Bohdan Dziemidok

A rtistic Expression of N ational Cultural Identity

T h e tu rn o f th e 2 0th a n d th e 21st century is a very in tere stin g perio d . O n

th e o n e h a n d , th e re is a grow th o f in tern a tio n alist ten d en cies, w hich m ake
us lo o k fo r c o m m o n values a n d universal culture, a n d o n the o th e r h an d ,
th e c e n trifu g al te n d e n c ie s lead to the revival o f new form s o f n ationalism
a n d n a tio n a l a n d relig ious conflicts.
In te g ra tiv e te n d e n c ie s a re an u n q u e stio n e d fact o f every a sp e ct o f
societal life: eco n o m ic (em erg en ce o f the w orld m arket, rise o f in tern atio n al
ex c h a n g e a n d c o o p e ra tio n , m o d ern izatio n o f technology, po p u larizatio n
o f W estern p a tte rn s o f c o n su m p tio n , g reat d ev elo p m en t o f tra n sp o rt an d
m ean s o f co m m u n ic a tio n , etc.), political (expansion o f liberal dem ocracy,
creatio n o f an u n ite d E u ro p e ), an d in culture, which succum bs to a tendency
to c re a te global a n d universal mass cu ltu re (mass m edia, tourism , fashion,
sh o w b u sin e ss, e tc .). It tu rn s o u t, how ever, th a t n e ith e r in te rn a tio n a l
c o m m erce, n o r th e b lo sso m in g systems o f co m m u n icatio n a n d tran sp o rt,
p ro v id e us w ith th e c o m m o n feeling o f identity o r belo n g in g . At the sam e
tim e th e n e e d fo r those does n o t cease to exist. As a result, »people rediscover
o r c re a te a new histo rical identity«, since they feel u p ro o te d an d » n eed new
sources o f id en tity a n d new form s o f stable com m unity, new systems o f m oral
im peratives, w hich co u ld give them a sense o f a m eaningful a n d p urp o sefu l
life« (H u n tin g to n , 1997, pp. 132, 133).
O n e o f th e m ost im p o rta n t form s o f collective a n d cultural identity still
tu rn s o u t to b e th e n a tio n a l one. T h e p ro p h ecies o f th e e n d of the era o f
n a tio n s have n o t co m e true.
» T he s tre n g th o f n a tio n a l sen tim en ts - writes Jerzy Szacki - even if
c h a n g e a b le in tim e a n d diverse in space, does no t show any sym ptom s o f
clea r d ec lin e , (...) th e e ra o f nations keeps lasting a n d n o th in g predicts it
will e n d soon« (1997, p. 58).
In 1882, Isaiah B erlin called nationalism »the neglected power«, having
a t th e sam e tim e su p p o se d th a t »nationalism can d o m in ate the last p a rt o f
o u r c e n tu ry to su ch a d e g re e , th a t n o m ovem ent o r revolution will have any
ch an ces o f success u nless allied with it« (1982, p. 206).
In th e eig h ties, B e rlin ’s convictions m ig h t have seem ed exaggerated.
Som e claim ed th a t nationalism would eith er becom e a m erely historical term

Filozofski vestnik, X X (2 /1 9 9 9 - X IV ICA), pp. 237-251. 237

 Bohdan Dziemidok

o r w ould fu n ctio n o n the p erip h e ries o f th e ‘civilized’ w orld - so m ew h ere

in th e th ird o r fo u rth w orld, a n d definitely w ould play n o p a rt in th e u n ifie d
co m m unities o f E urope. Truly, d u rin g th e C old W ar, in te rn a tio n a l conflicts
w ere m ain ly o f a n id e o lo g ic a l flav o r a n d m a n y o b se rv e rs th o u g h t th e
situ atio n to b e unlikely to ch an g e quickly. H ow ever, th e e n d o f th e C old
W ar b ro u g h t a radical ch ange o f situation. O n e o f th e m ain reaso n s (b u t
n o t th e only o n e) fo r that, was the collapse o f m u ltin a tio n a l states like th e
Soviet U n io n o r Yugoslavia, a n d b in a tio n a l o n es like C zechoslovakia. T h e
p ro b lem s o f n ationalism , x en o p h o b ia , e th n ic conflicts, n a tio n a l identity,
autonom y, a n d n ational culture becam e th e c e n te r o f a tte n tio n in th e social
sciences. T his h a p p e n e d n o t only b ecause o f th e situ atio n in C e n tra l a n d
E astern E u ro p e a n d in the East, b u t also d u e to th e grow ing separatism s o r
claims fo r cu ltu ral au to n o m y in B elgium , S pain, C a n ad a a n d G re a t B ritain.
»With th e e n d of the C old W ar - w rites Will Kym licka - th e d em a n d s o f the
eth n ic a n d th e natio n al groups have taken over th e c e n te r stage o f political
life b o th dom estically an d internationally« (1995, p. 193). T h e sam e a u th o r
in a n o th e r p a p e r u n d erlin e s th a t »a strik in g fact o f 2 0th c e n tu ry history is
tenacity w ith which eth n o -n atio n al g ro u p s have m a in ta in e d th e ir d istin c t
identity, institutions, a n d desire fo r self-governm ent« (1995, p. 164).
B efore o n e can b eg in dealing w ith th e q u estio n o f artistic ex p ressio n
o f natio n al cultural identity, one has to deal with several fu n d am en tals. W hat
is » id en tity « , w h at is » n atio n « a n d » n a tio n a lism « , a n d , finally, w h a t is
»collective identity«.
T he issues of nation, national culture, in ternational coexistence, national
conflicts, n ationalism , patriotism a n d n a tio n a l id en tity are still crucial a n d
com plex. T h e com plexity is to a large d e g re e cau sed by th e lack o f clarity o f
the term s themselves (national identity, nationalism , patriotism ) w hich greatly
adds to the difficulty o f the academ ic discourse. F or the p u rp o se o f this pap er,
som e w orking distinctions betw een th o se term s are m ad e below.
I believe th at an a ttem p t to identify th e term ‘n a tio n a lis m ’ sh o u ld b e
o u r p o in t o f d ep a rtu re. E rnest G ellner, a n o u ts ta n d in g e x p e rt in th e field,
co in ed a well-known a n d p o p u la r d e fin itio n o f n atio n alism . A c co rd in g to
him , »nationalism is prim arily a political p rin c ip le , w hich h o ld s th a t th e
po litical a n d th e n a tio n a l u n it sh o u ld b e c o n g ru e n t« (1983, p. 1). T h is
d efin itio n seem s to be, o n the o n e h a n d , too n arro w fo r it d o es n o t cover
som e form s o f nationalism (e.g. cultural nationalism ) ; and, o n th e o th e r h a n d ,
to o b ro a d , sin ce it follows th a t all s u p p o rte rs o f n a tio n -s ta te s w o u ld b e
n a tio n a lis ts, re g a rd le ss o f th e fa c t th a t so m e o f th e m a r e o p p o s e d to
n atio n alism as an ideology.
C onsequently, it can be arg u ed th a t G e lln e r’s d efin itio n is insufficient.

