City space and the invention of history
Wrocław is a very interesting case of the functioning collective and historical memory. Due to its complicated history, resulting from its multicultural char- acter, historical memory cannot be attributed to one particular social commun- ity which was or is inhabiting the city. As a signifi cant space and an important element of historical memory, Wrocław can be and is a point of reference to the collective identity (including historical memory) of diff erent nations. Apart from the Polish inhabitants of Wrocław, the Czechs, Austrians, Germans, and Jews also lived here and co-created the image, history, politics, and importance of the city in the past (not to mention the ethnic and national minorities living in the city now). Multidimensionality of the collective and historical memory completes a sociological assumption that the historical memory of current residents of the city has no uniform character. One could say that it is a patchwork of meanings as diverse as Wrocław’s community in the sociological terms. Yet the case of this city is enormously interesting for another reason. Referring to the constructivist understanding of remembrance, which is derived from the M. Halbwachs trad- ition, one should treat past as a social construct which is the function of a specifi c historical situation. Th e past is created when it becomes the subject of references1. Th e history as an objective sequence of facts does not exist in the dimension of social consciousness owing to the hermeneutic conditions. Each community, so- cial group creates under certain conditions its own specifi c interpretation of the past and history. Moreover, interpretation is a hermeneutic process which decides about the characteristic “submission” of the history to the present. Th erefore, his- tory is a functional element of such construct as local identity (or ethnic identity2) and perhaps individual identity, which is worth exploring.
1 J. Assmann, “Culture of Remembrance”. In Collective and Culture Memory. Modern German, ed. M. Saryusz-Wolska, Kraków 2009.
2 I would like to show that local identity and ethnic/national identity can exist as a potentially confl icting opposition of forms of social consciousness within one collectivity.
Th e most important observation which I would like to mention refers to sig- nifi cant diff erences in the functioning of historical memory in intellectual and political elites, and the average inhabitants of the city. For elites, historical mem- ory becomes an element of purposeful and relatively planned activities (not ne- cessarily consistent) addressing selected topics of the city history and aiming to construct a particular image of the city as a multicultural, open, tolerant, and, thus, a resilient, dynamic, focused on the development of social space. It seems that in the 1990s the main strategy of East-Central European cities was to create a “European”, to some extent, identity, to shape modern, international, and cap- italist place identity, and reject the socialist past3. At this point, one should refer to the terminological distinction made by Aleida Assmann4. A. Assmann makes a distinction of the collective forms of references to the past, which can have signifi cant impact on the duration of communities. Th ree forms can be distin- guished and, simultaneously5, corresponding levels of remembrance: communi- cative memory (the most basic one, which consists of individual memories trans- ferred to the next generations); collective memory (higher level of generational remembrance supplemented with a preliminary process of institutionalization, e.g. political institutions appear as an attribute of a particular community with developed elements of solidarity or social integration); and culture memory (the highest level of institutionalization of references to the past transcended over col- lective emotions and based mainly on the institutions and media). According to these arrangements, one can make some suppositions about Wrocław authorities’
(or other institutional subjects) actions and their interpretation. It seems that the second level of memory, i.e. collective memory, would be the most adequate con- cept; this is mostly because of the short-term character of the city’s authorities’
activity (namely, only several years), which has not been signifi cantly established in institutionalized and externalized way yet. In the case of average inhabitants, historical memory (which actually assumes the character of communicative memory in accordance with A. Assmann’s distinction) has a more spontaneous and visibly inconsistent nature based on superfi cial historical references, short- term social and political contexts, oft en constructed on the basis of stereotypes and prejudices.
Another important assumption is that a crucial reference point for many his- torical memories of Wrocław is its material substrate; the material heritage, which is included in urban arrangements, architecture, buildings and public objects.
3 A. Tolle, “Urban Identity Policies in Berlin: From Critical Reconstruction to Reconstructing the Wall”. Cities, 27(5), October 2010.
4 A. Assmann, “1998 — Between the History and Remembrance”. In Collective and Culture Memory…
5 In most academic papers dealing with the problem of social memory, there are basically two forms: communicative memory and culture memory in diff erent variations (A. Assmann, J. As- smann, P. Nora, A. Earll and others).
