Cracovia - Krakow, 8: 2003, 13-21
Wojeiech S L O M S K I
T H E PHILOSOPHY OF C U L T U R E
AND E U R O P E A N IDENTITY
T h e problem of i d e n t i t y at least these days, is not a directly philosophical problem, but r a t h e r the subject of disputes i n the w e l l -k n o w n newspapers. Identity is r a r e l y the subject of modern famous t h i n k e r s ' speeches. T h i s is because i n the present process of u n i t i n g E u r o p e , the m a i n debate centres around the economic a n d political aspects of the process, w h i l s t the c u l t u r a l aspects are put to one side. It is w o r t h m e n t i o n i n g here C . Adenauer's assertion: „ T h e ground of E u r o p e a n u n i t y is a n idea of C h r i s t i a n community, culture a n d E u r o p e a n c i v i l i z a t i o n . " I n this context we can also m e n t i o n the previous c h a i r m a n of the E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n , J . Dolors, who states: „If E u r o p e does not have its o w n soul, i t w i l l not define itself as c u l t u r a l , i t w i l l not be E u r o p e . B u t i f i t is only a political or economical c o m m u n i t y , i t w i l l not absolutely f u l f i l its task." It is not d i f f i c u l t to notice the difference between these two statements; the first h i g h l i g h t s the problem of c u l t u r a l u n i t y , f o r m u l a t e d as a postulate, a k i n d of program w h i c h m u s t be c a r r i e d out i n the f u t u r e . W e can interpret Dolors' thought as a k i n d of w a r n i n g against neglecting the problem of c u l t u r a l identity.
M o d e r n societies a n d states face tasks w h i c h are no easier t h a n those faced by E u r o p e a n s at the beginning of integration: E u r o p e m u s t m a k e a s t a n d against the process of economic a n d c u l t u r a l globalisation, g r o w i n g n a t i o n a l i s t i c tendencies, a n d commercialisation, a n d at the same t i m e E u r o p e m u s t keep its own identity. Therefore, the philosophy of culture seems to be i n a peculiar situation; creating a theoretical basis for the process of strengthening the feehng of belonging to a common c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n depends on this discipline. To m a k e the s i t u a t i o n of the philosophy of culture clear, i t is necessary to examine some basic terms a n d to l a y down methodological opinions. I n this piece
of w o r k I w i l l t r y to d r a w y o u r attention to the problems connected w i t h the i d e a of „ c u l t u r e " a n d of the „ p h i l o s o p h y of culture." I t h i n k t h a t the concept of c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y establishes one of the basic, i f not the most basic, idea, w i t h o u t w h i c h i t is impossible to u n d e r s t a n d the recent processes i n the range of E u r o p e a n culture.
T h e p r o b l e m w i t h d e f i n i n g „ c u l t u r e " precisely is rooted i n the fact t h a t t h i s i d e a has recently become popular, is now used w i t h v a r i o u s meanings, a n d also includes culture as a theoretical collection of h u m a n products i n its d e f i n i t i o n , a n d is thereby opposed to the „ n a t u r e " idea, as w e l l as c o n t a i n i n g p a r t i c u l a r cultures. I n this second group one s h o u l d remember t h a t w h e n we t a l k about E u r o p e a n culture, we assume the existence of m a n y cultures, f r o m w h i c h E u r o p e a n c u l t u r e differs i n c e r t a i n ways w h i c h are t y p i c a l of i t . H o w e v e r i f we speak of E u r o p e a n cultures as nations or as characteristic of a p a r t i c u l a r h i s t o r i c a l epoch, we presume the existence of p a r t i c u l a r features, d i f f e r i n g one f r o m the other, a n d also the existence of common features, a n d we can therefore use the „ E u r o p e a n cultures" definition.^ H e r e , the „ c u l t u r e " i d e a w i l l only be used w i t h the second m e a n i n g ; i t means concrete culture, e x i s t i n g now, d i f f e r i n g f r o m other cultures, definable t h r o u g h h i g h l i g h t i n g its differences a n d s i m i l a r i t i e s to other cultures, not t h r o u g h its opposite.
