trwogi. Dyskurs w literaturze amerykańskiej, Scholar, 2008). According to this theory, in some simplifi cation, people’s own culture becomes a buff er that lessens the existential fear of death and passing away in everyone. Th erefore, strangers, especially when faced with death, become more hostile and strange to us. Th e natural experiment of two planes crashing against the WTC in New York il-lustrates the above thesis. A threat of death (“everyone could be there and then”) caused a spectacular feeling of unity among icans and not only them (“we are all Amer-icans”), as well as an outburst of hostility towards the Muslim world an block, support for President Bush, and fi nally the war in Iraq. Th e decrease of fear, in time, drasti-cally changed and weakened the unity of the world with the USA and of Americans with their president.
Th erefore, the aetiology of stigma gained a new, evolutionary perspective, which is the “last word” in the question of why peo-ple stigmatise Others. Anton J.M. Dujker and Willem Koomen want to see deviants, or perhaps it would be better to say others, as a sign that has always been present in so-cial life. How have the reactions to oddness in human and animal societies evolved? Th is perspective requires a redefi nition of the understanding of stigma and a specifi -cation of its evolutionary character. Marze-na Rusaczyk and I will come back to this approach in next articles and in a book that is in the process of writing.
Elżbieta Czykwin
Jacek Kurzępa (rev.): Marta Maria Urliń-ska, Szkoła polska na obczyźnie wobec dylematów tożsamościowych [Polish School Abroad Facing Identity Dilemmas], Toruń 2007, Wyd. Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika [Nicolaus Copernicus Publish-ings], pp. 439.
Th e Dissertation by Urlińska is a register of long research eff orts around a pedagogical experiment which was the foundation of a Polish school in Riga, Latvia, and the later teachings content supervision. Th e connec-tion of such elements as refl ecconnec-tion and ideas of the pedagogical experimentalists, peda-gogical practice and the specifi c location of the enterprise (a minority school in a coun-try that barely begins its independence) re-sults in the fact that the book arises interest. It is based on the personal experience of the author, who became a “researcher in action” (p. 23) as sometimes both the “creator and the material to create”. It can arise scepti-cism as to the research objectivity of the presented actions. It results in the fact that we deal here with a description of a diffi cult venture both in practice and in the neces-sity to report, describe it in a manner that would not decrease the objectivity neces-sary in a research process.
Th e discourse, which the author herself presents as an ethnography of a Polish school in Riga, consists of fi fe chapters and a conclu-sion, it is rich in a modern bibliography and numerous source and other annexes. From the editorial point of view, it is well published, correct in language, and the chapters are rea-sonable in their size (apart from the third
one, which seems too extensive). Surely, their logical placement in the whole dissertation could be discussed, which, it seems, could eliminate the impression of exaggerated emotionality and exaltation.
Th e key terms, among which the exper-iment and the research are conducted are a border and a frontier; identity and the processes that infl uence it; a minority cul-ture – a multicultural aspect; multicultural education.
In the fi rst chapter, we are introduced to the main problem fi elds of the undertaken work. Th e chapter is based on historical and modern contexts of research conducted on the Latvian – Russian – Polish frontier, it ar-guments why the research is conducted in Latvia, and presents its methodological as-sumptions. Th e above information seems not enough explored, since it leaves some more questions as to who studies whom, how, in what conditions, and with what hy-pothetical-methodological approach. Next, the stages of the study are presented, their elongated character as to the analysis of the fate of the Polish school in Riga was pre-sented and explained. Th is chapter ends with a reference to the term of identity, by placing it “on the frontier” as a research category.
Another chapter begins with theoretical analysis of the term frontier. It is by all means a reasonable decision, yet it would be better to introduce this issue in the first chapter, having presented the historical and current conditioning of research on this frontier (i.e. aft er chapter 1.1). Th e second chapter presents all the historical-political conditions that have infl uenced the history
of Latvia, and thus the condition of nation-al minorities (including the Polish minori-ty). It is a chapter rich in factography, pre-senting the socio-historical conditionings of modern attitudes of Latvian people and Latvia towards their own independence and relations with minorities. Th e author also presents the attitudes of national minorities towards the multicultural aspect of their home country.