Firstly, the historical meanings are inscribed in this material dimension and; sec- ondly, they are decoded in a specifi c way by current residents; and thirdly, the new meanings, which are symbolic for a specifi c community and represent its specifi c social contexts, are stored in them. Th e attitude to architectural objects, particularly historic ones, can be a satisfactory indicator not only of the basic and simple relation “a man — and his material surroundings”, i.e. the relation which is entrenched in one of the basic dimensions of social reality. More importantly, it can be an indicator of forms of participation in symbolic space which already is an integral element of identity building. Architectural heritage of Wrocław, similarly to other big cities, can construct the local identity of inhabitants. Multi- ethnic history of the city has a great signifi cance in the case of Wrocław. From the sociological point of view, there is an important question of whether this specifi c profi le of the city shapes in any way the elements of inhabitants’ identity. Accord- ingly, one can point out a few detailed questions:
— is the architectural heritage connected with the nations inhabiting and rul- ing Wrocław in the past? Is there any symbolic response in the consciousness of today’s inhabitants, e.g. do the citizens of Wrocław recognize the Czech, Austrian, Jewish or German heritage elements and if yes, does it become a signifi cant part of symbolic space connotation? It can be assumed that the German or Jewish heritage, rather than the Czech or Austrian, would play a greater role due to the historical proximity; what is more, these nations would be associated with their stereotypical perceptions. In this dimension, fi rstly — the historical meanings are inscribed, secondly — they are decoded in a specifi c way by current residents and thirdly — the new meanings symbolic for a specifi c community, representing its specifi c social contexts, are stored therein;
— is the local identity of Wrocław inhabitants constructed with reference to these historical elements, or maybe temporal distance is conducive to ahistorical functional references to architecture? Yet, a signifi cant space and important ele- ment of historical memory can be and is a point of reference to the collective identity of diff erent nations. Apart from Polish inhabitants, Czechs, Austrians, Germans and Jews also lived and co-created the image, history, politics, and the importance of the city in the past. Th ey also contributed to the specifi c construc- tion of the city’s local identity. Th e German or Jewish background of architectural objects can be recognized but decoding the symbolic meaning connected there- with will have a rather current character connected with the present function of the objects; in professional literature, Wrocław is presented as a “city without memory”6 which, as a result of “historical rupture” aft er 1945 and ideological
6 G. Th um, Strange City, Wrocław 1945 and aft er, [jeśli publikacja ukazała się w języku pol- skim, proszę przywrócić oryginalny tytuł, ew. w nawiasie podając tłumaczenie, obecny zapis jest mylący] Wrocław 2008, p. 416; the English version of this work printed in Wrocław was entitled Uprooted. How Breslau Became Wrocław During the Century of Expulsions (2011).
endeavours of the communist authorities, could not elaborate symbolic references to the past other than these strengthening a new nationalistic form of identity;
— is this specifi c heritage becoming a signifi cant reference point for other social actors? At least two types of social actors could be important, namely — the city authorities and civic society actors, who are somehow connected with the city, e.g. foundations, associations, clubs. For this kind of problems, one can pose the question of what expectations, if any, the inhabitants have toward the city’s authorities when it comes to the usage and treatment of this heritage. Th e social dimension means also the specifi c social phenomenon and an example of social/collective identity construction (reconstruction) where the past is a social construct, which is the function of a specifi c historical situation; under certain conditions each community or social group creates its own specifi c interpretation of the past and history.
The Four Temples District — from history to myth
In Wrocław many places or architectural objects, due to their historical sig- nifi cance and legible symbolic connections with the dominant nations in the city should be considered examples of signifi cant space. Moreover, some of them in- deed have an emblematic character, owing to their form and meaning directly related to particular nations7. Th rough the intended activity of social actors con- nected with the city, these objects are in turn becoming evident examples of the ways of either historical meaning reconstruction or construction of a new mean- ing functionally related to the situation in which they are.
Th e Four Temples District is a specifi c example for a few reasons. First of all, it is a place which does not carry such distinct historical meaning as other sig- nifi cant objects in Wrocław8. In this way, the District can be regarded a perfect example of the mechanisms of historical remembrance and its specifi c dimen- sions; an example of how history can become the starting point of constructing a new meaning and building new symbols. At least, it is one of the best possible illustrations of a very interesting and dynamic social process about which J. Ass- mann wrote:
7 Most important examples of these architectonical objects — like the main building of the Wroclaw University (representing the Habsburg heritage), the Centennial Hall (the People’s Hall until recently, connected with German heritage) or Jewish cementary — are at the same time pla- ces around which various activities of city authorities and associations are concentrating.
8 Before WWII, it was a typical part of the city center, indistinguishable neither in functional nor in symbolic terms from other neighboring parts of the center. Aft er WWII and until the be- ginning of 1990s, it was a rather neglected part of the close center periphery and had no unique qualities. Since the second half of the 90s, it is the place around which social activity, most of civic associations, city authorities and partly also the inhabitants concentrate.
Each deeper rupture of continuity and tradition can lead to formation of the past; it happens then, when aft er such a rupture follows a new beginning. […] Anticipating the future, it is reconstructing and discovering the past9.
In the case of Wrocław, one has to deal with at least two moments of rupturing historical continuity. Th e fi rst, drastic and total, took place aft er the WWII. Th e second, less deep but defi nite in the institutional dimension, appeared following the system change of 1989. Th e process of restoring the old and constructing the new meanings with diff erent intensity in various places in Wrocław began at that time.