238
 Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity

It seem s th a t th e d e fin itio n o f n ationalism should b e descriptive, a n d as

axiologically n e u tra l as possible. Such an ap p ro ach w ould allow us to avoid
th e im p o v erish ed vision o f n ationalism as only aggressive, expansionist an d
x e n o p h o b ic . T his n arrow , clearly pejorative u n d e rsta n d in g o f nationalism
is, fo r ex a m p le , very p o p u la r in the Polish language. T h e m ean in g o f this
term sh o u ld b e b ro a d e n o u g h to cover all its m ost d istin g u ish ed form s. Its
d e fin itio n sh o u ld in te g ra te n o t only eth n ic nationalism (also called ‘eth n o -
n a tio n a lis m ’), b u t also civic as well as (political) n ationalism (p resen t b o th
in liberal dem ocracies a n d in autocracies), cultural nationalism (the necessity
to d istin g u ish this p a rtic u la r form o f nationalism is m ainly a rg u ed fo r by
th e C an ad ia n p h ilo so p h e rs W. Kymilcka, 1995, a n d K. N ielsen). It should
a ls o r e f l e c t th e d if f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n im p e ria lis tic a n d lib e r a tio n is t
n a tio n a lis m , as w ell as b e tw e e n aggressive, »hot« (in its exclusive a n d
inclusive, ex p a n sio n ist form ) a n d banal nationalism (see M. B illig), specific
fo r th e d ev e lo p e d nation-states o f the W est (e.g. USA o r UK).
A n d rzej W alicki a p p ro a c h e s n atio n alism as a n ideology » c e n te re d
a ro u n d th e c o n c e p t o f n a tio n , p ro m o tin g national ties, n atio n al identity,
n a tio n a l co n scio u sn ess a n d nation-state« (1997, p. 32).
Also Isaiah B erlin thinks th a t »‘n atio n alism ’ is n o t only a state o f m ind
b u t also a self-conscious d octrine« (1991, p. 206). Nationalism »is an elevation
o f values o f u n ity a n d self-determ ination o f a n atio n to th e position o f the
h ig h e st good« (1991, p. 202).
A sim ilar d e fin itio n o f nationalism can b e fo u n d in th e book by P eter
A lter: » N atio n alism exists everyw here, w here individuals feel b e lo n g in g
above all to th e n a tio n a n d w here sen tim en tal ties a n d loyalty to a n atio n
tru m p all o th e r b o n d s a n d loyalties« (1983, p. 9, see J. Szacki, p. 27).
T h e q u o te d definitions o f nationalism are form ulated in such a m anner,
th a t th e term ‘n a tio n a lism ’ can be substituted by that o f ‘p atrio tism ’. Still,
m ost au th o rs believe th a t it is rational an d right to distinguish the two related
term s. I w o u ld like to analyze th re e o u t o f m any venues to draw th e line
b etw een th em . T h e sim plest a p p ro a c h is the o n e d eclarin g »patriotism as a
fe elin g a n d n atio n alism as a d octrine« (see J. Jedlicki, 1997). This sim ple
d istin c tio n do es n o t g e t us far, since even if nationalism is m ostly trea ted as
an ideology o r a d o c trin e , we still can speak a b o u t nationalistic feelings o r
behaviors w hich d o n o t co n stru e an ideology. Patriotism is in d eed very often
seen as love o f th e h o m e la n d a n d the n atio n o r »strong em o tio n al ties with
th e n atio n « (M. W a ld e n b erg 1992, pp. 18-24). A ntonina Kloskowska defines
patrio tism as a »strong, em o tio n al attach m en t with o n e ’s own eth n ic group«
(1996, p. 16). M o rrisjan o v itz distinguishes patriotism from x en o p h o b ia a n d

239
 Bohdan Dziemidok

h atre d for foreigners as »the persistence o f love o r a tta c h m e n t to a country«

(1983, p. 194).
P atrio tism u n d e rs to o d in such a way is o p p o s e d to n a tio n a lis m in a
n arro w sense. C onsequently, p atrio tism is se e n as a synonym fo r love o f
h o m e la n d o r n a tio n b u t la c k in g ag g ressiv e s e n tim e n ts to w a rd s o t h e r
co u n tries o r nations. At the sam e tim e n atio n alism re p re se n ts p rim o rd ia l
aggression, irratio n al exclusion, x e n o p h o b ia , a n d fanaticism . T h is p ic tu re
o f p atrio tism a n d nationalism as two d iffe re n t se n tim e n ts o r states o f m in d
ca n n o t b e seen as satisfactory. As A. Kloskowska a n d M. Billig rightly p o in t
ou t, in p ractice it is hardly possible to d istin g u ish o n e fro m a n o th e r. T h e re
is a p o p u la r ten d en cy to call o n e ’s own n atio n alism ‘p a trio tism ’ a n d to tre a t
the patriotism o f oth ers as ‘natio n alism ’. »T he p ro b le m is how to distinguish
in p ractice th ese two allegedly very d iffe re n t states o f m in d . O n e c a n n o t
m erely ask p o ten tial patrio ts w h e th e r they e ith e r love o r h a te fo reig n ers.
Even th e m ost extrem e o f nationalists will claim th e p atrio tic m otiv atio n fo r
them selves« (M. Billig, 1997, p. 57).
T he th ird m ethod o f telling nationalism a n d patriotism a p a rt is suggested
by Andrzej Walicki a n d C harles Taylor. As o p p o sed to nationalism c o n n e c te d
w ith » n atio n « , p a trio tis m is lin k e d to th e c o n c e p t o f » p a tria « d e f in e d
politically, i.e. »w ithout re fere n ce to a p re p o litical identity«. P atrio tism is
»a s tr o n g s e n s e o f id e n tif ic a tio n w ith p o lity « ; it is »a s t r o n g c itiz e n
id entification« (C. Taylor, 1997, p. 253).
W alicki sees patriotism as »a territo ria l c o n c e p t w hich can b e se p a ra te
from nationality« (1997, p. 34).
B oth authors claim that patriotism u n d e rsto o d in such a way was p re se n t
in b o th th e A m e ric a n a n d th e F r e n c h R e v o lu tio n . » T h e c o n c e p t o f
F re n c h m a n (...) was sh ap e d u n d e r th e in flu e n c e o f te rrito ria l a n d state
identity« (A. W alicki, 1997, p. 34). T his profile o f p atrio tism is/w as p re s e n t
in b in atio n al states like C zechoslovakia o r m u ltin atio n al ones like th e Soviet
U nion, Yugoslavia, a n d the USA. As a result, if patriotism is m erely a p o litic a l/
territo rial p h e n o m e n o n , »nationalism can pro v id e fuel fo r p atrio tism , can
b e o n e basis for patrio tism b u t n o t th e only one« (C. T aylor, 1997, p. 253).
This situation makes them difficult to distinguish from o n e a n o th e r, however,
alth o u g h this d istin ction sh o u ld be clearly m ad e, »if we w an t to u n d e rs ta n d
o u r history« (C. Taylor, 1997, p. 253).
A sim ilar u n d e rsta n d in g o f p atrio tism is show n by W ill Kym licka, w ho
thinks th at »we should distinguish patriotism , the feeling o f allegiance to state,
from n a tio n al identity, the sense o f m e m b e rsh ip in a n a tio n a l g ro u p « (p.
13). T h e necessity to distinguish those concepts justifies th e re la tio n betw een
p atriotism a n d n atio n al identity o f th e Swiss. Kym licka says w ith re sp e c t to

