O R G A N O N : 24 1988 PR O B L È M E S G É N É R A U X
Jan Jerschina (Poland)
T H E SC H O L A R ’S SO CIAL R O LE IN T H E PAST A N D T O D A Y
In this study, I am using the notion o f social role in the m eaning in which Florian Znaniecki used it to discuss similar issues. It m ay be remembered th at Znaniecki regarded the social role o f a researcher and academic teacher as a com ponent o f the social system of science. The role, in its axiological meaning, am ounts to expectations of the academ ic com m unity tow ards the researcher, expectations of qualities a researcher should have. The expectations are, to some extent, explicitly rationalized, and partly they “ are implicit in the given g rou p ’s custom ary behaviours, passed on in the process o f education and im itation from generation to generation.” The specific “ m ake-up o f roles” a person perform s during his or her lifetime constitutes th at p erson’s social personality. The central rt o f th at personality is the self, which has specific properties in each case. The com m unity of researchers and learned men develops a collective vision o f the features and requirem ents th at “ s e lf ’ m ust display, while a learned m an is guided in his conduct by his self-awareness and by those requirem ents. The academ ic com m unity’s enduring vision o f the learned m an’s role was called by Znaniecki “ the cultural pattern o f the role o f a learned m an or a scholar.” While Znaniecki has m ore to say on this m atter, the above synopsis will do for our purposes here.
W hat I think is particularly interesting in Znaniecki’s concept is his indication o f the significance o f the academ ic com m unity’s collective awareness and also the cultural p attern o f their role. T h at concept, on the one hand, m akes it easier to study systematically the scholar’s social role, and, on the other, it sets the limits for the socio-cultural benefits to be draw n from such sociological refections. It is always necessary to determ ine collectively the axiological foundations of learned m en’s acts. It will always be necessary to spread knowledge of those axiological truths am ong young candidates to the circle of learned men. True m em bership in th at circle is not determ ined by diplom as or nom inations, posts or functions, but by meeting requirem ents involved in the cultural pattern o f a scholar. The best service a senior university teacher can do
his ju n io r colleague is to describe the m eaning o f that pattern to him, as that p attern is som ething like the backbone o f m any sholars’ biographies as well as the “ biography” o f the discipline itself, namely its history.
In w hat follows I am going to use observations m ade in my own discipline. First let me m ake a few rem arks about social roles o f sociologists in prew ar Poland. The foundations o f the Polish sociological school were laid before W orld W ar II, and it was then the com m unity p f sociologists established itself along with their ethos, th at is, the system o f values and the style o f work o f sociologists, and also the counterparts o f these in the individual and collective dim en sions— the sociologist’s cultural pattern.
One typical feature o f th at ethos was a very profound, close and vivid interest in the situation o f the people and the nation. Studies, theoretical and empirical alike, were undertaken not only “ to understand” and “ to generalize” but also in order to get a feeling o f w hat it is like being the kind o f people studied. Was it not the spirit of theoretical, sociological and legal works by Leon Petrażycki in which he considered possibilities to build a society o f people loving each other and being happy with one another ? W as it not the same intention which was behind the great undertaking o f Polish and world sociology which culm inated in Znanie- cki’s and W .T hom as’s The Polish Peasant in Europe and North America ? W as it n o t for th at particular kind o f ethical and intellectual considerations th at J. Chałasiński wrote his fundam ental Advancement Paths o f Young Workers ? D id n ’t S. Rychliński study the dynamics o f social structures and the dem oc ratization o f culture, social policy, overpopulation, the labour m arket or education precisely because o f that particular orientation ? F o r similar reasons, L. Krzywicki wrote m ost o f his scholarly studies in which Krzywicki, an intellectual in the purest m eaning o f the w ord, com plained abou t his fellow intellectuals being largely indifferent tow ards the problem s faced by the people, the entire nation, tow ards progress in general.
