256 REVIEWS–REPORTS a very signifi cant trait in their attitude to the
world. Th ey have some plans for the future and most of them seems realistic. Th ey do not have a long-term development strate-gies. Th eir time horizon is relatively short. I think that most of these companies are go-ing to remain on the market, but as “micro-enterprises” (pp. 217–218). Th ey are impor-tant because by showing economic and cultural determinants which are unfavour-able for entrepreneurship, they allow to “create a map of good and bad sides of local markets, which could enable proper institu-tional changes to enhance supporting desir-able patterns and eliminate harmful and forbidden practices” (p. 226).
Concluding my discussion of the analy-ses presented in the book of Maria Nawojc-zyk Entrepreneurship. On Difficulties in Th eory Application, I would like to state that it is a fault of numerous scientifi c elabora-tions and reviews to point out by the review-er what the work, according to him/hreview-er, is missing. Focusing on shortcomings oft en obscures the work’s indisputable values. I’m afraid that the author of these words did not escape this disease of reviewers. Th is is why I wish to emphasize that the work of Maria Nawojczyk is by all means praiseworthy, dis-tinguishing itself by a solid knowledge of literature on the subject and an interesting approach to empirical research. Th e chosen fragments of the book should not be treated as criticism, but rather serve as an incentive to further deliberation, discussion and espe-cially empirical research on diff erent aspects of entrepreneurship.
Grażyna Krzyminiewska
Maria Nawojczyk: Controversy on the Sideli-nes. Comment to Review of the Book siębiorczość. O trudnościach w aplikacji te-orii [Entrepreneurship. On the Diffi culties of Th eory Application]
I want to thank the Author of my book re-views for all comments and the editorial of “Culture and Education” for providing me with this review and thereby creating the possibility of open polemics on this text. As the reviewer pointed out, the diffi culty of a review lies in its very nature, rather focus-ing on the drawbacks or shortcomfocus-ings than advantages of this text, so the convention of the polemics with my peer’s review makes my answer mainly focus on these issues which seem questionable to me. For all the warm words addressed to the book thank you very much. Now, I will focus on the po-lemic comments.
Already in the introduction (p. 12), I ex-plicitly advocate for the adoption of the perspective of economic sociology, as the basic framework of my discussion. In this context, it is not surprising that I devoted so much space to the economic theories of entrepreneurship. But I do not consider this topic as the dominant one. Aft er all, the whole section Sociology of Entrepre-neurship (Sec. 2.3.) shows the achievements of sociology in this fi eld and documents how much sociological research in this fi eld has to off er. If there occurred an impression of imbalance in the legal treatment of the two disciplines, it may result from diff erent approaches to the classical concept of the intellectual traditions of both. In
econom-257 REVIEWS–REPORTS
ics, in general we are dealing with one of the dominant paradigms in a given period of time, therefore, the intellectual achieve-ments of this discipline of science seem a lot more structured. By contrast, in soci-ology, in parallel, there are many competing theories, which in addition constantly refer to classical concepts, and sometimes even the same authors, only to diff erent interpre-tations. Th us, their intellectual arrangement becomes much more diffi cult, and perhaps I was unable to suffi ciently fulfi ll this task.
As I explore entrepreneurship from the perspective of economic sociology, I could not devote more space to psychology, no matter how interesting the research fi ndings of this discipline are. I simply could not write a book about everything, especially when the object of research is so complex. Th erefore, touching those topics I clearly indicated – as the reviewer notes – very promising concepts in social psychology and cognitive science. For the same reason, I am clearly voting for the sociology of en-trepreneurship as an interesting research fi eld of economic sociology, but not treating it as part of a new interdisciplinary science of entrepreneurship. Remaining in the mainstream of sociological thought, I could not neglect the important concepts of social stratifi cation existent within the discipline. Th ey lie at the root of this “discomfort” in-compatibility of theoretical models to real-ity. In my opinion, the social stratum of entrepreneurs is so internally diverse that it loses its value as an explanatory category. Th erefore, its particular part – micro-entre-preneurs – I tried to describe with such
diligence and I am glad that this has been appreciated by the reviewer.
