The Society of Nobles in Lithuania
An email correspondence
During the fall semester of 2002, I held a course at the Institute of Anthropology, University of Copenhagen, in cooperation with Kristina Sliavaite at Vilnius University. The title of the course was:
Power, state and
nationalism in East / Central Europe
(See the course homepage at http://www.fsnielsen.com/kur/2002-2_EastEur/)
During the course, students worked together in groups to create a course paper, formulated as a fieldwork synopsis for a hypothetical fieldwork-based research project in East / Central Europe. The project was an exercise that was never intended to be carried out in practice. Click here for details about student papers. Click here for details about the course.
One student group decided to write their paper on an organization for members of the Lithuanian nobility - "The Society of Nobles in Lithuania" (http://lbks.tinklapis.lt).
The paper was completed and published online in december 2002.
On July 27th 2003, after the paper had been online for about 7 months, I received an email from a member of The Society of Nobles, criticizing the students' work. As a result, a rather lengthy email correspondence between myself and two members ensued. They demanded that I remove the students' paper, and in the course of our correspondence I agreed to do that.
The paper can therefore no longer be read online, however, I have published our correspondence in its entirity below.
Finn Sivert Nielsen
Institute of Anthropology
University of Copenhagen
finn.sivert.nielsen@anthro.ku.dk
Hello,
Stop please to publish nonsence about LBKS!!!!
http://www.fsnnielsen.com/kur/2002-2_EastEur/papers/Group_4.htm [This link is now dead]
At first all links on your page don't work, they are old. LBKS has a new site
The second:
this your web site is ridiculing our organization. You are saying
that the
LBKS is a group of people fantasizing that we are nobility and that
nobility does not exist anymore. You are very insulting to LBKS. Please stop these three students from following our members around to
degrade them!
I feel personally insulted by this web site as my ancestors were noblemen!
Who can not prove the nobility with archive documents, that can not be our member.
We are not nationalists. We are Lithuanian and we want to be. We was ocupied for fifty years and many years by Carism in 19 c.
We appreciated our nations feelings, language, history... and etc.
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Audra
(( )__( )) aka Storm-Sturm
(_, \) ,_\)
'-\\---'
__'\\'
My personal: http://bituke.tik.lt
http://webdesign.web1000.com
Dear Sir,
As the teacher responsible for the course in question, I am responding to
your email about the LBKS. I am sorry I have been unable to answer earlier,
but I have been travelling for a few weeks and have not had access my email
account before now.
I was rather surprised at your angry attack on the work of my three
students. After reading your email, I therefore promptly reread the text
they have written. I have the following comments, which I would like you to
consider:
1) The text was written by three young students. It is a course assignment,
not a serious thesis, and, as stated on the course homepage, the text describes
a hypothetical research project (see http://www.fsnielsen.com/kur/2002-2_EastEur/coursedescription.htm).
The aim of the course was thus to train students in the planning
of a field project, and it was never intended that fieldwork should actually
be performed. All in all, I am surprised that you react so strongly to such
an unpresumptious piece of work.
2) The text gives a short and rather positive overview of the history of
Lithuania and the Lithuanian nobility. It emphasizes the persecution that
Lithuanian nobles underwent during Soviet times, the long and honorable
history of Lithuanian nobility, and the present legal status of the LBKS. It
quotes the published material of the LBKS, in order to give an impression of
the goals of that organization. The text in no place states that "the
LBKS is a group of people fantasizing that we are nobility and that nobility
does not exist anymore", and I cannot find any passage in the text that
"degrades" the members of the LBKS.
3) I also have no knowledge that the students have been "following
[your] members around". As far as I know, the students exchanged a few
emails with members of your group about 8-10 months ago, and there has
been no contact at all since 2002.
4) You affirm that the LBKS are not "nationalists". However, the
students very clearly write that "nationalism" is a word that may
have several different meanings, and I cannot see that they attribute a form
of nationalism to the LBKS that is particularly negative. Perhaps it would
clarify matters somewhat if you took a look at the following page, where the
concept of nationalism is discussed in some detail: http://www.nationalismproject.org/what.htm.
5) You are right that the links to the LBKS homepage are outdated. The
normal procedure in such cases, however, is not to complain about the error,
but to supply the correct address. If you send me the new URL, I will gladly
correct the references in the students' paper.
In short, I find your reactions rather unreasonable. There may indeed be
certain differences of opinion between the students and you, but differences
of opinion are, after all, permissable in a democratic society. I see no
evidence that the students have "ridiculed" or slandered your
organization.
I am sending a copy of this email (including your original letter) to the
students who wrote the paper. If they want to contact you and continue this
discussion, they may do so.
I am perfectly willing to remove the students' paper from the Internet, but
only if one of the two following conditions are fulfilled:
a) EITHER: The students who wrote the paper must ask me to remove it.
b) OR: I must receive an official email from a responsible person at the
LBKS, asking me to remove it.
I am NOT willing to remove the paper after reading your letter, which (1)
does not contain your full name, (2) does not indicate what your status in
the LBKS is, and which - in addition - (3) is phrased in a very impolite
way. I am surprised, in fact, that a member of the Lithuanian nobility can
write such an abusive letter. I had gained the impression from my
students' paper, that the members of the LBKS were cultured people, who
"in present times [...] do not have a manor or castles, but [...] ,
like our forefathers, strive to take part in the life of society, bring up
young people in the spirit of unselfishness".