The ethos and cultural pattern o f the sociologist’s social role had a next aspect, namely the injunction to study and contem plate the state of Polish society in its entirety, and, m ore broadly, o f the realm o f E uropean culture at large. The Poland which was reborn as an independent national state was poor, econom ically backw ard, riven by social, political and ethnic differences, ham pered by unresolved problem s o f peasants and the w orking class, and all that was a cause o f deep concern for sociologists. The sociologist’s cultural pattern implied that sociological studies should be diagnostic and critical, and critical rem arks should be deep-cutting and deeply rooted in social doctrine but in ethical principle as well. The sociologist, the im plication was, should avoid com prom ise solutions and understatem ents. A sociologist had a duty to induce people to cure social diseases. He should encourage a creative kind o f attitude along with a creative individual and group kind o f activeness.
Student o f society, and tu to r of society ; these two notions are indispensable when you w ant to discuss th at pattern o f the sociologist’s social role. A sociologist had no right to keep his m outh shut when questions were being
The S cholar’s S ocial Role 81
asked. He should supply answers to anyone who asked questions everywhere, from every rostrum from which anything could be said which was regarded as true. But observe th at those prom oters o f knowledge, those fighters for the truth, those technologists, as Znaniecki used to call them , had their m ost natural audience in the general public, in Polish society ; they did not define their own role through their ties with the authorities, with political parties, industrial corporations, churches, etc., but through their ties with the nation at large, with the comm unity.
There was a third aspect to the scholar’s ethos and cultural pattern o f role, namely the injunction to engage in reforms. The principal m eaning o f th at injunction was to design reforms in a very b road sense o f the w ord, starting with reforms o f social structures and rebuilding the state through to drafting m odern concepts or roles o f teacher, public figure, etc. Z nanieck’s book The People o f
Today and the Civilization o f the Future will for ever rem ain the m ost am bitious
contribution to th at particular line o f work. Znaniecki presents a deep-cutting critique of the E uropean education system along with suggestions ab o u t ways to m end it. An extra observation to be m ade in reference to this specific aspect of the scholar’s social role is th at the scholar had to stand above politics and above ideologies. Those injunctions followed from the concept o f role held by the circle o f learned sociologists at large.
Developing theory on the ground o f empirical research, form ulating diagnoses, designing reforms on as broad a scale as possible, acting as teacher and educator o f all society, understanding and sharing society’s life— th a t was a very am bitious program m e for sociological research as well as a dem anding cultural pattern for the scholar’s role. A nd yet Polish sociologists o f the time were able to live up to th at program m e, m aking it a true com pass o f their lives. Their biographies, notw ithstanding the fact th at people o f entirely different orien tations were involved, were sim ilar to each other precisely owing to the shared values and p attern o f social role. They were able to act in accordance with the m odel in very difficult conditions, in a society which showed little understanding for sociology’s aspiration to grow, in a country whose authorities did n ot quite know w hat they could do with the benefits sociology could perhaps produce. They m anaged to defend th at pattern against bureaucratic currents. They stood by th at pattern when desperate attem pts were m ade to put research into a strait jacket of regulations, to reduce it to the low status o f a purely instrum ental activity, to deprive it o f its autonom ous status, and to bring dow n researchers and university teachers to the role o f adm inistration officers. They m anaged to defend that pattern o f their social role owing to their m oral integrity and intellectual independence. T hat way they defended the national culture against losses those currents could have brought upon them if the reform which was undertaken at th at time had been carried out to the end, th at is, had th at reform indeed succeeded in changing the custom s and cultural patterns o f scholars’ roles, their research procedures and tuition models.
In 1956, when sociology was readm itted as an academic discipline, there were several first-rate m inds in Polnad, including people with close ties to European and Am erican intellectual comm unities, representing different orientations in theory and m ethod, and also people who were deeply com m itted to the Polish intellectual tradition and faithful to the m oral and ideological implications o f social doctrines they subscribed to. Those people could pride themselves on being the inheritors o f the cultural p attern o f the Polish sociologist’s social role which was developed in the two-decade period between the two world wars.
Their authentic European orientation m ade them imm une to the danger o f slipping into a Polonocentric attitude. They were perfectly aware o f the kind of country Poland was. They knew th at, like m any other countries emerging almost from nothing, from poverty and backwardness, Poland had no choice but to go through an indispensable yet costly process o f industrialization and urbaniza tion. Poland’s cultural advancem ent, which was slow and late in coming, was in their eyes not an objective in itself b ut an indispensable condition for a massive spread o f higher-order dem ands and a more rew arding life. They viewed P oland’s educational revolution as a process o f hoisting the masses to a higher level o f developm ent at which the people could partake o f the national and universal cultural values. The n a tio n ’s cultural advancem ent, in turn, was viewed by them as a condition for developing political needs and the ability to avail themselves o f political benefits. They believed th at individual and group freedom at a national scale should fulfil itself in a positive m anner in public life, on the stage o f civic life. The process o f social developm ent thus conceived o f was to culm inate in the developm ent o f a full-fledged n ation in the sense o f a political, dem ocratic and sovereign com m unity.
