Provocative Places: Soviet Playground Design in Lithuania

8 December 2023 -

Welcome to the final Provocative Places and Objects blog of 2023. This time, Ieva Daujotaite, a Design History Postgraduate from the Royal College of Art / Victoria & Albert Museum shares research on Soviet Playground Design in Lithuania.

Amid the sweeping influence of the communist regime in Soviet Lithuania (1940-1991), playgrounds emerged as strategic tools in the government's arsenal to uphold civic order in the newly occupied non-Russian regions. To illustrate playgrounds as provocative spaces that served, and in doing so, subverted civilian needs to benefit communist ends, this blog post focuses on the seemingly inconspicuous link between playground design and Soviet feminist reforms.

In the initial decade following the 1940 occupation, Lithuanian playgrounds stood virtually untouched. Much like their counterparts in independent Lithuania, they continued to sprout from the hands of self-organized local civilians—individuals armed with limited craftsmanship, time, and financial resources, crafting basic structures like timber sandboxes and seesaws [1] (fig.2). Yet, the real transformation lay in what these playgrounds represented. Under the communist regime, the collective endeavour of constructing and utilizing these spaces became a metaphor for a society deeply rooted in the principles of the communist school of thought. Consequently, the government championed their development, often entrusting their oversight and execution to local women's committees [2] (fig.3). These committees, responsible for maintaining social order in residential areas, operated under the watchful eye of the Lithuanian Communist Party.

In 1945, ostensibly championing feminist rights, the Communist Party established a Women’s Department [3]. This department purported to grant women equal rights to men in both professional and domestic spheres—historically, a privilege denied to them. However, this seemingly progressive move was, in reality, part of a shrewd Soviet government strategy. By inviting women to take on leadership roles, including the management of playground installation and construction in local residential neighbourhoods, the government sought to entice Lithuanian women to willingly embrace communist ideology [4].

Paradoxically, the introduction of feminist reforms in Soviet Lithuania yielded an unexpected impact on the very women it claimed to empower. While the Soviet government purportedly championed women's emancipation, its true interest lay in leveraging this movement to ensure greater civilian compliance with communism, spur the USSR's population growth, and fortify the Soviet economy [5]. Consequently, the pursuit of feminism became inseparably entwined with the triumphant establishment of communism, inviting not only the scorn of patriarchal men but also the opposition of some anti-communist women.

A striking example of this tension unfolded in Šiauliai in 1953, recounted in the pages of "Soviet Women," a Lithuanian lifestyle magazine of the time [6]. A rift emerged between certain citizens and their local women's committee, the latter eagerly contributing to the advancement of local infrastructure, from constructing playgrounds to installing streetlights and even a railway crossing. Despite the committee's tangible contributions, a faction of Šiauliai residents resisted, objecting to the newfound agency of women in their private lives. Perhaps driven by fears of diminishing patriarchy or reinforced communist control, or perhaps both, these citizens belittled committee members, accusing them of grasping for too much power and honour. This narrative paints a vivid and complex tableau, showcasing how the noble pursuit of gender equality became enmeshed in the intricate political and ideological struggles of the time.

Playgrounds, closely linked to domesticity and children—responsibilities traditionally associated exclusively with women—remained a focal point in the complex intersection of feminism and Soviet politics throughout the existence of the Soviet Union. By the early 1960s, as architecture in Lithuania embraced increasing standardization, playgrounds underwent industrialisation. The design of these spaces was no longer entrusted to the citizens but instead became the responsibility of state-led, centralized architectural firms.

In these firms, female architects in the urban planning department typically oversaw playground design [7] (fig. 4). Urban planning, focused on creating social housing districts—a social modernist concept aiming to alleviate domestic burdens for the working class by introducing state-facilitated public services—involved integrating playgrounds into residential areas alongside local nurseries, schools, and public courtyards. Despite slight regional and national variations, all social housing districts across the USSR were required to follow strict design regulations and use prefabricated parts in construction [8].

