Search for a command to run...
The analysis of the data of the Lithuanian Press (April 201-April 2011) on the Russian ethnic group qualitative research is presented in this article. Research data analysis revealed the predominate discourse (topics) in the press, printed in Lithuanian language, related to Russian ethnic group. The potential threats (economic, cultural and social) are named in this article, following the scheme of the thematic and cognitive organization of ethnic prejudice (van Dijk 1987; 61).The commemoration of Second World War (WWII) termination, as the most frequently mentioned social event and the representation of the participants (agents) of the event in the press in Lithuanian language are compared with the representation of the same social event and social actors of the same event in the press in Russian language of the same period. Thus, the research reveals what (predominating discourse (social event) and the participant of the the discourse (socal agents), how (presented arguments) and which groups opinions and attitudes about Russian ethnic group are constructed in the press in Lithuanian language. The differences and similarities of the representations of the termination of WWII commemoration (the elements of the event, the description details, provided explanations, reasons, goals and portrayal of the participants of the event) are revealed in the press in Lithuanian and Russian language as well.The analysis of the survey data showed that Russian ethnic group in the analyzed press in Lithuanian language is mostly associated with historical themes (the termination of WWII and its commemoration), also with the theme of the political activity of ethnic minority: coalition of Polish and Russian political parties and its victory in the Municipality Council’s elections. The big part of themes are related with the description of the different initiatives of Lithuanian Russians Union (LRU) political party – the commemorational march of 9th of May, the translation of election bulletins into Russian language before the Municipality Council’s elections, the building of the monument for the „personality of Russian nationality or Russian symbol“.According to the scheme for the thematic and cognitive organization of ethnic prejudice (van Dijk 1987; 61) the articles about Russian ethnic group are mostly expressed the cultural threats – interpretations of the termination of WWII and their differences in the consciousness of majority society and ethnic minority group. The (in)ability of ethnic minority group to integrate (ethnic minorities’ knowledge level of the state language is questioned in the press articles) could benamed as the cultural threat too.The social threats expressed in the press are connected with the interpretations within public discourses of the termination of WWII and the negative response of the majority society to these interpretations, which can provoke different protest actions and unrests. The aspirations and interests of ethnic minorities are seen as provocative, conflicting and raising the tensions in the society. Social threats reflected in the press articles are also related to the social disorder: from the side of Lithuania’s Russians (named as „anti-Lithuanian“ actions of Lithuania’s Russians who participate in the conferences for the compatriots, organized by Russian Federation; „anti-Lithuanian“ actions of the LRU political party representatives), and from the side of the Russian Federation representatives (the actions of representatives of the Embassy of the Russian Federation in Lithuania, the Russian Federation influence on the compatriots with help of mass media). The decision of the LRU political party’s leaders to translate, print and distribute the electoral bulletins without the permission of Seimas, as well as the ethnic minorities, demonstrating against the Educational reform could be seen as social threats expressed in the press. Positive attitudes towards Russian group, related to the social aspect – the absence of the civic society in Lithuania and the manifestations of ethnic intolerance in the society – are also expressed. Press in Lithuanian language does not pay lots of attention on the economic threat (only stated that 9th of May commemorative march in the Gediminas Avenue interferes with the events of European Day celebration). Economic threat is also expressed by questioning the funds, needed to build the monument for the Russian personality or Russian symbol. The discussions about integration processes of ethnic minorities and focus on the funding of the ethnic minority schools from the state budget in press in Lithuanian language could be also seen as economic threat.Mostly the opinions of the LRU political party leaders are presented in the Lithuanian press. While comparing the representations of WWII termination as a social event and the representations of participants (agents) of that event in the press in Lithuanian and Russian languages, it’s possible to state that two different informational spaces are created, when information targets two different linguistic audience groups. Thus, it presumes, that press is encouraging the conflict between two ethno linguistic groups, reading in Lithuanian and Russian languages. The threats expressed in the press in Lithuanian language, which are seen from the side of the representatives of Russian Federation or the Russian ethnic group, also contribute to the development of the conflict. The division between „they“ and „us“ groups in the discourse of the analyzed press in Lithuanian and Russian languages is created.According to the representation of Russian ethnic group in press in Lithuanian language, it’s possible to conclude that this group is seen as the Soviet period immigrants, who have no relations with the period of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania or any other historical period or with the heritage and the historical memory of these periods.Such representation of Russian ethnic group focusing exclusively on the problems of WWII and its termination, the identification of the group entirely with the political initiatives of LRU leaders, unwillingness to seek the common ground of historical interpretations in the press in Lithuanian and Russian language, will continue to form the sources for the topics, related to the Russian ethnic group and will reproduce the presentment schemes and will create the prejudices towards this ethnic group.