They realized Poland was n o t a unique country at that time. It was one o f m any countries undergoing sim ilar processes. In great toil, Polnad was forging for itself a better future at huge cost and often unnecessary sacrifices. They w anted to watch the poor, ruined and ultimately very parochial Poland scramble up to the level o f its would-be partners am ong the m ost advanced nations in the E uropean cultural heritage.
Those m asters, including S. Ossowski, M. Ossowska, J. Chałasiński, J. Szczepański, S. Szczurkiewicz, J. Hochfeld, P. Rybicki, K. Dobrowolski, were well aware th at unlike m any countries in Eastern and Southern Europe, in Asia, Africa and Latin Am erica, Poland had two strong trum p cards.
First, Poland could rely on a rich cultural heritage which had been created by groups which had a well-established national awareness and knew th at the heritage fitted well into the E uropean tradition. They saw th a t the cultural heritage o f Poland will make it possible to complete the process o f developing a national awareness am ong the masses, the process o f endowing them with a cultural awareness and activation m ore quickly and more successfully than elsewhere, which could m ake Poland a leading nation am ong others which were trying to lift themselves from their fall and which were often devoid of any higher-order national cultural values. T h at was their idea o f turning Poland’s
The S ch olar’s S ocial Role 83
parochialism into a strong trum p card : it was the people absorbing the national cultural tradition and integrating it with its own heritage, abilities, energies and hard w ork, its unbridled desire to live a better life, th at was to become the subject of national life from then on. T hat view was based upon a well-established concept o f historical and sociological processes in the 19th and 20th centuries ; the history o f our times is the history o f birth and struggle for survival and for conditions o f developm ent o f ancient and young nations. A reform ist and educative kind o f sociology was to serve those processes.
Second, there was the factor o f Poland’s geopolitical situation along with its significance in cultural and social processes. Poles are a frontier people. F or centuries they have acted as go-betweens in cultural transm ission processes. Their own national culture is a product o f two different cultures. Poles are better than others— especially th an other Slavs— disposed to perform such a specific function. In fact, the history o f sociology in the postw ar period well illustrates this belief. Sociology’s rapid growth, its ability to absorb W estern ideas and to adjust them to the requirem ents o f countries in the socialist com m unity, are evidence— along with the penetration o f Polish accom plishm ents to other countries in th a t com m unity—i n support o f that contention. M odernization o f institutions and cultural facilities in those countries is bound to result in the absorption o f the E uropean cultural heritage, and Poland is capable o f playing a prom inent role in that.
This particular vision o f the role of science and o f the scholar, along with this particular vision o f Poland, o f the Polish people and its history, im parted singular im portance to some m atters. Poland emerged out o f the w ar alm ost completely deprived o f those groups which previously used to create the national culture. The m ost im p ortant o f those groups, the intelligentsia, was com posed of no m ore than 100,000 people with college education. In those first years after the war, Poland faced a genuine threat o f losing its cultural identity, and thus also its national identity. A reinstitution o f culture-producing groups, a revitalization o f the intelligentsia— n ot ju st as a group o f “ specialists” but as a group in the sociological m eaning along with its specific ethos, ethical system and life style, its sense o f belonging, its sense o f a mission and responsibility for the preservation and prom otion o f Polish culture— were the num ber one tasks then, the do-or-die for Poland at that time. W ith th at anxiety at the back o f their m inds, people like Chałasinski wrote his' studies, J. Szczepański published his studies on the intelligentsia, M. Ossowska— hers on ethos and on the sociology o f m orals, S. Ossowski— on social psychology, specifically the sociology o f value systems and national consciousness. The idea behind those studies was to induce the intelligentsia— the architects of new values— to take up and continue deliberately the cause o f the national culture both individually and in groups. The scholar, according to th at concept, had a special kind o f responsibility for that. He not only produced new chunks o f positive knowledge b ut also form ed, through his works and his conduct as teacher, the social personalities o f m em bers o f the intelligentsia. Sociologists at th at time saw in that role not only themselves
a n d /o r other representatives o f the hum anities, b ut all scholars including scientists. T h at was why they were opposed to the concept o f society w ithout an intelligentsia, the concept which reduced the intelligentsia to the role o f experts waiting on the authorities to carry out their orders. H ad the intelligentsia been eliminated as a sociological category, the group o f people who played the decisive role in preserving P oland’s cultural and national continuity would have been eliminated autom atically. The concept o f a ready-to-oblige member o f the intelligentsia who was totally malleable implied the rejection o f a certain ideal of the intelligentsia m em ber as a person with a deep sense o f m oral integrity, patriotism and dem ocratic orientation, a person with an autonom ous con science, intellectually and m orally independent, and with a sense of responsibility for w hat the entire intelligentsia was doing for Polish culture. The concept o f the malleable intelligentsia basically implied the liquidation o f professional ethics, for such an ethics can be found above all in the ethos o f the given social group.