This part focuses on the institutional and political infl uence on the development of education of national minorities in Latvia, including Polish schools aft er 1989. chapters 1 and 2 are relatively calm and ob-jective in character and in style of narration. Th e words fl ow fast, the content includes numerous suitable references to literature and factography. Only sometimes the au-thor introduces with rising passion particu-lar historical topics evaluating them (e.g. p. 70: “Th e new totalitarian government on behalf of the stated rule of national-ism…”).
Apparently, the third chapter has a little diff erent temperature of narration, which I would call a “hot” description of the mod-ern history of Polish school in Riga. It in-cludes information referring to legal regula-tions of educational activity undertaken by Polish minority in Latvia, and the long way from the idea of the foundation of an inde-pendent Polish school in Latvia to the reali-sation of this idea and its fate from the per-spective of ten years of study. It shows the institutional and legal conditionings, the contribution of various objects (e.g. of the UMK [Nicolaus Copernicus University]
and of the University of Latvia – UL) to the experiment, the attitude of people in vari-ous generation groups (Polish, Latvian) to-wards it, the involvement of teachers from the Motherland in the experiment, of stu-dents in the research. Th erefore, it is a juicy, full of authentic experiences, report of the experiment. Th is chapter is not the most extensive one (it comprises 89 pages, while the fourth chapter has got 102 pages, and the others about 40–50), but there are so many opinions and comments presented, which refer to the diffi cult and confl ict situ-ations that took place during the experi-ment that they overwhelm the reader. Th is part “makes a depressing impression”, it sometimes seems that the author “helpless-ly” states that a good idea, or a thoroughly considered strategy failed since “bad peo-ple” distorted it. Th is part is a refl ection of the struggle of a researcher with various ob-stacles that appeared during the foundation of the Polish school. Th e frequency of such phenomena, their number and selection provided on the pages of the book surely project the scope of obstacles, yet they also release the question, “how did the author of the concept and her companions deal with that all in the experiment?”. Th is “emotional connection” of the researcher (who is both the creator and the material of creation) can be perceived as an advantage , since it is an authentic experience, as if from the fi eld of action (in status nascendi), it could also be a burden. It is one, when overt exaltation ap-pears in the book, as well as concentrated tension and fi nally a feeling of a disaster – disappointment – failure.
Th e author tries in the next chapter to ease her emotions. She identifi es herself in the auto-interpretation of the roles adopted in the experiment and in the research as a creator, a moderator, and an observer of the events. It is a successful eff ort to distance herself from emotions, tension, entangle-ment that naturally appear around a person - “a researcher at work”. With a considerable self-consciousness of the possible perturba-tions that result from that entanglement of a “researcher at work”, she shows the route necessary to walk in this kind of research. She tries to sustain high standards of objec-tivity of description and of the evaluation of the facts. Trouble come in the further part of chapter 4, where the writing talent of the author is revealed, it is freed from the corset of “scientifi c neutrality”. Due to the fact that we already know this tendency from the previous pages of this work, it does not dis-turb us so much any more. And the content of this chapter is of invaluable importance for the whole work, since it verifi es the re-search assumption made by the rere-searcher. The assumption is: “the Polish school in Latvia is the will of our grandparents, the hope of our parents, a chance for our chil-dren, a challenge for pedagogues and a problem for politicians” (p. 255). therefore, this chapter becomes a presentation of the results of the quality analysis performed as a part of the pedagogical experiment. As a compliment of the quality analysis serves a quantity analysis, which are presented in chapter 5, one devoted to the process of “Doubling identity taking into considera-tion the emancipating funcconsidera-tion of school”. It
presents in charts e.g. the declarations of the surveyed youth on the features that decide about the fact that someone feels a Pole, data connected with the country of origin and the nationality of grandparents and of the parents of the surveyed children. Simul-taneously, it presents the results referring to national self-identifi cation, the declarations concerned with the Fatherland, the choice of peer groups, distance towards “the oth-ers-strangers”, the features ascribed to the representatives of other nationalities and numerous other topics.
Th e collected results constitute a basis for the formation of interpretations con-cerning national auto-identifi cation of the surveyed people. Th e chapter is concluded with a refl ection on the creation of identity in the situation of the frontier, which nicely corresponds with the theoretical refl ections at the beginning of this chapter on the crea-tion of identity.