240
 Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity

Switzerland: »N ational gro u p s feel allegiance to the larg er state only because
th e la rg e r state reco g n izes a n d respects th eir distinct n atio n al existence«
(1995, p. 13).
All th re e a p p ro a c h e s towards th e divisive line betw een patriotism a n d
n atio n alism can b e a rg u e d fo r an d against. T h e latter o n e, however, seem s
to b e m o st precise.
As is well know n, th e c o n c e p t o f identity has two im p o rta n t m eanings:
o n e is » re m a in in g th e sam e« (sam eness) a n d th e o th e r d iffe re n tia tio n
(d istin ctiv en ess) fro m o th e r subjects o f individual o r collective identity.
N e ith e r can b e o v erlo o k ed in reflecting on national cu ltu ral identity. T h ere
is n o »we« w ith o u t »they«. Som e au th o rs (e. g., F. B arth an d Z. Bokszanski)
are even o f th e o p in io n th a t it is n o t the tenacity o f n atio n al trad itio n o r
c u ltu re , n o r th e collective m em ory a n d a feeling o f com m onality o f fate,
b u t precisely th e b o rd e rlin e s betw een »us« a n d »them « w hich are th e m ost
im p o rta n t fo r collective identity.
In co n te m p o ra ry th eo rie s o f the n atio n an d nationalism , alongside the
a n th ro p o lo g ic a l a n d cu ltu ra l constructions o f n a tio n a n d n atio n al identity
(B. A n d e rs o n , J. A rm stro n g , A. Kloskowska, W. Kymlicka, Y. T a m ir a n d
o th ers) th e re is also a political o r »civic« way o f d efin in g a n atio n (its origin
a n d fu n c tio n in g ) a n d nationalism (E. G ellner, L. G reenfeld, E. H obsbaw m ,
M. Ig n a tie ff a n d o th e rs ). In b o th these approaches w hat is stressed, however,
is th e im p o rta n c e (a lth o u g h d ifferent) o f cu ltu re (variously u n d e rsto o d by
d iffe re n t th in k ers) in sh ap in g the nation and national identity. T he national
cu ltu ra l id e n tity is usually tre a te d as a very im p o rta n t fo rm o f collective
id en tity b ecau se o f its tenacity a n d axiological essentiality.
T h e q u estio n o f collective identity is an equally controversial a n d vexing
p ro b lem . T his is so b ecau se it is n e ith e r quite clear w ho, a n d in w hat sense,
is th e su b ject o f th e collective identity, n o r w hat is the ro le o f the subjective
a n d th e objective in d icato rs o f th a t identity.
It w ould b e in teresting to propose som e fresh answers to these questions,
b u t as I n e e d to g et to th e question o f artistic expression o f national identity,
I will base my fu n d a m e n ta l distinctions on the findings o f o th e r authors.
T h e p ro b lem o f a culturally defin ed national identity is one o f the m ost
crucial (u rg e n t a n d controversial) issues discussed today within the d om ain
o f social sciences. T h e n o tio n o f »national identity« sh o u ld b e distinguished
n o t only from th e n o tio n o f »patriotism«, b u t also from th at o f »nationalism «.
Even stau n ch a d h e re n c e to a given n ational identity does n o t necessarily lead
to n atio n alism . A fter all, it follows from the sociological research ca rried
o u t by A n to n in a Kloskowska a n d h e r associates that, »individual cases prove

241
 Bohdan Dziemidok

th a t th e re is n o necessary c o n n e c tio n b etw e en stro n g , assertive n a tio n a l

id en tificatio n a n d e th n o c e n tric nationalism « (1996, p. 468).
R esearch carried o u t by scores o f sociologists, an th ro p o lo g ists, political
scientists, h isto rian s a n d social psychologists d e m o n stra te s th a t n a tio n a l
identity is o n e o f th e m ost im p o rta n t a n d m o st stable form s o f collective
identity. M ost research workers believe today th at eth n ic identity a n d n atio n al
identity are ro o te d in cu ltu re w hich serves as th e m ain b o n d w ithin a g ro u p .
Some au thors go so far as to use interchangeably in som e contexts th e n o tio n s
o f »national identity« a n d »cultural identity«, since any n a tio n a l o r e th n ic
identity co uld be largely red u ced to cultural identity. F or exam ple, acco rd in g
to Kloskowska, b o th eth n ic a n d n atio n al g ro u p s are » co rp o rate b o d ies in
th e form o f co m m unities d e te rm in e d by th e relative id en tity a n d relative
separateness o f th eir cultural traits« (1996, p. 36), since »a co m m o n n atio n al
c u ltu r e c o n s titu te s a s tr o n g e r , m o r e te n a c io u s a n d m o r e e f fe c tiv e
d e te rm in a n t o f social bonds than a co m m o n g o v ern m e n t« (1996, p. 27).
T h e persistence o f n atio n al cu ltu re endow s th e n a tio n a l co m m u n ity w ith a
sense o f co n tin u ity w hich is a p ro m in e n t e le m e n t o f any identity.
L iterature on this and related issues abounds in different, alth o u g h often
co n v e rg e n t, ju stific a tio n s o f th e sp ec ia l statu s o f n a tio n a l id e n tity . F o r
exam ple, Walicki notes th at »the nation [...] possesses a pow erful, historically
sh ap ed collective identity, encom passing b o th p ast a n d fu tu re g e n e ra tio n s,
w hich is co n stan tly b o lstered even w hile it is b e in g c o n te ste d , a n d finds
expression in the shared perception o f a co m m u n io n o f anxieties, o f a sh ared
responsibility for th e past a n d the fu tu re« (1997, p. 45).
O th e r factors w hich h ig h lig h t th e im p o rta n c e o f n a tio n a l id e n tity are
discussed by Kai N ielsen, w ho states th a t it is » in d e e d a very im p o r ta n t
identity, an identity essential for m any p e o p le to give m e a n in g to th e ir lives,
vital for th e ir sense o f self-respect, essential for th e ir sense o f b e lo n g in g a n d
security - all things o f fundam ental value to h u m a n beings« (1996-97, p. 43).
An in tere stin g vindication o f th e im p o rta n c e o f n a tio n a l a n d cu ltu ra l
id e n tity fo r in d iv id u al h u m a n b ein g s m ay b e fo u n d in th e w orks o f W.
Kymlicka a n d the Israeli research er, Yael T am ir, w ho em phatically state th a t
an individual ca n n o t fun ctio n outside h i s / h e r cu ltu ra l co n tex t. It th e re fo re
follows th a t h is /h e r a u to n o m o u s decisions m u st d e p e n d o n th e c u ltu ra l
co n text. T h e in stru m en tal value o f n atio n a l id en tity is largely b ase d o n th e
above observation. T h e cu ltu ral-n atio n al b a c k g ro u n d plays a cru cial ro le
in th e s h a p in g o f h u m a n a x io lo g ic a l vistas a n d o r ie n ta tio n s , g u id in g
individuals in th e ir choice o f a p p ro p ria te c o n c e p tio n s o f g o o d , lifestyles,
p referen ces a n d interests. A nd in p artic u la r, in sh a p in g » th eir self-esteem
dem and on their ties with a lively and well respected com m unity« (1998, p. 111).