This heritage o f our m asters included m any m ore im po rtant elements. Let me point at two m ore now.
T h at group o f brilliant m inds, small as it was but very im portant for Polish sociology, represented a variety o f theoretical and m ethodological attitudes. M oreover, they deliberately defended th at particular state o f affairs. Those people constituted a circle o f individuals treating each other with respect and recognizing each o th er’s right to hold different views, for in differences o f views they saw an inspiration for themselves and for others, a factor od scholarly and cultural progress. Each o f those eminent sociologists perfectly understood w hat another Pole, the architect o f social anthropology Bronisław M alinowski, showed convincingly in his Freedom and Civilization, nam ely th at a culture which has no features o f pluralism or which is being deprived o f such features cannot possibly develop. Diversity is a source o f vitality and growth. However, diversity required to be underpinned by an institutional fram ew ork, and all Polish m aster sociologists subscribed to the view th at political dem ocracy was necessary for the state, autonom y was necessary for the entire sector o f research and science, freedom o f research and o f publication was necessary for the academic com m unity, and freedom was necessary to be shared equally by all m em bers of th at com m unity whatever their orientation or school. Is it not rem arkable th at th at canon o f views could bring together people as different from each other as the afore-m entioned graduate o f Cracow university Bronislaw M alinowski with Stanisław Ossowski, the initiator o f functionalism in social science and an independent intellectual with socialist leanings, and with Julian Hochfeld, who was an official Party cham pion o f M arxism ?
This brings us to a difficult question, which however dem ands a clear an unequivocal reply, namely the attitude o f those people tow ards the socialist idea.
N one o f the great m asters o f postw ar Polish sociology was indifferent tow ards th at idea. I could n o t nam e any one o f them , however fundam ental differences separated them, who was totally opposed to the substance o f th at ideology. They had certain points in com m on with one another, so let me point them out now.
The S ch olar’s Social Role 85
They all seem to have subscribed to the idea o f authentic “ socialization” of labour, culture and governm ent. They m ay have differed over the question o f which actions were indispensable to determ ine the m eaning o f ownership, but their differences were anything but diam etrically opposed even on th at issue. But each of them w anted an end to the exploitation o f labour, and all craved to see a system o f economic conditions in which w ork helped men fulfil themselves and realize their personalities fully. A dem ocratic b rand o f socialism which gave the people all power and m ade the people the recipient and co-auth or o f higher-order values o f national and universal culture easily won their hearts, and they for their p a rt did a lot by their research and teaching w ork to win others over to th a t kind o f socialism.
They typically subscribed to the views— although perhaps not always sharing all specific points— presented by Chalasinski in his reflection on the link between the idea o f nation and the idea o f socialism. Chalasinski did not conceive o f socialism as an end in itself. Socialism, for him, was a value, provided it worked as a force m aking the populace more “ nationally” aware, m ore aware o f their status o f citizens, a force enhancing the n a tio n ’s creative potential and boosting the natio n’s viability and development.
