Andrzej Turkowski

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 provides an in-depth analysis of the system of production of expertise on Polish–Russian relations in post-1989 Poland. For this purpose, the author develops the concept of the ‘space of opinion’ on Polish–Russian relations, focusing on the reconstruction of its origins and main structures. The present analysis challenges the idea of a radical rupture in the theoretical and ideological background of Poland’s Eastern policy after 1989—promoted by dominant interpretations in the literature—and highlights historical continuity in a long-term perspective.

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.

Elite studies, which would be both critical (in a sense that they do not reproduce self-images created by actors under study) and at the same time rely on substantial empirical material “from within”, are perhaps the hardest job to do for a sociologist . It seems (at least to a Pole) that this is even more so in the case of Poland, where the relations within the intelligentsia élite milieu are even more informal (thus prone to being hidden from the wider public) than in many other European countries – as one can learn it from other works of one of the authors of the reviewed book, Tomasz Zarycki. Despite numerous obstacles, Smoczyński and Zarycki made a successful attempt at analyzing an important part of the Polish field of power (Bourdieu 1993: 161–175, 1996: 261–339) of the aristocracy, nobility, and landed gentry . Although at the empirical core of the book there lies an analysis of social structure and mechanisms of reproduction of a small group (“several dozen post-aristocrati...

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.

In terms of Russian influence and vulnerability to the Kremlin’s soft power tools, Poland represents a distinctive case among
Central and Eastern European states. Despite the fact that it shares the experience of being Moscow’s satellite during the
communist times, just like the other V4 states, Poland’s specifically traumatising and negative historical experience with
Russia has united the Polish political class around a consensus to reduce, rather than foster, new dependencies on Russia.

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 is an attempt to interpret the dominant discourses on Polish foreign policy from the position of the world-system approach. It draws inspiration from works by Immanuel Wallerstein and other researchers that follows his perspective. Following Tomasz Zarycki’s suggestion, the author views the Polish political scene as divided primarily along an axis defined by attitude towards Western Europe. The author draws inspiration from the works of researchers who describe the impact of the semi-peripheral position of Russia on the main directions in its foreign policy. The author also describes and interprets a debate on the impact of EU membership on the peripheral position of Poland and the role and signifi cance of the so-called Eastern policy. This analysis provides a picture of the fundamental dispute regarding the importance of and the relationship between the two directions in Polish foreign policy. For the supporters of Western Europe, integration within the EU is a priority and Eastern policy is meant to support this process; for its opponents, however, membership in the EU is the basis for building the position of Poland in the eastern neighbourhood.

Obraz badanego wycinka polskich elit, który wyłania się z przeprowadzonych badań opartych na pogłębionych wywiadach badawczych, analizie litera tury
i prasy oraz dokumentach instytucji eksperckich, jest wielowątkowy. Składają się
na niego obserwacje różnej wagi i o różnej precyzji. Opierając się na zgromadzonym materiale badawczym, zaryzykować można wydestylowanie kluczowej
„opowieści”. Jej głównymi bohaterami są przedstawiciele młodego pokolenia
opozycyjnie nastawionej inteligencji, którzy po 1989 r., ciesząc się wsparciem
niektórych szczególnie istotnych postaci inteligenckiej elity oraz ważnych figur
środowisk emigracji, stworzyli trzon medialno-ekspercko-biurokratycznej infrastruktury związanej z relacjami Polski ze Wschodem.

Celem artykułu jest próba zastosowania kategorii centrum – peryferie do analizy polskiej polityki wobec Rosji, a w szczególności dyskursu prasowego na ten temat. W artykule zaprezentuję model badawczy oparty na perspektywie centrum – peryferie oraz koncepcji pola władzy Pierre’a Bourdieu. Pozwala on w analizie dyskursu polskiej polityki wobec Rosji po 1989 r. wziąć pod uwagę zależności ukazywane m.in. przez Immanuela Wallersteina oraz sposób, w jaki wpływają one na kształt sceny politycznej państw peryferyjnych – co opisuje Tomasz Zarycki.
Proponowane podejście stara się uwzględnić kluczowy wpływ szerszego kontekstu geopolitycznego, a zwłaszcza pozycji obu krajów względem Zachodu, interpretowanej w kategoriach zależności, a tym samym wychodzi poza perspektywę bilateralną. Wpływ środowiska międzynarodowego – w tym zróżnicowanych skutków integracji Polski ze strukturami Zachodu czy też innych kształtowanych na poziomie międzynarodowym uwarunkowań wewnętrznych polityki zagranicznej – ma bowiem często decydujące znaczenie dla kwestii będących przedmiotem stosunków polsko-rosyjskich oraz debaty prowadzonej na ich temat. Dodatkowo, przy przyjęciu założenia na temat ograniczonej adekwatności eksplanacyjnej kategorii kulturowo-politycznych (takich jak „uprzedzenia i stereotypy”, „trudna przeszłość” czy też „imperialna mentalność”), pozwala włączyć do analizy inne czynniki (np. ekonomiczne, geopolityczne czy też socjologiczne).

