Post-Soviet transformation of Lithuanian state cultural policy: the meanings of democratisation

Abstract

This paper presents a general overview of the process of the democratisation of cultural policy in Lithuania by exploring explicit arguments about democratisation in debates and policy documents in Lithuania (1988Lithuania ( -2011. At the early stage of transformation (1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992), democratisation was envisaged as the administrative decentralisation of political institutions, particularly the Ministry of Culture, and as the introduction of democratic principles, such as freedom of speech and cultural self-regulation. More substantial meanings of democratisation were articulated in debates about ethnic diversity and social equality. The study reveals tensions between the values of high culture and pop culture and the unitary notion of Lithuanian national ethnic culture and the cultures of national minorities. At a later stage, the salience of the ethnic dimension decreased when the democratisation of cultural policy was conceptualised in relation to the knowledge economy, which required revision of the early postSoviet confrontation between culture and its economic use.

The securitisation of cultural heritage

“…There have been many attempts at the definition of cultural policy since then (Mangset 2020;Khan 2019;Durrer, Miller, and O'Brien 2017;Rindzevičiūtė 2012;Bennett 1998;Zimmer and Toepler 1996). Depending on the larger theoretical framework that they are embedded in, these definitions can emphasise different aspects of the cultural policy process, such as the politics of administration, but also of knowledge production, language and identity.…”

“…For instance, in the former Western concessions and colonies such as Shanghai and Hong Kong, the lack of cultural infrastructure was considered 'the remnant of the colonial past' (Karvelytė 2017, 251). In contrast, Soviet administration left behind a vast cultural infrastructure, most notably the houses of culture, built by local authorities, trade unions and enterprises (Kurennoy, this volume;Grama 2019;Rindzevičiūtė 2012;White 1990). These venues were crumbling down unused because of the lack of demand, depopulation of the countryside and the shift of cultural practices elsewhere.…”

“…Although the uses of neo-institutional theory in organisation and management studies has been criticised for being vague (Alvesson and Spicer 2019), its usefulness for cultural policy research has not been exhausted yet: the institutional approach enables us to bridge the long-standing binaries of ideology and practice, individual creativity and bureaucracy and, which is particularly important in an East European context, governmental control and freedom. Furthermore, much of the scholarship on post-state socialist change was strongly influenced by the institutionalist approach and developmentalist thinking (North 1992), while neo-institutional theory informed studies of European integration, international policy transfer and learning (Mangset 2020;Alvesson and Spicer 2019;Vos 2017;Tjarve 2013;Rindzevičiūtė 2012;Jacobsson 2006). The essays that compose this special issue augment this body of research with important empirical materials, evidencing the ways in which history shapes the types of policy actors and modes of actions, as well as describing the organisational mechanisms of change.…”

Sfera autonomii, sfera biurokracji. Relacje polskich teatrów publicznych i ich organizatorów w perspektywie międzynarodowej

“…Z kolei w krajach bałtyckich utworzone w latach dziewięćdziesiątych XX wieku narodowe rady sztuki, choć mają spore kompetencje (np. na Litwie jedynie osiem narodowych instytucji otrzymuje finansowanie bezpośrednio z budżetu państwa), nigdy nie wydostały się spod kontroli postsowieckich związków zawodowych twórców 33 . Według charakterystyki zasady arm's length Pera Mangseta 34 , związki zawodowe artystów nie powinny mieć wpływu na decyzje Rady Sztuki, gdyż prowadziłoby to do jej upolitycznienia 35 .…”

Policy change as institutional work

“…Here, the concept of institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) is explored in relation to policy change, through the empirical example provided by the introduction of the notion of cultural and creative industries (CCI) into cultural policy in Lithuania -a recently democratized country undergoing intense institutional transformation (Rindzevičiūtė 2012;Rindzevičiūtė et al 2015).…”