The collective memory of a city.
The case of Wrocław
What is the collective memory of a city and collective memory?
Th is paper examines the collective memory of a city’s population. Th e col- lective memory of a city is defi ned here as a collective image of the city’s history, particularly in connection with the urban space. For a sociologist, a city is not only a material substance — urban space, buildings, but also the community which creates a city. Th erefore the collective memory of a city is associated with urban space and its meanings and the activity of its inhabitants (commemorative practices). Th is article proposes a sociological analysis of the memory of a city by which I mean an empirical study of 1) the collective knowledge of the inhabit- ants about their city’s past, 2) collective practices of commemoration. Collect- ive means shared by a substantial part of the population. Memory as knowledge about the past is framed and shaped by the social context and this is a fundamen- tal assumption for the sociological analysis of memory (Halbwachs 1950; Misztal 2006; Szacka 2006). Th e memory of the city’s past is represented in the collective memory of the city’s community as well as in urban space. Identity is an import- ant category of an analysis of collective memory. Memory and identity are con- cepts that are closely linked. Th e reconstruction of memory about the city is at the same time the reconstruction of the city’s identity: “Memory is knowledge with an identity-index, it is knowledge about oneself, that is, one’s own diachronic identity, be it as an individual or as a member of a family, a generation, a community, a na- tion, or a cultural and religious tradition” (Assmann 2008, 114).
Th is article focuses on the following problems:
1. A theoretical analysis of the concept of collective memory and the memory of a city;
2. How is the collective memory of a city formed?
3. Th e issue of multiculturalism and Wrocław’s German past in collective memory.
4. Th e role of the sites of memory and social practices for the formation of the collective memory of a city.
Th ese problems are analyzed on the basis of empirical data derived from the case study of Wrocław.
Moreover, issues specifi c to Wrocław are analyzed: what the collective memory of Wrocław is and whether Wrocław is a multicultural city in collective memory.
Th e notion of collective memory is very ambiguous. Th ere are numerous theoretical debates on this conception, but a detailed analysis of them exceeds the limits of this paper (see Olick 1999, 2007; Olick et al. 2011; Gedi and Elam 1996; Kansteiner 2002; Radstone, 2000, 2008; Rossington and Whitehead 2007;
Szacka 2006, Wertsch and Roediger 2008a, 2008b and many others). Considering the controversies around the notion of collective memory, one explanation seems to be necessary: within the sociological perspective memory is collective, includ- ing common beliefs about history; in other words, it is the intersubjective image of the past shared by a particular community.
Th e image of the past is a result of various factors. Some of them are long- term factors, the eff ects of their actions are revealed aft er some time. In case of Wrocław one should mention at least three elements: 1. social mobility, 2. histor- ical policy used to self-legitimise under Communism and 3. post-Communist marketing of historical policy. Since collective memory is a political issue, it is very much driven by political interests and framed by ideological narratives. So was the case in Wrocław: historical policies were the tools of political interests disguised as ideological narratives about the city. Wrocław, like the whole of western territories of Poland, is specifi c because aft er WWII the entire German population was replaced by Polish settlers from diff erent regions of Poland (but also outside, if one means post-1945 borders, i.e. kresy). Th e social consequence of the massive post-war migration was the disintegration of social ties. Th e ques- tion arises whether the consequences of this violent social process are still visible aft er 60 years and how they infl uence collective memory. I refer to other studies showing the results of post-war resettlements in Poland. Th e diff erences in pat- terns of social behaviour, social norms between populations of the eastern and western parts of Poland appear in various contexts: in voting patterns, religious practices, crime statistics, neighbourhood ties and many other areas. Th e impact of war resettlements on the territory of Poland has been observed and analysed in several studies (Bartkowski 2003; Gorzelak 2004; Zarzycki 1997; Lewicka 2005).
Th erefore, we can assume that migration is an important lens through which to interpret the results of our present data. For this study the key issue is the impact of migration on the self-image of the local community and place identity. Place attachment is closely related to place identity and linked to the memory of the place. Th e regional diff erences in Poland in place attachment were shown by Le-
wicka: there is lower place attachment and neighbourhood ties in Western and Northern Territories of Poland than in the traditional Eastern Poland and Galicia (Lewicka 2005, 391). Th e resulting suggestion is that due to the migration process the community of Wrocław has no historically rooted identity (or rather that the identity is problematic: if it is a set of features specifi c for the local community, self-knowledge, self-concept) and “no memory” (or: not developed) was empiric- ally confi rmed elsewhere (Pluta 2006; Lewicka 2008b). In this paper I follow this line of thinking.
