Acta Historica Universitatis Klaipedensis

The aim of the article is to argue against a few problem aspects in narrative therapy practice from the perspective of Patristic anthropology. The author focuses on several parallel issues in the practical implementation of the method, which gives an opportunity to discuss the methodology to solve essentially important conceptual issues. The assumption that merely replacing the dominant narrative with the more promising alternative can solve a client’s crisis issue is put into doubt. The thesis common in classic narrative therapy that ‘the problem is the problem [of the narrative], but the client is not the problem’ (Differentiating the Client, 2024) is revisited. A simple replacement of the narrative may be a temporary solution, since it affects only the surface of the narrative, only the shell composed of a sequence of external events, but narrative therapy in its classic form as a long-term solution to the identity crisis fails.

The object of this publication is the social network Facebook groups identity. After research, it has been observed that the symbolic groups identity fragmentation represents political and ideological aspects. Socialism and its restoration became the ideological political basis uniting analysed groups members. The group’s members estimate the current Lithuanian political governance system considering the Soviet period ideology, but in the other hand identifying themselves as Lithuanians. It seems that analysed Facebook groups members has experienced identity stagnation and has not changed orientation together with new accepted country’s political ideology. The analysis showed that two “others” categories has emerged: Lithuanian governance, the political elite and compatriots that is not resists Lithuanian policy. In order to highlight the “others” the ruling elite of Lithuania is equated with Jews to split them from the entire nation and anti-resist Lithuanians is equated with lower mental level people. The current liberal democracy and the struggle against it become a grouping factor of analysed group members. A strong group identity maintained in virtual space is not supported in real space. The lack of physical contact between groups members makes it possible to assume that virtual community identity is maintained only in the virtual space.

This article analyses how the inhabitants of Visaginas construct their past and present. The first part of the article presents the ways the informants talked of the period 1970s-1980s, i.e. when they came to Lithuania, to the construction site of Visaginas (Sniechkus) and the nuclear power plant. The second part of the article discusses how the informants described their and the community’s social, economic situation in the post-Soviet period. The author discusses why the informants tend to construct the Soviet and post-Soviet periods in particular ways and provides parallels with other anthropological works. The article is based on data collected during ethnographic fieldwork conducted by the author in Visaginas in 2000-2004.

The article presents a research study on fashion, social rivalry and identity of nobility in Polish-Lithuanian Republic in the 18th Century. Research is based on the data obtained from widely drawn up inventories of movables allows us to give a social depth to the view constructed upon iconography and literature. The number of inventories, their social representation, connection to specified social group and period enable us to look at the history of fashion and other aspects of material culture considering different social, economic and cultural realities. Registers from the 18th century draw our greatest interest because of their number, reliability and quite equal spread over time.

Scant attention has been paid in the social sciences to the problem of defining units of analysis. The problem of using culture as a unit of analysis is that culture is not a unit of analysis like a jury is a unit of analysis. It is also a more ambiguous unit of analysis than religion, ethnicity or gender, units which are possible to identify and define. It is concluded that the individual is the least problematic unit for analysis. The limitations of using the individual as the unit of analysis are that group characteristics and behaviors can only be measured indirectly and studies are prone to the ‘individual differences fallacy.’ It is dubious that one can generalize from individuals beyond the community. There are no ultimate primitive units of culture and whatever unit for analysis the researcher selects depends on the questions asked. Always however, a unit of analysis must be clearly defined, it cannot be used as a variable rather variables are extracted from the unit of analysis. Most importantly, there should always be a theory of analysis that justifies the choice of the units for analysis.