2-3 (26-3) 2018 Semi-Annual Journal of Institute of Applied Social Sciences University of Warsaw 1 0.p65 1 20-02-06, 10:51 SOCIETAS/COMMUNITAS Published semi-annually by Institute of Applied Social Sciences University of Warsaw Address: ul. Nowy wiat 69 00-046 Warszawa tel./fax +48 22 55 20 134 e-mail: [email protected] http://societas-communitas.isns.uw.edu.pl Program Council: Teresa Bogucka, prof. dr hab. Zbigniew Bokszañski, prof. dr hab. Irena Borowik, prof. dr hab. Micha³ Buchowski, Sofia Dyjak, prof. dr hab. Janusz Grzelak, dr Jurate Imbrasaite, prof. dr hab. Krzysztof Kiciñski (President), prof. Martin Krygier, prof. Jan Kubik, prof. dr hab. Janusz Mucha, prof. dr hab. Krzysztof Pi¹tek, prof. Joanna Regulska, dr hab. Magdalena roda, prof. dr hab. Wielis³awa Warzywoda-Kruszyñ- ska, prof. Janine Wedel, prof. Jan Zielonka, prof. dr hab. Marek Zió³kowski Editors: Jacek Kurczewski Editor-in-Chief Barbara Fatyga, Ma³gorzata Fuszara, Iwona Jakubowska-Branicka, Anna Kwak, Barbara Lewenstein, Marek Rymsza, Gra¿yna Woroniecka (Deputy Editor), El¿bieta Zakrzewska-Manterys Secretary: Ma³gorzata Mieszkowska Guest Editors: Marek Czy¿ewski, Gra¿yna Woroniecka Translation and proofreading: Jonathan Weber Cover and Graphic Design: Wojciech Markiewicz © Copyright by ISNS UW, Warsaw 2018 Reprint of all or part of material by permission only Typeset and printed by SUMUS SOWA Sp. z o.o. ul. Gajowa 21 ul. Hrubieszowska 6a 05-825 Opypy 01-209 Warszawa Printed in 100 copies ISSN 1895-6890 2 0.p65 2 20-02-06, 10:51 Paradoxes and Traps in the Democratisation of Culture Edited by Marek Czy¿ewski and Gra¿yna Woroniecka 3 0.p65 3 20-02-06, 10:51 4 0.p65 4 20-02-06, 10:51 Contents Contents ................................................................................ 5 From the Editors Gra¿yna Woroniecka Paradoxes and Traps in the Democratisation of Culture. An Introduction. ................................. 7 Editorial Debate Paradoxes and Traps in the Democratisation of Culture Compiled by: Marek Czy¿ewski and Gra¿yna Woroniecka. Discussants: Barbara Fatyga, £ukasz Iwasiñski, Marek Krajewski, Krzysztof Moraczewski ......... 17 Articles Marek Czy¿ewski and Studies A Brief Outline of Issues Related to the Democratisation of Culture: A Contemporary Perspective .............................. 43 Karol Franczak The Democratisation of Creativity in the Age of the Knowledge Economy ............... 63 Jerzy Stachowiak Democratisation in the Culture of Capitalism and Two Principles of Managerial Discourse ...... 89 Magdalena Nowicka-Franczak The Democratisation of Public Debate in Poland: A Crisis of Intellectuals? .................... 119 Izabela Franckiewicz-Olczak The Democratisation of Contemporary Art. Pitfalls and Paradoxes in the Reception of New-Media Interactive Art ............................ 145 Bart³omiej B³esznowski The Social as a Tool of Governmentality. A Post-Foucauldian Critique of Liberal Political Ontology .............................................. 167 News and Marta Olasik Conference Reports Conference Report Women Against Domination and Oppression. A Feminist Perspective .......... 187 5 0B.p65 5 20-02-06, 10:53 About the Authors ............................................................................. 201 6 0B.p65 6 20-02-06, 10:53 From the Editors From the Editors GRA¯YNA WORONIECKA Paradoxes and Traps in the Democratisation of Culture. An Introduction New divisions into winners and losers are an unavoidable cost of any change. It is the voice of the latter that resounds long after the former have set about consuming their gains, it is they who nostalgically invoke those lost values and portend an age of new barbarism. The critique of the state of modern culture that intellectuals have been engaged in since the first de- cades of the 20th century is not only not abating, but is even imposing itself with growing intensity in the 21st century. This indicates that the modernisa- tion processes reflected in culture feature a very serious ambivalence, which with the passage of time is not only not disappearing, but is actually growing in strength. Max Schelers philosophical-historical diagnosis (Scheler 1929/1958) presented the process of equalization of dichotomous divisions (knowledge, laws, work, human races) as inevitable. As a consequence, the hitherto priv- ileges and oppressions were supposed to undergo reformulation until the emergence of groups of entrepreneurs and labourers of an international di- mension, coexisting in peace thanks to the dissemination of the ideas of tol- erance symptomatic of this phase of history. It is not long after this that Karl Mannheim also diagnoses a process that he portrays as the erasing of hori- zontal distances (Mannheim 1936/1952), resulting in the materialising