What kind of process concerning Wrocław did migration induce? Wrocław’s uprooted community settled down in a new and unfamiliar territory, that of a former enemy. Th ey had no memory and no familiar identity connected with the city, which was a German city since 1741 until 1945, (and only in the Middle Ages it was for some time incorporated into the Polish Kingdom). Th e state and community that acquired a new city searched for territorial legitimisation and a narrative of the city’s past that would provide the city and its population with a specifi c identity. Territorial legitimization is based, where an authentic history is lacking, on invented history. It has certain similarities to Hobsbawm’s notion of invented tradition which “implies continuity with the past […] establish continu- ity with a suitable historic past” (Hobsbawm 2013, 1). Regarding Wrocław as one of the narrations of the past involves creating myths (as false stories). Th e belief in primeval (pre-German) territorial origin and the auto-stereotype of Poles as vic- tims legitimizes the present Polish identity of the city. Th e past confl icts between Poles and Germans are remembered, which reinforces the anti-German attitudes and opposition towards any restitution of the German heritage in Wrocław.
Th e collective memory of Wrocław is also highly political, and the main framework of the city’s collective memory is its political history. Moreover, col- lective memory is the domain of historical policy. Th ere are at least two reasons why we tend to construct memory in such a way. One is the dominant trend in teaching and learning history as political history, hence the tendency to focus on the political aspects of city history, the other is the use of political history in historical debates and in current political ideologies (which are the instruments of historical policy).
Collective memory is shaped by the interests of various social groups. One of the most signifi cant for memory formation is the political interest of those who have power, either formal or informal, or both. During the Communist period, the authorities tried to impose a new collective memory based on an anti-German feeling. Another feature of the offi cial historical policy was the construction of a myth of origin, which would have legitimized the presence of a Polish popula- tion in this “German” city. Th is was the “Piast” myth, which reconstructed the story of the medieval roots of Polish Wrocław. Th e elite of Wrocław, on the other hand, formed the Lviv myth, which in turn created the roots of local identity. Th is myth assumed that the majority of displaced Poles who came to Wrocław were
from Lviv, former Polish Lwow, whereas according to the 1950 census it was about 30% of population altogether that came from the territory of USSR (USSR within the post-war border, which includes pre-war Polish territory and Lviv) (Kosiński 1960). Th ese propagated myths which were designed to erase the German past and legitimize the presence of Polish in the German city have been thoroughly studied elsewhere (Kłopot 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Th um 2008). Both were designed to invent traditions and the city’s history, as well as to make it more familiar. Th e presented data show that the Lviv myth took root successfully, because it is still alive. Th e myths example evokes the question of what constitutes memory, espe- cially why certain narratives of the past are persistent in collective consciousness, while others are not. One of the explanations refers to a process of institution- alisation: if history is to be remembered by a community it needs social institu- tions, and it needs important, unifying and collective experiences.
When it comes to the memory of Wrocław one needs, in short, to consider two aspects: the German past and the myth of multicultural Wrocław. Is collective memory multicultural or German? Th e German past of Wrocław was and still is a diffi cult past (Th um 2008). Particularly if the German history of the city is to be accepted as part of its common memory. It is a challenge for the Polish commun- ity how to approach this question. Th ere are attempts to introduce this past into the memory of Wrocław inhabitants, but, as my data suggest, with little success, because they evoke a Polish-German confl ict instead of reconciliation.
Taking this context into account, we should examine whether the German past of the city is remembered or erased, and to what extent the German history of the city is a part of the collective memory of Wrocław. Aft er WWII the Ger- man’s presence in the city was systematically erased from the city space (Th um 2008, 285–327). Aft er 1989, during the post-Communist period, a new political and economic situation created a marketing historical policy: the main aim of this policy is to create an image of the city which supports, on the one hand, the running of city policy, and on the other hand, the maintenance of power (Kłopot 2012a, 2012b). Th is policy resulted in an image of Wrocław as a multicul- tural city, now and in the past, as it pertains to collective memory. Summarizing these diverse strands, this article focuses mainly on one key question: whether the collective memory of the city includes German elements or is multicultural?
Multiculturalism is understood by the city’s authorities as detached from any particular national identity and is related rather to the global nomads or “tourist ideology” (for instance an offi cial slogan is: Wrocław is a meeting place!).
Methodological note
Th e analysis is based on empirical data. I present the data collected mainly through interviews with individuals (face-to-face paper-to-pencil interviews) but
also based on a qualitative analysis of community activity refl ected in the debates in the local newspapers.
Th e data were collected in stages in fi ve diff erent samples:
— the random sample of Wrocław population N = 547;
— the quota sample of students (N = 329) of distinctive faculties (architecture, history, urban studies, German and Jewish history and culture);
— Th e quota sample of the city’s elite (N = 64), including representatives of the higher level of city administration, members of city council, politicians and leaders and members of organisations (related to the city, urban planning, archi- tecture, history of the city, museums, etc.) and signifi cant scholars (N = 64).
— the quota sample of dwellers of old, pre-war buildings in Wrocław (N = 95);
— the quota sample of pupils of the majority of Wrocław secondary schools, last grade, (N = 512).