Th e history of constructing new anticipating meanings in the case of the Four Temples District is relatively short and accidental to some extent10. Th e story it- self, placed on the Internet, has all the characteristics of mythologization, neces- sary in the process of constructing new meanings and discovering history. As it happened under favorable circumstances (i.e. in the period of system change, when the new possibilities of development and city rebuilding occurred, social in- itiative and social identity renaissance took place, including religious and fi nally specifi c architectural and cultural heritage), it started an undeniably dynamic social process. Wrocław, as it was reborn anew only “needed” mythologizing symbolic treatments. During a dynamic and profound change which increased social diff erentiation and social confl icts, symbolic structures such as the found- ing myth had a mitigating eff ect on the potential disorder and an edifying one in the dimension of collective identity. Fruchter and Harris11 describe the mytholo- gizing eff ect of the image of Toronto as the most multicultural city in the world in the minds of its inhabitants. Grassroots creation of the founding myth appears to alleviate social tensions and despite diff erences appoint the city to life as a whole.
Wrocław, however, is in a diff erent situation. It is a homogeneous monocultural city that needs to generate its own characteristics for building a sense of local community. It does not have the bottom-up spontaneous nature but the symbolic treatments are very similar.
9 J. Assmann, op. cit.
10 “Everything began seemingly with the stones thrown by the hooligans, who were easy to meet in this not very safe place in the beginning of 1990s. Th e fi rst one fl ew in 1995 into the hi- storic stained glass window of the Roman Catholic Church and almost hit the sister of the rector Fr. Zytowiecki. Few days later, someone threw a stone into the icon located outside of the Ortho- dox Church. J. Kichler the vice-chairman (now the chairman) of the Jewish Community was the witness of this event. He turned to Fr. Zytowiecki with this matter. Th ey invited to the dialogue Fr. R. Pieron from Evangelical Lutheran Church and Fr. A. Kochanowicz from Orthodox parish.
Th ey began to discuss how they could have stopped these acts of vandalism”. Th e story is descri- bed on the website of the project “Wroclaw — the city of dialog”, http://www.miasto-dialogu.wroc.
pl/czym_jest.html.
11 P. Fruchter, A.L. Harris, “Th e Myth of Multicultural City…”. HAGAR Studies in Culture, Polity and Identities, 10(1), 2010.
One can show examples of such treatments which have been appearing on the offi cial website of the organization associated with this place.
Have you ever wondered whether there is such a place in the world where people of diff erent faiths can live side by side? Where it does not matter whether you’re Jewish or Orthodox? Yes, there is! In Wrocław, between the streets of Kazimierz the Great (Kazimierza Wielkiego), St.
Anthony (św. Antoniego), St. Nicholas (św. Mikołaja) and Paul Włodkowic, there is a place where all religious feuds are disappearing: Th e Four Temples District12.
Th is makes the District unique in Europe. It is probably the only place on the Old Continent, where four religions coexist and cooperate with each other. Th e borders of Wrocław ran that way formerly. Th e wall stood along the present Włodkowica street. And hence the German name for the road: Wallstrasse, which means Walowa (Wallstreet). Th e Four Temples District (also known as the Quarter of Mutual Respect) is today one of the most popular places in Wrocław. […] Even though the development of the District took place under the ruling of Prussia and Germany, it is the reason for making historical references and side notes on the multiculturalism13.
It is a place where diff erences disappear and diff erentiating features lose their importance — and this makes it unique. Such an image formed in the media can be interpreted as an attempt to create the founding myth, which is a symbolic formula for legitimizing not only a new image of the district (in the sense of tourism marketing) but also more broadly an identity of the whole social space of the city. Taylor Stevenson14 suggests that the mythical formulae (mythological stories) are structures created with symbols and symbol sets, which are involved and designed in dramatized rituals with a narrative form, the function of which is to give meaning and shape the world through the settlement of what is true and good. It is questionable whether treatments around the district have only such nature; in the direct and superfi cial view thereof — not necessarily. Yet, when we take into account the role of history, how it is used, transformed and what func- tions this mythical formula launched, the city’s history is woven into the narrative formula of the district.
In the symbolic dimension, it also started a language label construction which, by its signifi cance, forced a specifi c connotation that in reference to the city his- tory had somehow a simplifi ed character:
Th is unusual quarter of the city has many names. It is referred to as: “Th e Four Temples Dis- trict”, “Th e District of Tolerance”, “Wrocław Square”, and “Th e District of Reconciliation”.
Th e most popular term is “Th e District of Mutual Respect”. Th is name was proposed by the Metropolitan of Wrocław, Cardinal Henryk Gulbinowicz15.
12 http://dzielnicaczterechwyznan.wroclaw.pl/.
13 http://www.gazetawroclawska.pl/artykul/382550,dzielnica-czterech-swiatyn-to-wielki- skarb-wroclawia,id,t.html?cookie=1 (access: 21.03.2011).
14 W.T. Stevenson, “Myth and the Crisis of Historical Consciousness”. In Myth and the Crisis of Historical Consciousness, ed. L.W. Gibbs, W.T. Stevenson, Missoula, Mont. 1975.
15 http://dzielnica4wyznan.info.pl/dzielnica/.
