Blog Post One (revised)

                                                              The National Self

Welcome to Lithuania! This blog post will explore how people of the same nation identify with one another, specifically as it relates to this particular Baltic country's National Identity. National Identity is how people of the same nation identify with one another through common beliefs, such as a native tongue, religion, and race. One of the defining points of this blog post will be covering Triandafillou's National Identity And The other”. We will look at the “other” of  Lithuania, how it has changed and affected it over time, and how that has helped define its National Identity.

The simple view of National Identity involves race, religion, and a native tongue. This is a good start to the conversion, but it can also go much deeper than these three points, as Anthony D. Smith covers in his work National Identity. In addition to the simple view of race, religion, and a native tongue, he also lists, “ a collective proper name, a myth of common ancestry, shared historical memories, one or more differentiating elements of a common culture, an association with a specific 'homeland', a sense of solidarity for significant sectors of the population “(Smith 1991 p.21) as parts of National Identity. His first idea is a collective name, which is how states label themselves, for example, people from Minnesota refer to themselves as Minnesotans. This can be broken up based on geographical location or place of familial history and residence. His second point is about the shared myth or common ancestry. This view relates to many different topics, from common religion and race to historical background. It could be complex, like the ancient Greek belief that they are descendants from the gods, or more simple, like how your family and surrounding community is several generations deep in your town or place of residence. The main point of Anthony D Smith’s argument is that you can't have National Identity defined in black and white terms - it is more complex than that. Different communities can have vastly different ways of forming a bond between members of the community.

How does Smith’s relatively fluid idea fit into the National Identity of Lithuania? Well, many of the key points he laid out, directly related to Lithuania's ideals as a country. The first idea would be the collective name and sense of homeland. Similar to how people from texas are Texans, people from Lithuania refer to themselves as Lithuanians. This is a strong bonding point for people who are citizens of the country while also signifying where they stand to not only Europe but also the rest of the world. The second idea of Smith's that relates to Lithuania is “a myth of common ancestry”(Smith p21) . As stated above this encompasses religion and historical identity. In order to fully explain some background is needed. The Baltic republics were annexed by the USSR between 1940 and 1990, forcing tiny Lithuania into the rule and way of life of a much bigger nation. Under the USSR, among other things, religion in Lithuania was put under attack due to communist ideals. In fact, during this time period “the soviet government deported 350 priests to Siberia or the central Asian republics''(Cruz, p494). In the end this made Religion even more influential, because “ the church portrays itself as the true guardian of the cultural heritage of the past, of national traditions and costumes”(Cruz p497). In short, when the religious ideals of Lithuania were suppressed it made them more meaningful to the citizens of the country. According to the CIA world factbook, Today over 77% of the population of Lithuania consider themselves Roman Catholic.  One more major bonding point for Lithuania is language. Lithuanian has been the official language of the country since 1918. According to the CIA world factbook, of the nearly 3 million people living in Lithuania, 2.8 million people speak Lithuanian in the country, but 3.2 million speak it worldwide. This longevity is significant because as other baltic languages went extinct, Lithuanian continued to stay relevant and remain a big part of the country's national identity. 

According to Anna Triandafyllidou, who has done extensive research on national identity, the “other” refers to foreigners or people from different communities and their influence on the “in-group”. She says “The notion of the ‘other’ is inextricably linked to the concept of national identity. The opposition to the other is taken as an intrinsic feature of nationalism”(Triandafyllidou p596). For Lithuania, the USSR was the ‘other’ that helped solidify their national identity. This idea is shown through the USSR's failure to suppress religion throughout Lithuania during their rule, as I talked about earlier. Because they were trying to take away key points of Lithuania's identity, it increased the value and message of the church to Lithuanians, creating a rift between them and the USSR. As Triandafyllidou says, “ the whole argument of nationalists seems to be reduced to the fundamental question of denying the ‘we’ and the ‘they”(Triandafyllidou p596), in this case, Lithuanians (we) v.s. the USSR (they). After the USSR fell, the first turning point into rebuilding themselves as a country was joining NATO and the EU in 2004, which brings us to the modern-day “other”, Russia. As you can imagine Russia was also a part of the USSR when it fell, but the difference is, they didn't try and assimilate into the rest of the EU and NATO Like Lithounana did. In fact, to this day, Russia has continued to push its language and religious beliefs onto Lithuania and the other Baltic Countries. Russia's main religion is Russian Orthodox, and as shown in their past, Lithounana wants to remain Roman Catholic. 

Throughout this blog post, we explored national identity and how people of the same nation identify with one another. One of the first big points we covered was defining national identity, how it can mean different things for different nations, and how this relates to Lithuania. The second big point we covered was Lithuania's national identity, and how past history has impacted their culture and ideals. Last, we covered Triandafillou's National Identity And The “other”. Through her work, we explored how external forces, especially from the USSR and Russia on Lithuania solidified what it means to be Lithuanian, and helped solidify their identity by trying but failing, to remove it.

 

References

 CIA.(2017) “Lithuania.” Central Intelligence Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, 

www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/lithuania/#introduction.

Čiubrnskas, V. (2008). Identity politics and migration. Anthropological Journal of European Cultures, 17(1), 155-158. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43235379

Cruz, M.Z. (2014). The Role of Catholicism in the Development of Lithuanian national identity. Church History and Religious Culture, 94(4), 479-504.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/43946120

Rindzeviciute, E. (2003). "Nation" and "Europe": Re-approaching the Debates about Lithuanian National Identity. Journal of Baltic Studies, 34(1), 74-91. 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/43212515

Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity (Vol. 11). Reno: University of Nevada press.

Triandafyllidou, A. (1998). National identity and the 'other'. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21, 593-612.