Those, briefly, were the specific features o f the cultural pattern o f the scholar’s— the sociologist’s— role at the time the m asters o f the first postw ar generation took to reviving their discipline o f knowledge. I say “ briefly,” for actually a lot m ore should be said, especially ab o u t the ethical attitude o f those people, about their craving for truth, their refutation o f com prom ise solutions, their ability to articulate tru th in their research work and in their personal conduct which yields to m oral evaluation. True, their disciples today are discussing their biographies and works, putting some o f them over others for their integrity, their ability to choose their ways in life and to resist tem ptations to go in for compromises. But all those whom I have m entioned, and others probably too deserve to be named, valued th at attitude very m uch, for it was in tune with their view o f society, o f the m anner o f sociological research into theoretical issues, and with the belief th at a m oral order is the foundation o f the entire social order.
I am certain th at this cultural pattern had, and still has, a broad er significance for other disciplines too. A t least for three reasons, th at cultural pattern has not become obsolete nor is it going to lose its significance.
1. First notice that the p a tte rn ’s im portance in the life o f the academ ic com m unity was determ ined by the universal ethical values which were p arts o f it. A n individual or a group alike can discard them , condem ning them to futility, sterility, to a loss o f their individual and group personality, b u t th at cannot deprive those values o f their meaning. The defeat is a defeat for the people who repudiate those values. Seeking truth, preserving one’s intellectual and m oral autonom y, candidness in presenting one’s views, respecting and keeping in practice to the principle o f cultural pluralism , serving the nation, dem ocratic views— all these are E uropean cultural values which were born o ut o f the
E uropean cultural spirit and which have all along inspired it and decided its future. A bdication o f these values m eans the abdication o f Polish science’s national identity, which has thrived within European culture ever since its birth. And it has thus thrived within culture in the universal m eaning o f the term, for all those values constitute E urope’s contribution to world culture.
2. T h at cultural pattern, while displaying certain specifically Polish features, has universal features which make an individual not only a m em ber o f the circle of learned men but also determine th at person’s ability to act in keeping with objective laws o f cultural processes. The m ost im portant attitude in this respect perhaps is to respect the diversity o f views within the com m unity, to respect each person's uniqueness and to take close interest in people’s singular character. Such an attitude and the values which are at its foundation enable an individual to w ork am idst a culturally differentiated com m unity and also to take advantage of cultural diversity, getting inspiration and impulses for creative action. In the past, nowadays and also in the future, culture, including science, can develop only where institutions, legal norm s and custom s, as well as the cultural pattern for the scholar’s role, will be in tune with th at principle. The well-established Polish pattern o f the scholar’s social role does meet these requirem ents, defending its own w orth today and for the future.
3. Those features which are specifically Polish in that pattern emerged as a reflection o f the m ost im portant o f all processes in 19th and 20th century Poland, namely the developm ent o f a m odern Polish nation. This process is still under way. Poland has a long way to go before it becomes a m odern nation in the true sense of the word. The cultural p attern for the scholar’s role— and thus also for the sociologist’s role in Polish society— has always presupposed, and does so now, his active engagem ent in th at process. This is another factor accounting for the vitality o f the pattern, for its usefulness today and tom orrow .
Let us ask now exactly w hat is ham pering that specific pattern from spreading ? W hy is Polish science, based as it is on a strong axiological foundation and on outstanding traditions and cultural patterns o f scholar’s roles, not always and n o t at all places developing the way it should ?
A comprehensive analysis involving all discernible factors would reveal a num ber o f different factors ham pering the developm ent o f science. Much time and energy has been spent during the last 40 years on training and installing qualified staff. It is well known th at Polish researchers have large w orkloads in tuition, coming close in th at respect to the am ount o f tuition entrusted to college researchers in the poorest o f the developing countries. The fact th at spending on research is lower in Poland than in any other European country is also widely known. Practically no com puter-controlled inform ation system exists in Poland. The printing industry is far too inadequate. Foreign publications are difficult to get hold o f and contacts with foreign research centres are difficult to establish, and so on and so forth. But others facts are more im portant than all these.