Playgrounds, like buildings, were subject to specific regulations and prefab equipment (fig.5). Consequently, female urban designers involved in Soviet playground design found their roles lacking in creative freedom and prestige compared to architects working on original projects [9]. By the late 1960s, the opportunity for original architecture which was limited to select public institutions and governmental buildings, was primarily accessible to just men. Despite having equal education and talent, female architects faced barriers due to the persisting patriarchal notion of "woman-body-nature" versus "man-mind-culture" [10]. This limited perception confined women to designing spaces associated with domesticity which by default had to be standardised in a communist society.

The case of female architects in Soviet Lithuania highlights that, despite the state's feminist initiatives in employing women in traditionally male-dominated fields, the perception of women's capabilities remained confined to domestic spheres. In contrast to female architects in the capitalist West, who could potentially avoid sexist work environments by changing their workplace or starting their own studios, women in Soviet Lithuania were constrained within a government-run centralized system that, by limiting personal agency, preserved traditional male authority.

In an overview, Soviet playground design indirectly reflects the government's strategy of harnessing historically ingrained sexism to motivate women to challenge traditional gender roles and compelling them to seek self-realization within the framework of the communist state. Yet, as much as was done to promote feminism among women, the core issue—the prevailing sexist attitudes that persisted among men—was left untouched, if not reinforced. Consequently, while Lithuanian women were initially drawn to feminist incentives promising an elevated quality of life, the government's improperly executed reforms shattered the illusion. The grand promises of a better communist life proved ephemeral, leading not to less but more political friction in the long term.


Notes:
(1) Gintarė Kairytė, ‘Vaikų Žaidimo aikštelės 1944-1990m kaip kasdienybės paveldas’ (Vilnius University, 2012), Vilnius University Library.
(2) J. Chlivickas, Devyniu Gatviu Komitetas, 1953, Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania.
(3) Virginija Jurėnienė, ‘Sovietinės Moters „Kūrimas" Sovietų Lietuvoje ir Sovietų Sąjungoje’ (Vilniaus Universitetas, 2009), Vilnius University Library.
(4) Ibid.
(5) Alice Schuster, ‘Women’s Role in the Soviet Union: Ideology and Reality’, The Russian Review, 30.3 (1971), 260–67.
(6) J. Chlivickas, Devyniu Gatviu Komitetas, 1953, Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania.
(7) Romualda Šipalienė interview, 2023, Ieva Daujotaite Personal Archive.
(8) Marija Drėmaitė and others, ‘Kodėl Išskirtinis? Lazdynu Gyvenamojo Rajono Architektūrinė Raida 1960 - 1990’, in Viskam Savas Laikas (Kriventa, 2020).
(9) Gintarė Kairytė, ‘Vaikų Žaidimo aikštelės 1944-1990m kaip kasdienybės paveldas’ (Vilnius University, 2012), Vilnius University Library.
(10) Marija Drėmaitė, ‘Modernistės. Moterys 20 a. Architektūroje’, 2022

Images:
Figure 1. Ieva Daujotaite, Climbing Frame from 1971 in Lazdynai, 2023, Photograph, artist’s personal archive.
Figure 2. Author Unknown, untitled, from J. Chlivickas, Devyniu Gatviu Komitetas, Tarybine Moteris, 6, 1953, 8–9, Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania.
Figure 3. Ibid.
Figure 4. L.Ruikas, Micro-District Architects-Designers, circa 1970, from Balys Bučelis and Antanas Dakinevičius, Tarybu Lietuva (Vilnius, Lithuania: Mintis, 1980), Vilnius University Library.
Figure 5. Author Unknown, Типовые элементы внешнего благоустройства микрорайонов /для жилой зоны микрорайонов г. Ленинград , 1966

Started by the DHS Ambassadors in 2022, the Design History Society’s Provocative Objects and Places blog series looks at spaces and objects that challenge and confront us as design historians.

Past topics have ranged from the ancient Colosseum in Rome to the ultramodern Antilia in Mumbai; pink razors and Barbies to Lalique’s Bacchantes vase and nineteenth-century asylum photography. The full collection of previous posts can be found here.

We invite submissions for guest blog posts from students, early career researchers, and established academics to those with a general interest in design history. Post can be on any object or place from any era, anywhere in the world, which in some way incites discussion and debate.

Post should be 500-800 words in length, accompanied by at least one image with associated credits and clearances, and a short bio. Please send to the DHS Senior Administrator, Dr Jenna Allsopp.