Th e multiplicity of these designations can prove that we come across the pro- cess of space marking which is not rooted in social consciousness yet. A favorable architectural-cultural condition is that the temples of four religious denomina- tions — Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox church, Protestant community and synagogue (which remained almost in the state of ruin until early 2000) — are located closely to each other. Co-existence of multiple religious’ denominations neighboring within the urban space was not unusual before WWII. It was rather typical and not exclusive to Wrocław (excluding the period of Nazism and its relations with Jews). Aft er WWII and forty years of communist regime, which used history for building a political, ethnic and, to a signifi cant extent, religious
“monoculture”, places where signifi cant social diversity occurs became unique and symbolic. Asking about the history thereof seems natural in such a context.
It should be acknowledged that complicated past contained in architecture can support legitimization of a rather simplifi ed perception of multicultural urban space. Final legitimization is predated by the process of institutionalization of a disclosed and clearly explicated social diversity which has remained hidden up until now.
In 1996, the Council of the District of Mutual Respect was appointed, whose activities con- tributed to the strengthening of mutual cooperation; in 2005 four denominations established together the existence of “Four Denominations Foundation of Mutual Respect”16.
“Th e District of Mutual Respect of Four Denominations” is constituted. Its main aims are
“propagation of a dialog between religions and ecumenism, as well as common ethical val- ues, […] preservation of full autonomy of four religious communities, creation of conditions necessary for cooperation between them […] cultural activities, protection of culture and art heritage, protection of rights and autonomy of minorities, educational activity […] scientifi c activity […] for respect of history, tradition and culture […]”17.
Th e idea of establishing the foundation and the idea of the Wrocław District of Four De- nominations have become the driving force for the city authorities to make the district a kind of symbol of a tolerant city and, through a thorough restoration, to transform dilapidated area into the showcase of the city and the attractive tourist destination. […] In 2005, Wrocław’s Development Offi ce proposed the creation of “the Cultural Path of Four Temples”, which is supposed to connect all objects of worship found in this part of town18.
Th ere are interesting paradoxes involved in this process. Taking into con- sideration the historical dimension, one comes across four nations building the signifi cance of Wrocław. But in the process of memory recovery on its symbolic level, the Czech and Austrian accents are absent. It seems to be the function of historical distance. Less understandable, however explainable, is the absence of German accents. On the symbolic remembrance map of the District, the most
16 http://www.luteranie.org/powstala-brama-do-dzielnicy-czterech-swiatyn/.
17 http://www.fundacja4wyznan.pl/index.php?str=3.
18 http://dzielnica4wyznan.info.pl/dzielnica/.
visible are Jewish elements, mainly due to the impressive reconstruction of the White Stork Synagogue. Owing to a well-organized foundation, the synagogue became a relevant center of high brow culture in Wrocław, reaching beyond reli- gious and ethnic boundaries.
Th e City Council plays a signifi cant role in the activation of mechanism rel- evant to the institutionalization of historical memory. It seems that the phenom- enon of the District became attractive due to its ideological aspects. Th e city Council very quickly got involved in the “reconstruction” of a place symboliz- ing the “multicultural” profi le of the city and its affi liations with tolerance. In time of advanced modernization, global processes and decay of great ideologies, there was a strong need for a “new opening”, new symbolic components shaping character and building identity. Consensus has been worked out in terms of the need for long-term investments in symbolically relevant enterprises. Not without signifi cance in this context is the fact that the city was severely damaged by the war and seriously neglected for decades during the communist era. Many signifi - cant ventures appeared at the city’s initiative or with cooperation of the city19. In 2005, the District was registered as a historical treasure and acknowledged as the History Monument. Th e “Cultural Path” connecting four temples and setting boundaries of the area was established. Sacral buildings, like synagogue, are be- ing revitalized20. Tenement houses are being rebuilt, new markings of buildings and tourist routes are introduced. It all serves the purpose of getting in touch with the cultural wealth and historical meaning of this unusual place. Of course, all of this enterprises have commercial signifi cance as well and are expected to convert the city into a tourist attraction.
All these intense symbolic proceedings are additionally supported by the strat- egy of self-empowerment and self-justifi cation. Th e City Council and independ- ent foundations use affi rmative terms. Wrocław, in the context of existence of the District and activities focused upon it, is called “the city of dialog”21. What can be observed is clearly the process of extrapolation of meaning. Th e District itself is oft en named by the media “the tourist gem” and the city wants to open the Tourist Information Center therein. Everyone arriving in Wrocław must see the District. Wrocław citizens also have to be convinced that the place is worth
19 On the offi cial website of the city — http://www.wroclaw.pl/dzielnica_czterech_wyznan,1.
dhtml — the activities, actions, undertakings in which the city signifi cantly participates are spe- cifi ed.
20 At the city of Wrocław’s initiative a partnership was created in order to adjust the White Stork Synagogue. Th e partnership comprised: Bente Kahan Foundation (leader of the project), the City of Wrocław and the Union of Jewish Communities. Th e city of Wrocław subsidized the pro- ject with the amount of 1,400,095 PLN, which was a prerequisite for fi nancing the entire project.