Another controversial issue concerns the cultural embeddedness of economies in tran-sition. Vast transformational literature, which in the text I just pointed out (p. 135), devotes much attention to endogenous and exoge-nous factors in this process, as well as chang-es of a revolutionary character and evolution-ary one. While the legislative changes could be made in a revolutionary way, the changes in social attitudes are of evolutionary charac-ter rather. Setting the time frame of my con-siderations, I accepted that the transforma-tion of post-socialist countries can be consid-ered as completed with the accession to the EU structures (p. 115). However, in relation to cultural changes such as e.g. stereotypes of entrepreneurship, or changes in attitudes to these processes, such as a sense of being a winner or loser, transition boundary of the latter is unclear, since they are long and evo-lutionary processes. Moreover, the public opinion on the benefi ts of transformation is not only ambiguous but it evolves over time. Th is is a subject that is fascinating but for me it constitutes only a social and cultural con-text of entrepreneurship, and as part of that context it was presented.
One of the essential elements of that context, particularly raised by the reviewer, is education. I share her views on the para-mount importance of education in shaping entrepreneurial attitudes, and also all the skills mentioned in the review as a key ele-ment of such education. In my opinion, the problem lies in the fact that the education system is a refl ection of social and cultural
258 REVIEWS–REPORTS values of the communities in which it
oper-ates. Th us, the education system is not able to shape or promote creativity and self-reli-ance, critical thinking, risk taking, etc., if those features in the general system of values of a society have negative connotations. Polish culture is not conducive to entrepre-neurship and it certainly will not change from day to day. Changes towards a more positive perception of entrepreneurship are not excluded. Sociological research fi ndings show us for example that children of persons taking up an entrepreneurial activity are much more likely to appreciate and under-take such activities. Th eir attitudes towards entrepreneurship are changing strongly in favor during the primary socialization proc-ess. Just over three million micro-entrepre-neurs create favorable conditions for such socialization. We do not know yet the impact of migration processes to more pro-entre-preneurial societies (e.g., Ireland, Great Brit-ain) on changing these attitudes in Poland. However, if such interaction takes place, it will be rather in a positive direction for the entrepreneurship. Th erefore, I do not share the pessimism of the reviewer, as to the fu-ture of the same harsh conditions of doing business in Poland. I would be rather a cau-tious optimist in this matter.
I am glad that the reading of this book can also help to stimulate discussion, ask questions and perhaps look for answers in subsequent research on entrepreneurship. Th e more we know about it, the more likely the disenchantment of the negative stereo-types can occur.
Maria Nawojczyk
Andrzej Zalewski (rev.): Antonio Negri, Goodbye Mr. Socialism, Wydawnictwo WAB, Warszawa 2008, pp. 278.
Th e anti-positivistic turn in humanism and the profound transformation of the con-temporary world, which involves primarily the end of the bipolar system in the global politics, the IT revolution and the globaliza-tion, are accompanied in social sciences by the growing importance of thinking that I would call the “narrations” of intellectuals. Such narration involves a broad, holistic and interdisciplinary refl ection on the mod-ern times, aiming at creating a new inter-pretation framework for the world, which is changing so dynamically that it makes many traditional categories and concepts irrele-vant, such as a national state or the class structure in the Marxist understanding. Th is type of artistic activity includes, in my opinion, the philosophy and sociology of Zygmunt Bauman, some works by Anthony Giddens and Ulrich Beck, any many others, who are trying to describe the post-indus-trial or even post-modern world with their more or less essayistic works. Many of these authors adopt the evaluating perspective, going beyond the boundaries of scientifi c disciplines and cultivating the type of think-ing that is close to social philosophy. De-pending on the temperament and the theo-retic approach, the attitude to such refl ec-tions may diff er. Some of these works fulfi l their role by inspiring us to theorise even better or by shaping the philosophical premises that precede the cultivation of sci-ence in the strict meaning of the word, while
