethnicity can operate as shelter and aid. This is a strategy of particular importance for the each category of the Lithuanian immigrants. It is a sort of model for ethnic subsistence, based on neighborhood ties, as well as on shared language skills and also on an appreciation of common cultural heritage in terms of ethnic foods and customs. Ethnic emancipation is a strategy especially evident during the establishment of the ethnic Lithuanian Catholic Church with service in Lithuanian although all believers in the diaspora never supported such a strategy. Nationalist mission is a strategy of cherishing, perpetuating and retaining ethnicity/nation-ness in terms of culture, language, traditions and heritage. The Lithuanian Charter of 1949 is the best example of the nationalist imperative and mission, applicable to any Lithuanian in exile "to pass on the culture to future generations to insure the eternal nature of his nationality' The parish of the Lithuanian Catholic Church is the most visible social network in the case of ethnicity. The role of the parish to shelter and embrace ethnic life, is most visible through the whole history of the Lithuanian diaspora in the US, in particular in its early stages. Only one other ethnic organization – the Lithuanian Community, (Lietuviu bendruomene) founded and maintained almost entirely by DPs, primarily for nationalist activities, could be compared in scale and popularity with the parish. For many that immigrated after World War II, the Lithuanian Community was at least of equal importance as was the parish to old-timers. The social networks of the post-communist immigrants are based on common social and economic experience of the Communist regimes, visible in the job market, such as the economy of favors, nepotism and clientalism. Participation in such social networks 'of their own' or 'groups of friends' is a source of higher salaries, more secure jobs, benefits, and finally, means of successful adaptation, helping immigrants to achieve higher social and economic mobility in American society. Earlier generations of immigrants also transplanted their social experiences from the home country, but unlike new immigrants, they were met by, and exposed to, the same or, at least, very similar social bonds in the new country, where the parish stands as the best example. The most critical issue along all waves of immigration is a normative image of home country. Old-timer's wave of immigration is overwhelmingly guided by rural and heroic romanticism of the old underdeveloped country. Their image of the people of this country is that of a 'strong' people who founded a medieval empire, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and regained independence from Russia twice during the last century, in 1918 and in 1990. It is also the main source of being 'proud of being Lithuanian'. The DPs image of the home country was constructed from the typical political refuge experience. The occupied and suffering country, left behind at the end of the World War II, encouraged them to take on a mission of regaining nation and retaining its culture. For the post-Communist newcomers, the image of the home country is full of postcolonial transitional uncertainty, with a clear understanding that Lithuania belongs to the Eastern European region with Russian as lingua franca. They are very self-conscious, and their image of the home country and Lithuanian people is in many ways focussed on the 'unique-communist regime – experience' as possessed by the immigrants themselves and their compatriots in Lithuania. The question of sociocultural production of meaning of ethnicity implies praxis of everyday life in diasporas, where manipulation of the Lithuanianness takes place. At least two Lithuanian cultural and heritage practices could be defined. The first involves the essentialisation and codification of culture and heritage. Discourses on the issue of 'birthright to glorious Lithuanian heritage' already appeared in the Lithuanian newspapers published in the US at the end of the nineteenth century. The issue of the Lithuanian culture was altered significantly by DPs. The perpetuation of the notion of occupied, and thus repressed and deprived, Lithuanian nation and its culture gained political acceptance within the US government. It gave political motivation for Lithuanian culture in the US to become more than one of many ethnicity cultures within the 'American dream', and to acquire a 'public' and 'prestigious' image. So, despite the predominant 'Melting Pot' cultural politics of the US during the post World War II period, the Lithuanian label held moral and cultural prestige. A second visible Lithuanian cultural and heritage practice in America invokes a cultural bricolage of retained and adopted elements. Cultural bricolage is conducted by creating new meanings for national/ethnic cultural forms of kinship, language, artifacts, visual-virtual materials, narratives and stereotypes. Ethnic identifications phrased as "Proud to be Lithuanian" or 'I am American first and Lithuanian always' along with a few catchwords or phrases in Lithuanian are starting point in practicing cultural bricoleur. An interest in family genealogies, which is usually strongly related to an interest in finding ethnic roots and eventually ends up in ethnic pilgrimages to Lithuania as a homeland (or the land of ancestors), also belongs to that practice. Material objects, which are supposed to belong to the ethnic/national repository, are used for decoration of private homes and public halls, usually enshrined by ethnic shrines.