T h e i d e a of the philosophy of culture also has m a n y meanings. T h e i d e a of culture didn't belong to basic philosophical thought u n t i l the end of the 19^^ C e n t u r y , a n d the p o p u l a r i t y i t gained i n the e a r l y 20*^ century along w i t h the contemporary renaissance of its p o p u l a r i t y now, does not prove t h a t the philosophy of culture is not only a n i n t e l l e c t u a l f a s h i o n , a n d there are c e r t a i n d i f f i c u l t i e s i n separating i t f r o m the other culture sciences. T h e m a i n problem is connected w i t h the fact t h a t no culture reflection can stop at theoretical consideration - i t m u s t t h e n refer to experience. So one of the most i m p o r t a n t tasks of culture, i f i t w a n t s to be a p h i l o s o p h i c a l d i s c i p l i n e , is to define its own character, to m a r k out its o w n place i n the range of c u l t u r a l sciences. P r i m a r i l y , i t m u s t l a y down the tasks r e l a t i n g to culture. T h e statement t h a t the philosophy of culture has its own tasks to f u l f i l , a n d is therefore a sphere w h i c h constantly revolves a r o u n d its own object, d o w n not appear clear at first sight. H ow ever , i t comes f r o m the fact t h a t the philosophy of culture is a k i n d of c r i t i c i s m , a n d c r i t i c i s m , by its v e r y d e f i n i t i o n , aspires to define something of w o r t h , a n d t h a t a c t i v i t y n a t u r a l l y influences various c u l t u r a l forms.
^ See H. Schnädelbach, Kultura [Culture], in: Filozofia. Podstawowe pytania, Ed. by E. Martens, H. Schnädelbach, Warszawa 1995, p. 546 and following.
One of the m a i n problems w i t h the philosophy of culture is a que-stion: can i t define something of w o r t h i n the case of a c u l t u r a l f o r m of life?^ T h i s question is itself connected to another: is a general culture idea necessary, t h a t is, is the essence of culture a concrete r e a l i s a t i o n of a c e r t a i n k i n d of h u m a n e x i s t i n g i n a m a t e r i a l a n d s p i r i t u a l w o r l d , or do we stop at the assertion that a v a r i e t y of cultures exist? T h i s is not a n abstract i d e a of culture, t h r o u g h w h i c h you can research and describe different cultures, w i t h o u t being restricted to the culture w h i c h you came f r o m . I n other words, the m a i n culture idea can serve to describe, can be a n i n s t r u m e n t able to u n d e r s t a n d various cultures (which could l e a d to a deeper comprehension t h a n s i m p l y „b ei n g i n " a culture), a n d can also f u n c t i o n as a n i d e a l culture model.^
The connection between the philosophy of culture (understood as a test for f i n d i n g a n answer to the above-mentioned questions) a n d the creation a n d e v a l u a t i o n of the f e e l i n g of belonging to a common E u r o p e a n t r a d i t i o n , seems to be obvious. T h i s is because the idea of E u r o p e or the i d e a of E u r o p e a n i d e n t i t y is a k i n d of idea or program of an „ o v e r - s t a t e " , a n „ o v e r - n a t i o n a l " a n d „ o v e r - c o n f e s s i o n a l " community, so i t is also a k i n d of culture form.'^ E u r o p e as an idea becomes a n object of philosophical dispute l i k e any other culture f o r m . O f course you can doubt the p o s s i b i l i t y of r e f e r r i n g to E u r o p e as a peculiar culture totality^, but y o u cannot deny that i t is a fact that E u r o p e exists as a n idea.
F . Znaniecki's thoughts concerning perception are essential to culture perception. I n Z n a n k i e c k i ' s opinion every subject of perception, f r o m n a t u r e to symbols, is always a n a c t i v i t y creation; i t is always
some-body's subject.^ T h i s means that i t is impossible to u n d e r s t a n d w h a t is
outside the range of definite c u l t u r a l background: a l l thought research is dependent on the group of symbols understood by a definite group of people, s h a r i n g common values a n d ideas. Recognising a n d t r a n s f o r m i n g
^ Although this question is one of fundamental problems with the philosophy of culture, the fact, that it is an object of dispute, proves that the philosophy of culture needs to define value in a natural way and to stoop approaching „freedom" form the perspective of „value" or „worth". It requires many premises which would oppose the traditional values of European culture. However, it seems that it has not yet been possible to uphold such premises and take their consequences into consideration.
^ See: Filozofia... [Philosophy...], p. 553.
