Suchergebnisse

We live in a world ruled by liberal democracy. Moreover, it is becoming commonly launched that we have reached the end of politics, as we know it, and are experiencing the beginning of postpolitics. Political life is becoming deprived of its constituents in the name of the technical approach to political processes (postpolitical). Conflict as an immanent part of politics is also becoming a thing of the past, substituted with a win-win type of politics. In our postideological and postpolitical era everyone seems to accept this central consensus. Developing this thesis, the author deliberates on the resilience of a system based on an erroneous, in his opinion, presumption – the presumption of the end of politics and the beginning of the postpolitics, of which the project of deliberative democracy is a striking example. Relating to Mouffe, the author attempts to leverage the corner stone of deliberative democracy – faith in the possibility of disqualifying the essential correlate of democracy, which is inequality, or as Mouffe describes it herself "the element of indetermination". Following the theories of Mouffe, Laclau, Chomsky, or Wallerstein, the author claims that what we really need is a contestation of the status quo, which instead of a radical change of the political system or creating a new system from scratch would consist in creating a deft sewerage system of social frustrations and the ability to manage conflicts. That is exactly what the project of agonistic democracy should serve, in which a Schmittonian oposition of friend/enemy is replaced with an opposition of friend/opponent. The inability to treat political opponents as adversaries, as I substantiate with the example of the military, following Bacevich's terminology, foreign policy of the United States, leads on to the transformation of the language of politics into a language of morality and ethics. And from this point it is not far to the Manichaean visions and managing not politics but a crusade against the evil. The essay does not provide easy answers and the author is far from moralizing. His real aim is to provoke a discussion, an encouragement of critical thinking and search for truth, the truth – as Pinter put it – hidden somewhere in our life. According to the author it is critical, if democracy is to function.

We live in a world ruled by liberal democracy. Moreover, it is becoming commonly launched that we have reached the end of politics, as we know it, and are experiencing the beginning of postpolitics. Political life is becoming deprived of its constituents in the name of the technical approach to political processes (postpolitical). Conflict as an immanent part of politics is also becoming a thing of the past, substituted with a win-win type of politics. In our postideological and postpolitical era everyone seems to accept this central consensus. Developing this thesis, the author deliberates on the resilience of a system based on an erroneous, in his opinion, presumption – the presumption of the end of politics and the beginning of the postpolitics, of which the project of deliberative democracy is a striking example. Relating to Mouffe, the author attempts to leverage the corner stone of deliberative democracy – faith in the possibility of disqualifying the essential correlate of democracy, which is inequality, or as Mouffe describes it herself "the element of indetermination". Following the theories of Mouffe, Laclau, Chomsky, or Wallerstein, the author claims that what we really need is a contestation of the status quo, which instead of a radical change of the political system or creating a new system from scratch would consist in creating a deft sewerage system of social frustrations and the ability to manage conflicts. That is exactly what the project of agonistic democracy should serve, in which a Schmittonian oposition of friend/enemy is replaced with an opposition of friend/opponent. The inability to treat political opponents as adversaries, as I substantiate with the example of the military, following Bacevich's terminology, foreign policy of the United States, leads on to the transformation of the language of politics into a language of morality and ethics. And from this point it is not far to the Manichaean visions and managing not politics but a crusade against the evil. The essay does not provide easy answers and the author is far from moralizing. His real aim is to provoke a discussion, an encouragement of critical thinking and search for truth, the truth – as Pinter put it – hidden somewhere in our life. According to the author it is critical, if democracy is to function.

This paper examines the participation of the Polish Artists' Union in the complex transformation of communist Poland in 1980–1981. It is one of the most mythologized phenomena in Polish art history. The main approach to this period assumes that before the of "Solidarity" movement uprising, the Polish Artists' Union was totally dependent on the communist authorities. Then, after August 1980, the Union was to become idealistic, anti-communist organization. The following paper recognizes this kind of historiographical narrative as an example of the 'totalitarian model'. It is a model based on a simple, binary vision of the communist system as a field of permanent struggle between "innocent" society and "oppressive", omnipotent authorities. The analysis presented here uses the perspective of social history (Sheila Fitzpatrick et al.). From this perspective, communism is viewed as a complex tangle of active, causative social actors (groups and individuals), who could be politically engaged, but may not be. One of those actors was the Polish Artists' Union. Based on various kinds of sources, I show how the Union tried to take the optimal political position after August 1980. To examine this issue I use two types of political mentality, which dominated in those days in the Party, in "Solidarity", and also in the Union. One is termed "fundamental", and treats politics in terms of morality, dignity, and so on. The other is called "pragmatic", and is focused on institutional games, while also allowing compromises or concessions. To track the dynamics of how the Union functioned from August 1980 until martial law was declared (in December 1981), I introduce a division into three phases of the Solidarity revolution: September-December 1980, January-July 1981, and September-December 1981. An analysis of the Union's documents, art magazines, and Party's documents (both official and internal), shows that after the first phase, the Polish Artists' Union was ready to join the new configuration of power, based on Solidarity and the Polish United Workers' Party agreement. According to David Ost's theory, I define this project as a "neo-corporatist" model of the state socialism in the art system. ; This paper examines the participation of the Polish Artists' Union in the complex transformation of communist Poland in 1980–1981. It is one of the most mythologized phenomena in Polish art history. The main approach to this period assumes that before the of "Solidarity" movement uprising, the Polish Artists' Union was totally dependent on the communist authorities. Then, after August 1980, the Union was to become idealistic, anti-communist organization. The following paper recognizes this kind of historiographical narrative as an example of the 'totalitarian model'. It is a model based on a simple, binary vision of the communist system as a field of permanent struggle between "innocent" society and "oppressive", omnipotent authorities. The analysis presented here uses the perspective of social history (Sheila Fitzpatrick et al.). From this perspective, communism is viewed as a complex tangle of active, causative social actors (groups and individuals), who could be politically engaged, but may not be. One of those actors was the Polish Artists' Union. Based on various kinds of sources, I show how the Union tried to take the optimal political position after August 1980. To examine this issue I use two types of political mentality, which dominated in those days in the Party, in "Solidarity", and also in the Union. One is termed "fundamental", and treats politics in terms of morality, dignity, and so on. The other is called "pragmatic", and is focused on institutional games, while also allowing compromises or concessions. To track the dynamics of how the Union functioned from August 1980 until martial law was declared (in December 1981), I introduce a division into three phases of the Solidarity revolution: September-December 1980, January-July 1981, and September-December 1981. An analysis of the Union's documents, art magazines, and Party's documents (both official and internal), shows that after the first phase, the Polish Artists' Union was ready to join the new configuration of power, based on Solidarity and the Polish United Workers' Party agreement. According to David Ost's theory, I define this project as a "neo-corporatist" model of the state socialism in the art system.