Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 17

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
This article presents the problems related to the discussion about the colonial heritage in Polish cultural and political tradition and the current research. Poland shares its colonial experience with other Eastern and Central European countries. This experience is characterised by a successive change in the colonisation situation (invasion of foreign troops) and the periods of independence. The dynamics of these alternate situations in the 19th and 20th centuries determine the specific attitude of regional communities towards history and historic superpowers. The colonial experience of the Polish nation pertains mainly to the period of communism. The dysfunctionalisation of the internal life of the Polish society is intensified in this period. The result is a distrust of democracy, anarchization of political life, an inclination to use mythical interpretations of contemporary reality and an acquisition of culturally foreign models of behavior within social and political life, language, custom, or even art. The article describes colonial remnants in language and contemporary political attitudes: legal and literary aspects endemic to colonialisation, mimicry, camouflage, mockery, hetero-determination. The second part of the article is devoted to a discussion of the phenomenon called “Poland-the coloniser” in postcolonial studies. The author analyses chosen studies and opinions and discusses them in a postcolonial perspective. He undermines the view of some Polish researchers who see Poland as a highly colonising being. He demands that the historic facts be taken into consideration and the exaggerated accusatory mythology that is rooted in complexes which date back to the 19th century be discarded. On the other hand, he presents research views with an inherent colonial message that makes other succumb to the Polish historic and political arguments. The last part of the article is a reflection on the colonising force of the very postcolonial theory that prevails in the contemporary Polish intellectual and political conditions.
EN
The article describes the changes in the understanding of canonicity in the cultures of Central and Eastern Europe after 1989. In order to illustrate the processes which change the number of texts understood as essential for the constructing of the source of identity in the culture but also their interpretation, categories of revision, lustration and banishment within the realm of canonicity are introduced. Revisions relate to the aesthetic categories, whereas lustrations are the effect of interferences which are consequences of social and political transformations. Banishment, or migration, are typical for the extending realm of postcanonicity. It means a neutralisation of the fight for domination in the culture that is characteristic of the canon–anticanon opposition and it gives way for the more unhampered articulations that diminish the ideological character of literature. This place is filled with the ostentatious gay or lesbian literature or literature characteristic of a particular subculture. It resigns from aspiring to become the canon of the entire community and functions in the realm of diminished but separate values. The last issue undertaken in the article is the role of gender literature in the reviews of the history of literature and culture of Central and Eastern Europe. Despite the steps undertaken in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Ukraine, traditional approaches are still dominant.
EN
The article presents the ‘Integrated Comparative literature’ project, part of the broader ‘Integrated Comparative studies in the humanities’, linking together research on literature, history, sociology, anthropology, and even aesthetics. Comparative research on literature, which the author considers chiefly a part of territorial studies, considerably extends the methodological perspective, going beyond the traditionally ‘pure’ areas of the humanities. The traditional functions of literature, as well as genres and sub-genres, has been changing as a result of globalization, the predominance of the World Wide Web, and the formation of new centres, altering the relations both within a culture and amongst different cultures, including literature.
PL
The article focuses on the problem of irony and comicality in the modern literary Slavic antiutopia. The analysis has been made on the example of the following novels: Egon Bondy’s Invalidní sourozenci, Tadeusz Konwicki’s Small Apocalypse, Vladimir Voynovich’s Moscow 2042 and Victor Pelevin’s Chapayev and Blankness. Irony and comicality in modern and postmodern literary antiutopia is transformed into intertextual or metaphysical grotesque.