^ See: K. Pomian, Europa ijej narody [Europe and Its Nations], Warszawa 1992. ^ See: B. Skarga, Kultura europejska i jej imperatywy [European Culture and Its Imperatives], in: B. Skarga, O filozofia bac si^ nie musimy [We Do Not Have To Be Anxious for Philosophy], Warszawa 1999, p. 101.
^ See: F. Znaniecki, Wst^p do socjologii [An Introduction to Sociology], Poznan 1922, p. 32.
the subjects w h i c h m a k e u p culture, we assume that they have t h e i r o w n ontological status, coming f r o m t h e i r symbolic a n d „ t h i n k i n g " nature. T h e acknowledgement of the theory t h a t culture or cultures could be f o r m u l a t e d as a f a c t u a l r e a l i t y w o u l d be a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g . Y o u can t h i n k of culture as something w h i c h exists objectively, independent of a subject a s p i r i n g to u n d e r s t a n d i t , however every description is a f o r m u l a t i o n of a subject i n its symbolic character.^
T h e philosophy of culture does not, therefore, d i f f e r i n a n y w a y f r o m other areas of perception, i n c l u d i n g science. T h e philosophy of c u l t u r e does not oppose other p h i l o s o p h i c a l disciplines or the n a t u r a l sciences, w h e r e i n a subject can also be f o r m u l a t e d as perceptional, a c t i n g as a symbol of objective r e a l i t y . P h i l o s o p h y a n d science do not oppose one another, r a t h e r , along w i t h m a n y other elements, they f o r m a n entirety d e f i n e d as a culture.^ P h i l o s o p h i c a l culture c r i t i c i s m is also a p a r t of t h i s c u l t u r e a n d independent of the consequences of c u l t u r a l E u r o p e a n u n i t y , i t is not something t h a t y o u can consider separately f o r m the other processes occurring i n culture.^
T h e r e is another connection between philosophy a n d E u r o p e a n culture, w h i c h E . H u s s e r l commented on. I n Hesserl's o p i n i o n E u r o p e was b o r n of philosophy, a n d s t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g f r o m the ancient G r e e k p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n . T h e m a i n difference between E u r o p e a n c i v i l i s a t i o n a n d others w h i c h are older (for example C h i n e s e or H i n d u ) , consists of the d i s p a r i t y i n t h e i r m a n n e r of a s k i n g questions. W h i l e C h i n a a n d I n d i a were focused on the question „how?", t h a t i s , how to achieve a n a i m , i n Greece people were a s k i n g not only „how?" b u t also „why?". T h e question „ w h y ? " contains a query as to the essence of matters. So E u r o p e a n philosophy asks w h a t a phenomenon i s , w h a t is m a n , w h a t is a n a t i o n or a society, but i t also asks w h y t h i s phenom-enon, n a t i o n or society exists. A c c o r d i n g to H u s s e r l , t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sort of question-asking, distances E u r o p e f r o m other parts of the w o r l d a n d explains the c o n t i n u i t y of h e r i d e n t i t y i n spite of h i s t o r i c a l a n d geographical changeability.^^
^ See: P. Kawiecki, Filozofia kultury a wartosci awangardowe i estetyczne [Philosophy of Culture and Vanguard and Aesthetical Values], „Edukacja Filozoficzna", vol. 10, 1990, p. 61.
^ See: P. Kawiecki, Sztuka i nauka [Arts and Science], „Studia Filozoficzne", 1988, No. 8.
^ See: S. Sarnowski, Przyczynek do dyskusji o jednosci Europy [A Contribution to the Dispute about European Unity], „Edukacja Filozoficzna", vol. 16, 1994, p. 87.
See: B. Pogonowska, Podstawy tozsamosci kultury europejskiej w uj^ciu Ajdukiewicza i Husserla [Basis of European Culture Identity in Ajdukiewicz and Husserl Expression], „Edukacja Filozoficzna", vol. 20, 1995, p. 177.
D u e to theoretical t h i n k i n g on the highest level of generality, the w a y of h u m a n l i v i n g has changed, so i t seems that H u s s e r l ' s opinions concerning the f u n c t i o n of philosophy i n the f o r m a t i o n of E u r o p e a n i d e n t i t y c a n also be referred to the f u n c t i o n w h i c h philosophy should p e r f o r m i n a conscious w a y as a philosophy of culture. H u s s e r l ' s opinions concerning culture are constitutive f r o m the point of v i e w of f o r m i n g modern E u r o p e a n identity. H u s s e r l , l i k e Heidegger, was a f r a i d of the n a t u r a l i z a t i o n of E u r o p e a n culture a n d w a r n e d others of i t . P r a g m a t i s m , (which only values t h a t w h i c h is directly useful) is spreading throughout E u r o p e , a n d i t is r e a l l y alien, contradictory a n d even dangerous f o r E u r o p e a n culture i t s e l f precisely because E u r o p e a n culture is a n i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d philosophical culture.
