As Lithuania approaches the anniversary of its state restoration on February 16, 1918, prominent contemporary theater director Oskaras Koršunovas reflects on the significant challenges facing the country today. In an interview, he emphasizes the importance of cultural identity, stating, “I believe that the language, historical memory and flag remain key pillars of our identity. Without them, Lithuania is simply unimaginable.” He likens these elements to “the whales on which our state stands.”
Koršunovas notes that the societal landscape of interwar Lithuania was markedly different from today’s reality. At that time, most Lithuanians were farmers living in rural areas, with a relatively small educated elite. He argues that there is much to learn from that era, particularly regarding the pivotal role of culture and the intelligentsia, which he believes are fundamental to Lithuania’s identity and continuity.
In recent months, the Lithuanian cultural community has voiced its dissatisfaction with government policies, culminating in protests that Koršunovas describes as a reaction to reaching a “critical point.” He notes that it was primarily cultural figures who led the charge for state restoration in the past, a trend that continued during the Sąjūdis movement. However, since 1990, the focus has shifted towards business interests, often sidelining cultural considerations. He critiques the long-standing perception of the Ministry of Culture as a secondary concern within the government, often assigned to the least influential political party.
Cultural Significance and Political Responsibility
Koršunovas highlights that the appointment of Ignas Adomavičius as Minister of Culture may have been the tipping point for many in the cultural sector, as previous ministers often lacked the vision to prioritize cultural funding. He asserts that neglecting culture could have dire consequences for the nation: “If a country does not nurture its culture, it is doomed. Culture is like a flower; it may be beautiful, but it does not bear fruit without roots.” He stresses that culture should be at the forefront of national policy, particularly as Lithuania prepares to celebrate its independence.
He expresses a cautious optimism, noting that discussions about culture are becoming more frequent in political discourse, though he believes this focus should extend beyond mere representation for foreign audiences. The internal role of culture, which significantly affects the spiritual state of the nation, must not be overlooked. He recalls how the economic blockade and the crisis following the restoration of independence in 1990 led to a neglect of cultural matters, contributing to significant emigration from Lithuania.
Societal Divisions and Ideological Battles
Koršunovas also addresses the current ideological fractures within Lithuanian society. He observes that the public is increasingly polarized along political, geographic, and social lines. “This division is partly artificial,” he argues, suggesting that the tension seen in online spaces does not reflect the more unified sentiments found in local communities. He critiques politicians on both sides for prioritizing personal agendas over national unity, contrasting this with the collective mindset that characterized the country during its fight for independence.
he touches on the phenomenon of “self-righteousness” prevalent on social media, where individuals often present their opinions as absolute truths, leading to increased conflict and misunderstanding. He believes that theater has a unique capacity to bridge these divides, providing emotional resonance and fostering dialogue among diverse audiences.
Historical Reflection and Future Outlook
As Lithuania reflects on its past, Koršunovas questions the ongoing tendency to blame Soviet-era traumas for contemporary issues. He suggests that although historical wounds exist, it is essential to recognize the progress made since independence and the necessitate to address present-day challenges with fresh perspectives. “We have had enough time to resolve these issues,” he affirms.
Looking ahead, he dismisses the idea of an imminent threat of authoritarianism in Lithuania, asserting that the population values freedom and democracy. However, he acknowledges the potential for rapid change in the future, citing the unpredictability of socio-political dynamics. “The world changes quickly; we may find ourselves unprepared for what lies ahead,” he warns.
Koršunovas concludes that the resilience of the Lithuanian people is evident in their ability to adapt and thrive despite historical adversities. “Otherwise, we would not have survived,” he states, emphasizing the need for continued cultural investment as the nation navigates its path forward.
The dialogue surrounding these issues invites further exploration and discussion among Lithuanians, particularly as the anniversary of independence approaches. How will the cultural sector influence political decisions, and what role will citizens play in shaping the future of Lithuania?