Elite studies, which would be both critical (in a sense that they do not reproduce self-images created by actors under study) and at the same time rely on substantial empirical material "from within", are perhaps the hardest job to do for a sociologist. It seems (at least to a Pole) that this is even more so in the case of Poland, where the relations within the intelligentsia élite milieu are even more informal (thus prone to being hidden from the wider public) than in many other European countries-as one can learn it from other works of one of the authors of the reviewed book, Tomasz Zarycki. Despite numerous obstacles, Smoczyński and Zarycki made a successful attempt at analyzing an important part of the Polish field of power (Bourdieu 1993: 161-175, 1996: 261-339) of the aristocracy, nobility, and landed gentry. Although at the empirical core of the book there lies an analysis of social structure and mechanisms of reproduction of a small group ("several dozen post-aristocratic families"), the perspective of Pierre Bourdieu's field analysis, which the authors adopted among other theoretical inspirations, required them to broaden the scope of the study. Thus, the book includes both a historical and "spatial" (relations with other social groups) context. As a result, the volume presents a valuable insight not only into the functioning of a small but relatively influential aristocratic sub-élite but also-by analyzing its relationship with the intelligentsia-into this hegemonic social class in Poland. As has been already mentioned, the main focus of the book is on the aristocratic/ post-gentry milieu in contemporary Poland. The first chapter though is dedicated

This dissertation focuses on the analysis of Polish discourses concerning Russia, Polish-Russian relations and Eastern policy after 1989 as well as on the social structures within which analyzed discourses were produced. The main body of the dissertation consists of four chapters. Chapter I presents main theoretical inspirations, including those concerning understanding of the concept of discourse, Pierre Bourdieu's field analysis and adaptation of his research proposals to the specific conditions. Chapter I contains also a review of the literature on the peripheral position of Poland and Central and Eastern Europe. The chapter ends with a critical analysis of literature on Polish-Russian relations and Polish policy towards Russia. Chapter II deals with the process of emergence of the space of opinion in the Third Polish Republic, in particular of its part devoted to the policy towards Russia, Polish-Russian relations and Eastern policy. At the beginning, both the structure of the space of opinion from the period of before 1989 and characteristics of issues concerning the East (USSR), are outlined. The analysis in Chapter II also covers the issue of which political concepts dominated in particular parts of the space of opinion. The following sections discuss the processes of transformation of several social fields, at the crossroads of which the space of opinion is located. Apart from outlining structures of the space of opinion, an important part of Chapter II is devoted to analysis of social relations between factions of the Polish elite, which I situate in the opposite poles of the space of opinion. Chapter III continues the analysis of the first years of the Third Polish Republic as I attempt to shed light on factors, which contributed to the domination of those factions of the Polish elite, which views were in line with the "Promethean" tradition in the Polish Eastern policy. For this purpose, I analyse political conditions, including fluctuations in the Polish eastern policy between the "realistic" and "Promethean" tendencies, and factors that caused these fluctuations. In Chapter III, I also continue to outline the structures of the Polish space of opinion, complementing the picture with an additional dimension – concerning the priority of the western vector of the Polish foreign policy. I also try to show the dynamics and evolution of relations between particular parts of the structure, through an analysis of positions taken in debates by the leading representatives of particular factions. Chapter IV is devoted to an analysis of the structure of the space of opinion in the years following the turn of 1989. I attempt to verify accuracy of Zarycki's observations concerning the changing structure of the Polish field of power, focusing on the part of the space of opinion. The next section of this chapter is devoted to an analysis of the impact, that the pressure from Western (and Russian) elites had on Polish experts dealing with issues of policy towards Russia and Eastern policy. The analysis of both, structures of the space of opinion itself, and of discourses is preceded by a section devoted to the discussion of political conditions. The last chapter also covers analysis of processes taking place in the space of opinion during this period. They included emergence of discourses questioning the then-current assumptions for the Eastern policy. An important element of these debates concerned an evaluation of the significance and meaning of the achievements of Jerzy Giedroyc and the Paris-based “Kultura”, that he led. In Chapter IV, I present my own interpretation of these debates and a function that the figure of the Editor-in-chief of the famous émigré review has played for representatives of the Polish intelligentsia. The chapter ends with a discourse analysis based on debates concerning the "reset policy" of towards Russia.