Th e dissertation closes a short, but rich in valuable conclusions chapter that replac-es the ending. Th e author, in a dynamic se-quence, performs a retrospection of a con-fl ict that concerned the experimental school, she describes it, naming and identifying its consecutive stages. She analyses the confl ict taking into consideration various theories, e.g. M. Mead – the stages of culture develop-ment, J. Habermas – the identity of roles, or the analysis of educational innovations by R. Schultz. In the conclusions entitled “Aporema of colonised and overtaken Polish identity”, she claims that “a drama of the de-scribed environment and situation is the impossible solution of the problem of
searching for the Polish aspect during the formation of an identity colonised by the past” (p.386). It is emphasised in this part that a Polish school abroad could be a prob-lem for Poland, but for Latvia, as well. Th e implantation of some educational solutions “must not be similar to the export of a revo-lution, but it should be a reasonable inter-ference in the lasting evolutionary proc-esses” (p. 389).
Th e content refers to the key terms of a border – a frontier; identity and the proc-esses of its formation in the situation of the frontier; the multicultural aspect and the placement on the line “a stranger – ours”. Everything is perceived from the point of view of the conducted pedagogical experi-ment.
Th e frontier can be found “in the touch-ing and covertouch-ing of the Latvian culture with the neighbouring cultures of Polish, Be-lorussian, Russian, and Ukrainian nations (p. 22). Th e author believes that it is passing in character, with “a rich variety of interme-diate forms or brand new cultural complex-es” (p. 22). In the endeavours to defi ne the frontier, she generously uses various con-cepts, such as ones of J. Chlebowczyk, J. Ni-kitorowicz, G. Babiński or T. Lewowicki and L. Gołdyka. It seems, that the used interpre-tative traces are correctly followed by the author, although the ideas of Gołdyka on the cross-border space of the frontier could be used to a greater extent. What seems the most signifi cant from the sociological point of view in capturing the specifi cation of the cross-border aspect it the dynamic process of crystallisation of a new type of relations
among the neighbouring people on both sides of a border in a cultural, economic, axiological, social or demographic space. Th e frontier becomes here a stage, on which new social phenomena continuously appear. It happens, that they take the form of good cooperation among neighbours, of perme-ating cultural models and contents, or, in a diff erent case, they are characterised by a confrontational character, a rivalry of dis-tinct values and cultures. What is spectacu-lar in this experience, is the process of clash-ing of two distinct axiological systems and of the functioning of social control mecha-nisms. The trans-cultural process takes place, i.e. the process of permeating and mixing each other’s cultures, which happens both globally and in an individual perspec-tive. Th e mixing of cultures delimits new standards, evokes in an individual the need of full participation. New models of a dom-inant culture become direction signs for hu-man activity, as well as dynamising factors and releasing individual and collective ac-tions1. In the cross-border area, complex
social processes take place, which result in specifi c behaviour and attitudes of the in-habitants towards the whole possible range of life experiences. Th ey have a unique char-acter, features fi lled with the specifi city of the frontier and of the trans-cultural proc-esses taking place there. A. Wachowiak, characterising this specifi city, emphasises that “the cross-border regions (known also as “regiony pomostowe” [bridge-regions]
1 J. Mucha, Kultura dominująca jako kultura
obca, Warszawa 1999, p. 51.
(…) make bigger creativity possible (…) are noted for their search of non-standard models of contacts (…), for breaking of stereotypes (…), for action that exceeds to some extent the present formal-legal state”2.
Th erefore, it is the area of permanent variety, of the search of a model of their own nationality by Latvian people; of their own place in the independent Latvia by na-tional minorities (including Polish minori-ty); of relations between the neighbouring countries and Latvia. “Th e radical change of the social and cultural situation confronted the Russian speaking people (including the majority of Poles living there) with very high expectations” (p. 23).
Another term signifi cant in the disserta-tion is identity. Th e author tries to identify it in three places (in chapter 1, 5, and in the conclusion), which results in the fact that the reader has the impression of returning to previously discussed topics. It seems that it would be better to introduce the term in suffi cient detail in the beginning of the dis-sertation, so that the considerations of this aspect of research were closed with a logical frame in the research statements. As to the content, the term, understood as individual and social identity, is based e.g. on the con-cept of J. Nikitorowicz of the formation of a hybrid identity on the frontier; on the theory of identity behaviours by T.