242
 Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity

B u t it is in th e w o rk o f K ym licka t h a t o n e m ay fin d th e m o st
c o m p re h en siv e app raisal o f th e value o f national an d cultural identity. I will
lim it m yself to a p re s e n ta tio n o f only two o f h e r m ain argum ents. First an d
fo rem o st, it is this id en tity w hich is particularly im p o rta n t from the p o in t o f
view o f a n in d iv id u a l’s p erso n a l freed o m . F or freed o m c a n n o t be sim ply
re d u c e d to th e possibility o f having a choice. Actually, freed o m involves
m ak in g a th o u g h tfu l, sensible choice o u t o f »various options«. It is thanks
to th e ir alleg ian ce to th e ir n atio n al cu ltu re th at »people have access to a
ra n g e o f m ean in g fu l options« (1995, p. 83), if only b ecau se allegiance to a
c u ltu re a n d »fam iliarity w ith a cu ltu re« d e te rm in e s th e lim its o f h u m a n
k n o w led g e a n d im ag in atio n . B roadly u n d e rsto o d societal c u ltu re , w hich
»ten d s to b e a n atio n a l c u ltu re [...] provides its m em bers with m eaningful
ways o f life acro ss th e full ra n g e o f h u m a n activities, in c lu d in g social,
e d u c atio n al, religious, recre atio n a l, a n d econom ic life, encom passing b o th
th e p ublic a n d th e private sphere« (1995, p. 76). Secondly, »cultural identity
provides an a n c h o r for p e o p le ’s self-identification an d th e safety o f effortless
sec u re b elo n g in g « (1995, p. 98). T he p o in t is th at identification e n s u re d by
n atio n al identity »is based o n belonging, n o t accom plishm ent« and such form
o f id en tificatio n , in d e p e n d e n t o f an individual’s personal accom plishm ents,
»is m o re secu re, less liable to be th rea ten ed « (1995, p. 89).
Som e c o n te m p o ra ry a u th o rs, w riting o n n atio n al identity, claim th at
in evitable m o d e rn iz a tio n processes a n d th e liberalization o f social life m ust
re s u lt in th e d im in is h m e n t o f in h e rite d n atio n a l id e n tity , w h ich today
in creasin g ly o fte n b eco m es a m a tte r o f free choice. In this c o n te x t som e
a u th o rs m e n tio n individuals w ho, o p tin g for a cosm opolitan identity, try to
fin d h ap p in ess precisely in th e possibility o f fu n c tio n in g betw een d iffe ren t
cu ltu re s a n d m ak in g use o f th e ir d ivergent values, a n d w ho, n o t feeling any
n e e d fo r b e in g firm ly ro o te d in o n e culture, change th e ir n atio n al identity
a t will (cf. J. W e ld ro n ).
W. Kym licka a n d A. W alicki disagree with such views an d d e fe n d the
im p o rta n c e a n d p ersisten ce o f national identity, which in th eir o p in io n may
n o t be a qu estio n o f free choice. First o f all, the processes underlying national
id en tity ch an g es are o f a highly individual a n d idiosyncratic character. T hey
fu n c tio n over lo n g tim e p erio d s a n d are often difficult a n d even painful for
th e p erso n s c o n c e rn e d , a fact w hich can b e verified by any C zech w ho tried
to b ec o m e a F re n c h m a n , o r any Pole who w anted to b e a n E nglishm an, o r
a V ie tn a m e s e w h o w o u ld lik e to b e c o m e Ja p a n e s e . S eco n d ly , it is n o t
necessarily tru e th a t m o d e rn iz a tio n o f the w orld and liberalization o f social
life m ust inevitably e n d a n g e r n ational identity. In som e countries o f the West
(e.g. C a n a d a , B elg iu m o r G re a t B ritain ), »far from d isp lacin g n a tio n a l

243
 Bohdan Dziemidok

identity, liberalization has in fact g o n e h a n d in h a n d w ith an in creased sense