Th e value of investments is estimated at 10,000,000 PLN. Th e Synagogue Renovation project lasted 3 years — http://www.wroclaw.pl/synagoga_2,1.dhtml.
21 http://www.miasto-dialogu.wroc.pl/nasz_projekt.html — the page of the youth educatio- nal center “Our Home”.
coming to as much as the Market Square is22. Th e preceding sentence is especially relevant since its sense will be discussed below along with the results of empirical research. Such symbolic amplifi cation generates a paradoxical eff ect. Th e District is not an emanation of Wrocław’s history but the city gains signifi cantly from the District’s character, which is de facto a symbolic project “invented” recently as a contemporary projection of history.
One could ask again, why did the District specifi cally become the subject of especial treatment by the City Council? Besides reasons mentioned earlier, it is important to highlight once again ideology — the identity component. Aft er the 1989 transformation, Wrocław had to rewrite its history and build new identity from scratch. Ideas such as tolerance, dialog, multiculturalism, and reconcilia- tion fi tted well into the ideological trends of the globalizing world. Th is place, not necessarily affi liated with one weft of history or a specifi c nation dominating in the city, appeared to be ideal for symbolic endeavors. One could ponder whether the actions of the elites do not follow this schema: history became a legend; the legend became a myth.
The Four Temples District — between myth and social practice
Following the issues mentioned earlier, I would like to invoke empirical re- search23. Th ere are a few relevant circumstances behind the decision on the re- searched population. Material surroundings and architectural heritage are sub- jects of multiple specifi c and symbolic eff orts of various social subjects, beginning with the authorities that decide on what is going to happen with it.
If the District of Mutual Respect is treated as a symbolic representation of the city, as a metaphor of the transformation aft er 1989, it is important to talk about the idea rooted in the consciousness of collectives composing the city. We adopted a working hypothesis that there are some structural diff erences, espe- cially between the elites and ordinary citizens. Th e District and the values linked thereto are/were an ideological construct created by the city elites; therefore, both the time and the variety of propaganda procedure have been needed to achieve
22 http://wroclaw.gazeta.pl/wroclaw/1,35771,10898397,Wielkie_zmiany_szykuja_w_Dzielni- cy_Czterech_Wyznan.html and http://www.fundacja4wyznan.pl/index.php?str=1.
23 Conducted between 2011 and 2014 on the representative sample group of the population of Wrocław’s high school students, inhabitants and purposeful samples of university students and city elites within the framework of Th e International Research Project “Th e Mem ory of Vanished Population Groups in Today’s East — and Central European Urban Environment. Memory Tre- atment and Urban Planning in L’viv, Černivci, Chişinău and Wrocław”. Th e research was conduc- ted under the patronage of the Centre of European Study, Lund University, with the participation of sociology research team from the Institute of Sociology, University of Wrocław. Th e research has a multidimensional character and consists of a few stages in which various research techni- ques are used.
obligatory and indisputable, at least for a part of the population, perception of it.
Ambiguity is revealed at once in the control question: (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Where in Wrocław is the District located? (streets and objects, % of N in category)
In our study we aim above all at reconstructing knowledge about spatial loca- tion of the Quarter. All these streets and buildings demarcate the Quarter. Not all of the objects were mentioned by respondents and some of those that were do not fall within the Quarter’s area. It is worth highlighting the fact that when re- spondents did indicate an object, it was the synagogue and none of the Christian churches. It may be connected with the entertaining character of the mentioned objects. Both the cinema and the synagogue are leisure centers (pubs, restau- rants, music clubs). As shown in Figure 1, the distribution of responses among the various researched social groups is similar. Th ey diff er only in frequency. Th e anticipation and results discussed in other articles have been fulfi lled as the elites have more knowledge about the existence of the Quarter as an “invention” of the elites themselves. Th e only mystery is associated with low indication frequency of the Synagogue, which is located in Włodkowica street, a popular meeting place.
Włodkowica street received most responses, regardless of the surveyed popula- tion and placed itself just before Antoni street. Both streets are relatively popular places on the map of Wrocław. Diff erences between the students and residents’
readings may derive from the fact that there are a lot of newcomers among the students who do not have their identity rooted in the city. Approximated know- ledge assessed through the indication of a certain area of the city, naming at least one of the streets, relates to about 37% (37% of all respondents but 81% of
respondents who answered the question). On the other hand, precise knowledge about the location is possessed by almost 2% of respondents. Similarly, when re- spondents were asked about the temples in the context of the District, the results obtained indicate a rather insignifi cant association between the place and the name. Among four temples placed in the District, even a Catholic church was not mentioned by the majority; 7% of the respondents mentioned also a mosque, or a Muslim temple which does not exist in the center of the city at all.