Sincerely Yours,
Finn Sivert Nielsen
Associate Professor
Institute of Anthropology
University of Copenhagen
Frederiksholms kanal 4
DK 1220 Copenhagen K, Denmark
Phone:
Fax:
Email:
Dear Mr. Finn Sivert Nielsen,
Thank you for your very exhaustive answer. I am so sorry that my message is showed to you impolite. That was the reason that some people from the Heraldry forum, to which I belong, was indignant at this Internet site and wrote me. They found this work in Internet accidentaly.
I can not answer to your letter in details today, because I shoud read and read again your letter and the work as well. The work is not so short to deep in it ....and I am not English speaker.
The message was send promptly and I didn't introdused to you..sorry...
To improve my behavour: I am webmaster of LBKS website.
My Status in LBKS: LBKS Senator, Member of Vilnius division council board, Member of Noblemean palace board, also I am a noblewoman, coat or arms Pogonia/
Mrs. Audrone Musteikiene
6. august 2003
Dear Audrone Musteikiene,
That's perfectly OK. Take your time and look through the paper. And let me repeat my offer to remove the text if your organization finds it offensive.
Best wishes,
Finn Sivert Nielsen
Hello Mrs, Finn Sivert Nielsen.
Read please belove:
----- Original Message -----
From: Edward
Justin Modestino, M.Phil.
To: Audrone
M.
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: please stop to publish
nonsence
Hello again,
I just wanted to point out one more thing. This is the first reference
listed in the bibliography of that web site.
"Anderson, Benedict (1983) Imagined Communities, London: Verso"
There is a reason for it! It is clearly suggesting that the Lithuanian
Nobility live in an imagined community, a fantasy world! Feel free to
forward my emails to this professor if you wish. I will gladly continue
the argument for you!
Ed
> Hello,
> I am terribly sorry that this professor did not see your point. You
were
> polite. I have read the website again and I am sure that I am
correct
> about the intentions of this work. The purpose is very clear.
> Below are quotes that I find offensive from the text on this website.
> http://www.fsnnielsen.com/kur/2002-2_EastEur/papers/Group_4.htm
[This link is now dead]
> I have explained what they mean below each one. You can decide
yourself
> if these are offensive.
> -------
> "One of the main things we have to be aware of during our fieldwork
is the
> possible discrepancies between what the nobles say about the Lithuanian
> nation and individual, and what they do, i.e. the acts they perform, the
> activities they engage in, the way they conduct themselves in different
> situations etc."
> Here the focus is on the word discrepancies. They are trying to
show that
> Lithuanian Nobles say one thing and do another, that they are
inconsistent
> with their beliefs about society. This is insulting!
> ----
> "So far it seems to us that the nobles are being quiet eclective in
the
> kinds of nationalism/nationalistic strategies they appropriate. They pick
> and choose from different positions to further their own cause."
> Here this states that Lithuanian Nobility are selfish and only care about
> their own cause.
> ----
> "The political side of what the LBKS want to achieve is very
understated
> in the homepages. The rhetorics they employ forms a picture of a group of
> people who 'innocently' wants to work for 'the welfare of the country',
> referred to through the metaphorical kinship terms so typical of
> nationalist rhetorics (motherland, father of the nation, brothers and
> sisters etc.). But the question is who belongs to this 'family'? The
> nobles do not present themselves as an ethnic movement, their main
concern
> is nobility, but from reading their material on the internet it becomes
> quite clear that their nationalism is not an inclusive one. They welcome
> foreigners, but only as long as they can prove their Lithuanian 'roots'.
> The nobles are supporting the 'official nationalism' (Anderson 1991:
> 83ff), i.e. legitimising the existing state and power holding elite, as
> opposed to what could be termed 'oppositional nationalism', i.e. the
> ethno-nationalist struggles of minority groups opposing the current state
> structure."
> This paragraph suggests that the LBKS are pretending to be
"innocent" with
> their intentions, that they are "understated". This
suggests that
> Lithuanian Nobles may have some other motive other than the one stated on
> the LBKS website. As the "main concern is nobility", this
suggests that
> the reason for LBKS is to make its members feel self important, perhaps
> even better than others who are not of nobility.
> ----
> "The practises of the LBKS, however, are no longer being suppressed
by a
> communist rule; still, they are somehow contesting other existing
> ideologies that dominate in contemporary Lithuania."
> This states that the practices of the LBKS are against the Republic of
> Lithuania!
> ----
> "the practises and the discourses of the LBKS imply very specific
choices
> of consumption relating to the ideology and values they profess. In all
> this, their interpretation of the glorious national past plays a crucial
> role. By eclectically choosing certain aspects of the past, e.g. in the
> practise of 'memory projects', the nobles somehow create their own menu.
> They are consuming their own version of the past. By using a metaphor of
> consumption it becomes easier overcoming oppositional relations between
> ideology and practise, between connecting to the past and living in the
> present."
> One of the issues clearly expressed in this paragraph is that Lithuanian
> Nobility create an idealized version of the past by selectively choosing
> what to focus on. This suggests once again that Lithuanian Nobility
are
> living in a fantasy world, based on a selective view of history.
> ----
> "Following this perspective, the Lithuanian nobles both classify
> themselves and others by choosing certain ways of behaving and by taking
a
> common interest in their ancestors, history and myth. Throughout history
> the nobles lost both money and property. Today they are not the holders
of
> economical capital or power any more; what they have left is their name
> and their descent as nobles. Instead they attach importance to their
> cultural heritage and moral values. Hence by reviving ancient myths of
> Lithuania and by celebrating national symbols and traditions, they are
> acquiring symbolic capital in their own domain."