o f n a tio n h o o d « (W. Kymlicka, 1995, p. 88). T h e p ro -au to n o m y asp ira tio n s
o f th e Flem ish, the Scots a n d the Q uéb éco is c o n stitu te m o re th a n a d e q u a te
evidence fo r this suggestion. T h e fa ct th a t » cu ltu re b e c a m e to le ra n t a n d
p lu ralistic h as, in n o way, d im in ish e d th e p ersu asiv en ess o r in te n s ity o f
p e o p le ’s d esire to live a n d to w ork in th e ir own country« (ibid., p. 89).
C la im in g th a t m o d e rn iz a tio n d o e s n o t c o n s titu te a t h r e a t to th e
persistence o f natio n al cu ltu re a n d n a tio n a l identity, Kym licka n ev erth eless
c o m p le te ly a g re e s w ith S a m u e l H u n t i n g t o n , in s p ite o f th e o b v io u s
differences betw een th eir views, o n such issues as m u lticu ltu rality , th e ro le
o f im m ig ratio n a n d e th n ic m inorities in A m erica.
O n e o f th e m a in m otives o f H u n t i n g t o n ’s s e m in a l b o o k was h is
constantly voiced opposition to the co n c ep tio n o f the globalization o f cu ltu re
a n d W esternization o f the world. In his o p in io n , W estern civilization is n o t
a u n iv ersa l civilizational m o d el, a n d W e s te rn iz a tio n is n o t a n e c e ssa ry
p r e c o n d i t i o n fo r m o d e r n iz a tio n . E v en if th e in e v ita b le a d v e n t o f
m o d e rn iz a tio n d o es d estro y o ld a u th o ritie s a n d c o m m u n itie s , th e re b y
u p ro o tin g people, this is n o t necessarily co n co m itan t with th e loss o f th e n e e d
for a sep a rate identity. It o ften tu rn s o u t th a t p e o p le n e e d »new sources o f
identity, new form s o f stable com m unities a n d new systems o f m o ral n o rm s,
w hich w ould provide th em with a sense o f life a n d m ean in g fu ln ess« (1997;
p. 132). M odernization is n o t to be e q u a te d with W esternization, a n d a t times
it may even op p o se it. T h e a d o p tio n by non-W estern societies o f »W estern
dem ocratic institutions rouses nativist a n d anti-W estern political m ovem ents«
(1997; p. 127).
It follows from Social Id e n tity T h e o ry th a t » p eo p le d e te r m in e th e ir
id en tity o n th e basis o f w ho they are n o t [...] o n th e basis o f w h a t m akes
them d ifferen t from others« (S. H untington, p. 85). In the usual circum stances
in this capacity they rely o n stereotypes, b o th those d e sc rib in g m em b ers o f
th eir own com m unity a n d those o f o th ers. »To achieve this positive identity,
groups will tend to com pare them selves positively with con trastin g outg ro u p s,
a n d they seek dim ensions o f co m p ariso n o n w hich they feel they fare well.
F or in stan ce, nations will p ro d u c e fla tte rin g stereotypes o f them selves, a n d
d e m e a n in g stereotypes o f those o th e r n a tio n s w ith w hich they c o m p a re
them selves. T h e dim ensions on w hich they p rid e th e ir own qualities will b e
acco rd ed im portance. T h e flattering stereotypes, h e ld by th e in g ro u p a b o u t
itself, a n d th e u n flatterin g ones a b o u t o u tg ro u p s, will m a in ta in th e positive
self-identity, which is necessary for th e g ro u p ’s c o n tin u in g existence« (M.
Billig, p. 66).
T h u s it is absolutely im possible to avoid n a tio n a l stere o ty p e s in th e

244
 Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity

d e te rm in a tio n , articu latio n a n d consolidation o f national identity. B ut if this

is tru e, th e n th e re is only o n e small step from the defense o f national identity
to n a tio n a lis tic x e n o p h o b ia . T h e ex isten c e o f n a tio n a l stereo ty p es is a
universal a n d inevitable p h en o m en o n . »O ne m ight conceivably argue,« notes
A m erican a n th ro p o lo g ist Allan D undes, »w hether o r n o t th ere is such a thing
as n a tio n a l c h a ra c te r [...] b u t th ere can be absolutely n o question th at there
is su ch a th in g as n a tio n a l stereotypes« (1983, p. 250). T h e sam e a u th o r, a
re n o w n e d e x p e rt o n folklore, writes further: »Folklore provides o n e o f the
p rin c ip a l so u rces fo r artic u la tio n a n d co m m u n icatio n o f stereotypes. An
in d iv id u al m ay g ain his first im pression o f a n atio n al o r e th n ic o r religious
o r racial g ro u p by h e a rin g trad itio n al jo k es o r expressions re ferrin g to the
alleg ed p erso n ality characteristics o f th a t group« (1983, pp. 250-51).
T o d ay fo lk lo re n o lo n g e r plays the im p o rtan t ro le it used to have in
th e past, b u t th e re exists a quasi-folklore in the form o f mass cu ltu re w hich
p o p u lariz es its ow n n atio n a l stereotypes (usually x en o p h o b ic) to an e x te n t
q u ite c o m p a ra b le w ith th a t o f traditional folklore. B ut w h at is even worse, it
is n o t only fo lk lo re a n d m ass cu ltu re b u t also official cu ltu re a n d au th en tic
h ig h a rt w hich c o n trib u te s to the consolidation o f n atio n al stereotypes. It is
b e y o n d th e s lig h te s t d o u b t th a t n a tio n a l lite ra tu re s have c o n sid erab ly
c o n trib u te d to th e sh a p in g o f n atio n al identities. T he classical exam ple in
P o la n d a re th e novels o f H e n ry k Sienkiewicz, particularly his Trilogy a n d
Teutonic Knights. A sim ilar ro le was played by W alter Scott, A lexander Dumas,
Lev Tolstoy, Alois Jira se k o r M or Jokai. T hey all glorified the m agnificent
p ast o f th e ir n atio n s, a n d d id n o t shun stereotypes in th e ir literary missions.
T h e first p a rt o f Sienkiew icz’s Trilogy is absolutely clu ttere d with positive an d
negative n atio n al stereotypes, a fact which the U krainians were quite justified
to criticize, p o in tin g o u t b o th the glorification o f P olish knights a n d the
sim plified, obviously negative im age o f the Cossacks. However, Sienkiewicz’s
Cossacks are alm o st angels co m p ared to the Polish gentry as re p re se n te d in
G o g o l’s Taras Bulba. W e m ay o f course say th a t Sienkiewicz is »a first-class
sec o n d -rate w riter«, b u t we w ould certainly n o t v en tu re a sim ilar re m a rk
a b o u t Tolstoy. A n d yet we will also find o u t th at in War and Peace negative
c h a ra c te rs are alm o st exclusively foreigners, while R ussians epitom ize all
v irtu es. T h e sam e m ig h t b e said a b o u t th e works o f M ikhail Bulgakov.
N egative ch aracters a re invariably foreigners (Poles,Jews, U krainians), while
R ussians are always p re s e n te d in a positive light.
I th in k th a t in o u r tim es, especially in C entral a n d E astern E uro p e, art
in a b ro a d sense (c o m p risin g b o th ‘h ig h ’ a n d ‘low’ art) can, a n d in d e e d
d o es play a very im p o rta n t ro le vis-à-vis reviving aggressive nationalism an d
a real n e e d to p reserve n a tio n al identities.