We live in a world o f changing economic, social and political structures. All those structures, when viewed from the historical and sociological angle, appear
The Scholar's Social Role 87
to be very young. In the new social systems, some groups no sooner emerge o u t o f the inchoate stage than they begin to articulate their interests and defend them doggedly thus gradually form ing their functions in the social division o f labour, as can be seen in the cases o f groups o f the state adm inistration, industry m anagers, etc. In each society, especially one immersed in a crisis, such situations involve sharp conflicts as vested interests o f different groups vying with each other for m ore influence and for reassertion clash. The academ ic com m unity is in such cases apparently powerless. Those people, short o f their ability— however curtailed sometimes— to speak their minds, have no other possibilities o f influencing developments and o f acting directly on others. But on the whole as time goes by something like a modus vivendi establishes between those groups and the circle o f learned men. Those w ho wield political or economic pow er begin to understand th at cultural processes— and the authorities have an interest in those processes going on—com m and obedience to objective laws governing these processes, and, along with these laws, also principles underlying cultural patterns of roles learned men are to fulfil, for those principles are not ju st a heritage o f the past, a burden, a reflection o f egoistic interests o f one specific group o f people, but first o f all a necessary response to requirem ents o f the process o f producing new knowledge. Som ething like a balance establishes itself, a fundam ental factor of which is the relative autonom y o f the entire research system. The longer it takes for th a t balance to establish itself, the greater the losses society stands to sustain in the process, namely the cultural process tends to founder and, in extreme cases, to stagnate completely. In the world today no society can afford to remain culturally stagnant for any longer period. W ith time, then, the circle of learned men do get the liberties, rights and legal recognition and institutional possibilities to create new values.
T h at is a first-rate issue in Poland. The present crisis, which cuts very deeply, cannot possibly be overcome w ithout speeding up cultural processes very strongly. Fortunately in the initial stage o f socio-political reforms legal foundations were laid for institutions which are o f fundam ental im portance for the cultural pattern o f the scholar’s role in society, o f such a role to be played by specialists in social science and specialists in natural science. M aybe th at fram ew ork is yet far from perfect. But it is extremely badly needed now, after four decades o f such foundations not existing, which caused cultural processes to slow down dram atically which was one o f the factors responsible for the present crisis. There is no way now adays to give a fair evaluation o f those institutions in different aspects o f their operation. The social system o f science is n o t a mill churning o u t simple implements. New social institutions reveal their m erits and faults only years after they have begun to work. It is necessary to look at least at one generation o f researchers, their biographies and results o f their labours, to see to it th at the evaluation provided is indeed accurate and fair. But it is certain that they are institutions which were brought to other societies by the progress of science and a rapid growth o f culture. It is therefore fair to pin so m uch.hope upon them.
U nfortunately, now and then we observe a reversal on th at road of reform in the direction o f building institutions of the kind which was shown by history to be leading to stagnation. W hat is the sociological m eaning o f th at tendency ?
An organizational structure is enforced upon science which is all right with the principles o f bureaucratic rationalism . G roups whose entire body o f experiences is associated with officialdom, with adm inistrative practices, have usually easily arrived at the view—whatever the social system in which they operated— th at that particular model o f organization of social relations which was best for their own purposes would also be functional, sensible and efficient enough when applied to organization o f social relations elsewhere, in other walks o f life. People with th at particular fram e o f mind often find it hard to com prehend that th at bureaucratic rationalism may be totally unsuited for efficient work in other areas. This is, in fact, w hat is happening to the social system o f science. A scholar who becomes a civil servant ceases to produce new knowledge. The best he will be able to do from then on will be to emulate existing standards, to rehash truths uttered by others, or to convey things discovered elsewhere.
But even in the toughest o f times sociological reflections can be a source of useful counsel, a source o f fresh hope. Social life is a sum total o f controlled and noncontrolled processes. It has never and nowhere proved possible to ram those processes into arbitrary institutional fram ew orks especially such that were ill-suited for th at purpose. M an ’s craving for truth, for knowledge, for creative work, cannot be put down. All these desires, however esoteric they may appear, eventually crush even the hardest rock. This is why we should quietly, prudently and patiently keep bringing it home to our legislators that they are setting out on a perilous job, which holds potentially huge losses for Polish culture, when they w ant to liquidate the just-born institutions o f academic autonom y and the freedom o f putting into practice the cultural pattern o f the scholar’s role. We m ust be doing that, for otherwise we may have to take some o f the blame for a possible liquidation o f th at liberty.