Lewow-2 A. Wachowiak, Transgraniczność wobec
perspektywy socjologicznej teorii komunikacji społecznej [in:] Transgraniczność w perspektywie socjologicznej – kontynuacje, L. Gołdyka (ed.),
icki; on references to the identity theory by Erikson. It seems that the concepts present-ed on pages 44 and 45 of the dissertation are not used enough in the further part of the work, whereas new ones appear – impor-tant, correct, yet somehow separated from the ones mentioned before. Th e new ones are: the interpretation of identity by Z. Mel-osik (pp. 370–376) and a short mentioning of the 3xC concept (Concept, Condition, Competence) by L. Witkowski.
Th e character of the frontier gives an opportunity for the people that live there to create their identity. Th e process of achiev-ing self-conscious cultural identity contin-ues with diff erent intensity within a country, and and diff erently in the frontier area. On the frontier, it has the character of a specifi c cultural melting pot, a place of ambiguity and multiplicity. Th e identity is achieved by entering a cultural contact, which is speci-fi ed as “drawing from the source of cultural values to create personal cultural systems, choosing some of the parts of the heritage of our group, comparing them with the val-ues of other groups and reshaping them in a way we consider right in the present cir-cumstances”. It is predominantly performed in the symbolic, internal world of an indi-vidual. It makes it possible for an individual to achieve the state of acceptance and un-derstanding of his or her oddness, of recog-nising individuality in the chosen areas.
Th e creation of identity on the frontier is a multiplication of identity by the fact of neighbouring numerous aspects strange to us. Th e modern dilemma of its formation results to a considerable degree from the
liquid modernity in which we live. An indi-vidual unstoppably continues a dialogue with himself, which refers to autoidentifi -cation, self defi nition that stretches between “I” and “we”. Th e frontier multiplies the “we” category, providing an individual with an opportunity to experiment with numerous roles, to experience community in a cultur-ally, axiologica cultur-ally, and economically deeply varied environment. Th e metaphor of “a po-tato” by Bauman, connected with the diff er-entiation of “I” and with the possibility of numerous “we”, allows us, from the cultural frontier point of view, to consider such ide-as ide-as the continuous state of being in statu nascendi of the problem of identity – iden-tity that is modal, dialogical, dynamic to some extent, since not restricted to the co-coon of certainty caused by global social processes and the changeability of the fron-tier itself3.
The effort of recognition of the sur-rounding world is connected with post modern, entitled multiplicity. We are wor-ried by the trouble of uncertainty, both as to what used to be, and as to what is happening in front of us, and what can be unexpected, not understandable, yet unknown and un-tamed. Acquiring identity on the frontier of cultures takes place by its passage through various stages, beginning with the created on the basis of the original environment family identity, through local identity built on the basis of identifi cation with a refer-ence group, of interiorisation of our own
3 Z. Baumann, Razem – osobno, Wrocław 2003.
values and interests with the values of a group. It is important in this process to adapt to the requirements and rules of the reference group, which contributes to the achievement of responsible and reasonable existence in the world. Another stage is ac-quiring the identity of a minority group, i.e. conscious expansion of contacts with peers and adults, which creates new interactions and new stimuli. Th e formation of identity stretches further in the direction of achiev-ing an autonomous character. It can be per-formed by isolation, ethnocentrism, accom-modation, and finally, by reorientation. Th ese phases refer mostly to communities that are diff erentiated in their ethnic and religious aspects, I can fi nd use for their specifi cation in the analyses that refer to so-cial processes (such as of the creation of at-titudes towards cultural diversities, of ac-quiring skill in inter-cultural communica-tion, of respecting or creating new axiology) that take place on the Latvian frontier.
The dissertation is based on research that is defi ned as “a monograph of fi eld re-search based on specifying and discussing a problem important for the given society (…) and thus leading to the creation of an ethnography of the Polish School in Riga” (p. 28–29).