245
 Bohdan Dziemidok

T h e p ro b lem s o f reviving o r s tre n g th e n in g n atio n a l id en titie s a n d o f

th e p h e n o m e n o n o f reviving a u th e n tic a n d ra d ic a l n a tio n a lis m s th a t,
u n fo rtu n a te ly , o ften accom pany it, a re - as e v id e n c e d by th e n u m b e r o f
pu b lications on this subject - the o b ject o f m u c h c o n te m p o ra ry re searc h
c o n d u c te d by historians, ph ilo so p h ers, sociologists a n d po litical scientists.
T hese im p o rta n t c u rre n t problem s only to a slight e x te n t a ttra c t th e in te re st
o f aesth e tic ia n s a n d o th e r a r t stu d e n ts, th o u g h a r t h as b e e n a n d still is
efficiently u sed in these two re la ted b u t so d iffe re n t m atters.
T h e a rg u m e n t a b o u t th e fu tu re sh a p e o f E u ro p e c o n c e rn s , a m o n g
o th ers, th e issue w h e th e r this will b e a c o m m o n w e a lth o f citizen s, o r a
co m m o n w ealth o f n atio n -states, e a c h o f th e m p re s e rv in g its d istin c tiv e
au to n o m o u s culture. It is h a rd to tell w hat th e final results o f th e u n ifica tio n
process will be. At th e m o m en t, th o u g h , th e o p in io n th a t th e lesser stress
p u t on n atio n al identity, the m o re E u ro p e a n th e en tity b eco m es, d o es n o t
stan d th e c o n fro n ta tio n with reality.
T h e re is no d o u b t th a t in m any E u ro p e a n c o u n trie s o n e can p re sen tly
observe a visible revival o f n atio n alistic id eologies. T his revival m ay b e a
result, a m o n g o thers, o f th e dissolution o f th e Soviet U n io n a n d re g a in in g
o f in d e p e n d e n c e by such countries as E stonia, L ith u an ia, Latvia, A rm en ia,
G e o rg ia , B e lo ru ssia , M o ld av ia a n d U k ra in e ; th e d i s m e m b e r m e n t o f
Yugoslavia a n d C zechoslovakia a n d th e re g a in in g o f g re a te r a u to n o m y by
B ulgaria, H ungary, P oland a n d R om ania. In all th e c o u n trie s w hich have
recently g ain ed au to n om y the issue o f n atio n al id en tity b ec am e p a ra m o u n t.
In d iffe re n t c o u n trie s th e situ a tio n d o es n o t seem to b e th e sam e. It is
d iffe ren t in co u n tries with a strong n atio n a l id en tity a n d a lo n g history o f
in d e p e n d e n t statehood (e.g. P oland o r H u n g a ry ), a n d d iffe re n t in co untries
w hich h av e a h isto ry o f n a tio n a l s ta te h o o d b u t w h ic h w e re s u b je c t to
Russification over the last 50-70 years (e.g. A rm enia, L ithuania, a n d U k ra in e ).
Still d iffe re n t is th e situ a tio n in th e c o u n trie s la c k in g a h isto ry o f p a st
s ta te h o o d (e.g. B elo ru ssia, M oldavia a n d S lo v a k ia). In so m e o f th e s e
c o u n trie s th e n atio n al id en tity has to b e re b u ilt a n d s tre n g th e n e d (e.g.
U k ra in e), in o th ers it has to b e b u ilt fro m th e scratch (e.g. B elorussia o r
M o ldavia).
T aking this into account, artists, scholars, jo u rn alists a n d o th e r creators
o f cu ltu re m ay a n d sh o u ld play an im p o rta n t role. T h ey have to discover
how to c o n trib u te to the re b irth o f th e ir n a tio n a l cu ltu re a n d identity, a n d
how to s u p p o rt th e validation o f tru e n a tio n a l values w ith o u t falling, at the
sam e tim e, in to radical nationalism a n d isolationism .
If we ab a n d o n th e vague id ea o f Volkgeist w hich, a c c o rd in g to H e rd e r,
can be fo u n d in n atio n al cu ltu re a n d collective b eh av io r, th e n o n e m ay say

246
 Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity

th a t n a tio n a l id en tity is a specific form o f collective identity« a n d th a t the

facto r c o n stitu tin g this identity is, first o f all, the existence o f national culture
a n d c o lle c tiv e h is to ric a l m e m o ry . » N a tio n a l id e n tity - w rites L eszek
Kolakowski - re q u ires historical memory. [... ] T h e thing is th a t no n atio n can
ex ist w ith o u t b e in g co n scio u s o f th e fact th a t its p re s e n t existence is an
ex te n sio n o f th e ex isten ce in th e past, an d th at the fu rth e r back these real
o r im a g in e d m em o ries re ach , the b e tte r g ro u n d e d its n atio n al identity is.
A p a rt fro m h isto rical know ledge, the past is also sto red in various symbols,
m ean s o f self-expression, in old buildings, tem ples and graves« (1995, p. 49).
I t fo llo w s, t h e n , t h a t th e h is to ric a l m e m o ry is c o n s o lid a te d by
m o n u m e n ts o f th e n a tio n a l cu ltu re. »The n atio n al cu ltu re is a repository,
inter alia, o f classific ato ry system s. It allows ‘u s ’ to d e fin e ourselves in
o p p o s itio n to ‘th e m ’, u n d e rs to o d as those beyond th e b o u n d a rie s o f the
n atio n « (P. S ch lesin ger, 1991, p. 174).
T h e im p o rta n c e o f h istorical m em ory is also stressed by M ichael Billig.
A ccording to him , »national identity is n o t only som ething natural to possess,
b u t also so m e th in g n a tu ra l to rem e m b er. This rem e m b erin g , nevertheless,
involves a fo rg ettin g , o r ra th e r th e re is a com plex dialectic o f re m e m b erin g
a n d fo rg ettin g « (1997, p. 37). »Every n atio n m u st have its history, its own
c o lle c tiv e m e m o ry . T h is re m e m b e r in g is sim u lta n e o u s ly a c o llec tiv e
fo rg ettin g : th e n a tio n w hich celebrates its antiquity, forgets its historical
recency. M o reover, n a tio n s fo rg e t the violence which b ro u g h t th em into
ex istence« (p. 38).
T h e im p o rta n c e o f th e ro le o f n atio n al cu ltu re fo r preserving n atio n al
id en tity is co n se q u en tly stressed by A n to n in a Klosowska (see A. Klosowska,
1996).
T h e fo rm a tio n , re te n tio n a n d reconstruction of n atio n al identity is n o t
a s in g le act, b u t a c o n tin u o u s p rocess. In so m e h isto ric a l p e rio d s th e
fo rm a tio n o f n a tio n a l id e n tity was a p a r t o f th e n a tio n a listic p ro g ra m .
»H ow ever, o n c e th e p o litic a l b o u n d a rie s o f th e n atio n -state have b e e n
ach iev ed , a n a tio n a l identity, with all the accom panying m ythico-cultural
ap p a ratu s, m ay b e in place a n d is n o t necessarily identical with n ationalism
as such.« (P. S ch lesinger, 1991, p. 168)
O n e can easily n o tice th a t at the tu rn o f the 20th a n d the 21st century
also th e disciplines o f philosophy an d aesthetics face new im p o rtan t scholarly
ch a lle n g es. H o w ca n o n e fin d co m m o n d e n o m in a to rs a n d c o m b in e th e
universalizing ten d en c ies w ith th e w ealth o f regional a n d national cultures?
H ow can o n e p reserv e th e variety an d identity o f n atio n al cultures w ithout
giving u p in te g ra tio n a n d a search for a b e tte r m utual u n d e rsta n d in g a n d
clo ser ties b etw een nations?

