Kultura i Społeczeństwo

Forty years ago Antonina Kłoskowska built up a universal paradigm of three social frames of culture. They included: frame one, i.e. local production of symbolic processes, close to folk culture; frame two — understood as a network of local institutions of culture; frame three — involving a radiation of pan-local centers, in particular a reception of contents transmitted by mass media. A basic sociological criterion of differentiating between these categories includes a type of contact, and adjacency of sender and recipient of symbolic communication. Currently, following years of development of digital means of communication, computer networks and fiber optic technologies, audio-visual systems, mobile telephones, etc. a proposal of frames of culture must be examined again. New media shape new vehicles of expression (e.g. hypertext), but most importantly they inspire specific social relations. Discussion over cultural framework is also triggered by accelerated processes of economic and social transformation, advanced globalization, increase of living standards and dissemination of consumption attitudes, changes in leisure activities of the middle class. In more narrowly understood domain of institutional and professional culture one witnessed the processes of European deregulation and release of culture from state, which in Eastern Europe was accompanied by abolition of censorship and a different model of culture distribution, which is controlled by market and cultural (creative) industry rather than by central government. As a result, the nature of direct communication among people is subject to ongoing transformation. We witness more and more indirect cultural communication (off-line and on-line). Modified and broadened proposal of social frames of culture includes five rather than three paradigms, namely: the culture of indirect communication, the culture of associations and volunteers; the culture of local institutions (public and private), mass culture versus pop culture, cyber-culture, culture of network community.

One has to underline that in the new reality of our civilization we can still use analytic principles of Kłoskowska’s typology. First, we can treat spiritual culture as a phenomenon of autotelic semiosis with pragmatic definition of sign; second, while describing social functioning of culture we can use a sociological criterion of contact and adjacency.

The phenomenon of publication, in the same year, of two books having identical titles, is enough to study the theory presented therein. Both books feature the notion of culture, which was broadly elaborated by both authors: Antonina Kłoskowska and Raymond Williams already in their earlier analyses. It turns out, however, that no matter the title of a book interesting to us, culture is tackled differently in both of them. Williams seems to keep using anthropological definition of culture, while Kłoskowska suggests sociological approach. A reflection on culture by the English academic has shaped the character of British cultural studies and their subsequent follow-ups around the world. A question arises, to what extent the sociological approach by Kłoskowska may give impetus to cultural research in Poland, especially when symbolic culture appears beyond the principle of autotelism.

In the last period of her professional career, Antonina Kłoskowska focused on issues related to national culture and nation itself, which is evident e.g. in her publication National Cultures at the Grass-Root Level. The article presents Kłoskowska’s main agruments concerning the notion of “national culture”. The author regarded this specific type of culture as one that could be characterized as symbolic, compound and coherent in the syntagmatic sense. Kłoskowska points out that, in order to be recognized as a member of a national community, it is necessary to acquire and refer to the canonical resources of its culture.

In the second part of the article some of the findings of contemporary Polish researchers are laid out, which correspond or directly relate to some of Kłoskowska’s ideas. A comparison and analysis of their views leads to a conclusion that their diversification does not generally mean that they are completely distant in their judgments but rather that various aspects are stressed in different ways. This attests, however, to the fact that the authors belonged to diverse intellectual formations.

The article is an attempt at contemporary interpretation of Antonina Kłoskowska’s theory of culture. The Author starts with a brief summary of her concept and follows with his analysis and elaboration on a few interesting issues which are the most interesting in his opinion. They include: national culture and the culture of a national society (i.e. a society, the members of which regard themselves also as members of a national community, an essence of integrative functions of national culture and conciliative functions of artistic heritage.

Belarus is a typical borderline country featuring multi-ethnicity, including various cultures, denominations and languages co-existing one near the other. Current socio-linguistic situation in Belarus may be defined as socially conditioned diglossia. Russian is the language of the governing elites, all-level education, popular culture and mass-media. Urban inhabitants speak almost entirely Russian, and the majority of village inhabitants speak Belarusian dialects. When, during Lukaszenka’s rule, Belarusian language fell once again in disgrace, it once again became a symbol of national revival and a fighting tool of opposition. Representatives of democratic elites speak Belarusian, but only when they hold informal meetings or political events. Based on biographic interviews held with the representatives of the Belarusian intelligentsia in Belarus, the Author has revealed a process of the narrators’ discovering an importance of a mother tongue as a sign of national identity. The process of realizing the importance of the Belarusian language in the life of an individual, as well as ethnic community, as well as a process of conscious learning of the language is, for contemporary Belarusians, one of the stages of shaping national identity. Learning the language is followed by participating in Belarusian symbolic culture and remembering history and reviving common memory, which finally leads to conscious identity with a mother land in a symbolic sense, which is broader than purely territorial reference.