Data from these samples are presented depending on the question (the fre- quency of answers in a sample depends on missing values, and usually it varies due to presenting only valid answers). Th e analyses based on the data from quota samples do not apply to the population and are related to the population just as hypotheses and a proposal to clarify. Th e research was carried out in 2012–2014 as part of the project conducted with Lund University “Th e memory of vanished populations”.
Due to the fact that the students and elite samples are not probability samples the conclusions have limited coverage.
The state of research
Collective memory is a very broad fi eld. It covers divergent areas and involves various academic disciplines. Even the label of the subject changes and depending on the authors memory can be collective, cultural, historical (see Olick et al. 2011;
Assmann 1995; Berliner 2005; Confi no 1997; Connerton 1989, 2009; Conway 1997; Erll, Nünning 2008; Kowalewski 2011; Misztal 2006; Schwartz 1982, 1991;
Wagner-Pacifi ci & Schwartz 1991; Kim & Schwartz 2010 and many others). It seems that the same problem appears in the fi eld of city memory. It has been studied in various research fi elds with a focus on diff erent aspects: environmental studies, environmental psychology, urban studies and urban sociology, cultural anthropology, architectural history, and history. Quite oft en the issue of memory of the city is related to the problem of city and place identity, also the sites of mem- ory within urban space, place attachment, cultural activity, multicultural past, architectural design (Hoelscher, Alderman 2004; Kowalewski 2011). Th e stud- ies which should be mentioned here are the sociological study of B. Szacka who analyzed the memory of the Warsaw Uprising (Szacka 2006). Furthermore, the following works are dedicated directly to memory of the city: Boyer (1994), Jordan
(2006), Crimson (2005), and Young (1993) plus there are also studies of place at- tachment by Lewicka (2005, 2008a, 2008b), Manzo, Devine-Wright (2013). Maria Lewicka conducted a comparative analysis of place memory and place attachment in Wrocław and Lviv. Her research had a psychological focus but she also included numerous sociological aspects in her explanation of city memory and place at- tachments (Lewicka 2006). Her conclusions, which have already been mentioned, proved that migration had an impact on the formation of collective identity and memory: place memory and attachment are weaker in Wrocław than in Lviv.
Finally, historical books about Wrocław include Uprooted by Georg Th um who studied the process of post-war settlement, erasing of the German traces in the city, implementing of the Communist regime historical policy (2008), and Micro- cosm (2003), a famous city portrait by N. Davies and R. Moorhouse.
What are the relations between city collective memory and place memory?
Th e notion of city memory is similar to place memory, but it is related not only to place but also to the city community. Place memory is similar to the city’s collective memory in two ways. First, it consists of specifi c memories of place and second, it has a unique character (genius loci) due to the way urban space preserves the meaning of the past expressed in monuments, street names etc.
(Nijakowski 2001; Koshar 2000; Lewicka 2008; Wójcik et al. 2010). Another sig- nifi cant result of the studies by Lewicka is the explanation of how place attach- ment and place memory form place identity. Th is relation is consequential for the understanding of how collective memory of the city community constitutes city identity.
Multiculturalism in the collective memory of Wrocław
Multiculturalism is another notion with many meanings (Golka 1997; Kłopot 2011, 2012a, 2012b). One of its meanings, important for this analysis, refers to the idea of coexistence of diff erent cultural groups, tolerance and openness. Such is the general connotation of the multicultural image of Wrocław among its inhabit- ants which emerges from our data. For this analysis, two aspects of multicul- turalism are crucial: 1. multiculturalism is the contemporary general ideological narrative, based upon the belief in an open, multi-ethnic society (no matter how realistic this belief is). 2. multiculturalism is the regional myth of collective mem- ory. It assumes that the historical heritage of other cultures and ethnic groups, which had previously inhabited the same place would be a part of the contem- porary city image and memory. Moreover, it is a characteristic feature of con- temporary (tourist-oriented) marketing policy (the problem of multiculturalism as a marketing strategy of Wroclaw has already been discussed by Kłopot (2011, 201–203; 2012a, 2012b).
Th e multicultural image of Wrocław has to be confronted with the history of the city. Wrocław belonged to diff erent states, but Germany left the strongest mark in the city. Prewar Jews who lived in Wrocław constituted a minority (Knie 1830; Die Gemeinden… 1974; Gemeindelexikon für die Provinz Schlesien… 1887, 1898, 1908; Statistische Daten… 1901–1913), and mostly had German cultural identity (Davies, Moorhouse 2011, 334, 336–338; Kłopot 2011, 2012a). Th us we cannot say that Wrocław was a truly multicultural city during the German per- iod. Moreover, the material urban heritage of Wrocław is mostly German. Is the multicultural image of the city refl ected in the memory of the city at all? How much is the idea of multiculturalism present and what does it mean?