Th is ethnography is concerned with the school that as a part of an educational ex-periment was created by the academic cir-cles of UMK and the author herself, with contribution of the University of Latvia and the Poles living in Latvia (Związek Polaków na Łotwie – ZPŁ). Th erefore, we are dealing with a special research – an experiment, in
the beginning characterised by “experimen-tal actions”, and a few years later, by “only simultaneous research in action with ele-ments of educational intervention” (p. 33). Th e above circumstances result in the fact that the descriptions included in the disser-tation of the process of research and of the experiment endow it with a unique charac-ter, as well as infl uence the possibility of emergence of confl icting points and contro-versy.
Th e author opens the consideration of the methodological aspects of her research by reminding the concept by K. Dobrowol-ski of historical and fi eld research (vide p. 31 and the following), considering as useful the integral method which takes into con-sideration historical aspects as the basis of research. “Th e starting point – she writes on page 32 – of the endeavour to conceptualise empirical research is the need of personal contact of the researcher with the social ality of his interest (…) a qualitative re-searcher as “a handyman” (…) in his DIY jobs uses such strategies and empirical methods as he fi nds available”. Th e analysed work “is based on empirical sources col-lected on purpose with explanatory meth-ods, it uses the found sources and the evoked resources (pp. 32–33). Qualitative and quantitative methods were used in the research (a survey of a group of students of the Polish school and their parents). Aft er the experimental phase, the research gained the character of action research.
Action research is based on the claim that a research can include some elements of action, and in the process of research it
does not restrict only to noting events and explaining them, but the researcher be-comes simultaneously the subject involved in action” (p. 33). In my opinion, the man-ner of using this method is both an advan-tage and a flaw of the work. “The basic model of a research procedure character-ised by action research is a spiral consisting of three repeating phases: observation (…), refl ection (…), and action (p. 35). An indis-pensable condition of success of such re-search are “inter-human relations – harmo-nious, balanced and not confl icting (…), honesty and clarity of communication (…), full involvement of the researcher in all lev-els of the research (…), support and per-sonal relations with the participants” (pp. 34–35). Reports from the research placed in chapters 3 and 4, as well as the factography of the stages of the experiment, and the “at-mosphere” it took place in, reveal how dif-fi cult it is to fuldif-fi l the requirement of re-search objectivity, of suffi cient emotional neutrality. The study of the influence of a Polish school on the life of an individual (a student), his or her family, as well as the whole Polish diaspora connected with him or her was associated by a parallel action that supported the process of restoration of a Polish school in Riga.
Th erefore, the author entered two com-plete cycles of action research, i.e. “the sup-port cycle” and the proper “research cycle” (p. 39). To objectify actions the following triangulations were used:
− researchers (the realisation was di-vided among numerous researchers, every one of them relied on the
theo-ries specific for his or her disci-pline);
− data sorts (the collected data was both qualitative and quantitative in character);
− methods (choosing them according to the age and abilities of the sur-veyed) (p. 40);
− resources (information from various sources was collected, from children, parents, teachers, from school docu-ments) (p. 41).
Th e basic technique of data collection was a detailed interview conducted with parents and children. Th e respondents were surveyed again a few years later, interview-ing then already the graduates of the four oldest year-groups from the 9-year school. Resultantly, the research gained an elongated character (p. 41). the same subjects were sur-veyed in periods a few years away, measur-ing their features and followmeasur-ing their change between the beginning and ending state.
Concluding from the above, we are deal-ing with an ambitious venture, one that was conceptually well prepared, characterised also by a high level of risk of failure, which could have been caused by numerous (as it appears) events.
Remaining properly respectful towards the bulk of work performed by the author, some of its weaker points must be men-tioned. One of them is the overt emotional-ity in narration, which “spills over” the con-tent of especially chapters 3 and 4. I have mentioned before that the exaggerated “emotional bonds” of the author can be per-ceived as both an advantage and a weakness.