Another refl ection is concerned with the respondents locating the Quarter as they focused mainly on the streets and, to a much lesser extent, on the objects localized therein. Apart from the synagogue, no other historical architectural object has been associated with this place. Such landmarks as the New Stock Exchange, Royal Palace, the monastery in Włodkowica Street, the Ballestrem’s palace, Pokoyhof arcade or Christian churches do not appear in the responses at all. Clearly, the reason can be the long-term negligence of these objects (apart from the temples), which have not had a chance to stand out and take root in the minds of residents as signifi cant in any way. Th ere is yet another consequence of this state of aff airs. Apart from a faint historical knowledge, mythologizing treat- ments of elite appear to have been ineff ective so far. If we treat the Quarter as an example of a kind of founding myth of “new” Wrocław, such myth needs strong symbols either rooted in the minds of residents or rising from their experience.
Objects that may have the rank of symbols used and transformed by the myth do not appear in the consciousness of respondents.
Figure 2. Do you recognize the object in the picture (White Stork Synagogue)
Only one of the objects mentioned by respondents, namely the Synagogue, is not a symbol strong enough to stay in the memory of Wrocław’s. Figure 2 is a presenta- tion of object recognition test based on the displayed photographs. In comparison to students, residents have a higher level of recognition; still, half of the respondents among residents does not recognize one of the most spectacular historical districts.
Th e next question (Figure 3) dealt with knowledge about the origin of the name of the District itself. It was a closed type question with suggested possible situations to choose from.
Figure 3. Who came up with the name of the District?
Interpretation is hampered especially in the context of the fi rst discussed ques- tion (Figure 1). It is not necessarily factual knowledge; it is more of an intuition supported by suggestions (the name in the question suggests a religious charac- ter). Th erefore, most of the indications of the answer connected with the author- ities’ activity, however not correct, have some intuition concerning the use of the District for the purposes of promotion, which can be considered as relevant. In any case, it seems that we have to deal with referring not to the factual knowledge but more with referring to a supported social acumen.
Another question considering the knowledge shows the gap between the elites and other researched social collectives. Only high school students have know- ledge similar to the elites. Low level of knowledge is confi rmed in particular by declarations of ignorance about the origins of the name of the Quarter. Perhaps students and residents more oft en express lack of orientation and interests in the symbolic space of the city, which is beyond the traditional one. In the case of stu- dents it may be a result of the lack of rootedness as well as functioning in other symbolic systems (other clubs, other restaurants, other “routes”). In the case of residents, however, this may be due to the internalization of a traditional symbolic map. Th e District is not mentioned as worthy of its name in the questions about
the kind of urban and architectural objects that could be considered a showcase of the city24.
Figure 4. In what aspects is the District diff erent from other parts of Wrocław's old town (inhabi- tants, % of N = 216)
Th e question concerning the diff erences between the District and the rest of the Old Town (Figure 4) confi rms the lack of rootedness of the District in the residents’ social consciousness. Less than half of respondents answered this ques- tion at all. Among those who did, the picture that dominates is associated with an offi cial message and stereotypical perception of something that has four temples in its name, respect and reconciliation. A multicultural nature, historicity and uniqueness — this is the stereotype of the space presented in municipal transfers, which probably convinces a certain part of the population.
Th e question of what is taking place in the Quarter (Figure 5) also confi rms the stereotypical nature of the beliefs about this place. It was an open question (like the previous one), so the indications should be considered not as indicators of knowledge but associations. Th ose who decided to answer this question associ- ate the Four Temples District mostly with cultural and religious events. Mean- while, the main character of the space can be described in terms of entertainment and culture and only in the slightest degree in terms of both cultural and religious events. Such knowledge is possessed by the residents who visit restaurants, pubs, movie theater, and synagogue therein (where there are more cultural than reli- gious events). It can be assumed, therefore, that most of the residents who know
24 Th e traditional symbolic map layout is associated with such “showcases” as the Market Squ- are, City Hall, Cathedral, Cathedral Island, Centennial Hall; therefore, the most “visible” objects in terms of tourism and the most magnifi cent in the historical sense.
the specifi c streets, buildings, places do not necessarily associate them with the symbolic construct of the Quarter of Four Denominations.
Th e above-mentioned context of potential knowledge about Th e Four Temples District is important because of the attitudes toward the symbolic message con- nected with its phenomenon. Th e level of knowledge has no signifi cance, so it is supported by the elements of communicative memory and culture memory.
I would also like to draw attention to the opinions of the youth as these are useful indicators of the points of view of their parents. Parents’ opinions are good illustrations of an inter-generational cultural transfer, transmission of values and patterns of attitudes toward any symbolic dimensions of social or cultural real- ity and, most of all, they can be treated as a display of communicative memory.
Finally, institutionalized form of trans-generational communication can be as- sessed. Educational institutions, for obvious reasons, are predestined to actions forming elements of knowledge, social consciousness, and collective identity.
Th ey also tend to form competencies and abilities that relate to the past engraved in material environment. Th us, this aspect can be treated as an expression of cultural memory.
Referring to the memory dimension, we have applied two indicators — inter- generational record in family frames and institutionalized record in school frames. Th e functioning of communicative memory has been verifi ed by the question whether the history of Wrocław, especially the “sensitive” post-war his- tory, is the subject of family talks (table 1).