247
 Bohdan Dziemidok

As is well know n, a rt broadly u n d e rs to o d is o ften tre a te d as a so u rc e o f

know ledge ab o u t cu ltures d iffe ren t fro m o u r own. In d e e d , a r t in g e n e ra l
(an d lite ra tu re a n d film in p artic u la r) can b e em p lo y ed as a very effective
(»objective« a n d suggestive) form o f p re se n ta tio n o f a n o th e r cu ltu re : o f a
d ifferen t system o f values, d ifferen t attitu d es a n d d iffe re n t m entality. In this
respect, a rt can b e a very useful a n d h elp fu l m eans o f m u tu a l u n d e rs ta n d in g
betw een p eo p le o f d iffe ren t cultures. O n th e o th e r h a n d , how ever, it can
also be u sed very effectively to achieve th e o p p o site objective: nam ely, th e
p re s e n ta tio n o f a o n e-sid e d , te n d e n tio u s - sh o rtly , false - p ic tu r e o f a
d iffe ren t cu ltu re a n d o f the representatives o f a d iffe re n t system o f values.
T h u s , in s te a d o f e n h a n c in g u n d e r s ta n d in g , it b e c o m e s a s o u r c e o f
m isu n d erstan d in g , cu ltural p rejudices a n d hostility.
I am in terested in th e q u estio n o f how a n d w h en su ch a d isto rtio n is
possible in th e case o f a novel o r a film w hich at th e sam e tim e is aesthetically
valuable. T his again raises the n e e d to answ er th e follow ing q u estio n : w h at
is the m utual relationship betw een the cognitive, th e aesthetic a n d th e artistic
values o f a work o f a rt a n d its ideological fu n ctio n ? Is th e re any d e p e n d e n c e
o r som e o th e r k in d o f re g u la r link b etw een th e cognitive, th e a e sth e tic a n d
th e a r tis tic v alu es o f a w o rk o f a r t a n d its id e o lo g ic a l a n d p o litic a l
effectiveness? Is it possible to m ake a w ork o f a rt w hich p re se n ts an alien
cu ltu re in a false, one-sided way, b u t a t th e sam e tim e does it so suggestively
th at to th e m ajority o f beholders the w ork in qu estio n m ay seem aesthetically
a n d cognitively valuable?
I have n o doubts th at in such artistic dom ains as, fo r exam ple, lite ra tu re
a n d th e cin em a, th e re exists a m u tu a l c o n n e c tio n b etw e en th e cognitive
aspects o f a w ork a n d its artistic value, i.e. possible co g n itiv e values o f a
literary o r cinem atic w ork e n h a n c e its artistic value. T h e re is also a re la tio n
b etw e en th e w o rk ’s a e sth e tic a ttra c tiv e n e ss a n d th e effec tiv en e ss o f its
ideological fu n ctio n , i.e. the h ig h e r th e aesth etic clarity a n d suggestiveness
o f a work, th e g re ater is its ideological im pact.
T h e relatio n sh ip betw een the tru th fu ln ess o f th e m essage c a rrie d by
th e w ork a n d its artistic status a n d ideological effectiveness is m u c h m o re
com plex. T his is so because the know ledge w hich we derive fro m th e arts is,
in co m p ariso n to scientific know ledge, less system atic, less p ro fo u n d a n d
specific, n o t always equally well fo u n d e d a n d as th o ro u g h ly v erifiable an d ,
as a ru le, m uch m o re am biguous. C o nsequently, it is m u c h m o re difficult
to sep arate th e tru th from the fa lseh o o d in a w ork o r art. H e n c e a rt m ay
very efficiently m isinform us an d very convincingly a n d suggestively p re s e n t
various false a n d g ro u ndless historical a n d political claim s, in te rp re ta tio n s
a n d evaluations. It seem s quite p ro b a b le th a t in m any n atio n a l c u ltu re s o n e

248
 Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity

co u ld id entify artw orks w hich have played a significant role in sh ap in g this

n a tio n ’s consciousness a n d identity, w hich are placed in the p a n th e o n o f
n atio n a l c u ltu re d esp ite th e fact th a t th e p ictu re o f history o r society they
co n tain is, acco rd in g to historians o r sociologists, very one-sided, tendentious
o r evidently false. H e n c e o n e co u ld risk th e claim th at even in those arts in
w hich th e cognitive values are very im p o rta n t - because they co n trib u te to
th e v alue o f th e w ork itse lf (like in, e.g., lite ra tu re o r th e cinem a) - th e
cognitive (e.g., h isto rical) falsity does n o t always disqualify the w ork o f a rt
qua w o rk o f a rt, p ro v id e d th a t th e w ork is d is tin g u is h e d by its fo rm a l
p erfectn ess a n d is n o t w ith o u t som e philosophical o r psychological cognitive
value.
In o u r discu ssio n I p ro p o se , how ever, to c o n c e n tra te o n still o th e r,
eq u ally fu n d a m e n ta l a n d d ifficu lt q uestions w hich will h ig h lig h t fu rth e r
aspects o f th e q u estio n s o f n atio n al identity, collective consciousness, etc.
T hese questions will deal with th e role o f art an d artistic expression in shaping
(stru c tu rin g , su stain ing, ch a n g in g , etc.) th e collective identity o f nationals.
H e re I will try to specify th e follow ing problem s:
1. W h a t is th e specificity, im p o rtan ce an d value o f national identity, n o t only
w ith re sp e c t to a n a tio n a n d a country b u t with resp ect to an individual,
too?
2. Is it po ssib le to co m b in e o n e ’s loyalty to n atio n al values w ith n a tio n al
o p e n n e ss a n d , ad d itionally, with axiological an d cu ltu ra l pluralism ?
3. Is it possible to have a d o u b le o r even triple cultural identity? C an o n e
sim ultaneously feel Bavarian, G erm an an d E uropean o r K ashubian, Polish
a n d E u ro p e an ?
4. C an o n e sp ea k o f re g io n a l (su b n a tio n a l) a n d s u p ra n a tio n a l c u ltu ra l
iden tities? Is th e re , fo r instance, on the o n e han d , a M oravian o r Silesian
cu ltu ra l id en tity an d , o n th e o th er, a C entral E u ro p ean , E u ro p ean , Latin-
A m erican , Slavonic o r Islam ic identity?
5. W h a t a re th e re la tio n s h ip s b etw e en o n e ’s n a tio n a l id e n tity a n d th e
sym bolic cu ltu re, a n d especially with its broadly u n d ersto o d artistic m eans
o f c o m m u n ic a tio n (p ro p e r n o t only to hig h a rt b u t also, to som e ex ten t,
to m ass m ed ia)? C an various form s o f artistic ex pression only express
(reveal a n d b rin g fo rth ) a n d preserve, o r also shape a n d even c o n stru c t
s o m e o n e ’s n a tio n a l identity?
6. W h a t is th e re la tio n sh ip betw een national values a n d artistic values? I ask
h e re n o t only w h e th e r a rt can stren g th en a n atio n al culture, p o p u larize
a set o f n a tio n a l values a n d s tre n g th e n o n e ’s n atio n al loyalty, b u t also
w h e th e r th e n a tio n a l values may en ric h art, and especially, w h e th e r in
th e situ atio n o f th e e m e rg e n c e o f a global culture a n d m ark et econom y