Th e numerous personal references, refl ec-tions, and reminiscences presented in these chapters show the huge luggage of emo-tions, which were unavoidable and unfor-gettable during the writing of this work. I believe that numerous factors contributed to such an outcome: the historical and po-litical situation of Latvia, and especially of the Polish diaspora in this country; the very Poles that live there (their overwhelming at-titude towards the Poles living in the Moth-erland); a feeling of a mission to accomplish by the author and her associates. It is a feel-ing of a mission that captures many of us that visited Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine or Belarus in these years. I would like to add, that I supported myself the reactivation of Związek Harcerstwa Polskiego [the Polish Scouting Association] in Lithuania; I expe-rienced similar states of exaltation, national elation and messiah euphoria. I also realise what were the reactions on the both sides of the meeting of diaspora and Motherland Poles. I know the sound of “singing” Polish language, the sight of a secret tear which sometimes should not be embarrassing – it happened to everyone! I also remember the rivalry for Poles, which took place on both sides, i.e. the representatives of the diaspora competed for “the gentleman from Poland” to live with them, visit them, advise them, or talk to the very X ot Y family, then their meaning increased, they became honoured. Th e same situation was on the other side, with the ones who went there from Poland, we wanted to be helpful, useful here, and here, and there. We marked with our pres-ence (personality, superiority of cultural
and civilisational competence) numerous people and places.
It sometimes happened that we were su-perior over the Poles from there, condition-ing them on our opinion, judgement, evalu-ation, on our opportunities. Th ese opportu-nities were a special chance for gift s (mate-rial goods brought from Poland); a chance for trips to Poland (fi rst trips, then camps, children holidays, scholarships); a chance to be close to the “real Poles, from the Mother-land”. Inter-human relations, at least for the above reasons, became multilayered and strongly complicated. It was accompanied by the historical circumstances (the newly accomplished independence of Latvia aft er numerous years of oppression), political ones (the status of minority in these coun-tries), civilisational and cultural ones (the delayed modernisation). Apparently, the au-thor ventured into a “hot area”, somewhat in status nascendi she tried to reproduce ant to root a Polish school in a society that had just regained its political and national sub-jectivity. It caused numerous clashes and uncertainties as to the idea, its authors and the directions it followed. Th e idea of found-ing a Polish school was addressed to the Polish diaspora in Latvia, who also in the new times had to specify their identity as to the fact of being a Latvian citizen of Polish nationality, or of being a Latvian person, declaring their sentiment to the Fatherland – Poland. Th is is the place (in the rough times) the author fi nds. Propelled by peda-gogical fervour (I believe that J.W. Dawid, talking about “the soul of teaching” de-scribed such attitudes), her academic and
teaching career so far, supported by the en-thusiasm of her group of students and col-leagues. It became a challenge to bring back Polish frameworks to the ones that needed them so much. M.M. Urlińska accepted the challenge, the task involved her entirely. In chapter three, the detailed history of the ex-periment is presented, the role of represent-atives of various institutional subjects (UMK and UL, the Ministry of Education from Poland and Latvia, experimental schools from Toruń), of individual people involved in the project (authorities, rectors, deans, ministers), individual students and their parents, school headmasters and teacher. A titanic work was performed, doz-ens of meetings and consultations took place, numerous important letters were ex-changed, declarations of cooperation were signed and implemented. The process of these events was rich (according to the de-scription) in various misunderstandings and controversies. It can be concluded from the report that already in the phase of con-ceptualisation of the venture, problems multiplied, which instead of being (accord-ing to the mentioned earlier directive of ac-tion research) explained in a clear and com-municative way, grew even more complex, thus redirecting the conduct of the project in a way unexpected by its authors. It seems to me, that the fi rst obstacle that became a symbolic barrier of the whole idea was the event described on page 142 of the disserta-tion, which refers to the fact of accepting by the Board in the Ministry of National Edu-cation of the Republic of Latvia of a short-ened, and thus distorted version of the
con-cept of foundation and operation of the Polish school in Riga. All following facts were consequences of (how easy it is to write in 2008 for a person that stands aside, what is more in Poland) a lack of deter-mined and eff ective reaction to this interfer-ence and manipulation. Later it was only worse… On p. 143, we can read, “It was not the only confl ict situation, a point at issue appeared also the employment of new teachers to work in Riga”; p. 144, “I was ac-cused of – she continues – invading the competence of the school headmaster by choosing teachers”; “there was a general blanket of silence of the so-called offi cial factors, a silent acceptance of the operations of the school’s administration (p. 147); (…) I still tried to pressure our authorities in Warsaw, asking MEN RP [Ministry of Na-tional Education of the Republic of Poland], through the Embassy in Riga…” (p. 148). Unfortunately, it was useless, the changes in the concept were sustained. It appeared that the well considered concept of teaching in the Polish school in Riga was strongly dis-torted at the very beginning of its realisa-tion. It continued entirely distant from the initial assumptions.