Figure 5. What interesting events are taking place in the District (inhabitants, % of N = 245)
Table 1. Did your parents or grandparents tell you about life in post-war Wrocław? According to the mother’s education
% from “mother’s education” (N = 495) Post-war Wrocław as a topic of
family discussions
Mother’s education
Total Primary Vocational Secondary Higher
Often 38.5% 28.3% 31.5% 39.8% 34.6%
Rarely 23.1% 50.0% 57.0% 47.3% 51.7%
Never 38.5% 21.7% 11.5% 12.9% 13.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Th e inter-generational record can depend on many variables but the parents’
education seems to be one of the most important ones. Th e infl uence of higher education on higher intensity of the record seems to be an obvious assumption.
Th erefore, it has not been confi rmed in our research. Most of all, the frequency of discussing the history of Wrocław is quite low (only about 35% of respondents declare that they oft en or very oft en talk with their family about these topics). Th e majority does so rarely or never — it is 65% in sum. It is also clear that the level of parents’ education (here: the mother’s education, but the father’s education similarly) does not have such a diff erentiating character as it did when it comes to another problem. It may result from the fact that such distant history of the city is not the history of family or is not a crucial element of the collective/family identity. Wrocław and its material/architectural attributes have not had time to take root in the family remembrance as a singled out, specifi c part of “our”, of “we here” sense of existence.
It is another important indicator presenting the character and intensity of the presence of history in the consciousness of young inhabitants of Wrocław. Th e feature which usually diff erentiates the respondents’ opinions, namely type of school, in the case of discussing multiculturalism in the history of Wrocław has not had any signifi cant infl uence. Th is is, of course, a very narrow and specifi c subject but 90% of respondents rarely or never participate in such discussions at school. Th is should lead to the following conclusion: there are no developed elements of memory yet in the consciousness of the youth. Surely, the favorable age to internalize these memory elements could be discussed. Yet, the way and the quality of historical record in schools is of unquestionable importance. Both the manner of teaching and history curricula have been criticized for years and the reforms that followed have not brought any signifi cant change. However, this specifi c situation can be considered as a much more profound problem at least in
its global dimension. Peter Seixas25 tries to explain it as a historical process of tak- ing over history by the idea of progress. Living in everyday life which has less and less in common with the past, we necessarily separate ourselves from it. Th is also applies to history itself understood as a professional practice. History as an ob- jective and consistent description of the past has been questioned. Hence, histor- ians become the interpreters of specifi c “tracks” leading up to the past. Th e issue of contextualization appears. We, as conscious agents, interpret the past, we need such interpretation for some reason. We contextualize the “proposals” of histor- ians through the interpretation of the circumstances in which a given “proposal”
arose and then through the individual/collective demand for certain historical events. P. Seixas comments that “we exist in historical time as much as the objects of our study do”. Wrocław is rooted in history; however, we decide how deep and what we do want to see or draw from history on the basis of our functional needs.
We are no longer eager to trust in great narratives, traditional forms of historical perspective. Historical consciousness is now inscribed in the everyday context.
Hence, it can be said that the history of the city matters to such a degree as it is needed to analyze, describe, perceive and to cope with the everyday life.
Th e distribution of opinions about the importance of the city’s history to re- spondents (Figure 6) shows a small variation. Firstly, among those who are not interested in the city’s history and those who are interested in it. Moreover, re- spondents who were less interested in history declare that it is important anyway but they do not want to become tangled in it for various reasons. Th e other re- sponse categories do not give a clear picture of attitudes towards the history of Wrocław. Between the abstract statement “History is a teacher of life”, or “For the duration of the nation and the next generation”, less abstract “National, local identity”, to the very specifi c “I was born here, I love this city” and “Good tourist product”, there are no big diff erences. Th e distribution of opinions is almost the same, regardless of the positive or negative attitude towards history. Does this mean that the history does not diff erentiate the citizens? Well, not necessarily.
Social practices related to, for example, national celebrations show that national myths are more rooted in social consciousness, and that they form confl icts and relationships with history. Th e city’s history is thus only a ritual point of reference.
Th e elements of collective memory can be considered from the perspective of respondents’ individual predispositions, beyond the educational and family context. Reconstruction of the symbolic meaning of the city space cannot be held outside the context of cultural heritage established in architecture. In this case, the relation to this heritage would certainly be an indicator of individual ap- proach. In our study, we have examined the attitude of diff erent categories of in-
25 P. Seixas, “Progress, Presence and Historical Consciousness: Confronting Past, Presence and Future in Present Time”. Pedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Educa- tion, 48(6), 2012.
habitants’ to the architectural heritage, which would be associated with particular nations creating Wrocław’s space in the past.