> This again suggests that Lithuanian Nobility are living in a fantasy
> world. That they are trying to create a feeling of self importance
based
> on a "symbolic capital in their own domain", as they do not
have property
> or money to feel better than non-gentry.
> -----
> "The struggle within this domain may include other groups of
society. But
> converting symbolic capital from one sphere to another is not easily
done.
> Anthropologist Steven Sampson describes in the essay 'Money without
> culture, culture without money' (1994), how the 'New Rich' in Eastern
> Europe are trying to appropriate the cultural manifestations of the old
> aristocratic elite. However their efforts often lead to exaggerations and
> subsequently ridicule in the general public (Sampson 1994:7-10). Looking
> into the LBKS' perceptions of the people labelled the nouveau riche, that
> in some senses hold similar goals and views, could be another interesting
> path to follow."
> This suggests that Lithuanian Nobility are living in a fantasy world
where
> they consider themselves to be from an elite aristocracy and would
> snobbishly look down at nouveau riche, the newly rich,
thinking that
> they were better than them.
> ------
> "In studying the nobles of Lithuania, the main thing we have to be
> conscious of is that to a lot of them nobility is extremely important.
> They see themselves as playing an important role in society, and even
> though they are also part of networks where nobility is not an issue, it
> is an integral part of their identity. So even if we will find some of
> their ways, rituals and views curious, because we do not attach the same
> importance to nobility, we have to show them respect."
> This means that the students will show the Lithuanian Nobility respect
> even though they think that Lithuanian Nobility is not important.
The
> word "curious" suggests that they expect to find the practices
and beliefs
> of Lithuanian Nobility to be that of individuals living in false reality
> or fantasy world.
> ----------
> This professor was wrong. This website clearly ridicules the LBKS
and
> Lithuanian Nobility!
> Ed Modestino (descendant of Lithuanian Nobility)
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Edward Justin Modestino, M.Phil.
> Graduate Research Assistant
> Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory
> Center for Complex Systems and Brain Sciences
> Ph.D. Program in Complex Systems and Brain Sciences
> Florida Atlantic University
> modestino@walt.ccs.fau.edu
> http://www.ccs.fau.edu/~modestino/
> Lab: http://www.ccs.fau.edu/~bressler/CEL/CEL.html
Dear Audrone Musteikiene and Ed Modestino,
I'm sorry I have not had time to answer your email earlier, but there is a lot to do here at the beginning of the semester, and I have many other duties to attend to. Below, I shall try to answer some of your objections to my students' work.
First, though, I must repeat a point I made earlier in our correspondence: The paper we are discussing was written by three young students (one of them Lithuanian). It is therefore not necessarily a perfectly finished or consistent work; it may contain factual or other errors etc. It is not authoritative, and I therefore (still) find your strong reactions against it somewhat surprising.
However, let us now turn to your objections:
1)
First, let me do away with one point which is very clearly a misunderstanding.
The students write that the LBKS "...are somehow contesting other
existing ideologies that dominate in contemporary Lithuania". You respond
to this by saying: "This states that the practices of the LBKS are
against the Republic of Lithuania!"
This is not what the students are saying! They are simply stating (a) that there are other, more widespread, ways of looking at the world in today's Lithuania (other "ideologies" than that of the LBKS), and (b) that the LBKS does not agree with these.
This in no way implies that the LBKS is against the Republic of Lithuania. Instead, it simply means that the LBKS, like other legitimate actors, participates actively in Lithuanian public debate. I hope this is true.
2)
The next point is not so simple. The students write that "...[o]ne of the
main things we have to be aware of during our fieldwork is the possible
discrepancies between what the nobles say about the Lithuanian nation and
individual, and what they do." Your comment to this is that: "They
are trying to show that Lithuanian Nobles say one thing and do another, that
they are inconsistent with their beliefs about society."
This brings up several questions. First, you should be aware that the students' paper is an exercise in anthropological theories and methods. In anthropology, there exists an near universal consensus that it is vital, when doing empirical research, to be aware of the fact that there is often an important difference between what people say and what they do. This is a quite general postulate, which applies to all people everywhere, and has no particular reference to Lithuania or the LBKS.
What it implies is, on one level, completely self-evident: For example, if I first build a house, and later tell you about how I built it, you will surely agree that the actual activity of building is not the same as the story I tell about it afterwards. On this level, the point is simply that acts cannot be translated into words at all.
On another level, what the statement means is that acts are often spontaneous, "pre-reflexive". Very often, I act before I think. For example, if I discover that my house is on fire, I will rush in to save my children, without giving any thought to why I do this. Afterwards, when I tell the story about the fire, I may think of the reasons why I did it. But I was not conscious of these reasons when I acted.
On still another level, the statement may mean that I deliberately falsify the intentions behind my acts, or even that I falsify the acts themselves. This is also quite common, and often not necessarily immoral. "White lies" are not always evil.
The point made by the students is therefore simply that if they were going to study the LBKS (which they are not going to do!), they must remember that what people say and what they do are different things. The students even say that they must be aware of "possible discrepancies". Thus, they are not "trying to show that Lithuanian Nobles ... are inconsistent with their beliefs about society." Instead, they are (a) pointing out that for all people, everywhere, there is a difference between speaking and acting, (b) that sometimes this difference is important if we are to understand the life of these people, and (c) that perhaps this is also the case for Lithuanian Nobles.
3)
Your third set of objections are concerned with the students' use of the term
"imagined community", and demand a rather lengthy comment.