C u l t u r e ought to face the conditions a n d challenges of present-day E u r o p e , a n d f r o m this point of view, Husserl's opinions ought to be seen as only p a r t l y reasonable, given t h a t E u r o p e d i d not f a l l v i c t i m to p r a g m a t i s m a n d n a t u r a l i s m to the degree expected b y H u s s e r l . It is w o r t h n o t i n g here t h a t no science, neither the „ p r a c t i c a l " sciences (those concerned w i t h the technical possibilities of a c t i v i t y i n the world), n o r the „ t h e o r e t i c a l " sciences, are quite innocent. Science enables us to r e i g n over the w o r l d , b u t E u r o p e a n culture is i n its nature, expensive culture; i t aims not only at a n explanation of r e a l i t y t h r o u g h ideas, b u t also at prevalence over such a reality. T h i s concerns not only p h y s i c a l r e a l i t y but social a n d c u l t u r a l r e a l i t y as w e l l : E u r o p e has spent centuries destroying every difference w i t h i n i t s e l f a n d w i t h i n other cultures. „ K e e p i n g E u r o p e i n the centre" writes B . S k a r g a „is s t i l l our s i n , we d i d not get r i d of the conviction t h a t we have a monopoly on the f u l l e s t t r u t h , o u r d o m i n a t i o n over the w o r l d is r e a l l y j u s t i f i e d . . . B e c o m i n g prevalent over the whole political a n d social life means not only becoming prevalent over i n s t i t u t i o n a l organization, i n t e r n a l a n d external policy a n d so on, i t also means becoming prevalent over ways of t h i n k i n g , over citizens' opinions, c u l t u r a l pieces of w o r k , over the totality of life; i t is i n t e l l e c t u a l a n d m o r a l slavery."^^
L . Kolakowski^^ m a i n t a i n s t h a t „ t e n d e n c i e s to monopolization are i n E u r o p e a n culture", as t h a t culture is able to s u b m i t to continuous c r i t i c a l reflection, so one of the basic functions of the philosophy of culture is a n d s h o u l d be to discover forms a n d tendencies to monopolize, as w e l l as e x a m i n i n g i t s e l f a n d i t s c u l t u r a l surroundings. K m i t a represents a s i m i l a r w a y of t h i n k i n g , d e f i n i n g this p r a c t i c a l f u n c t i o n
-See: B. Skarga, Kultura europejska... [European Culture...], p. 107.
L. Kolakowski, Cywilizacja na tawie oskarzonych... [Civilisation between The Accused...], p. 78.
not only the philosophy of culture but a l l the h u m a n i s t i c sciences as w e l l - as social r e g u l a t i o n . I n K m i t a ' s opinion, the philosophy of c u l t u r e s h o u l d serve to recognise „ e v e r y type of condition i n concrete social activity", because only i n t h i s w a y w i l l i t be able to r e v e a l values a n d l a y d o w n rules f o r its achievement.^^
W e s h o u l d remember t h a t the philosophical c r i t i c i s m of c u l t u r e is not the only f o r m of c u l t u r e defence t h a t has tendencies t h a t are both dangerous a n d complex. T h e philosophy of culture does not only pose the question of w h a t is a potential danger for E u r o p e a n c u l t u r e , but i t also h i g h l i g h t s the p r o b l e m of this c u l t u r e defined as a c e r t a i n , g e n e r a l u n i t y . T h i s c r i t i c i s m also concerns E u r o p e a n i d e n t i t y a n d is so i m p o r t a n t , f r o m the perspective of i d e n t i t y , t h a t i t i m m e d i a t e l y meets w i t h facts w h i c h oppose its existence. F i r s t of a l l this c r i t i c i s m shows t h a t l o o k i n g for i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i t y is d i f f i c u l t enough. I n comparison w i t h the d i f f i c u l t i e s connected to the self-defining of a n i n d i v i d u a l m a n , f i n d i n g a common denominator for n a t i o n a l , ethnic, l i n g u i s t i c , p o l i t i c a l a n d religious d i v e r s i t y , appears unfeasible. Sometimes i t is s a i d t h a t up to now the i d e a of i d e n t i t y has brought more disadvantages t h a n advantages - i t has been the source of w a r s , ethnic c l e a n s i n g a n d colonial conquests. T h e i d e a of c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y is becoming more d o u b t f u l i n the face of i n c r e a s i n g acquaintance w i t h other cultures a n d science concerning past E u r o p e a n culture.
