Dynamics and tensions of remembrance in post-Soviet Estonia: Late socialism in the making
Kuupäev
2017-04-06
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
Doktoritöö analüüsib ühe ajalooperioodi ‒ hilise sotsialismi ‒ tähenduse kujunemist ja dünaamikat 21. sajandi alguse Eesti mälukultuuris. Hilise sotsialismi all mõistetakse perioodi 1950. aastate lõpust 1980. aastate keskpaigani. Küsisin, kuidas paigutub hilise sotsialismi tähenduse kujunemine laiemasse nõukogude ajast mäletamise kultuuri. Väitekirja lähtekohaks oli vaatepunkt, et 1990. aastate mäluprotsesside tulemusena käsitleti kogu nõukogude aja argiseid kogemusi avalikkuses hegemoonse kannatuse ja vastupanu diskursuse raames. Hilist sotsialismi ei eristatud eelnevast, stalinismi ajajärgust. 1990. aastate lõpust alates väljendati aga järjest enam rahulolematust domineeriva käsitlusega. Iseäranis tähelepanuväärne panus hilise sotsialismi aja teema, kui olulise probleemi sõnastamisel oli avalikus diskursuses elulookirjutajatel. Argieluline kogemus hilisest nõukogude perioodist tõusis esile just võrdluses keeruliste 1990-ndatega ja üleminekuga turumajandusele. Individuaalsel tasandil anti nostalgia kaudu tähendus keerulisele olevikule ja sellega toimetulekule.
Asetades Eesti 21. sajandi mäluprotsesse laiemasse konteksti, tõin doktoritöös esile ka sarnaste protsesside eri- ja samaaegsust teistes postsotsialistlikes riikides. Nõukogude/sotsialistliku perioodi kogemuste väljajätt ei ole olnud omane ainult Eestile, vaid selline vaade domineeris ka näiteks Rumeenias ja Lätis, olles teistes Ida- ja Kesk-Euroopa riikides mõnevõrra diferentseeritum. Iseäranis selgelt avaldusid erinevused nostalgiliste protsesside ajalises arengus. Sarnaselt Ida-Saksamaale võib Eesti elulugudes ilmnevat nostalgiat käsitleda ka vastumäluna. Reflekteeriva ja iroonilise nostalgia esiletõusu on läbivalt täheldatud kõigis postsotsialistlikes maades. Lisaks individuaalsele tasandile vaatasin hilise sotsialismi teema tõstatamist ka kultuurilisel tasandil, seda eelkõige muuseuminäituste kuid ka teiste kultuuriliste tekstide kaudu.
Võib öelda, et aastatel 2000‒2010 polnud senine katkestuse diskursuse mälurežiim enam ainuvaldav. Samas ei toimunud ka otsustavat pööret, seda eelkõige avalikul meenutamistasandil. Sellele vaatamata on praeguseks kaasatud märgatavalt rohkem erinevaid nõukogudeaegseid kogemusi nõukogude ajast mäletamise kultuuri, kui oli seda 1990. aastatel. Need protsessid viitavad mälukultuuri diferentseerumisele ja demokratiseerumisele.
The dissertation, based on five independent articles, analyses the development and dynamics of the meaning of ‘late socialism’ in Estonian memory culture. It focuses on how the period of late socialism (the 1960s‒1980s) is remembered at the institutional, cultural, and individual levels in post-Soviet Estonia during the first decade of the 21st century. In the 1990s, the beginning of the post-communist era, the dominant frame of meaning-making of the Soviet past was the discourse of rupture. That discourse focused on explaining and processing the Soviet annexation of Estonia during World War II and the Stalinist repressions that followed it. No distinction was made then between the Stalinist period and period of late socialism in social memory. However, from the late 1990s, dissatisfaction with the hegemonic discourse of Soviet period at the social memory level started growing. The life story writers (people who answered the calls by various museums to write up and send in their life stories) started voicing experiences of the period of late socialism that differed very much from the ones of the Stalinist period. The life experiences of the turbulent 1990s also influenced the ways late socialism was remembered and narrated in those life stories. One of the strategies of the life story writers for making sense of the complicated present was nostalgia. The exclusion of late socialism from the public discourse as well as from various forms of expression of social memory was not only characteristic to Estonia – the discourse of rupture developed transnationally during the 1990s. Similarly, a concept of ‘non-time’ also emerged in Latvia and Romania, and, in different forms, in other Central and Eastern European countries. The processes of nostalgia acquired particular attributes in each post-socialist country. In Estonian life stories, the nostalgia for late socialism can be interpreted as a counter-memory to hegemonic discourse on socialism. As this study shows, changes at the cultural memory level are also evident in addition to those at the individual level. Late socialism became topical in museum exhibitions and other cultural texts. Therefore, during 2000–2010, other discourses developed in addition to the discourse of rupture: the discourse of everyday life and the discourse of nostalgia. However, there was no decisive turning point of a memory regime, especially at the public level of remembering. In contemporary Estonian society, different experiences are part of the memory culture, demonstrating that it has become more democratic and diverse.
The dissertation, based on five independent articles, analyses the development and dynamics of the meaning of ‘late socialism’ in Estonian memory culture. It focuses on how the period of late socialism (the 1960s‒1980s) is remembered at the institutional, cultural, and individual levels in post-Soviet Estonia during the first decade of the 21st century. In the 1990s, the beginning of the post-communist era, the dominant frame of meaning-making of the Soviet past was the discourse of rupture. That discourse focused on explaining and processing the Soviet annexation of Estonia during World War II and the Stalinist repressions that followed it. No distinction was made then between the Stalinist period and period of late socialism in social memory. However, from the late 1990s, dissatisfaction with the hegemonic discourse of Soviet period at the social memory level started growing. The life story writers (people who answered the calls by various museums to write up and send in their life stories) started voicing experiences of the period of late socialism that differed very much from the ones of the Stalinist period. The life experiences of the turbulent 1990s also influenced the ways late socialism was remembered and narrated in those life stories. One of the strategies of the life story writers for making sense of the complicated present was nostalgia. The exclusion of late socialism from the public discourse as well as from various forms of expression of social memory was not only characteristic to Estonia – the discourse of rupture developed transnationally during the 1990s. Similarly, a concept of ‘non-time’ also emerged in Latvia and Romania, and, in different forms, in other Central and Eastern European countries. The processes of nostalgia acquired particular attributes in each post-socialist country. In Estonian life stories, the nostalgia for late socialism can be interpreted as a counter-memory to hegemonic discourse on socialism. As this study shows, changes at the cultural memory level are also evident in addition to those at the individual level. Late socialism became topical in museum exhibitions and other cultural texts. Therefore, during 2000–2010, other discourses developed in addition to the discourse of rupture: the discourse of everyday life and the discourse of nostalgia. However, there was no decisive turning point of a memory regime, especially at the public level of remembering. In contemporary Estonian society, different experiences are part of the memory culture, demonstrating that it has become more democratic and diverse.
Kirjeldus
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone
Märksõnad
nõukogude aeg, elulaad, argikultuur, postsotsialistlik ühiskond, kollektiivne mälu, kultuurimälu, ajalooteadvus, ajalookultuur, Eesti, Soviet era, way of life, everyday culture, post-socialist society, collective memory, cultural memory, historical consciousness, culture of history, Estonia