"Imagined community" is an analytical term developed by the
British-American political scientist Benedict Anderson (who is listed first on
the students' bibliography, because the bibliography is alphabetical, and his
last name begins with "A", not for any other reason, as Mr.
Modestino seems to imply). Originally, the term was used to describe the
growth of national consciousness in Western Europe and certain Third World
states (esp. Indonesia). Later, however, the term has been applied very widely
to studies of nationalism everywhere, and it is today perhaps the most
influential theory of nationalism in the world, which is widely used by
anthropologists, historians, political scientists etc.
You state several places that an "imagined community" is a "fantasy world" or a "false reality". If you read Anderson's book, you will discover that this is not at all what he means. His idea is instead that nations are very large communities, and that most of the individuals inhabiting them never get to know each other face-to-face. Nevertheless, nations are able to create a feeling among their inhabitants that they are all very closely connected, as if they all belonged to the same local community or the same family. Anderson asks how this is possible, and argues - rather convincingly, I would say - that the historical growth of the nation took place in tandem with the growth of modern communication media - first the printing press (books, newspapers), later radio, TV etc. These media made it possible to spread certain stories, symbols and images to the entire population of the nation. These then became "common knowledge" among all the nation's inhabitants. Thus it became possible, for example, to meet a total stranger from another part of the country, and immediately start a conversation with him, e.g. about the latest novel of one of the nation's novelists. (In Norway, my home country, a famous example is Ibsen's image of Peer Gynt.)
The "common knowledge" of a nation may be derived from a number of sources. I have mentioned literature, but nature and history are also important sources of national symbols. Most Norwegians, for example, would agree that Norwegian fjords and Norwegian Vikings are quintessential symbols of the Norwegian nation. It is equally obvious that not all symbols are equally well suited to be national symbols. Norway was, for example, a colony under Denmark for 400 years, and later under Sweden for 100 years. When Norwegians think about their nation, they clearly prefer to focus on the positive sides of its history rather than on its colonial past. Therefore the Vikings, rather than the Danes or the Swedes, are recognized symbols of Norwegian nationalism. Norwegians' use of historical symbolism is selective.
Anderson's point is thus that the inhabitants of a nation share a number of symbols, which are selected from history, literature, religion, mythology, nature etc., and disseminated by the media, and that this shared "library" of symbols allows the millions of people living in the nation to feel that they are closely connected, as if they were one big family. It is this feeling of close connectedness through common symbols that is the essence of the concept of "imagined community".
Now we arrive at the students' use of this term in their paper. As I have repeatedly said, the authors are young students, and their paper is an exercise, which is not without its faults. I myself think that the students' use of "imagined community" is not quite correct. Clearly, the Lithuanian nation (like the Norwegian, the American or the Indonesian nations) is an "imagined community", since all or most Lithuanians (presumably) feel that they are closely connected through the symbols they share, even though most of them will never know each other personally.
It is more debatable whether the LBKS can be considered an "imagined community" since the organization is relatively small, and most of its members probably know each other personally (this is my assumption, and of course I may be wrong). In that case, the LBKS should be considered the opposite of an "imagined community" (the opposite of an "imagined community" is not a "real community", but a "face-to-face community").
The students, however, go on to make another point. They state that the LBKS is concerned to influence the Lithuanian imagined community in certain ways (in accordance with the organization's stated purposes). In order to acquire influence, however, they must have respect in the wider Lithuanian society (otherwise no-one will listen to them). In order to explain how such respect is acquired, the students turn to another famous social theoretician, the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who is often referred to as the most influential social theorist of our times.
Bourdieu states (and again this is a quite general statement, with no particular reference to Lithuania or the LBKS) that people may gain influence and respect in a society by acquiring "symbolic capital". "Symbolic capital" consists of symbols that are highly valued in society at large. Education is an example: If I have higher education, the chances are good that people will listen to me and take me more seriously than if I have no education at all. Not all symbolic capital is equally applicable in all spheres, however, and when we turn to the area in which the LBKS is seeking influence (i.e. Lithuanian national consciousness), education is not necessarily of much value as a symbol. History, however, is typically of great value, and if the LBKS can show that it has a close relationship to the most valued parts of Lithuanian history, it may hope to gain respect in Lithuanian society more generally. There is not necessarily anything cynical or self-serving about this. The LBKS believes in certain values, and thinks that it will be good for society if these values are spread. These opinions are honorable in themselves - and it is therefore also quite honorable if the LBKS seeks to acquire respect and influence in society, in order to further their goals. One of the most obvious ways in which they may do this, is by focusing on their connection with ancient Lithuanian history. Again, I can see nothing wrong or dishonorable about this.
It is on this background that we should understand such statements in the students' paper as the following:
"Hence by reviving ancient myths of Lithuania and by celebrating national symbols and traditions, they are acquiring symbolic capital in their own domain."
and:
"By eclectically choosing certain aspects of the past, e.g. in the practise of 'memory projects', the nobles somehow create their own menu." (This latter statement is extremely unclear - as is often the case in student work. If you have misunderstood it, I can hardly blame you.)
and:
"...the nobles are being quiet eclectic in the kinds of nationalism/nationalistic strategies they appropriate. They pick and choose from different positions to further their own cause."
4)
The last statement connects to another objection that you raise against the
students' work. In your comment to this quote, you write that "...this
states that Lithuanian Nobility are selfish and only care about their own
cause."
I have stated my reasons for disagreeing with you about this above. However, I agree with you that the students could have chosen their words more carefully (but one must remember that none of them are fluent in English - and that they are very young!). The phrase "pick and choose", for example, gives the wrong associations, in my opinion.