Various vicissitudes led to the situation in which “we became persona non grata” in the Polish school in Riga. A simply absurd situation. Th e circle of people involved in the Latvian issue widened. UMK employees went to Riga to try to negotiate, usually inef-fectively. As a consequence, Polish Ministry of Education distanced from the author of the project, somewhat adopting the “Latvi-an” version of the events. On page 154, the
author states, “As can be concluded from an analysis of the content of the document, no-body from MEN treated me seriously (or the academic circles of UMK)…”.
On the background of the diff erences concerning the management of the school and the choice of teachers, parents’ views on the workings of the school polarised. Th ey are presented on pages 155–158, question-able is the quotation of numerous fragments from letters without any signatures. Th ere-fore, we do not know when, who, and to whom sent them, we only have “shreds” of emotional, critical remarks about the adver-saries of the implemented concept. The quotes and opinions included in chapters 3.5 and 3.6, seem biased, strongly subjective. No documents, opinions, voice of the “blamed Headmaster” was provided. Result-antly, we have to believe the words of the author that people from Toruń are better because they had a concept.
In spite of the negative experiences, and, I dare say, of “breaking the neck of the ex-periment”, the author once again “enters the same river” - another school is founded, “With an over 3-months delay, a group of 45 children of the years I-V began education in the new school. Two retired teachers from Poland worked with them” (p. 164); “Th e hurry that accompanied the opening of this school (in October) was a surprise also for the Embassy. Its diplomats had serious res-ervations concerning the methods of the headmaster, as well as as to the fact of him being appointed this function …” (p. 165). At the same time, it is underlined in the text that “due to the advanced research, we were
determined to defend our right to objective study of the found reality, however without involvement in the educational process” (p. 162). It seems to me, that in the situation of the massive resistance and reluctance on the both sides, it would have been better to wait or change the people responsible for the ex-periment or the survey. Th e author herself states on page 174, “I felt cheated, disap-pointed and inadequate to the role that I had chosen for myself ”.
Another problem which appears in the reading of the research chapters is the anxi-ety concerning the involvement of students in the research.
“Using the competence and preparation of our students to research we were hoping to achieve information on Polish schools founded in Latvia aft er 1989” (p. 200). It is a positive assumption, evoking no anxiety, when it comes to the analysis of schools “outside the fi eld of confl ict”, i.e. of schools outside Riga. I do not undermine neither the competence of the students, or the fact that they are oft en used in a research proc-ess. I know they are well prepared also for this function. However, in this particular case (especially of the school in Riga) the area of research appeared exceptionally dif-fi cult. M.M. Urlińska realises that, “it was not an easy task. It required from the stu-dents-researchers additional diplomatic skills (R.Meighan talks about the function of “a spy in action”), delicacy, and commu-nicativeness. Th e fact they knew the confl ict and its circumstances (they knew that when the headmaster of the school connects their presence with me, they would be sent away
from the door without the information they came for), encouraged their imagination, activated the loads of alertness in capturing signals and signs (…) this fact incidentally paralysed the young researchers, they felt guilty not for their own mistakes, of the consciously performed manipulation with them involved” (p. 201). Despite the fact that “the work of the students collecting ma-terials in the fi eld had excellent results” (p. 201), I believe it is arguable to push stu-dents-researchers into such a powerful vor-tex of events based on personal animosity, on multi-layered confl icts, expecting them to sustain research objectivity. Th e circum-stances they are introduced into the subject of the research, as well as the fact that (ir-respective of the intention of the author) they can be haunted by the thought that “their Ms. has been hurt”, undermines the certainty of them achieving full readiness to research neutrality. Unfortunately, it is con-fi rmed by the later quoted student reports, which “especially meticulously describe a meeting with the headmaster and their impressions” (p. 203). It evokes an impres-sion that the students-researchers had been “programmed to that person”. Moreover, the following descriptions deepen this feeling, e.g. on p. 204, “How suitable is the next quote to the previous ones…” of course showing the fl aws of the school’s headmas-ter. Th e headmaster was obviously an im-portant person (as it appeared, the most important, since she successfully squashed the process of the experiment), but devoting again and again new sequences-reports from the research to her psychological