of groups of people previously mutually separated. He analyses the multidi- mensional phenomenon of democratisation, also investigating processes of the erosion of vertical distances and their consequences for culture (Man- nheim 1933/1956). In general he elaborates their earlier perception in cate- gories of significant reevaluation, of axionormative disintegration, which he ties to dissemination of the ideas of private ownership and technocratic dis- courses (Mannheim 1943). These processes run impulsively, due to which their consequences for culture are destructive in nature. In his opinion, in- telligence is the sole category which, due to it being positioned outside of the class order, is predestined for steering them, so as to limit the undesir- able effects and lend constructive form to what is inevitable: the vanishing SOCIETAS/COMMUNITAS 2-3(26-3) 2018 7 1.p65 7 20-02-06, 10:57 From the Editors of vertical distances, equalization of status, and erasing of differences be- tween that which is elite and that which is of the masses. Mannheim perceives the disassembly of vertical divisions between peo- ple in the concepts of the threat of massification and flattening of culture to the most barbaric of forms, which can only be counteracted by a subject uprooted from their class anchor, and thereby capable of achieving cogni- tive distance overstepping particular perspectives. Opposition to the impul- sive nature of the disassembly of the hierarchy of products of culture is cou- pled with the idea of subjecting them to control via forms of socially situated knowledge. Intelligence is the contradiction of mass, but is also contradic- tion of the relations with capitalistic purposeful rationality inherent to the structure of society taking shape. Intellect and money: these are opposing forces, the former of which may be used to put the brakes on excessive ex- pansion of the latter. Such thinking is very characteristic of rationalistic utopianism. The so- ciological dimension of Mannheims analyses does not alter their romantic significance. He provides an attractive starting point for nostalgic lamenta- tions over the tough lot of intellectuals, attacked by the barbarity of contem- porary civilisation. Such a vision is presented by Ortega y Gasset, who in The Revolt of the Masses (Ortega y Gasset 1930/1994) likens the inhabitants of the modern world to a spoilt child incapable of curtailing their own demands, disinclined to honour commitments, delighted with their own narrow-mindedness and effectively imposing their own infantile standards as culturally binding. Delighted with himself and rejecting any intellectual exertion, mass man emerged according to Ortega y Gasseta as a result of three processes overlapping: liberal democracy, scientific research, and in- dustrialisation. Democracy removed the differences of political rights, bol- stering the value of everybody no matter who they might be as a citizen; scientific research enabled technological progress leading to a rise in the stan- dard of living at a scale unprecedented in history; and industrialism enabled mass-scale production exerting pressure for expansion of the consumer market, and through this to the broadest possible distribution. New con- sumption needs were stimulated to the same degree as conviction of the right to express ones own opinion on any matter; all intermediate instances, such as good manners, courtesy, justice, reason or literature had become superfluous, rejected by the system. The rebellious masses insists Ortega y Gasset owe what they value the most, namely prosperity and the pleasure of occupying a comfortable place, to the abolition of cultural hierarchies (those unwanted intermediate instances), and to science, the effects of which they are dependent on. What he has in mind here, of course, is the natural 8 1.p65 8 20-02-06, 10:57 From the Editors sciences with their practical applications, since any kind of Geisteswissen- shaft loses its raison dêtre as a result of the vanishing of the spirit. Ortega y Gassets highly psychologising vision carries a pessimistic mes- sage. European civilisation, based on the negation of its own culture, has created a being whose psychic structure allows only for a parasitizing of former generations achievements. Democratic equality combined with in- dustrial rationality has destroyed culture, intellect, and civilised man. A synthetic juxtaposition of the ideas of the authors cited above demon- strates that concern with the modernising changes leads to them building a certain structure of the problem. The processes of destructing the spirit and elite culture are based analytically on two pillars: on political transforma- tions (democratisation, equality of political rights) and on the thesis