T h e consciousness of the philosophy a n d c i v i l i s a t i o n crisis, w h i c h has accompanied philosophical reflection f o r three ages, seems to be stronger now t h a n ever before, maybe because the question of i d e n t i t y (on a c u l t u r a l level as w e l l as on a n i n d i v i d u a l level), has become more d i f f i c u l t t h a n ever. N o t only the crisis but also its consciousness has a huge i n f l u e n c e on the course of social a n d p o l i t i c a l processes, therefore p h i l o s o p h i c a l reflection on culture s h o u l d lead to the f o r m a t i o n of the consciousness of i d e n t i t y on the two above-mentioned levels, so that, as J . D e r r i d a said, the end of culture, h u m a n i s m a n d even h u m a n i t y i n its c u l t u r a l a n d E u r o p e a n surroundings w o u l d not appear as prophecy.
O n the other h a n d , one s h o u l d reflect on the consequences connected to the possible r e s i g n a t i o n of the i d e a of c u l t u r a l identity. It seems t h a t t h r o w i n g a w a y this i d e a w o u l d not only be a danger for economic a n d p o l i t i c a l E u r o p e a n i n t e g r a t i o n , but w o u l d p r i m a r i l y be a negation of
See: Rozmowa z J. Kmitq o filozofii i kulturze [A Conversation with J. Kmita about Philosophy and Culture], in: Filozofie, Poznan 1991, p. 79-95.
See: E. Levinas, Filozoficzne okreslenie idei kultury [Philosophical definition of Culture Idea], „Studia Filozoficzne" 1984, No. 9, p. 28.
See: J. Derrida, Kres cztowieka [The End of IVEan], in: Pismo filozofii, Krakow 1992, p. 136.
h u m a n subjectivity: c u l t u r a l i d e n t i t y is u l t i m a t e l y a k i n d of sense proper f o r the i n d i v i d u a l , i t is also a common conviction about member-ship, not only i n a p a r t i c u l a r „ o v e r - n a t i o n a l " community, b u t i t also involves the acceptance of „ o v e r - n a t i o n a l " a n d „ o v e r - r e l i g i o u s " values. Moreover, because every culture c r i t i c i s m belongs to a culture itself, m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t y o u can differentiate between w h a t is profitable for culture a n d w h a t is a potential danger for culture (and t r a c k i n g dangers i n criticisms seems problematic i n culture) - is also t u r n i n g against the culture i t s e l f A c c o r d i n g to these conclusions, the theory t h a t E u r o -pean i d e n t i t y c r i t i c i s m is also a n indispensable element of the f o r m i n g process of t h a t i d e n t i t y , w o u l d appear to be j u s t i f i e d .
W e ought to also m e n t i o n the various k i n d s of culture „ p r o j e c t s " recently e m b a r k e d upon by the philosophy of P o s t m o d e r n i s m . A s B . T r u c h l i n s k a observes: „ 'Project' is a favourite w o r d of the postmoder-nist t h i n k e r s a n d t h e i r followers, a n d is surely the opposite of the once fashionable 'model' word."^^ I n spite of the apparent attractiveness of postmodernist „ p r o j e c t s " e x p a n d i n g f r o m the weakness of t h e i r ideas, i t seems t h a t a l l „ p r o j e c t s " declared by philosophy or culture „models", are Utopian programs, independent of whether they resign f r o m the i d e n t i t y idea or t r y to f i n d a f i r m basis. I n spite of that, the i d e n t i t y idea seems to be as f u n d a m e n t a l for the philosophy of culture as r a t i o n a l i t y is for the theory of perception, although a l l y o u can do i n the face of con-sciousness of the i d e n t i t y crisis is to stop at the c r i t i c a l analysis of the i d e n t i t y idea. T h e existence of certain k i n d s of m u t u a l influence between t h i n k e r s ' opinions of culture a n d i n d i v i d u a l consciousness seems to be a completely incontestable problem, however i t does not m e a n t h a t philosophy is able to a r b i t r a r i l y model the w a y of i d e n t i f y i n g i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h c u l t u r a l t r a d i t i o n . I f i t tries to do thet, t h e n i t stops being philosophy a n d becomes a p a r t of some political doctrine.
