Rimvydas Laužikas’s scientific contributions

The study explores the problematics of the relationship between heritage and society in various contexts. Traditionally such researche is attributed to the field of history. Theoretical paradigms of historical memory, communication of scientific knowledge, and heritage conservation established in this field are important in order to perceive the processes of interaction between heritage and society. Without denying the opportunities of such approach, we have to observe its limitation in the context of modern network society. Therefore, a broader approach to ommunication and information science is applied in this article. The subject-matter of this discussion is the communication of heritage in contemporary society. Theoretical part of the article, with reference to Yuri Lotman’s concept of semiosphere, covers the definition of the communication of heritage and the construction of meanings in the process of communication of heritage. The next part of the article covers the analysis of Great narratives –non-dialogue and dialogue – as well as the methods of construction of communication messages of Lithuanian history and heritage. The research part also applies the theoretical scheme to the communication dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the restoration of Lithuanian statehood – the program of commemoration of the centenary of the restoration of the state of Lithuania. A distinct cognitive dissonance between non-dialogue (nationalist) and dialogue (liberal) narratives as well as “curatorial” and “participatory” communicative approaches may be recorded in summary of research results of the program. In case of the communication of the 100th anniversary of the restoration of Lithuanian statehood, a nondialogue (nationalist) narrative communicated from the “curatorial” position would belong to the field of actions and a dialogue (liberal) narrative implemented through the “participatory” method – to the field of ideas. A phenomenon of evasion of information increasing a cognitive dissonance between the two aforementioned narratives (essentially distinct advance towards the “grey zone”) is also recorded in the program.