Our data indicate that the marketing materials and eff orts of the city’s author- ities (which are seen in various offi cial documents, cultural policy, or informa- tion for tourists) left their traces in collective knowledge, although there is not one understanding of multiculturalism. Th e idea of multiculturalism provokes many diverse associations in people’s minds. Th e label “multicultural Wrocław”
has been adopted by our respondents in various ways. Most oft en it is under- stood as a multi-ethnic structure of population (56% of respondents provide such an explanation). Multiculturalism is also seen as the presence of foreign tourists (41% of responses) and international artistic events (42%), the activity of diff erent religious communities (39%) and cultural institutions (33%). What is interesting, also pre-war Wrocław, which was culturally homogeneous (Kłopot 2011, 2012a), is perceived as a multicultural city: only 9.6% of respondents select the answer:
“Wrocław was culturally homogeneous before the War”, and the majority of re- spondents see pre-War Wrocław as a multicultural city. In 25% of cases multicul- turalism is understood in the context of Wrocław’s history belonging to diff erent states. Some 28% of respondents think it refers to the city’s mixed ethnic popula- tion structure (see Figure 1). Th us, there are two meanings of multiculturalism in responses: one that Wrocław belonged to diff erent states, second that there was a multi-ethnic population within the city.
We also tested knowledge of the city’s history. Respondents have poor know- ledge about it. Consequently, there is false information about Wrocław’s history. Th e contemporary multicultural ideology of tolerance, openness, cultural coexistence and cooperation is not very much present in the mentality of Wrocław’s population.
Th e research results showed that the multicultural marketing image created by the elite works because the label of multiculturalism has generally been accepted (although much less by the elite, and more by other members of community):
the statement “At present, Wrocław is not a multicultural city” was selected by the minority of respondents in all of our samples (4% of students (N = 329), 8% of the city population (N = 547) and as much as 38% [!] of elite members (N = 64)).
Th e young more oft en associate multiculturalism with the growing number of foreigners in the city. In conclusion, multiculturalism has become an element of
the city’s image and is much more an element of contemporary city perception than the image of its history.
Th e multicultural past of Wrocław can be made present in the architectural heritage of ethnic and national groups previously living in the city. In our study we compared the approach to the heritage of diff erent nations associated with the city and living in Wrocław (Germans, Jews, Czechs and Poles). Th e attitudes to- ward the multicultural heritage reveals the extent to which contemporary society valorizes the city’s history as part of its identity. It is important how an uprooted community sees its history: does history start from the moment of the post-war settlement of the city, or earlier, when Wrocław was not Polish? Or even earlier in the mythical Piast period?
Th e idea behind the study was the reconstruction of memory in conjunction with existing attitudes towards history and the city’s history, knowledge of his- tory and the occurrence of practices of commemoration. What is the image of the history of the city which emerges from the data? What was discovered is the lack of interest and knowledge about the history of the city in the general population:
although the majority of people admit history is important (70%), and the history of Wrocław is important (80%), personally they are not interested in the city’s history (60%); furthermore, 65% of respondents stated they are not interested in any particular period of the history of the city. Th e most remembered is the post-war period (22%), and only 6% of respondents expressed interest in the Ger- man period (as many as in the Middle Ages), and the Czech-Habsburg period is completely lost in memory (1%) (it cannot be excluded that Austrian and German culture and the state are closely linked for many Poles). Most of the population rarely get involved in the practice of commemoration such as reading books, vis- iting exhibitions and going to museums.
Th e ideology of multiculturalism as tolerance and openness towards other cultures was examined as the acceptance of the memorialization of multicul- tural heritage of the city. What are the attitudes towards the German, Jewish,
Figure 1. “Was pre-war Wrocław a multicultural city?” N = 547
Czech and Austrian heritage? Should Wrocław’s inhabitants support the heritage of the vanished populations? Th e majority of Wrocław’s community supports the restoration of monuments of other nations’ culture. We try to examine in more depth these attitudes and it is doubtful that this declaration meant a high level of tolerance towards restoring the memory of German Wrocław. It is rather an expression of conformity to the special treatment of monuments which represents the symbolic value of history as such, because having contrasted the symbolic value of history and the utilitarian, it turned out that the utilitarian value was more important for respondents. Th e value of historical buildings is not autotelic, compared with the utility of buildings their historic value is less important (e.g.
the majority, almost 70%, of respondents chose utility over pure historical value).
Moreover, as has been mentioned above, history is declared as important, but there is no interest in it, as well as in the city’s history, and Wrocław inhabitants do not involve in commemorating practices. Another argument supporting this thesis is based on the conclusions of the analysis of the attitudes to the German heritage, which were measured using a scale of tolerance. When the question did not concern the abstract and general attitude to the history and the German herit- age, but specifi c projects commemorating this heritage, such as the restoration of monuments, streets renaming etc., the more a particular commemoration was in the German interest, the more opposed to it the inhabitants of Wrocław were (these data will be analyzed later). Th us, support for the restoration of heritage is low, especially when it comes to the German heritage (I will discuss it later).
