Tomasz Pawelec

Artykuł traktuje o wczasowym miasteczku Jaszowiec w Ustroniu, stanowiącym wyjątkową w dziejach PRL próbę zrealizowania w praktyce marzenia o wzorcowym, idealnym socjalistycznym kurorcie. Autor identyfikuje i rekonstruuje mechanizmy oraz przesłanki ideologicznego niepowodzenia przedsięwzięcia, zarazem wskazując i tłumacząc przestrzenie ograniczonego (ale realnego) sukcesu Jaszowca jako wypoczynkowej propozycji dla mieszkańców PRL-u. Analizowany w ten sposób kompleks okazuje się „antywzorcem” socjalistycznej budowy.

The authors, historians from University of Silesia in Katowice, present a study of memory politics introduced by communist rulers of Poland during the Stalin era (1944/48-1958). This politics, aimed at fundamental reconstruction of Poles' collective memory was practiced in several different ways. Therefore the authors reconstruct not only the historical messages that were to be disseminated by communists but also numerous tools and methods that were adopted by them. The study provide a comparative perspective: In order to test their thesis about 'revolutionary' nature of commmunists' undertakings within the sphere of collective memory, the authors present an equally extensive study of memory politics practiced in Poland between the two world wars (mainly during the era of Pilsudski and his folowers' rule). In addition to that, a more general model of studying the phenomena of collective memory has been developed in the book. It would be applicable to the analysis...

schemes are replaced with beliefs that refer to specific facts and particular historical processes. Once placed on this level, they can be viewed as a specific set of ideas about the significance of particular phenomena, concrete social groups, or specifiable indi? viduals. An analysis of specific ideas should also be of a deeper character than that revealed by mere abstractions. It should take into account the axiological dimension of historical consciousness, i.e., the dimension which refers to the evaluation of specific histori? cal categories. Obviously, such an evaluation is also applicable to the dimension of history formation, itself; however, the former is particularly bound up with the world of specific beliefs. In practice, we deal with certain "lived" history, i.e., the experiences that are important for a given subject. "Lived" history is the expression of the specific social "entanglements" ofthat subject (whether they are individual, or, more often, collective). Definite axiologically colored beliefs concerning the past function as a socializing factor for any concrete social group. This limitation on the subject's capacity to formulate a truly original historical hermeneutic is particularly conspicuous in the sphere of political phenomena, where, as can be easily noticed, the existing power groups "pilot" certain visions and assure the truth value of certain beliefs concerning past events, which are then evaluated "from a certain point of view." These previsions of history promote people's filiopietistic or hagiographie support for these groups and help to legitimize their role as historical subjects. The latter phenomenon has been observed for a long time and not only in the field of schol? arly reflection on historical consciousness. It forms the basis of the critique that is contained in the analysis of the social function of ideas and informs the evaluations of historiography's conception of the past and of the historical process. Moreover, this critique is connected to the larger phenomenon of the historical evaluation of specific, individual and collective activities carried out in the pres? ent. It forms the basis, in effect, for an epistemological critique of public policies. A Proposal for Research Our approach to the problems connected with historical conscious? ness, then, is rather different from the socio-pragmatists. In the latter, the attention of scholars is fixed on that dimension of con This content downloaded from 157.55.39.104 on Mon, 20 Jun 2016 06:16:03 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 332 Politics, Culture, and Society sciousness independent of whether a particular complex of ideas about the past and a system of values accompanying these ideas (the conception which brings the comprehending of historical conscious? ness close to the notion of the factual knowledge of history) are in fact implicated in that consciousness. Moreover, it eschews the question whether a given subject is bound to or participates in the creation of the development of ideas about that historical reality.10 Note, how? ever, that this last matter can best be solved by an investigation of the background of the general, history-forming dimension of the subject's historical consciousness. Let us point at another, probably more important, advantage of the approach being suggested here. The traditional approaches deal? ing with ideas, knowledge and evaluation, concentrate on the things which the examined individuals or communities were aware of. However, taking a clue from the anti-individual point of view that is characteristic of the sociopragmatic conception of culture, and rec? ognizing the difference between respecting11 and utilizing beliefs that are contained in, but not realized by, the social consciousness of a subject, we may arrive at an understanding of the significance of those non-verbalized beliefs which form the hidden components of a social-historical consciousness and that have the character of a prior belief system with respect to the particular consciousness of individuals. Certain problems connected with particularized research on the historical consciousness have invited our attention. We begin with the problem of its (i.e., historical consciousness's) formation. The so-called functional mechanism discussed above can explain only the widespreadedness and survival of given (verbalized or tacit) components of historical consciousness. Historians, who deal with these problems, connect them to the processes of historical educa? tion, and conceive of the latter in terms of what they designate as "circles of historical culture." Although that conceptualization arose in a different theoretical context, it proves to be useful to our argument?after some reinterpretation.12 As a feature of the first "circle" we may emphasize the circulation of beliefs about the prin? ciples of historical process and the specific shape of this process, each of which derives from scientific…

Our presentation starts with a brief discussion problematizing the idea of innovation as a technical concept, which, in a cross-cultural perspective, may become (and frequently is) perceived as both politicized and political. As such, it is likely to be approached either with mistrust (sometimes bordering on hostility), or with enthusiasm and interest. The various reactions to the idea of innovation as an entity "imported" from a different cultural system may have a direct bearing upon its implementability. The discussion dedicated to potential "resistance" to innovation provides a starting point for the argument concerning the following major issues: 1. The role of an academic teacher as innovator, and as a translator/ transmitter of innovation; 2. Implementability of innovations in the context of the apparent superficiality of transformations in Polish academia.