Suchergebnisse

Artur Domosławski, Warszawa: Wielka Litera, 2021, 936 ss.

Turkowski refers to Michał Przeperski's much-read biography of Mieczysław F. Rakowski, which constitutes interesting literature not only for those interested in the political history of the Polish People's Republic, but also for those researching social processes in post-war Poland. In particular, Turkowski ascertains that one can discover numerous valuable observations concerning the issue of social advancement in this biography, observations that question the durability of the heritage of the system of real socialism in this respect.

The aim of the article is to show the evolution of structural divisions within Polish elites from the perspective of changes in Polish-Russian relations after 1989. In order to describe the formation of the Polish space of opinion on the topic, the author interprets the unexpected marginalization of the famous Russian expert Andrzej Drawicz (1939–1997) in the Third Polish Republic. The article contributes to an understanding of the dynamics shaping Polish debates about Russia, and also – by tracing Drawicz's career trajectory – presents a model of biographical analysis that allows the social dimension to be taken into account.

Jerzy Giedroyc—the founder and editor of the journal Kultura—has played an important symbolic role in Polish public debates, especially as an architect of post-communist Poland's policy toward its Eastern neighbors. At the same time, scholars and experts differ substantially in their assessments as to both the shape and influence of "Giedroyc's line." This article argues that in order to solve this puzzle, Giedroyc should be seen as an "intelligentsia totem"—an instrument for the reproduction of Polish intelligentsia hegemony, and a source of legitimization for which various factions within the elite compete. Taking into account this distinctive role allows for a new assessment of the influence of Giedroyc's line on Poland's eastern policy. By integrating the totemic interpretation with an analysis of the changing shape of the Polish field of power and changing interpretations of what Giedroyc's line entailed, I argue that only some postulates of Giedroyc were implemented after 1989. Despite this, because of Giedroyc's legitimizing function as Kultura's editor, his role as an "architect" of the eastern policy was seldom questioned. Only when the reconfiguration of the Polish field of power brought an end to consensus in the foreign policy realm did new diverging interpretations of Giedroyc's line emerge, legitimizing competing visions for Polish foreign policy. This article delivers a more nuanced view of the role Giedroyc played in post-communist Poland, thus explaining his criticism toward its foreign policy. It also sheds light on the legitimization mechanisms at work within the Polish elite.

This article returns to sociological investigation of the intriguing phenomenon of the Solidarity social movement. Contrary to a popular position which sees Solidarity as important but closed chapter in Polish history, we argue that its legacy, in contrast to other historic events such as Prague's spring and Hungarian uprising, should be seen as an ongoing social process in Poland and in the broader region of Eastern and Central Europe. In order to lay out our argument we describe Polish intelligentsia members' practices aimed at the reproduction and strengthening of the legacy of Solidarity – an important tool which legitimizes intelligentsia's dominant position in the post-communist Poland. In the empirical part we are particularly interested in analysis of efforts aimed at strengthening the legacy of Solidarity by universalizing it at the transnational level, which we analyzed on the case study of interaction between members of the Polish and Ukrainian elites.

This article investigates a neglected issue of the influence of systemic transformation in Central and Eastern Europe on the (sub)field of social sciences and more broadly on local fields of power. Our case study concerns a vibrant and internationally connected network of scholars from various disciplines and generations who were involved in developing and popularizing a dependency paradigm in communist Poland. As we show that the fall of communism and related transformation in the Polish field of power brought about dramatic shift in terms of their career trajectories as well as their ideological orientation and in consequence a sudden disappearance of this academic ecosystem. On this basis we argue about wider changes—encompassing marginalization of the "critical," autonomous tradition and strengthening of heteronomic trends in social sciences in the region but also at the global level.