Consequently, one should recognise (and this task should be f u l f i l l e d only by philosophers) the d i f f e r i n g m e a n i n g of the i d e n t i t y i d e a as a basis for d e f i n i n g projects, (it does not m a t t e r i f these projects w i l l be realised i n politics, philosophy, art or any science) f r o m the m e a n i n g of t h a t i d e a as a theoretical idea, s e r v i n g to define objective, social a n d c u l t u r a l r e a l i t y . I n this case, the philosophy of culture cannot be separated f r o m r e a l i t y , the philosophy of culture cannot deny that i t enters into v a r i o u s b i l a t e r a l relationships w i t h reality, because i n doing so i t w o u l d become a sort of utopia. However, the philosophy of culture
See: H. Schnädelbach, Kultura... [Culture...], p. 555.
See: B. Truchlinska, Postmodernistyczny „projekt" kultury [The Postmodernist „Project" of the Culture], „Edukacja Filozoficzna", vol. 20, 1995, p. 119.
cannot treat the idea of i d e n t i t y as a n absolute value, r e a l i s e d w i t h no r e g a r d f o r circumstances. I f i t happens so, the philosophy of c u l t u r e w i l l be opposed to the other f u n d a m e n t a l values of E u r o p e a n culture, n a m e l y to the idea of objective t r u t h . Since, as I have t r i e d to show, t r u t h as a v a l u e i s the basis of E u r o p e a n culture d i s s i m i l a r i t y w i t h other cultures. F i n a l l y , a n y attempt to b u i l d a new c u l t u r a l a n d social Utopia w o u l d be i n conflict over w h i c h u t o p i a to b u i l d .
Wojeiech S L O M S K I
F I L O Z O F I A K U L T U R Y I T O Z S A M O S C E U R O P E J S K A
Streszezenie
Ö w i a d o m o s c k r y z y s u f i l o z o f i i i c y w i l i z a c j i , k t o r a t o w a r z y s z y r e f l e k s j i filozoficznej od trzech stuleci, jest chyba obecnie s i l n i e j s z a n i z k i e d y k o l -w i e k , bye moze ro-wniez dlatego, ze pytanie o tozsamosc - t a k n a plaszczyznie i n d y w i d u a l n e j , j a k i n a plaszczyznie calej k u l t u r y , stale s i ^ trudniejsze n i z dotychczas. P o n i e w a z j e d n a k n i e tyle s a m k r y z y s , ile jego swiadomosc, m a ogromny, j e z e l i n i e decyduj^cy w p l y w n a przebieg pro-cesow spolecznych i politycznych, zatem filozoficzny n a m y s l n a d kulturg^ nie t y l k o moze, ale i p o w i n i e n prowadzic do takiego k s z t a l t o w a n i a swiadomosci wlasnej tozsamosci n a w s p o m n i a n y c h dwoch plaszczyznach, aby postulowany przez J . D e r r i d ^ kres k u l t u r y , h u m a n i z m u i t y m s a m y m czlowieczenstwa w jego u w a r u n k o w a n y m k u l t u r o w o , europej-s k i m p o j m o w a n i u n i e o k a z a l europej-s i ^ europej-s a m o europej-s p e l n i a j ^ c y m europej-s i ^ proroctwem.