Figure 2. Th e attitudes towards the idea of restoration: “Do you agree with the opinion that restor- ing the memory of former residents and multicultural character of the city…”
Th e level of support depends on the economic, social and cultural cost. What counts here are “social and emotional investments”: how much it would threaten the national and local identity of the community. Th erefore, for part of the local community (about 1/3) the memorialization of prewar German Wrocław is inter- preted in terms of a confl ict with the present Polish identity (see Figure 2). Social factors shape memory. Th ose such as the types of social roles (elite), mentality and value orientation (conservative versus liberal) explain the positive or negative climate for remembering or forgetting particular events and fi gures from history.
When we compare the data from the sample of students, elite and population we notice that there is not one form of memory; rather, there is the social diff eren- tiation of memory; for instance, there is a generation gap: the young generation tends to have more tolerant attitudes towards restoring the German heritage than the old (see Figures 6, 7). Th e observed generational diff erences show the change in history’s meaning and, most probably, encapsulate the process of transforma- tion of collective memory from private to offi cial history, and from oral memory to history. Th is example proves the importance of political elites in explaining the formation of collective memory1.
The memory of German Wrocław
Further analysis of the data allowed me to conclude that in collective memory Wrocław appears rather as a German city than as a multicultural one. Th e present memory of German Wrocław is a result (at least to some degree) of the previous historical policy which was anti-German. Communist historical policy system- atically strengthened the Polish-German confl ict defi ned as a continuation of the confl ict of WWII (Th um 2008). At the same time, confl ictual Polish-German relationships are a background in which local identity and memory are replaced with national identity and memory of national community. Place identity is oft en expressed by the peculiar features of a place, its characteristics, the genius loci.
How do residents perceive the city? How do they defi ne its identity? We asked which nation had the biggest impact on the appearance of the city until WWII? Th e majority (57%) answered: Germans and 25% of respondents said that all ethnic groups (Czech, Jews, Polish and Germans) have an equal infl uence (Figure 3).
Most respondents also said that they felt “the atmosphere of the German herit-
1 Th ere are also other social factors which diff erentiate the attitudes to restoration. Th e idea of restoring the so-called multicultural heritage is also more supported by women who are less tolerant only when it comes to religious objects: they are more bound to religious values, and less frequently support the restoration of a Catholic church to the Protestant community. A similar position was held by those who are satisfi ed with income, supporters of the “left ist” party (SLD), those who are less engaged in religious activity.
age” in the city (Figures 4, 5) I interpret these results as indicators that Wroclaw’s community did not erase its German past.
Figure 3. “Which nation had the biggest impact on the appearance of the city until WWII?” N = 541
Figure 4. “Can you indicate places in contemporary Wrocław that preserved their previous old spirit, created by the ethnic groups who had previously inhabited Wrocław?” N = 546
Figure 5. “Can you indicate places in contemporary Wrocław which were used or inhabited by Jews, Czechs, Poles and Germans who had previously inhabited Wrocław?” N = 547
It does not mean that the statement Wrocław today has an element of German identity is true. Th e German roots of Wrocław are specifi c because they mainly rest on little knowledge about the history of the city and its German past. More- over, it is entangled in the historical Polish-German confl ict and associated with stereotyping of German culture. Very oft en the buildings which are old and not well recognized or unfamiliar are simply identifi ed as German/associated with German origin. As our test of photographs has shown (see Table 2), all of the ob- jects presented were either not identifi ed at all (“empty” memory), or in most cases identifi ed as German objects (“false” memory). Among those were objects built in the period of Czech-Habsburg presence in Wrocław. Clearly, from the perspective of sociology of knowledge inaccurate answers as well as the right ones inform us about prevailing beliefs. Th us, there are two main groups of respondents: 1. those who have no associations at all (“empty” memory) and 2. those who give the wrong answers (“false” memory). Th e fi rst group represents the “typical” state of memory: no memory, no associations etc. Th ere were several questions in our re- search which tested the scope of inhabitants’ knowledge, associations, or symbols of Wrocław’s history, the results prove that a substantial number of respondents have “empty memory”:
1) as has been mentioned earlier, the majority of respondents have no interest in the city’s history and are not very much engaged in social practices of com- memoration, offi cial ceremonies and informal rituals (this will be discussed later, see Table 7);
2) we examined which events and persons are present in memory (constitute memory) of the prewar period: for the majority of respondents there are neither such events (81%), nor persons (86%); the postwar period is “better remembered”:
51% of respondents can indicate events worth remembering and most recent events are the most recognizable: such as the fl ood of 1997 (48%) and 2012 Euro- pean football championship (31%);
3) to check how memory media are present in collective memory, we asked about urban media such as monuments, plaques etc., in the prewar period — as much as 90% of respondents could not indicate any monuments (I will return to these issues later in the text).