The aim of the article is to delineate contours of certain social strategies, images and discourses as well as cultural practices related to the Lithuanianness, as culture and heritage imagined, constructed and contested in and among different waves and generations of the Lithuanian Americans. The period, the wave of immigration, the way it happened and in particular the rooted-ness in the American soil are basic markers for a distinct pattern of Lithuanianness to be recognized. Any one of these patterns falls into the ascription of a certain social strategy, ideology and politics of identity and is motivated and re-enforced by 'symbolic capital' taken from 'repository' (Castells 1997) of national or ethnic heritage. Consequently, the Lithuanian heritage gains its meaning as well as any item of the national 'repository' becomes imagined, (re) constructed and circulated differently among at least four generations of the Lithuanian descendants, who started to settle in the United States in 1860's as economic immigrants, continued in the late 1940s as political DPs (who have moved from displaced person's camps in Germany) and do continue up to the recent wave of post-Soviet Lithuanian immigration. Lithuanianness as ethnicity can operate as shelter and aid. This is a strategy of particular importance for the each category of the Lithuanian immigrants. It is a sort of model for ethnic subsistence, based on neighborhood ties, as well as on shared language skills and also on an appreciation of common cultural heritage in terms of ethnic foods and customs. Ethnic emancipation is a strategy especially evident during the establishment of the ethnic Lithuanian Catholic Church with service in Lithuanian although all believers in the diaspora never supported such a strategy. Nationalist mission is a strategy of cherishing, perpetuating and retaining ethnicity/nation-ness in terms of culture, language, traditions and heritage. The Lithuanian Charter of 1949 is the best example of the nationalist imperative and mission, applicable to any Lithuanian in exile "to pass on the culture to future generations to insure the eternal nature of his nationality' The parish of the Lithuanian Catholic Church is the most visible social network in the case of ethnicity. The role of the parish to shelter and embrace ethnic life, is most visible through the whole history of the Lithuanian diaspora in the US, in particular in its early stages. Only one other ethnic organization – the Lithuanian Community, (Lietuviu bendruomene) founded and maintained almost entirely by DPs, primarily for nationalist activities, could be compared in scale and popularity with the parish. For many that immigrated after World War II, the Lithuanian Community was at least of equal importance as was the parish to old-timers. The social networks of the post-communist immigrants are based on common social and economic experience of the Communist regimes, visible in the job market, such as the economy of favors, nepotism and clientalism. Participation in such social networks 'of their own' or 'groups of friends' is a source of higher salaries, more secure jobs, benefits, and finally, means of successful adaptation, helping immigrants to achieve higher social and economic mobility in American society. Earlier generations of immigrants also transplanted their social experiences from the home country, but unlike new immigrants, they were met by, and exposed to, the same or, at least, very similar social bonds in the new country, where the parish stands as the best example. The most critical issue along all waves of immigration is a normative image of home country. Old-timer's wave of immigration is overwhelmingly guided by rural and heroic romanticism of the old underdeveloped country. Their image of the people of this country is that of a 'strong' people who founded a medieval empire, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and regained independence from Russia twice during the last century, in 1918 and in 1990. It is also the main source of being 'proud of being Lithuanian'. The DPs image of the home country was constructed from the typical political refuge experience. The occupied and suffering country, left behind at the end of the World War II, encouraged them to take on a mission of regaining nation and retaining its culture. For the post-Communist newcomers, the image of the home country is full of postcolonial transitional uncertainty, with a clear understanding that Lithuania belongs to the Eastern European region with Russian as lingua franca. They are very self-conscious, and their image of the home country and Lithuanian people is in many ways focussed on the 'unique-communist regime – experience' as possessed by the immigrants themselves and their compatriots in Lithuania. The question of sociocultural production of meaning of ethnicity implies praxis of everyday life in diasporas, where manipulation of the Lithuanianness takes place. At least two Lithuanian cultural and heritage practices could be defined. The first involves the essentialisation and codification of culture and heritage. Discourses on the issue of 'birthright to glorious Lithuanian heritage' already appeared in the Lithuanian newspapers published in the US at the