Upstartish philosopher and freethinker struts against the mainstream

Referring to 35-year-old  Nida Vasiliauskaite only as a philosopher may conjure up the wrong image: that of a tedious, dusty and academically-savvy person, whose intricate pieces of writing make the average Joe yawn and feel unintelligent while he hastily flips through the piece. However, this is not the case with Vasiliauskaite. Her academic, published articles and Delfi front-page commentaries, masterfully interweaving the deepest philosophical insights and outspoken present-day observations, trigger either far-rippling discontent, anger and unconceivable rage or a mesmerizing admiration over such hardy issues as nationalism and xenophobia, cosmopolitanism and identity, Catholicism and expressions of sexuality, traditionalism and public tolerance. Encountering naysayers’ harshest lambasts on one side, and wide admiration for her bravery and undeniable hotspurness on the other, the well-known publicist, philosopher, freethinker and feminist shrugs it all off, asserting, seemingly emotionlessly, “Well, all of Lithuania is not like all those nasty Delfi commentators.” A philosopher by profession, Vasiliauskaite, besides being a public life commentator, teaches philosophy at Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. Her public activities include membership in Lithuania’s Young Scientist Union and Tolerant Youth Association. She is also an active member of the Naujoji Kaire 95 (New Left) movement, aiming at creating a new, alternative politics. Vasiliauskaite agreed to sit down with The Baltic Times for this interview.

When speaking of Lithuanian philosophers, I would describe them as a very tightly knit and cohesive small community that speaks in unison. However, you are the exception, not shunning to slag off established philosophy luminaries like Sliogeris, to whom, when disagreeing, you suggested to read a knitting manual. Do you not recognize any lions around yourself?
Well, your question about having an authority does sound very strange to me. You can ask only a small child whether he or she has some authority. When it comes to relations among colleagues, they all are not about having an authority. Criticism does not mean some disrespect to somebody. All can be criticized without exception, as we live in a democratic society. What matters is what critique is all about, what argumentation is employed and whether it is grounded or not.

You could successfully bask in academic work and its merits, avoiding a sometimes very adverse public limelight you put yourself in with your activities. What pushes you to go against the mainstream? Are you not at all vulnerable?
In retrospect, I would like to ask why so many people are silent over so many issues. Are they afraid of something? Are they having some inferiority complexes?

That stance is much more convenient in our conformistic society…
I do not want to be put in a position where I have to explain myself what I do and why. Many people write whatever they want, but nobody questions what they write. Once you are in the mainstream and people hear hundreds of times the same thing, the sheer majority of listeners turn a deaf ear to the babble which, as it is, is simply talking, a humdrum. We all should ask those babblers why they talk banalities, not pepper with questions somebody who says things otherwise.

You were among the nominees for the 2010 Tolerance Person in Lithuania. However, observing the nomination procedures and a dozen of the standout but lone candidates, I was fighting a penetrating feeling that tolerance in Lithuania, quite inadequately, is solely a topic of a bunch of academic and social life notables, but not of policy-makers, intellectuals and social life trendsetters. Is this so?
The word tolerance among both the majority of intelligentsia and all of society’s layers bears a negative connotation. Regrettably, most often, the word is understood weirdly and inadequately. Obviously, as you noticed, it is not something our intellectuals speak about loudly in one voice.

Why is this so?
The negative connotation of the word arises from an unawareness of what it means. Most typically, it is thought that a person who speaks about tolerance and who regards it as a value has to approve everything and cannot criticize anything. For me, tolerance, first, is a rule of political behavior, implying that I admit that people, whose political views and opinions I consider criticizeable and unacceptable to me, have the right to voice their views. This is a widely accepted perception of tolerance in the world, but not always in Lithuania.

You have defended your thesis on the “Problem of Rationality in Modern Political Philosophy.” Can you relate your thesis to the present-day politics? Can politics pertain to rationality, instead of benefit and convenience? Does Lithuanian politics have any philosophy?
For me, it is quite funny when the word philosophy is used when speaking about Lithuanian politics, views of Lithuanian politicians and daily life views. First, we should speak about the ideology of Lithuanian political parties, not some philosophy. Unfortunately, I do not see any ideology with nearly all of our existing political parties, let alone philosophy. There are many people out there who, going into politics, cannot tell what political ideas they are going to preach and defend. Just forget political philosophy here! Political philosophy is neither politics nor political science or political practice. Political philosophy is the study of such topics as liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority. Only in a vernacular sense does the term ‘political philosophy’ refer to a general view, or specific ethic, political belief or attitude about politics that does not necessarily belong to the technical discipline of philosophy.
 
You sound extremely skeptical about Lithuanian politics and politicians…
I do. Most parties, in deliberating their names, had not thought at all about their ideological implications and ideologies, as they rather had thought about the necessity to come up with some attractive and catchy name that would lure people. For example, when I think about Lithuanian parties containing the word liberal in their names – Lietuvos Liberalu Sajudis [Lithuanian Liberal Movement] and Lietuvos Liberalu ir Centro Sajunga [Lithuanian Liberal and Center Union] – I cannot fight the feeling that it is extremely hard to find academically-defined liberalism in their actions, voting, reactions, political programs and convictions. Let us compare any of these so-called liberal parties to the ones positioning themselves either to the political left or to the right – I could not discern any more significant difference among them. The difference is not in their ideological variations; it is about a different bunch of people and different relations with business. Therefore, briefly, it is all about different labels, but not ideology, moreover, political philosophy.