When we talk about empty memory, what exactly are we dealing with? Can memory be empty? In the literature there are a few notions which relate to the lack of memory: amnesia, forgetting, mnemonic silence etc. Th ese concepts are related to the specifi c aspects of memory, such as denial, repression, disputed interpretation, diffi cult past etc. Th e consequence of defi ning memory as the col- lective common knowledge of history is to defi ne empty memory as the lack of knowledge about history. Unfortunately, it is diffi cult to assess how the lack of historical knowledge is a result of deliberate forgetfulness due to the sensi- tivity of the topic. Th e memory of the German past is for Poles the memory of strangers, nevertheless, it is part of the city’s history. Possession of historical
knowledge or being aware of the German past does not necessarily mean its ac- ceptance. Social memory is not a psychological phenomenon, it does not have to be part of community experiences. It is also what can be imagined and invented as the past or the created image of the city’s history. Empty memory, especially when it comes to distant historical events, can therefore be seen as a “normal”, typical state of mind, general population has low interest in history, by the same token. Th is problem can be seen from the reverse perspective, having a special interest in and extensive knowledge of history is something particularly unique because it requires eff ort and investment in the acquisition of this knowledge.
Th e second group of respondents tends to attribute the German origin of the tested objects. Specifi c social features characterize both groups of respondents.
For instance, in case of the university building incorrect answers were more oft en given by people with the lowest education level, women, the oldest, those who do not vote for any party, and slightly more voters of PiS [Law and Justice] than PO [Civic Platform], plus those born outside Wrocław. Whereas “empty memory” is most oft en related to young age and a low educational level, a lack of attachment to political parties, and non-voting orientations. Both groups have one variable in common: low education level.
For the above reasons, it is diffi cult to say that old architectural environments are identifi ed as multicultural and together with it the city’s past through urban space as such. As data show, only one culture dominates over the other — for- merly Wrocław was a German city, and this is revealed in a deeper examination of collective knowledge; but at the same time an even bigger part of the population does not associate the selected objects with anything at all.
To better understand what the collective memory of the city is it is necessary to explain what the city is for its inhabitants. In order to investigate it we examined how residents perceive urban space. We asked Wrocław’s residents what they pay attention to when they are in the old part of the city? It turns out that architectural objects are seen primarily through the prism of the utility function. Th ey are perceived through their material conditions, the state of maintenance, the overall appearance (whether they are ruined or restored) (30% of respondents), their cur- rent use (12.3%) or the way they are incorporated into urban landscape (7.5%) (see Table 1). However, what constitutes memory in the fi rst place refers to the values.
It is the meaning of objects in the past which is important, because utility is the domain of the present. Meanwhile, data show that the symbolic signifi cance of the historical urban environment had less importance and was indicated only by 16% of respondents. An architectural style is only to a certain degree related to memory through the period of the city’s history with which the architectural style can be associated. For instance, the Gothic is related to medieval architecture of the Piast period in Wrocław, or the Baroque style is associated with the Habsburg period. But the architectural style can also be interpreted without reference to particular historical periods only as a type of aesthetic form.
Table 1. Restoring the memory of former residents and the multicultural character of the city Which elements people pay attention to when being in the historical part
of the city? Frequency %
The symbolism and meaning of objects 87 15.9
Appearance, whether they are well maintained 166 30.4
Architectural style 85 15.6
Incorporation into urban landscape 41 7.5
Current use 67 12.3
Do not pay attention 90 16.5
Other 10 1.8
Total 546 100.0
Th ere are few landmarks of the city which are correctly identifi ed as German and link Wrocław to its German past in collective memory. At the same time, the answers to detailed questions about objects of diff erent origin, including German, show that the knowledge about them is vague, and quite oft en they are not as- sociated with the German past (we are dealing here of course with data from the general population sample). One of the most prominent examples is the building of the present Voivodship offi ce, even though this object is recognizable, as many as 71% of respondents did not know that it was previously used and built during the German nationalist period. Th is knowledge is more common among the old- est respondents, those who were born outside Wrocław, with highest education level, less religious, and supporting the left ist party.
What makes people interested in the history of a place, and a city they live in? Why some people are more and some less interested in history in general?
To answer these questions more thoroughly, a much deeper analysis should be conducted. I propose the following description of relations between the state of memory and the social context (social factors) as a preliminary explanation: the data suggest that memory is diff erentiated, and the so called general population is not interested in history and thus have “empty memory”. Memory does not arise by itself, it needs fl ywheels and special materials which are signifi cant events.
Th us, Wrocław residents learn about the city’s history on special occasions, and not as a targeted activity. Th ere must be “additional motivators” like educational roles, social roles, important collective events (confl icts, trauma, etc.) to induce an eff ort to develop the memory of the city. Considering data, these triggers are, as mentioned, education, generation and value orientation (here measured by the voting pattern: right, centre, left ). Th us, people who support conservative and nationalist parties such as PiS, which means they hold conservative, and nation- alist world views, seem to perceive Wrocław more oft en as a German city. Th ey also tend to declare more interest in history, and treat history as the condition of
survival of the nation and of the existence of future generations (this category of the value of history was most oft en given by PiS voters). Even though they do not formally belong to the elite, they create strong beliefs about the past through act- ing like ideological opinion leaders.
