Hospitality is an important part of intercultural relations and a way of managing social networks. When we take a comparative look at the Polish and Norwegian styles of hospitality, we can see how a society of few strong bonds and a society of many weak bonds are produced in everyday interactions. As Polish and Norwegian hospitality cultures are distinctly different, an interesting question is how nationally mixed couples prepare for a visit and entertain their guests at home. In the light of our investigation, receiving guests at home is likely to make everyday situations of inter-cultural negotiations even more difficult to deal with than usual. During such visits, our interlocutors both expressed and creatively negotiated not only their interpersonal and intimate relationships, but also their identities. Some couples decided to solve possible problems in this area by avoiding inviting guests as frequently as they used to. Another strategy was to separate different categories of guests for different visits according to language and national criteria, which resulted in creating relatively isolated social networks for the man and the woman in a relationship. The third strategy that we identified was to adjust different hospitality models to different kinds of guests and various occasions. The Norwegian model was applied in the case of closer and more frequent guests, and the Polish one – for older family members and those who came less frequently. The empirical material of the study included seven joint in-depth interviews conducted in Poland and Norway, during which the couples were asked about their hospitality habits.
Our article concentrates on emotions as related to the functioning of man in the judicial system seen as a modern bureaucratic institution. Special attention is given to the work of judges due to their key position in this system. In legal discourse there is a dominating normative idea of a judge as a decision-making subject free of any emotional factors influencing their judgment. According to this traditional approach, a decision biased even in the slightest way by emotions could not be regarded as impartial, whereas judicial impartiality is regarded as one of the core values of the justice system. Our standpoint assumes not only that judges experience emotions but also asserts that they are being manifested in varied ways. Our analysis is based on Arlie Hochschild’s conception of emotional labour. Such labour is being performed when an individual reflects on his or her feelings and makes an effort either to change or to inhibit emotions which are regarded as misfitting. The necessity of emotional work is a result of cultural feeling and expression rules. It seems prima facie that there is one clear expression rule regarding displaying emotions by the judge in the Polish legal culture: no emotions allowed. However, contrary to possible reconstructed declarations and recommendations warning judges against showing emotions, the rules of expressing them in Polish courts are not unequivocal. We claim that one can distinguish between unconditional and conditional rules of expressing emotions. The former relate to expressing emotions concerning non-professional participants, and conditional rules of expressing emotions relate to professional participants in the hearing. There are situations in which an emotional reaction is reasonable, because it represents certain values to which the justice department adheres, and those in which judges regret showing annoyance or anger. The goal of the emotional labour performed is not only a realization of the value of impartiality, but also the balance of the judges that allows them to efficiently fulfil their role.
Artykuł przedstawia analizę dyskusji internetowych o obecności dzików w mieście w szerszym kontekście wiedzy o tym gatunku i relacjach ludzi z dziką przyrodą. Przedmiotem analizy były komentarze zamieszczone pod filmami przedstawiającymi dziki w przestrzeni Trójmiasta, nagranymi i opublikowanymi przez mieszkańców. W wyniku analizy stwierdzono, że ekspresja i przypisywanie innym określonych tożsamości światopoglądowych zdawały się być ważniejsze niż szukanie rozwiązań w przedmiocie sporu i przyczyniały się do utrwalania podziałów między osobami, które miały inny obraz sytuacji. Najbardziej problematyczna była tendencja zawężenia debaty do kwestii odstrzału zwierząt oraz silne akcentowanie strachu i zagrożeń. Powodowało to, że trudniej było osobom dyskutującym dostrzec podobieństwa stanowisk w kwestiach, co do których panowała zgoda i zniechęcało do wyrażania stanowisk umiarkowanych lub ambiwalentnych. Tymczasem w obszarze podobnych i podzielanych doświadczeń leżał niewykorzystany, ze względu na infrastrukturę komunikacji, potencjał współpracy w rozwiązywaniu problemów z dzikami.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.