Z drugiej j e d n a k z e strony zastanowic s i ^ nalezy n a d k o n s e k w e n c j a m i zwia^zanymi z e w e n t u a l n ^ r e z y g n a c j ^ z idei tozsamosci k u l t u r o w e j . Odrzucenie tej i d e i b o w i e m zapewne stanowiloby n i e t y l k o zagrozenie d l a ekonomicznej i politycznej i n t e g r a c j i E u r o p y , lecz przede w s z y s t k i m byloby zaprzeczeniem podmiotowosci czlowieka: tozsamosc k u l t u r o w a jest w ostatecznym r o z r a c h u n k u r o d z a j e m poczucia wlasciwego
jednost-k o m , jest w s p o l n y m przeswiadczeniem o przynaleznosci n i e t y l jednost-k o do pewnej ponadnarodowej wspolnoty, lecz takze o a k c e p t o w a n i u w s p o l -n y c h , po-nad-narodowych i p o -n a d r e l i g i j -n y c h wartosci. Po-nadto, po-niewaz w s z e l k a k r y t y k a k u l t u r y nalezy takze do k u l t u r y , zatem u t r z y m y w a n i e , iz p o t r a f i s i ^ odroznic to, co jest d l a k u l t u r y korzystne, od tego, co stanowi d l a niej potencjalne zagrozenie, oraz u p a t r y w a n i e zagrozeh
cannot treat the idea of i d e n t i t y as a n absolute value, r e a l i s e d w i t h no r e g a r d f o r circumstances. I f i t happens so, the philosophy of c u l t u r e w i l l be opposed to the other f u n d a m e n t a l values of E u r o p e a n culture, n a m e l y to the idea of objective t r u t h . Since, as I have t r i e d to show, t r u t h as a v a l u e i s the basis of E u r o p e a n culture d i s s i m i l a r i t y w i t h other cultures. F i n a l l y , a n y attempt to b u i l d a new c u l t u r a l a n d social Utopia w o u l d be i n conflict over w h i c h u t o p i a to b u i l d .
Wojeiech S L O M S K I
F I L O Z O F I A K U L T U R Y I T O Z S A M O S C E U R O P E J S K A
Streszezenie
Ö w i a d o m o s c k r y z y s u f i l o z o f i i i c y w i l i z a c j i , k t o r a t o w a r z y s z y r e f l e k s j i filozoficznej od trzech stuleci, jest chyba obecnie s i l n i e j s z a n i z k i e d y k o l -w i e k , bye moze ro-wniez dlatego, ze pytanie o tozsamosc - t a k n a plaszczyznie i n d y w i d u a l n e j , j a k i n a plaszczyznie calej k u l t u r y , stale s i ^ trudniejsze n i z dotychczas. P o n i e w a z j e d n a k n i e tyle s a m k r y z y s , ile jego swiadomosc, m a ogromny, j e z e l i n i e decyduj^cy w p l y w n a przebieg pro-cesow spolecznych i politycznych, zatem filozoficzny n a m y s l n a d kulturg^ nie t y l k o moze, ale i p o w i n i e n prowadzic do takiego k s z t a l t o w a n i a swiadomosci wlasnej tozsamosci n a w s p o m n i a n y c h dwoch plaszczyznach, aby postulowany przez J . D e r r i d ^ kres k u l t u r y , h u m a n i z m u i t y m s a m y m czlowieczenstwa w jego u w a r u n k o w a n y m k u l t u r o w o , europej-s k i m p o j m o w a n i u n i e o k a z a l europej-s i ^ europej-s a m o europej-s p e l n i a j ^ c y m europej-s i ^ proroctwem.
Z drugiej j e d n a k z e strony zastanowic s i ^ nalezy n a d k o n s e k w e n c j a m i zwia^zanymi z e w e n t u a l n ^ r e z y g n a c j ^ z idei tozsamosci k u l t u r o w e j . Odrzucenie tej i d e i b o w i e m zapewne stanowiloby n i e t y l k o zagrozenie d l a ekonomicznej i politycznej i n t e g r a c j i E u r o p y , lecz przede w s z y s t k i m byloby zaprzeczeniem podmiotowosci czlowieka: tozsamosc k u l t u r o w a jest w ostatecznym r o z r a c h u n k u r o d z a j e m poczucia wlasciwego
jednost-k o m , jest w s p o l n y m przeswiadczeniem o przynaleznosci n i e t y l jednost-k o do pewnej ponadnarodowej wspolnoty, lecz takze o a k c e p t o w a n i u w s p o l -n y c h , po-nad-narodowych i p o -n a d r e l i g i j -n y c h wartosci. Po-nadto, po-niewaz w s z e l k a k r y t y k a k u l t u r y nalezy takze do k u l t u r y , zatem u t r z y m y w a n i e , iz p o t r a f i s i ^ odroznic to, co jest d l a k u l t u r y korzystne, od tego, co stanowi d l a niej potencjalne zagrozenie, oraz u p a t r y w a n i e zagrozeh
w k r y t y c e tego, co wydaje s i ^ w k u l t u r z e problematyczne, jest takze w p e w n y m sensie z w r ö c e n i e m s i ^ przeciwko k u l t u r z e . W swietle t y c h u w a g uzasadnione j a w i s i ^ wysuni^cie tezy, ze r ö w n i e z k r j r t y k a tozsamosci europejskiej jest nieodzownym s k l a d n i k i e m procesu k s z t a l -t o w a n i a s i ^ -tej -tozsamosci, podobnie j a k i pozy-tywne d^zenie do jej okreslenia.