end of the nineteenth century. The issue of the Lithuanian culture was altered significantly by DPs. The perpetuation of the notion of occupied, and thus repressed and deprived, Lithuanian nation and its culture gained political acceptance within the US government. It gave political motivation for Lithuanian culture in the US to become more than one of many ethnicity cultures within the 'American dream', and to acquire a 'public' and 'prestigious' image. So, despite the predominant 'Melting Pot' cultural politics of the US during the post World War II period, the Lithuanian label held moral and cultural prestige. A second visible Lithuanian cultural and heritage practice in America invokes a cultural bricolage of retained and adopted elements. Cultural bricolage is conducted by creating new meanings for national/ethnic cultural forms of kinship, language, artifacts, visual-virtual materials, narratives and stereotypes. Ethnic identifications phrased as "Proud to be Lithuanian" or 'I am American first and Lithuanian always' along with a few catchwords or phrases in Lithuanian are starting point in practicing cultural bricoleur. An interest in family genealogies, which is usually strongly related to an interest in finding ethnic roots and eventually ends up in ethnic pilgrimages to Lithuania as a homeland (or the land of ancestors), also belongs to that practice. Material objects, which are supposed to belong to the ethnic/national repository, are used for decoration of private homes and public halls, usually enshrined by ethnic shrines. ; Manipuliavimas bet kuriuo ir bet kurio paveldo – ypač tautinio – aspektu vyksta ne tik ir ne tiek tautinės valstybės viduje, bet nė kiek nemažiau ir už jos ribų. Emigrantus, pabėgėlius, deportuotuosius ir kitus persikėlusius ar perkeltuosius sieja ne tik socialinė atmintis apie "namų šalį", bet ir transplantuoti, reprodukuojami bei sumeistraujami tautiniai paveldai. Šio rašinio tikslas – nubrėžti kai kurių socialinių strategijų, socialinių tinklų, įvaizdžių ir diskursų kontūrus, bendrais bruožais aptarti su konkrečiu etniškumu/nacionalumu sukibusio tapatumo kultūrines praktikas, kitaip sakant lietuviškumą – kaip savitą lietuviškos kultūros ir paveldo formą; t. y. kaip "lietuviškumą" įsivaizdavo ir įsivaizduoja, konstravo ir tebekonstruoja bei/ar siekia užginčyti skirtingos Amerikos lietuvių bangos ir kartos. Remiuosi 2000–2002 m. JAV Vidurio Vakarų valstijose atliktų antropologinių lauko tyrimų duomenimis. Didžiausias dėmesys skirtas Rytų ir Pietų Ilinojaus (įskaitant Westville, Collinsville, West-Frankfort ir Herrin) bei Misurio (St. Louis miesto rytinės dalies) valstijų buvusių angliakasių bendruomenių likučiams bei lietuvių gyvenamiesiems rajonams Èikagoje (įskaitant Brighten Park ir Marquette Park).
La migration massive depuis l'Europe de l'Est (la Pologne, les pays baltes, les Balkans) vers l'Occident fait partie de cette transformation postsocialiste qui crée des « réalités nouvelles », une extension de l'espace ouvert à des pratiques individuelles et familiales, mais aussi au déploiement d'une différence culturelle et d'un capital social propre. Cet article s'appuie sur une enquête ethnographique menée à Chicago en 2013 parmi des immigrés de Lituanie et d'autres pays est-européens. Il aborde le transnationalisme de deux points de vue : l'ethnicisation et la citoyenneté culturelle, d'une part, et, de l'autre, le réseautage interethnique en tant qu'héritage postsocialiste. L'auteur plaide pour approcher au plus près du terrain ce phénomène complexe qu'est le transnationalisme, qui a ouvert un nouveau réseau de relations intra et interethniques chez les Européens de l'Est immigrés aux États-Unis, en particulier les Lituaniens.
At the end of last year, the AJEC team received the sad news that Christian Giordano had suddenly died during his Christmas holidays in Vilnius. Christian was one of the founders of AJEC, shaped the journal significantly during its early years as co-editor (1990–2001) and, for a time (1992–1998), publisher. He remained connected with it over the years, regularly acting as peer reviewer and informal advisor during Ullrich's tenure as editor. His final contribution to AJEC (Giordano 2018) was an essay for last year's special issue in memory of Ina-Maria Greverus, reflecting on their encounter through a shared interest in Sicily, their long personal friendship, and their often-theatrical academic relationship.
Now that nearly twenty years have passed since the collapse of the Soviet bloc there is a need to understand what has taken place since that historic date and where we are at the moment. Bringing together authors with different historical, cultural, regional and theoretical backgrounds, this volume engages in debates that address new questions arising from recent developments, such as whether there is a need to reject or uphold the notion of post-socialism as both a necessary and valid concept ignoring changes and differences across both time and space. The authors' firsthand ethnographies from their own countries belie such a simplistic notion, revealing, as they do, the cultural, social, and historical diversity of countries of Central and Southeastern Europe
Zugriffsoptionen:
Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