The author analyses a history of research on culture in communist Poland and the USSR (later Russian Federation). She finds similarities and differences. During the time of communist Poland a tendency was to standardize the supply of culture and make the access to it more democratic. The basic task of the sociology of culture in communist Poland was to control the advancement process of culture dissemination and research into the various forms of participation. However, in the second half of the 70s attention was more and more focused on the directions of cultural sociology development and functions. Following the fall of communism this discipline was faced with a challenge of embracing all the important directions of changes while indicating a now socio-cultural model at the same time. In the USSR, on the other hand, the government was interested only in the cultural research which was to confirm a hypothesis on fast cultural development of masses. Sociology of culture did not exist as a science, though. Following years of deep crisis, when perestroika period began, sociologists of post soviet Russia faced a serious challenge: how to move from “the only one true” Marxist paradigm to the mastering and usage of various theories which functioned in sociology around the world. The Author indicated the contribution in this respect i.a. of Vladimir Yadov or academics circled around Yurij Levada. In general one can say that in Poland as well as in Russia, the sociology of culture following the fall of communist regime and following certain major political, economic, social and cultural changes, found itself in entirely new reality.

The article features an analysis of the ideas of Yurij Levada, an eminent Russian academic, sociologist dealing both with theory and with practice of sociology, a founder of a research institution inMoscow known as Levada-Centre. Levada gave a special place to culture within sociology and he himself called his project on theoretical sociology an “attempt at culturally justified sociology” (grounded in a perspective orientated to culture). The project was based on structurally complex, culturally conditioned and symbolically indirect social actions. In his opinion, such knowledge of culture required to be looked at retrospectively, which provides for tackling the issue of social system reproduction while enabling to understand contemporary culture at the same time. This way of thinking was a basis for Levada’s analyses of the surrounding social reality, e.g. his analyses of intelligence or the concept of “simple Soviet man”.

The author presents the output of Eduard Makarian, a Russian cultural anthropologist, featuring his contribution to the problem of origin of culture. The development of Makarian’s scientific research has been presented from the understanding of systemic character of culture to the research on the origin of culture; from reflecting upon the first principles of culture development to the concept of system evolution as anthropogenesis, social evolution and cultural evolution, to the understanding of the origin of culture as a creative core of culture (cultural heritage, dynamics of cultural traditions, “tradition”–“change” dichotomy, hypothesis of “cultural genes”, etc.). The scientist moved from the issue of the origin of culture in the prehistoric times through the issues of permanent creation and dialectic self-revival of culture to the problems of culture in contemporary world. His research was of key importance for the establishment of philosophical and cultural approach in the research of the origin of culture in Russia.

The author reflects on the evaluation of the notion of money in history. In many situations coins and banknotes were a proof for the existence of local, independent, political power. People’s attitude toward money was quite an important matter, too; in many situations neither money nor those professionally dealing with money were appreciated socially. Numerous utopian movements disliked money. Communism was one of them. The communist economy was driven — at least in theory — by overwhelming planning rather than by the incentive of money. After the fall of communism a question arised whether all or nearly all public activity should be driven by money or whether some domains of social activity should rather be kept as public domains.

The purpose of the article is to show how the TV-series—one of the most important forms of television production — is incorporated into the daily routines of the spectators. Michel de Certeau perspective of applied sociology of everyday life and critical reflection on everyday life is used as a theoretical framework. In the case of TV-series, the routines can take a form of: (1) “logging in” and “reading”” TV-series, (2)movement and sociability routines, and (3) discursive development of received meanings. “Soap opera experience” consists mainly of linguistic practices cultivated while watching the series, which is a modern form of storytelling, socializing, which changes the audiences’ view of reality, its social framework for evaluation and interpretation. A viewer is critical and active; they use consumption processes as an excuse to construct their own meanings and narratives, and negotiate the meaning of what is presented to them.

The article aims at focusing attention at selected aspects of pop culture which may, from the point of view of evolutionary psychologists, be deemed approximate to animal proto-cultures and social systems observed among the three-year-olds, i.e. — people who have not yet developed a psychological skill called “theory of mind”. The Author tries to point out that elements of proto-culture in the time of pop -industry development gain on dominance, as a result of which the quality of culture creating processes as well as culture transmission processes may be different than, let’s say, fifty years ago. It is not only about the mass media, but it is most of all about deep psychological processes which are the basis for understanding the essence of culture and participation in culture. In other words, the author tries to argue that norms, ideas and values, i.e. what culture is made of in general — are understood and disseminated in ways which are different in quality from the ones prevailing in the past.

The article attempts to prove that Darwinism in popular culture plays a role of a theory of everything. Bestselling authors of popular science such as Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins and Bill Bryson have acquainted general public with the theory of evolution, and its newest facet — the Modern Synthesis. Darwinian paradigms, as defined by Thomas Kuhn, are also used in popular books on cosmology, sociobiology, psychology, and religious studies. Moreover, the Darwinian grand narrative of evolutional history shapes the way in which contemporary mass culture presents the history of our planet in numerous educational TV series. Last but not least, Charles Darwin himself has recently become a popular icon and the story of his life is remade in a growing number of fiction and non-fiction books and movies.