Wspomniec takze trzeba o r ö z n e g o r o d z a j u „ p r o j e k t a c h " k u l t u r y , w y s u w a n y c h w ostatnich l a t a c h przez f i l o z o f i ^ postmodernistyczny. „ P r o j e k t " jest u l u b i o n y m slowem p o s t m o d e r n i s t ö w i i c h z w o l e n n i k ö w , zapewne przeciwstawionym kiedys r ö w n i e z modnemu „modelowi". M i m o pozornej atrakcyjnosci postmodernistycznych „ p r o j e k t ö w " , w y n i k a j y c e j w duzej mierze z niejasnosci samego i c h poj^cia, wszelkie zglaszane prze f i l o z o f i ^ „ p r o j e k t y " czy tez „ m o d e l e " k u l t u r y , niezaleznie od tego, czy rezygnujg^ z poj^cia tozsamosci, czy tez u s i l u j y znalezc d l a niego pewne podstawy, sy zapewne p r o g r a m a m i u t o p i j n y m i . M i m o ze poj^cie tozsa-mosci b y w a d l a f i l o z o f i i k u l t u r y t a k samo zasadnicze, j a k np. poj^cie racjonalnosci d l a teorii poznania, to j e d n a k jedyne, co wobec swiado-mosci k r y z y s u tozsaswiado-mosci filozofia k u l t u r y moze uczynic, to poprzestac n a k r y t y c z n e j a n a l i z i e idei tozsamosci. Istnienie pewnego r o d z a j u sprz^zenia zwrotnego pomi^dzy f o r m u l o w a n y m i przez filozoföw pogly-d a m i n a k u l t u r y a swiapogly-domosci^ jepogly-dnostek jest chyba s p r a w y bezsporny, to j e d n a k nie oznacza to, i z filozofia p o t r a f i dowolnie modelowac sposob i d e n t y f i k o w a n i a s i ^ jednostek z tradycja^ kulturowg^. J e z e l i s t a r a s i ^ to czynic, w ö w c z a s przestaje byc filozofiy, a staje s i ^ cz^sciy tej czy innej d o k t r y n y politycznej.
Dlatego tez z a celowe uznac nalezy - i z a d a n i a tego podjyc s i ^ p o w i n n i w l a s n i e filozofowie - konsekwentne o d r ö z n i a n i e znaczenia pojQcia tozsamosci j a k o podstawy okreslonych p r o j e k t ö w (nie m a p r z y t y m znaczenia, czy projekty te b^dy realizowane n a obszarze p o l i t y k i , filozofii, s z t u k i czy j a k i e j k o l w i e k innej) od znaczenia tego poj^cia j a k o poj^cia teoretycznego, sluzycego do opisu obiektywnej rzeczjrwistosci spolecznej i k u l t u r o w e j . W t y m d r u g i m p r z y p a d k u filozofia k u l t u r y r ö w n i e z nie moze oderwac s i ^ od rzeczywistosci i nie moze nie wchodzic w r ö z n o r o d n e dwustronne relacje z n i y . G d y b y post^powala inaczej, stalaby s i ^ takze rodzajem u t o p i i . N i e moze j e d n a k traktowac idei tozsamosci j a k o wartosci bezwzgl^dnej, realizowanej bez w z g l ^ d u n a okolicznosci. W p r z e c i w n y m razie filozofia t a popasc by m u s i a l a w kon¬ flikt z i n n y podstawowe^, a moze nawet nadrz^dna^ w a r t o s c i y k u l t u r y europejskiej, m i a n o w i c i e z idey p r a w d y obiektywnej. P o n i e w a z zas p r a w d a j a k o wartosc stanowi podstawy odmiennosci k u l t u r y europejskiej wobec i n n y c h k u l t u r , zatem p r ö b a zbudowania k o l e j n y c h k u l t u r o w y c h i spolecznych u t o p i i ostatecznie popadlaby w k o n f l i k t z celem, d l a k t ö r e g o by utopie te stworzono.