In the research we applied a scale to see how tolerant people are towards com- memorating the German past, and this consists of less and more controversial ideas of commemoration. Th e scale includes indicators of diff erent degrees of tolerance: restoring former German names, restoring German objects (there were functional objects such as a department store, a bridge and symbolic objects such
Table 2. The periodic, ethnic and cultural identifi cation of buildings in the collective memory of WrocĄaw inhabitants. N=547. Photograph test results.
Objects on the photographs old/new
Most frequent answers:
* false answers Most frequent assosiations
* false answers Memorised period of origin
(according to state belonging) Memorised culture assosiation Old Don’t
know new Don’t
know Old Don’t
know new Don’t know Church of st. Anthony *German
19% 54% *German
21% 48% *German
24% 61% *German
25% 53%
Monuments Wilhelm I/
Chrobry German
30% 59% Postwar -Polish
56% 26% German
35% 59% Polish
71% 23%
Friedrich Wilhelm III / Fredro German
28% 47% Postwar- Polish
50% 24% German
40% 45% Polish
69% 19%
New Synagogue /
commemorative plaque German
11% 72% 0% 100% Jews
14% 74% 0% 100%
Jahrhunderthalle German
76% 17% German
70% 16% German
81% 13% *German
71% 12%
Rejencja Śląska/ National
Museum in Wrocław German
25% 51% German
33% 44% German
34% 51% *German
33% 44%
Barash Brothers Dept store/
Feniks German
50% 40% German
45% 32% *German
52% 38% *German
42% 29%
White stork Synagogue German
23% 64% German
25% 60% Jewish
32% 53% Jewish
42% 46%
Gymnasium of st. Matthew/
Ossolineum Library *German
25% 51% *German
27% 42% *German
32% 55% *German
29% 42%
University building *German
30% 35% *German
29% 32% *German
40% 42% *German 33% 38%
St. Mary Magdalene Church Middle-
age 44% 38% Middle-
age 45% 36% *German
21% 56%
Polish 25%
(*German 22%)
36%
as statues). Moreover, we proposed restoration projects involved (or not involved) in confl icts of symbolic interest (destroying a place of local memory which is currently popular in order to replace it with the symbol of German power, e.g. ex- changing the monument of Fredro for a statue of Friedrich Wilhelm, reverting to what had been there before in other words, which is of course a very provocative idea and as such it constitutes an extreme value on the scale). From the data we can reconstruct the meaning of distinctive objects and projects of commemora- tion in memories within diff erent samples and the profi le of attitudes in a given sample.
As it is clear from fi gures, the general tendency is as follows: people do not strongly support the idea of commemoration. Th e average responses is below mean, and the most frequent (27%) is against commemoration (mean = 0,1793 and mode = 0) (see Table 3 and Figures 6, 7, 8). One can see that in the Wrocław population sample the attitudes were mostly consistent — reluctant to commem- orate the German heritage, and that the young generation have a more positive attitude, while the elite sample showed big variation in opinions depending on the idea. Assuming that the general population gives us information about a domin- ant climate of opinions, the conclusion is that the collective memory of Wrocław inhabitants is anti-German when it comes to commemorating the German herit- age. Th e more national interests and symbolic values are threatened, the stronger is the aversion. Th e symbolic and emotional objects are statues, especially those which became part of a city landscape, thus forming city identity (like a postcard
Table 3. Th e support for restoration of former residents’ heritage: the scale of tolerance. the mean diff erences of attitudes.
Do you support the idea of…
0- strongly disagree, 1 strongly agree mean
Reconstruction of the destroyed Synagogue and restitution to the Jewish Community 0,3245 Restitution of the Jewish Theatre to the Jewish community 0,2619 Restitution of catholic church to Protestant community 0,1869 Restoration of the former name to department store (Feniks: The Barasch Brothers Dept.
Store) 0,1782
Reconstruction of the destroyed monument of Field Marshal von Blücher on plac Solny
(former Blücherplatz) 0,1659
Restoration of the former name of the Grunwald Bridge: Imperial Bridge(Kaiserbrücke) 0,1193 Restoration of the former name of the Partisan Hill [Wzgórze Partyzantów] (Liebisch Hill) 0,1111 Reconstruction of the destroyed monument of Friedrich Wilhelm III in the place of Fredro
monument 0,0868
cliche of city landmarks). Regarding these data, the project to replace a Polish monument with a German one was such a case, and this was the least accepted idea (see table 3. fi gure 6). Clearly, data suggest a generational shift : in the sample of pupils, the level of reluctance is lower than among students, thus the younger the age, the bigger the diff erence is and this turns into a higher level of acceptance for commemorating German heritage.