5)
Your next point concerns the relationship between the Lithuanian Nobility
and the so-called "nouveaux riches".
The students write:
"Anthropologist Steven Sampson describes in the essay 'Money without
culture, culture without money' (1994), how the 'New Rich' in Eastern Europe
are trying to appropriate the cultural manifestations of the old aristocratic
elite. However their efforts often lead to exaggerations and subsequently
ridicule in the general public (Sampson 1994:7-10). Looking into the LBKS'
perceptions of the people labelled the nouveau riche, that in some senses hold
similar goals and views, could be another interesting path to follow."
You object to this:
"This suggests that Lithuanian Nobility are living in a fantasy world
where they consider themselves to be from an elite aristocracy and would
snobbishly look down at nouveau riche, the newly rich, thinking that they were
better than them."
I have already commented on your idea of a "fantasy world", so I will not repeat this here. Instead, I will focus on your statement that the quote "suggests" that the Lithuanian Nobility "snobbishly look down at nouveau riche". Again, I must differ with your interpretation. The students are not insinuating that the LBKS consists of snobs, instead they are making a general observation and asking a question:
The observation is that throughout the post-communist region there is widespread skepticism among ordinary people to the nouveaux riches. This has been documented widely in the literature, and the article by Sampson is only one example. Most people I know in the region agree with this point of view, and I have often heard jokes told about the "nouveaux riches". All in all, I can understand this very well, since the nouveaux riches are in many cases powerful people who have gained their money in (sometimes) highly questionable ways.
The question asked by the students is "how do the members of the LBKS relate to the nouveaux riches"? This is an honest question, not an insinuation. It is, moreover, a rather interesting question, since the Lithuanian Nobility have a form of status and respect in society which is in some respects similar to, in other respects radically different from that of the nouveaux riches. The similarity lies in the fact that both groups are a kind of elite. The difference lies in that the nouveaux riches often base their claim to elite status on money, while the old Nobility bases it on morality and history. Asking how the old Nobility relates to the new moneyed elite is therefore a relevant question, which may teach us something more general about the development of elites in post-communist Lithuania.
I can see no reason why a question of this kind should be considered offensive. I myself am an intellectual, I belong to the intellectual elite, and as such, I have certain opinions about society and politics. These opinions are not always in agreement with the opinions of representatives of other elites in Denmark, where I live. If a student asked me how I related to these other elites, I would not find that in the least bit offensive. Instead, I would try to explain, as clearly as I was able, what my opinions were.
6)
Finally, as I have said before, the students are frequently somewhat sloppy
and inexact in their paper. They are also (like young people everywhere) often
a little too self-confident. This becomes particularly evident in one of the
quotes you have singled out, and in this particular case, I tend to agree with
you that the students could have formulated themselves more exactly and
carefully. With regard to this quote, moreover, I have a couple of questions
for you.
The students write:
"The political side of what the LBKS want to achieve is very understated
in the homepages. The rhetorics they employ forms a picture of a group of
people who 'innocently' wants to work for 'the welfare of the country',
referred to through the metaphorical kinship terms so typical of nationalist
rhetorics (motherland, father of the nation, brothers and sisters etc.). But
the question is who belongs to this 'family'? The nobles do not present
themselves as an ethnic movement, their main concern is nobility, but from
reading their material on the internet it becomes quite clear that their
nationalism is not an inclusive one. They welcome foreigners, but only as long
as they can prove their Lithuanian 'roots'. The nobles are supporting the
'official nationalism' (Anderson 1991: 83ff), i.e. legitimising the existing
state and power holding elite, as opposed to what could be termed
'oppositional nationalism', i.e. the ethno-nationalist struggles of minority
groups opposing the current state structure."
You object to this:
"This paragraph suggests that the LBKS are pretending to be
"innocent" with their intentions, that they are
"understated". This suggests that Lithuanian Nobles may have some
other motive than the one stated on the LBKS website. As the "main
concern is nobility", this suggests that the reason for LBKS is to make
its members feel self important, perhaps even better than others who are not
of nobility."
I have several comments to this:
a) I agree with you that the students in this paragraph (and in certain other passages in the paper) seem to "insinuate" some things. Their use of "understated", and the quotation marks around "innocent" and "the welfare of the country" are objectionable and seem slightly arrogant.
b) The reference to "metaphorical kinship terms" should be understood on the background of what I wrote about "imagined communities" above. They are part of the "symbolic library" that enables a nation to feel like a group of closely related people - as a "family".
c) I do not understand your objection to the statement that "their main concern is nobility". Is not the LBKS a society for members of the Nobility? If you are not concerned with Nobility, why do you have an organization that is only for Nobles?
d) The students state that "their nationalism is not an inclusive one", in that it is only willing to include foreigners who can prove that they have Lithuanian roots. I myself find this statement rather unclear. What the students seem to be saying, however, is that the LBKS does not want foreigners without proveable Lithuanian roots to become Lithuanian citizens. I do not know if this is true (and you do not comment on it), but if this is the opinion of the LBKS, then I disagree with it. As a foreigner living in Denmark, which has recently changed its immigration laws dramatically, I have great sympathy with all people who are for one reason or another "trapped" in a foreign country, and who are not respected because they are "foreign". Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify this point for me?
e) Finally, the students state that the LBKS supports "the 'official nationalism' ..., i.e. legitimising the existing state and power holding elite". Again, I find this statement unclear and somewhat insinuating. I could well understand it if you reacted to it. But you do not. What I think the students mean is simply that the LBKS supports the Republic of Lithuania and the existing rulers of the Republic. This in itself is a rather innocent statement. But it is also possible that they mean that the LBKS allies itself politically with the more nationalistic parties in Lithuania. I do not know if this is true, but again, it would be interesting if you could clarify this point.