Do you see any party in Lithuania whose name could be somehow linked with a certain ideology? What can you say about the Motherland Union-Christian Democrat Party, or Social Democrats?
Probably the former is the only Lithuanian political party that consistently represents what is called neo-conservatism, which started out in the United States and has been shaped over the last ten years. At least the party’s and its members’ actions are more or less foreseen. Many other Lithuanian parties often resemble the Conservative party, but do not shape their ideology clearly.

You have already named several shortcomings of Lithuanian politics. Are there more?
I guess I have not pinpointed yet the biggest fault of Lithuanian politics – the sheer absence of it. In Lithuania, for the most part, politics is perceived as a means to protect certain business interests and improve a personal life. Sadly, in Lithuania, we do not have politics perceived in the classic way – a declaration of certain ideals aiming at improving society and its life. Classically, politics is a competition of political visions and ideas, which is not what is happening in Lithuania. Even the meaning of the word itself has been distorted in Lithuania. How often do we hear serious-faced politicians warning each other: ‘Let us not make politics!’? Politics is widely seen as a derogatory, faulty and immoral thing here, which shows the wrong perception of the term and its content. If you ask our politicians what politics is all about, most of them, I bet, will refer to it as administration and the technical particularities of its implementation. I think one and a half, or two years, ago, an international institute of political science and research carried out an extensive survey of our politicians. It was aiming to find out perceptions of our politicians in regards to whom they represent. The surveyors were very surprised to learn that a sheer majority of our politicians have sincerely declared representing all people. It may not be very strange in the practical sense of politics but, from the theoretical point of view, it was. To conclude, most of our politicians do not possess knowledge even of a first grader’s elementary politics. The surveyed politicians were surprised to learn that they are supposed to represent a certain group of society, at least members  and supporters of their political parties. In Lithuania, a parliamentarian can represent both working people and industrialists, which is unheard of in Western politics. Regrettably, there is much political illiteracy in Lithuania. Moreover, what makes matters even worse, I see much fear in obtaining some political literacy.

Are there any signs that the plight might improve?
There are not. Unfortunately, we should wait for a new generation to come into Lithuanian politics to see a change. Public institutions and the media on their own have to do a lot while bridging the educational gap.

I reckon this belief is flimsy, as the new generation packs its luggage and leaves Lithuania for rich countries. Do you not get the impression on the academic level? Am I maybe too pessimistic?
I understand those who leave Lithuania because of the economic hardships. However, sadly, there is a considerable part of Lithuanians who emigrate for a very alarming reason – they do not see any hope for any change here when it comes to cultural understandings. However, while I admit the emigration levels are alarming, I cannot claim that all the brains have departed. It makes no sense to whine and think that it is impossible to change anything here.

Many speak about a crisis of Lithuanian identity. Do you see it?
What does Lithuanian identity mean? It is one of those words that we tend to misuse, not giving a thought about its true meaning.

Well, let me be more specific. For centuries, Lithuanian ethnic tribes had been known as fierce conquerors. Lithuanians have fiercely withstood the russification efforts, bringing us the name of fighters for our freedom. Even during Soviet times we had been branded as an agricultural republic of hard workers. How could we be identified nowadays?
First, let me correct you a bit. In terms of ethnicity, relating to Lithuanians as one nation, we have been at it just for a bit over one century. It is not precise to speak of a Lithuanian identity in the 15th century, or later, as there was quite a different political formation. Lithuanian identity should be perceived as a whole of Lithuanian habits, traditions, way of life, etc, which would single out Lithuanians from other nations and unite us. From that point of view, it has never been that way. Therefore, it makes no sense to speak about the Lithuanian identity. It is a simple jumble of words. Instead of puzzling our brains over the issue, we should devote our energy and resources to a striving in how to make the state effective and normally functioning.

You have been known as an ardent supporter of the cosmopolitanism doctrine, which is like a curse for many compatriots, even intellectuals. What meaning do you insert into the term? Is it something we should be afraid of here?
It is very bad that the word is a curse for some people. It is an old Greek-origin philosophical term, which has always meant a citizen of the world, and pertained to an educated, state-conscious person that perceived the world as a place of co-existence and wellbeing. Regrettably, ultra-right radicals have distorted the true meaning of it, wrongly juxtaposing cosmopolitanism with an unwillingness to assume responsibilities for a community one lives in.

However, are the ideas of cosmopolitanism and multi-culturalism not dying out, which even incumbent German and French leaders, Angela Merkel and Nicola Sarkozy, have admitted recently?
It does not surprise me as to what they both preach. They both represent the political right. Besides, they react to the current political situation and the people’s moods in their countries. Obviously, no doubt, there are big parts of French and German societies that think otherwise. What could be an alternative for the multi-cultural project? Could it be an expulsion of ethnic minorities, like Sarkozy did with ethnic Roma people, and creating a monolithic society that caters to the needs of one nation? Frankly, the alternative is frightening. What is going on in France and Germany does not show the impossibility of the implementation of the multi-cultural project, but rather the necessity of finding other ways to achieve it.