I would like to conclude these remarks with a hypothesis regarding the nature of collective identity of Wrocław’s inhabitants. For almost the entire period of the Polish People’s Republic, it was impossible to form the stable local identity due to multiple diff erent reasons (some of which are discussed above)26. However, the changes taking place in the city in the 1990s led to the formation of local identity as a positive distinguishing mark of the city27. Nevertheless, our research clearly suggests that the historical memory and history of the city might not necessarily be an important element infl uencing the shape of this identity. Th erefore, this
26 G. Th um, Strange City…, p. 419.
27 J. Pluta, “Identity and Locality. Remarks on Wrocław Inhabitants’ Relations to City Space”.
In My Wrocławianie. Społeczna przestrzeń miasta, ed. P. Żuk, J. Pluta. Wrocław 2006.
Figure 6. Why the history of the city is or isn't important to you (inhabitants by the interest in the history of Wrocław, N = 440)
type of situation can be defi ned as “an identity without memory” or “an ahistor- ical identity”.
Conclusions
Aft er the system change in 1989, Wrocław faced the situation of “renegotia- tion” and reconstruction of collective identity, which was connected with the ne- cessity of discovering the city’s history and rewriting and inventing it; this in turn was connected with the reconstruction of meaning inscribed in the city space.
Th e Four Temples District is an example of how history can become a starting point for the construction of a new meaning, inventing new symbols of the city’s, space.
Th e District is also a good example of how the city elites (meaning either city authorities or associations) are engaged in constructing collective memory, and constructing ideological forms that are extrapolated either from the present im- age of the city or from its history.
Ideas such as tolerance, dialog, multiculturalism, reconciliation that are in- scribed in the symbolic and material space fi tted well into ideological trends and became the emblems of the District and the city.
Th e phenomenon of the District became attractive due to its ideological as- pects and the City Council very quickly got involved in the “reconstruction” of a place symbolizing the “multicultural” profi le of the city and its affi liations with tolerance (in 2005 it was registered as a historical treasure and acknowledged as the History Monument).
Paradoxical eff ect — Th e District is not an emanation of Wrocław’s history; it is de facto a symbolic project “invented” recently as a contemporary projection of history.
References
Assmann, A., “1998 — Between the History and Remembrance”. In Collective and Culture Mem- ory. Modern German, ed. M. Saryusz-Wolska, Kraków 2009.
Assmann, J., “Culture of Remembrance”. In Collective and Culture Memory. Modern German, ed.
M. Saryusz-Wolska, Kraków 2009.
Fruchter, P., Harris, A.L., “Th e Myth of Multicultural City: Learning to Live Together without Coming to Blows”. HAGAR Studies in Culture, Polity and Identities, 10(1), 2010. Beer-Sheva, Israel: Ben Gurion University.
Pluta, J., “Identity and Locality. Remarks on Wrocław Inhabitants’ Relations to City Space”. In My Wrocławianie. Społeczna przestrzeń miasta, ed. P. Żuk, J. Pluta, Wrocław 2006.
Seixas, P., “Progress, Presence and Historical Consciousness: Confronting Past, Presence and Fu- ture in Present Time”. Pedagogica Historica: International Journal of the History of Education, 48(6), 2012.
Taylor Stevenson, W., “Myth and the Crisis of Historical Consciouness”. In Myth and the Crisis of Historical Consciousness, ed. Lee W. Gibbs, W. Taylor Stevenson, Missoula, Mont. 1975.
Th um, G., Obce miasto, Wroclaw 1945 i potem, Wrocław 2007.
Tolle, A., “Urban Identity Policies in Berlin: From Critical Reconstruction to Reconstructing the Wall”. Cities, 27(5), October 2010, pp. 348–357, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2010.04.005.
wroclaw.gazeta.pl/wroclaw/1,35771,10898397,Wielkie_zmiany_szykuja_w_Dzielnicy_Czterech_
Wyznan.html.
www.fundacja4wyznan.pl.
www.miasto-dialogu.wroc.pl.
www.wroclaw.pl/dzielnica_czterech_wyznan.
City space and the invention of history
Summary
Aft er the system change in 1989, Wrocław faced the situation of “renegotiation” and recon- struction of collective identity, which was connected with the necessity of discovering the city his- tory and rewriting and inventing it. Th is in turn was connected with the reconstruction of mean- ing inscribed in the city space. Th e Four Temples District, part of the Old Town, is an example of how history can become a starting point for the construction of a new meaning by inventing new symbols of the city space. Th e District is also a good example of how city elites (meaning either city authorities or associations) are engaged in constructing collective memory, and constructing ideological forms that are extrapolated either from the present image of the city or from its history.
Ideas such as tolerance, dialog, multiculturalism, reconciliation, that are inscribed in the symbolic and material space, fi tted well into ideological trends and became the emblems of the District and the city. Th e phenomenon of the District became attractive due to its ideological aspects and the City Council very quickly got involved in the “reconstruction” of a place symbolizing the “multi- cultural” profi le of the city and its affi liations with tolerance. Th e District is not an emanation of Wrocław’s history; it is de facto a symbolic project “invented” recently as a contemporary projec- tion of history.