PL
Synteza dziejów powieści serbołużyckiej. Tomasz Derlatka, Powieść z Górnych Łużyc:historia, poetyka, ideologia, Slovanský Ústav AV ČR, v.v.i., Praha 2015, ss. 1130
Porównania
|
2020
|
vol. 27
|
issue 2
25-46
PL
Artykuł dotyczy dwóch zagadnień. Pierwsze to problem zbiorowej pamięci przeszłości, w której obrębie autor wyodrębnia pamięć wspólną, pamięć odrębną i nie-pamięć. Pamięć wspólna odgrywa w Europie Środkowej mniejszą rolę niż pamięć odrębna, stanowiąca rdzeń tożsamości narodowej i społecznej. Pamięć wspólna jest raczej nieosiągalnym ideałem zgłaszanym przez niektórych polityków i badaczy kultury. Ważną funkcję pełni nie-pamięć, czyli przestrzeń czasowego unicestwiania trudnych spraw związanych z przeszłością. Historia i zbiorowa pamięć są w Europie Środkowej konkurencyjnymi drogami utrwalania przeszłości. Wynika to z faktu wielowiekowych konfliktów, zmieniających się form ustrojowych, zmiany granic i przede wszystkim odebrania wielu narodom suwerenności. Ta sytuacja spowodowała, że problem dominacji i podległości stał się zasadniczym problemem historii i pamięci zbiorowej. Druga część artykułu jest poświęcona postkolonialnym aspektom zbiorowej pamięci, w jej ramach zwłaszcza podejściu do wydarzeń i dat 1956, 1968, 1981, związanych z militarną reakcją komunistycznego systemu na próby jego zreformowania. Wydarzenia te, przy wszystkich różnicach, są spowodowane przez przemoc zewnętrzną (1956, 1968) lub przemoc wewnętrzną wywołaną naciskiem z zewnątrz (1981). Poprzez stosunek do wybranych elementów przeszłości społeczeństwa Europy Środkowej kształtują też wzajemne relacje. Autor ukazuje problem nieoczywistości wspólnej pamięci wewnętrznej i międzynarodowej przez analizę czterech aspektów: resentymentu, odpamiętywania, polityki historycznej i estetyzacji. Prezentacja wydarzeń lat 1956, 1968, 1981 w perspektywie wskazanych czterech aspektów postkolonialnej pamięci pokazuje słabe istnienie wspólnych obszarów, nad którymi przeważają pamięć odrębna, deformująca realia historyczne, oraz nie-pamięć. Dowodzi to, że wyjście poza hasła i ogólne deklaracje jest dla społeczeństw Europy Środkowej trudne. Prawdziwa wspólna pamięć to zadanie przyszłości.
EN
This article deals with two issues. The first concerns the problem of collective memory of the past, which is divided here into shared memory, separate memory and non-memory. Shared memory plays a lesser role in Central Europe than separate memory, the latter being the core of national and social identity. Shared memory is an unattainable ideal proposed by some politicians and cultural researchers. A significant role is played by non-memory, which temporarily annihilates difficult matters related to the past. History vies with collective memory in Central Europe as a means of preserving the past. This is the result of centuries-old conflicts, changing political systems, shifting borders and, above all, many nations losing their sovereignty. This situation made the problem of domination and subordination a fundamental problem of history and collective memory. For this reason, the second part of the article focuses on the postcolonial aspects of collective memory, and in particular on its relation to the events of 1956, 1968, and 1981 connected with the military reaction of the communist system to attempts at reform. These events, with all their historical differences, are caused by external violence (1956, 1968) or by internal violence caused by external pressure (1981). Central European societies also shape mutual relations through their attitudes to selected elements of the past. The author of the article depicts the inconspicuous aspects of shared internal and international memory by means of an analysis of four aspects: ressentiment, unremembering, historical politics and aesthetisation.An analysis of the events that took place in 1956, 1968, and 1981 in the context of these four aspects of postcolonial memory reveals the fragile (moderately strong) existence of common areas. These areas are dominated by non-memory and separate memory, which deform historical realities. This proves that it is difficult for Central European societies to move beyond slogans and general declarations. True shared memory is the task for the future.  
14
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Od Redakcji

100%
PL
Od Redakcji
16
Content available remote

ROZMOWA „WIELOGŁOSU”

33%
PL
Rozmowa „Wielogłosu”: O problemach współczesnej komparatystyki
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.