On the whole, I think this last piece of the students' paper is rather poorly put together, full of vague (and perhaps insinuating) passages, but mostly simply unclear. When I evaluated the students' paper I made a similar point. I wrote to them:
"Perhaps you should look at yourselves more as students, learning from the nobles, rather than as researchers, who have access to an alternative truth about them. It's not that you can't disagree in the field (I like what you write about that), but you seem to know that you will disagree, even before you go on fieldwork."
===========
This concludes my answer to your comments. I'm sorry it has become so long, but the questions you raise are difficult, and I feel that they deserve an honest and complete answer. I hope that I have been able to convince you that the students' work is not as objectionable as you think, that they are not constantly "suggesting" and "insinuating", and that, when they do, this is mainly attributable to the fact that they are young and inexperienced. I am deeply convinced that their intensions were never to slander the Lithuanian Nobility or the LBKS.
Perhaps you will still disagree with the students on certain points. But honest disagreement is surely an honest affair?
However, I will repeat my previous offer: If the LBKS finds the paper highly objectionable, I will remove it from our website, after receiving an official request from the LBKS to do so.
Sincerely Yours,
Finn Sivert Nielsen
P.S. My first name is a man's, not a woman's, name. Thus, I am Mr., not Mrs. Nielsen.
Dear Mr. Finn Sivert Nielsen and Mr. Ed Modestino,
It is really not easy for me to discuss such things in English, particularly in philosophical, anthropological, historical, political scientists things, as I am not English speaker. Sorry, I will do not touch all paragraphs..
I shall to try to answer at some of your objections. My comments are in blue and red belove:
You wrote:
First, though, I must repeat a point I made earlier in our correspondence: The paper we are discussing was written by three young students (one of them Lithuanian). It is therefore not necessarily a perfectly finished or consistent work; it may contain factual or other errors etc. It is not authoritative, and I therefore (still) find your strong reactions against it somewhat surprising.
The more, if the paper were not perfect finished, it is not good to publish them, particularly about such sensitive things to us, like nationalism and other.
However, let us now turn to your objections:
3)
......It is more debatable whether the LBKS can be considered an "imagined community" since the organization is relatively small, and most of its members probably know each other personally (this is my assumption, and of course I may be wrong). In that case, the LBKS should be considered the opposite of an "imagined community" (the opposite of an "imagined community" is not a "real community", but a "face-to-face community").I don't think, that LBKS organization is relativy small acording to Lithuanian population which is about 2.5 mln inhabitants. Remember that all intelegent nation was annihiliated in Siberia lagers for about 10 years. Many people even they escaped their papers during all wars and political changes, many of them burned the documents being afraid of soviet politic.
4)
I have stated my reasons for disagreeing with you about this above. However, I agree with you that the students could have chosen their words more carefully (but one must remember that none of them are fluent in English - and that they are very young!). The phrase "pick and choose", for example, gives the wrong associations, in my opinion.Thefore we are insulted because these all things are very sensitive for us as for the state which recovered its state after a long years of occupation by soviets. That students are young this not give a right them to publish such things about not only LBKS but about Lithuania itself. You can do the researching if you like but it is not good to publish it.
Understand us correctly please. Everybody who comes to the site and read it make very bad opinion about LBKS
6)
Finally, as I have said before, the students are frequently somewhat sloppy and inexact in their paper. They are also (like young people everywhere) often a little too self-confident.Theremore it should be a control for their self-confidentness...
This becomes particularly evident in one of the quotes you have singled out, and in this particular case, I tend to agree with you that the students could have formulated themselves more exactly and carefully. With regard to this quote, moreover, I have a couple of questions for you.
The students write:
"The political side of what the LBKS want to achieve is very understated in the homepages. The rhetorics they employ forms a picture of a group of people who 'innocently' wants to work for 'the welfare of the country', referred to through the metaphorical kinship terms so typical of nationalist rhetorics (motherland, father of the nation, brothers and sisters etc.). But the question is who belongs to this 'family'? The nobles do not present themselves as an ethnic movement, their main concern is nobility, but from reading their material on the internet it becomes quite clear that their nationalism is not an inclusive one. They welcome foreigners, but only as long as they can prove their Lithuanian 'roots'. The nobles are supporting the 'official nationalism' (Anderson 1991: 83ff), i.e. legitimising the existing state and power holding elite, as opposed to what could be termed 'oppositional nationalism', i.e. the ethno-nationalist struggles of minority groups opposing the current state structure."The paragraph above it is awful or us.
This is not etnic movement, this is an association which units people who had nobles descendants, and can now improve it with their documents. The peoples are being legitimized and join our society.
Who gave a right for some your students discuss about our nationalism when they don't understand what it means for us after many years of ocupation !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! under Soviet Russia and Carisztic Russia. (Sorry for my bad language, simple don't have a time to check the spelling in dictionaries)
They compare our nationalizm with Fashizm's statements like nationalist rhetorics (motherland, father of the nation, brothers and sisters etc.).
We have fought last 50 years for our nationality, culture and language, and many years in previous century, because we could all become a Russians. We fought against wipping the Lithuania off from the World Map. If not our recovering from the fright which countinued under Soviet depressions, who know about us and our existence in the World in the future.
I repeat: who gave a right to consider about our national feelings? The young students was not in Sovietic lagers in Siberia and they do not know nothing about these things.
c) I do not understand your objection to the statement that "their main concern is nobility".