pro-fi le seems unnecessary, arising an associa-tion of “a little war between the Ladies”. Th erefore, I am asking a question about the need of entanglement of the students-re-searchers in the process, which already in its initial conditions was characterised by an enormous unpredictability of the appear-ance of potential tensions of various char-acter, including the political one. Moreover, directing students into such a neuralgic ar-ea, it seems to me that the “naivety of the fi rst explorers”, since this is how I would call some of the descriptions (e.g. on pp. 284– 285) is a sort of a drawback of a research team. There is no distance but personal emotions instead, revealing lack of experi-ence of the school itself as an institution which is under study. Th e authors of the es-says used in the research “discover the known”, i.e. the confl icts, coteries, various approaches to the professional role of a teacher, which is noticeable both in schools in the centres, and in the outskirts, big ones and small ones, Polish ones or foreign ones. It seems that the aim of the research was not an analysis of the confl ict that pervaded the life of the Polish school in Riga, but its role in the formation of multiplied, hybrid iden-tity of its students. Sometimes, reading this work, one gets the impression that it is not so obvious.
Th e author, in chapter 4 point 1, per-forms an objective evaluation of herself not only as a co-organiser of the school, but as a social researcher, as well. It is successful taking into consideration its neutral style of narration and the author’s introspection. It presents the problem of a dilemma of roles
she found for herself, and its consequences. A deeply auto-refl exive and educating for the reader is the defi nition and naming of the phases of going through particular roles (of a tourist, a missionary, a wise man) un-dertaken during the experiment and the research. Sometimes, the honesty of self-judgement concerning the author surprises (just like the discussed above emotional ties of the author), the precise specifi cation of the undertaken roles helps in understand-ing the research process and the experi-ment, if only by enumerating such functions as a validated pedagogue, an incapacitated constructor, a surrendering leader, or an over-sensitive strategy builder. It proves the long way that the eager “world healer” walked to a distanced, objective interpretor of the studied reality.
From the content of this dissertation it is possible to realise what was the personal cost it took, and this is my next query-re-mark-refl ection, perhaps auto-refl ection? Is it worth it to sacrifi ce so much in the name of an elusive idee fi xe? When today, a lot of years aft er those hot events, a recapitulation is performed of what was achieved and what failed – what will be the added value? It is a question that casts a wide shadow on eve-ry researcher, and in this case also on eveeve-ry subject that participated in this unusual ex-periment: the author herself, her team, the involved universities, authorities, institu-tions, and fi nally students, their parents and teachers.
It seems that due to this harsh truth of the narration style, devoid of all academical-ly-scientifi c soothers of emotions, the reader
cannot remain indiff erent towards the book. It hurts… travelling with the author (behind her, next to her, sometimes in opposition to her) throughout the process of the experi-ment of the Polish school in Riga, it is pos-sible to experience the true taste of life of a researcher in action, to experience with him (her) both elation or joy and the feeling of bitterness or failure. Th e reader can look into every little corner the author leads us to, once we are in a student’s house, a ministe-rial offi ce, and then in under-heated quarters of teachers-volunteers. We can hear the heart-melting words of gratitude of the old-est members of the Polish diaspora, and the anxious speeches of Latvian local govern-ment members. We can also listen to the discussions on pedagogical conferences and of academic bodies that supervise the ex-periment. It happens that we cannot over-hear one or another voice (of a side in a con-fl ict) that the strong current of events will successfully jam – these are the expenses, mistakes, imperfections. Nothing is here merely white or black, yet it is fascinating since it touches life itself.
Jacek Kurzępa
Maria Marta Urlińska: A Comment on the Book Review
I am glad that my book Polish School Abroad Facing Identity Dilemmas attracted the atten-tion of the author of the review published in this issue of the periodical “Culture and Edu-cation”. I hope that the remarks provided by Jacek Kurzępa will encourage a lot of people