249
 Bohdan Dziemidok

(which has also left its im p rin t o n art) th e n a tio n a l c h a ra c te r c o n d e m n s

a rt to parochialism a n d provincialism . Is it tru e th at, in o rd e r to e n d o w a
piece o f a rt w ith universal values a n d e n su re fo r it an ex isten ce o n th e
in te rn a tio n a l a rt m arket, o n e has to necessarily m in era lize its n a tio n a l
p ro v en an ce, its e th n ic co lo rin g a n d dress it u p is a co sm o p o lita n way?
A nd, finally, is it tru e th a t in all arts a n d o n all th e ir levels th e situ a tio n is
exactly th e same?
I h o p e th at a th o rough discussion o f the above questions can throw m o re
lig h t o n th e role o f th e arts in sh ap in g th e n a tio n a l (collective) id en titie s o f
peoples.

Bibliography

A lter P e te r (1989), Nationalism, L o n d o n .

A n d erso n B en ed ict (1985), Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin
and Spread o f Nationalism, L o n d o n : V erso.
A rm stro n g J o h n (1982), Nations before Nationalism, N o rth C o ro lin a Press.
B erlin Isaiah (1982), Nationalism, Past, Neglected and Present Power, q u o tatio n s
from th e Polish ed itio n o f his essays Dwie koncepcje wolnosci, W arszawa,
R espublica 1991.
Billig M ichael (1995), Banal Nationalism, L o n d o n : Sage P ub licatio n s.
Bokoszynski Zbigniew (1997), Stereotypy a kultura (Stereotypes and Culture),
W roclaw: FNP.
D undes A lan, Defining Identity through the Folklore, in A n itajac o b so n -W id d in g
(ed.); Identity: Personal and Socio-Culturab, A Symposium; U p p sala 1983.
G elln er E rn est (1983), Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca: C o rn ell U niversity
Press.
G re en fe ld Liah (1992), Nationalism —Five Roads to Modernity, C a m b rid g e
Mass.: H arvard U niversity Press.
H obsbaw m Eric (1990), Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Programme, Myth,
Reality, C am bridge: C am bridge U niversity Press.
H u n tin g to n Sam uel (1996), The Clash o f Civilisations and the Rem aking o f the
World Order, q u o tatio n s from th e P olish e d itio n Zderzenia cywilizacji,
Warszawa: M uza S.A. 1997.
I g n a tie f f M ic h a e l (1 9 9 3 ), Blood a n d B elonging: Journeys in to the New
Nationalism, F arrer: Strauss a n d G iroux.
Jacobson-W idding Anita, »Introduction « to Identity: Personal and Socio-Cultural;
A Symposium, U ppsala 1983.

250
 Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity

Jn o w itz M orris (1983), The Reconstruction of Patriotism, C hicago: University

o f C h icag o Press.
Jed lick iJerzy (1997), Nacjonalizm, patriotyzm i inicjacja kulturowa (Nationalism,
Patriotism and Cultural Initiation), Znak r. XLIX, no. 502, pp. 51 - 61.
Kloskowska A n to n in a (1996), Kultury narodowe u korzeni (National Cultures
at the Grass Roots Level), W arszawa PWN.
Kolakowski Leszek (1995), O tožsamošcizbiorowej (O n Collective Identity); in
K rzysztof M ichalski (e d .), Tožsamošć w czasach zmiany (Identity in Time
o f Change) ; Krakow: Znak.
Kym licka (1996 a), M ulticultural Citizenship-, O xford: C laren d o n Press.
K ym licka Will (1995 b ), »M isunderstanding N ationalism «, Dissent (W inter
1995).
N ie ls e n Kai (1 9 9 6 ), C ultural N ationalism , Neither E th n ic nor Civic, The
Philosophical Forum, vol. XXVIII, no. 1 - 2 (Fall—W in ter 1996-97) pp.
4 5 -5 2 .
Periw al S u k u m e r (ed. 1995), Notions of Nationalism, B udapest: CEU.
S c h le s in g e r P h ilip (1 9 9 1 ), Media, State and Nations: Political Violence and
Collective Identity, L o n d o n .
Szacki Jerzy (1997), O narodzie i nacjoanalizmie (O f Nations and Nationalism),
Znak r. XLIX, n o . 502, pp. 4 - 31.
T am ir Yael (1993), Liberal Nationalism, P rinceton: P rinceton University Press.
T aylor C harles (1997), »The N ationalism an d M odernity«, in R obert McKim
a n d J e ff M cM aham (ed s.), The Morality o f Nationalism, New York: New
York U niversity Press, pp. 31 - 51.
T a z b irja n u s z (1998), W pogoni za Europq(ChasingEurope), Warszawa: Sic!.
W a lic k i A n d rz e j, Czy m ozliwy je st nacjoanalizm liberalny? (Is L ib e ra l
N atio n alism Possible?), Znak, r. XLIX, no. 502.
W a ld e n b e rg M arek (1992), Kwestia narodowa w Europie Srodkowo-Wschodniej
(N ational Issues in Central Eastern Europe), Warszawa: PWN.
W ald ro n J e rre m y (1992), »M inority C ultures an d the C osm opolitan A lter­
native«, The University o f Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 25, pp. 751-
793.

This p ap e r has b een p rep ared as part o f the research project »We - The
G ood People« and the »Dreadful They« funded by the Research Support Scheme
o f the O p en Society Institute (RSS No 23/1996).

251