Krönikaarkivet CURRENT TRENDS IN BELARUSIAN SOCIETY CONFIRMS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE WORK OF CULTURE CLINIC AND ITS PARTNERS The work of Culture Clinic and its partners in various Belarusian regions is primarily centered on the concept of cultural identity targeting non-previously active young adults. Cultural identity is defined as a broader concept than the often referred to national identity whereas the components of national identity are included in the idea of cultural identity. Cultural identity is considered to include the following identity markers; national, ethnic, religious and linguistic in addition to sexual orientation, self-definition and role in social life. Cultural identity is often pictured by the human interaction with society and the influence moving in both directions. The motivation and rationale behind Culture Clinics focus on cultural identity is a combination of the fact that national identity and its main focus’ of Belarusian language and symbol in the Belarusian political context has deeply been connected to political opposition and thereby defamed by the ruling party. Consequently, the broader layers of the population do not view language and symbols as important as it is mostly connected to the bickering of the marginalized Belarusian opposition. The independent institute for social economic and the political research (IISEPS) conducts monthly opinion polling on a broad range of matters targeting primarily, politics, society, EU etc. The recent ratings display several interesting aspects directly applicable to the cultural identity and the projects implemented by Culture Clinic and partners. The polling showed that few Belarusians consider it possible to influence circumstances in their immediate surrounding i.e. on their street and in their rajon and furthermore increasingly difficult to influence on local and national level. Although an increasing number of the respondents are voicing a widening gap between them and the authority level there are no signs of respondents expressing a receding support for the acting president Aleksandr Lukashenko. In other words, the experiences of a widening gap between individual and authority structures are not considered as an incitement to participate in any forms of protest rallies. The combination of a post communist past and the present authoritarian structure have left the Belarusian population lacking in experience on how to make their own choices, lack of future perspective in regards to society and lack of successful model of behavior are widely evident from Culture Clinics project work in the country. As a consequence of the above, large population segments are separating themselves from society and do not consider themselves to be part of the same. Any form of collective goods is in terms of societal good seen inferior to individual gains or benefits. The immediate question following the above is how can incitements be created and communicated and thereby contributing to people taking an active stand in society. The fundamental idea of cultural identity, as was pointed to above, is the interaction between the individual and the society and the understanding of this double transfer of influence. A special focus of the recent IISEPS opinion polling was constituted by questions related to national identity usually defined in terms of history, symbols and language. Only one third of the respondents considers the national symbols originating from the Belarusian republic 1991-1995 to be the “correct” symbols of the history and culture of the Belarusian nation, while the remaining two thirds of the respondents believe the symbols of the present to the be the most correct bearers of the Belarusian nation. On the question which language should be used in official context the majority of the respondents considered that both, Belarusian and Russian language, should be used in an official context. Only 16% believed that only Belarusian should be the official language. The result of the polling shows that the respondents do not adhere to the commonly know aspects of national identity, but instead tend to favor a status quo, perhaps with the exception of an increasing use of the Belarusian language in an official context. Indicators such as language and symbols should not be overly emphasized as the sole path leading to democracy and human rights, instead it appears that a broadening of the concept must be made, otherwise the concept of national identity will have a refraining affect rather than an inclusive. It is apparent, reviewing the first paragraph in this analysis that Belarusian society fails in communicating a sense of belonging and a common model of Belarusian behavior. Moving back to the core of what cultural identity i.e. understanding myself in a societal context could be a key to increasing the sense of belonging at the same time as being about something else than language or symbols. In today’s Belarus this is needed – and Culture Clinic will continue our work within this theme in order to strengthen individuals as well as the Belarusian society as a whole.