I do not know, where you found such words in LBKS site???
Is not the LBKS a society for members of the Nobility? If you are not concerned with Nobility, why do you have an organization that is only for Nobles?
d) The students state that "their nationalism is not an inclusive one", in that it is only willing to include foreigners who can prove that they have Lithuanian roots. I myself find this statement rather unclear. What the students seem to be saying, however, is that the LBKS does not want foreigners without proveable Lithuanian roots to become Lithuanian citizens. I do not know if this is true (and you do not comment on it), but if this is the opinion of the LBKS, then I disagree with it. As a foreigner living in Denmark, which has recently changed its immigration laws dramatically, I have great sympathy with all people who are for one reason or another "trapped" in a foreign country, and who are not respected because they are "foreign". Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify this point for me?
I don't understand you...............
The statement is such: "Only legitimized nobles can get full membership to be recognized with nobility statement. The foreigners should be related with Lithuanian origin."
The organization is for nobles of Lithuanian origin. It do not depends, wher he or she live.
e) Finally, the students state that the LBKS supports "the 'official nationalism' ..., i.e. legitimising the existing state and power holding elite". Again, I find this statement unclear and somewhat insinuating. I could well understand it if you reacted to it.
We react, simple the work is so large, that it is difficult to comment it.
But you do not. What I think the students mean is simply that the LBKS supports the Republic of Lithuania and the existing rulers of the Republic. This in itself is a rather innocent statement. But it is also possible that they mean that the LBKS allies itself politically with the more nationalistic parties in Lithuania. I do not know if this is true, but again, it would be interesting if you could clarify this point. - NONSENCE . We are not political organization and we do not have something related with nationalistic parties.
On the whole, I think this last piece of the students' paper is rather poorly put together, full of vague (and perhaps insinuating) passages, but mostly simply unclear. When I evaluated the students' paper I made a similar point. I wrote to them:
"Perhaps you should look at yourselves more as students, learning from the nobles, rather than as researchers, who have access to an alternative truth about them. It's not that you can't disagree in the field (I like what you write about that), but you seem to know that you will disagree, even before you go on fieldwork."
===========
This concludes my answer to your comments. I'm sorry it has become so long, but the questions you raise are difficult, and I feel that they deserve an honest and complete answer.
Thank you for it. Believe me, it is very dificult me to discuss with you. I feel in all my feelings that this work is very bad for us. It do not reflect the reality. The students needed to do some work, they read our website, added some pieces from literature and they thing it is correct, making a wrong imaginaging about our society. This work harm us very much.
However, I will repeat my previous offer: If the LBKS finds the paper highly objectionable, I will remove it from our website, after receiving an official request from the LBKS to do so.
YES, we do not want that somebody in Internet read about us like your students IMAGINE LBKS. We do not like such things. You admited that many places are even for you not clear. Is it necessary publish such work?
To do such researching they should know everything very good, about our life, history, culture, feelings. It is not enough to [ex]change some letters (I don't know whom they wrote), read the site, and to do conclusions.
You can do researching, it is your right but don't publish it. If even the other people not from Lithuania and not a member of LBKS find such work insulting for Lithuania and for LBKS itself, that is really not good.
If you want to have this work online, protect it from publish readings.
Is it enough to you of my status in LBKS for requiring to not publish this work? I am contact person for LBKS, you can look also at the site, my name (Nr 14) figure in Senators list:
http://lbks.tinklapis.lt/senatas.html
I am afraid not everyone from LBKS can read in English such big work from our members. It is heroistic work to read it. I forwarded you first messages and the link tou our authorities. Now is vacation time and I doubt or some from them will be able to read it.
Not everyone in LBKS know English because the most people are in older age. Our Chairperson Undine Nasvytyte don't read English. I am not able to do translation for here. It requies many efforts....like very large work for me - scientic work for a long time with dictionaries.
I am going to add this discusions to our site.
It is not easy. But foreigners read it and it is not nice!
If you do not agree to take out this work from Internet, write please at least in the beginning of work in remarkable way that
"authors are young students, and their paper is an exercise, which is not without its faults." The remark is necessary.
P.S. My first name is a man's, not a woman's, name. Thus, I am Mr., not Mrs. Nielsen.
I am very sorry - I wrote "s" accidentally.Sincerely Yours,
Mrs. Audrone Musteikiene
Dear Audrone Musteikiene,
I think, perhaps, this discussion may become interesting reading for users of the Internet. If you would like to put it up on your site, please, do - and send me the address, I will link to it from my site as well.
I think you make your point very clearly in the email I have just received. I have removed the text from the course site, and will instead link to our discussion, when you publish it.
The course I have taught with these students has basically been held in order to get them interested them in the countries of East and Central Europe. In the West, in general, we see reduced interest in these countries during latter years. The Baltic countries are entering the EU, people say, so they are no longer exciting and exotic, and - therefore - no longer worth establishing a career on; Russia is big, dirty and dangerous, and few want to go there. Public opinion moves from one thing to another very fast, and it demands a concerted effort to keep people's eyes fixed on a single goal for more than five minutes.
So this is my reality, and what I am trying to do: Keep people's attention in the West focused on the East / Central European region, and encourage them to build careers, acquire contacts, engange in exchange with groups and communities and individuals in this region.
In the course I taught with these students, I attempted to give each of them a small, but real fragment of that region to explore. I hoped that it would become real to them, and that when it became real, they would learn to appreciate something of how different and similar life is in these countrķes than it is in - for example - Denmark.
Our students do fieldwork several times in the course of their education - 1-2 weeks twice during their first year, 3 weeks in fourth semester, and minimum 4 months during their ninth semester. The course I held did not imply any fieldwork - instead, the students were to prepare a plan for how to do fieldwork in some specific location in East / Central Europe. The plan would be based on the very limited information the students could acquire over the Internet, and perhaps by a few, preliminary contacts with the persons they planned to study. (The students make this limitation quite clear, I think.) Perhaps I should also add that it is a common assumption in anthropology that formal fieldwork plans (such as my students have prepared) are very rarely confirmed by reality. Indeed, part of the reason we send young people out to do fieldwork is to convince them how stupid they are - so they will be encouraged to see their own opinions in perspective.
I must admit that I had never thought that such an exercise could be received as God's truth by anyone. But you are right, the text ought to be marked more clearly as student work, and I will soon mark the other student exercises published on the course page clearly.
In the mean time, thank you for an interesting and instructive discussion. Perhaps we may have the opportunity to meet some day - and, if one of my students ever wants to study your group, I will refer him or her to you, and you may discuss the matter!
Best wishes,
Finn Sivert Nielsen
Dear Finn Sivert Nielsen,
I am short this time. Thank you very much. I have to prepare the material and when I upload, I let you know. And maybe I answer in this your message, but later.
It was nice to comunicate.
Best regards,
Mrs. Audrone Musteikiene
I see you can not leave LBKS in peace. You promised me to not publish the articles about LBKS. Again you opened the site
http://192.38.109.18/~sivert/Courses/2002-2_EastEur/groups/group_4_2.htm
and you are going to discuss about LBKS.
Sorry, but who gave you right to investigate and analyse us under such theme like
Mrs. Audrone Musteikiene
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I have not opened any new sites or pages since our previous correspondence. As I have previously stated, the paper about which you complained earlier was published as part of a larger course. The course was held in the fall semester of 2002, and nothing has been added to the course pages since that time.
As a result of our correspondence, I deleted the document about which you complained, but I did not delete the entire course, nor the preliminary questions that the students asked about their projects. Since these texts are very short, and only contain questions and some very general information, and since you did not mention them in our previous correspondence, I did not delete them. I assumed that you had seen them and did not find them offensive.
So I will now explain to you exactly where on the existing course pages you may find references to the LBKS: In addition to the long paper (which has been deleted) there are three other documents that contain references to your organization:
1) http://192.38.109.18~sivert/Courses/2002-2_EastEur/groups.htm
Here (under "Group 4") you will find the following
information: (a) That the students planned to study your organization (in October
2002); (b) A link to the first and second drafts of their paper (published
later that semester); (c) A link to the finished paper (now disabled and
replaced with a text saying that this is where I will link to our
correspondence); (d) The names and email addresses of the students who were
working on the project.
2) http://192.38.109.18/~sivert/Courses/2002-2_EastEur/groups/group_4.htm
This is the first draft of the project. It
contains about 15 lines of text, mostly some very general information
about Lithuania and Lithuanian nobility, and four very preliminary research
questions.
3) http://192.38.109.18/~sivert/Courses/2002-2_EastEur/groups/group_4_2.htm
This is the second draft of the project. It is
this document that you have now "discovered". It contains ca. 1/2 page of
text, which is again very general.
All of these pages have been available on the Internet since December 2002. I have (I repeat!) not added anything to the site about your organization since then.
If you find the two drafts (nr. 2 and 3 above) offensive, I will remove them too. I will NOT, however, remove the first page (nr. 1), since this contains absolutely no information at all about your organization. I must say, however, that I find it very hard to believe that you have such great problems with the few lines published in the two drafts! There is nothing here but some questions, and some information that is freely available elsewhere on the Internet.
As far as permission to "investigate and analyse" is concerned - all the information which my students have used is publically available on the Internet - most of it from your own website. (In addition, 1-2 emails were exchanged with a member of your organization; information from these emails was used with the author's permission; and it has not been used in the drafts.) The only thing that my students have done, in the draft you react so strongly to, is to refer very briefly to some of the information that is available online, and to ask some questions about it. If you do not want anyone to ask any questions to or about your organization, I suggest that you remove the organization's homepage from the Internet.
I was very disappointed when I read this email from you. It seemed to me that we had arrived at an understanding, and that the tone of our correspondence had become friendly and polite. But now you are again accusing me of various things.
In our previous correspondence, we agreed that you
would publish our correspondence online. Since you have not yet done this, I
am now doing it myself. You will find it at: http://192.38.109.18/~sivert/Courses/2002-2_EastEur/groups/nobles/correspondence.htm
If our correspondence continues, I will add the rest of it to this page. If
you later find time to publish the correspondence, I will link to it from the
page I have published.
Best wishes,
Finn Sivert Nielsen
Hello Mr.Finn Sivert Nielsen,
Thank you for your exhaustive answer.
Understand us correctly: we do not want to be an object of investigating or experimental rabbit.
I think, if you are going to do investigation or researching of some organisation on the internet, you should ask a permision. But if you even asked us, who knew what articles you will publish (I mean previous which was deleted, and thank you for it).
When somebody even want to add a link to my site, they ask of permision.
Let be your cources online, I was afraid of appearing again some unobjective articles about us.
I did our correspondence online but with protection. Only registered members of LBKS can read it with password: http://lbks.tinklapis.lt/en/messages1.html
I hope, that the tone of our correspondence continous friendly and polite...
Best regards,
Mrs. Audrone Musteikiene