Figure 6. “Do you support the idea of restoration (see Table 3 for object description).” Th e mean diff erences of attitudes among diff erent samples, N = 547, 1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree, mean value
Table 4. Th e support for restoration of former residents’ heritage: the scale of tolerance. the mean diff erences of attitudes. the mean diff erences of attitudes among diff erent generations, education level and place of origin groups.
mean value 0- strongly disagree
1 strongly agree N = 547
age education origin
total 19–35 36–55 56–90 low secon-
dary gradu- ate
outside of Wro- cław
Wro- cław
Reconstruction of the destroyed monument of Friederich Wilhelm III in the place of (famous) Fredro monument
0,1543 0,1542 0,1875 0,2078 0,1332 0,1870 0,1788 0,1593 0,1659
Restoration of the former name of the Partisan Hill [Wzgórze Partyzantów]
(Liebisch Hill)
0,0957 0,0689 0,0938 0,1039 0,0739 0,0945 0,0726 0,0942 0,0868
Restoration of the former name of the Grunwald Bridge:
Imperial Bridge (Kaiserbrücke)
0,2114 0,1737 0,1745 0,1705 0,1670 0,2542 0,1734 0,1939 0,1869
Reconstruction of the destroyed monument of Field Marshal von Blücher on plac Solny (former Blücherplatz)
0,1250 0,1153 0,1172 0,1039 0,1141 0,1513 0,1237 0,1170 0,1193
Restoration of the former name to department store (Phoenix: The Barasch Brothers Dept. Store)
0,3311 0,3084 0,3320 0,3312 0,3102 0,3487 0,3132 0,3303 0,3245
Restitution of catholic church to Protestant community
0,1981 0,1766 0,1602 0,1461 0,1843 0,2059 0,1828 0,1759 0,1782
Restitution of the Jewish Theatre to the Jewish community
0,1263 0,1123 0,0951 0,0958 0,1104 0,1324 0,0995 0,1170 0,1111
Reconstruction of the destroyed Synagogue and restitution to the Jewish Community
0,2580 0,2650 0,2630 0,2289 0,2582 0,3130 0,2715 0,2569 0,2619
Figure 7. Do you support the idea of restoration (see Table 3 for object description). Th e mean dif- ferences of attitudes among diff erent generations (the scale on the Y axis starts from the value 3 for greater clarity)
Figure 8. Do you support the idea of restoration (see Table 3 for object description). Th e mean diff er- ences of attitudes among diff erent education level (the scale on the Y axis starts from the value 3 for greater clarity)
Furthermore, the data show how architectural objects by their signifi cance be- come part of collective memory: the use of the object (relation to social practices), its meaning due to its location in the city (centrality), its meaning due to symbolic references (object as a symbol). Comparing the responses to the question about the project of commemorating the Germans by restoring two statues, von Blucher, and Friedrich Wilhelm in the place of Fredro, one can see that monuments do not acquire their symbolic meaning “by defi nition”, they have to gain it (see Tables 3,
4 and Figure 6) Regarding the case of Wrocław, the Fredro statue has gained such status and that is why the idea to destroy it arouses quite strong opposition. It is situated centrally, in a place of entertainment, it has become a meeting place and also a site of “new” rituals, such as the concert of thousands of guitars, or gradu- ate polonaise dances; it is also a place for fairs, open-air concerts, etc.). And it has been present in the same place for a few decades. Reconstruction of von Blücher’s statue does not invade as much the existing space of urban landscape; also, the fi gure of von Blücher is anonymous, whereas the fi gure of Frederich Wilhelm is associated with a hostile German leader.
Th e education level diff erentiates the attitudes to commemorating a non-Pol- ish cultural heritage: generally, people with a higher level of education have more positive opinions about commemorating foreign cultures and cultural heritage.
Moreover, the level of education more than age diff erentiates their attitude to- wards commemoration.
Another interesting result concerns the bridge now known as Grunwaldzki, previously the Kaiserbrücke. If we compare the attitudes to this project and the case of statues of Friedrich Wilhelm/Fredro we notice that the aversion to the change concerning the name of the bridge is higher than that concerning a re- placement of the monument! Th e bridge is also centrally located, obviously very oft en used, and is a candidate for being considered a landmark. Also it is a highly symbolic name, it is an iconic Polish victory over the Germans, so it is a literal pitch of one national story against another, the “imperial” Prussian idea of the kaiser’s bridge against the Polish legend of the Battle of Grunwald, transferred to the collective memory by Henryk Sienkiewicz’s book Krzyżacy and the popu- lar fi lm based on the book. Moreover, the name has hidden symbolic meaning:
again, the word ‘kaiser’ denotes a foreign power, moreover the name of a bridge, or a street which are oft en used, thus such a project would introduce an unaccept- able social practice of using German names (Wrocław inhabitants oft en protest when they fi nd out that in Germany the city’s former German name of Breslau is used on road signs). Changing the name is like changing identity wholesale. In such a way it can be explained how diff erent elements of urban space are entan- gled in meanings and values. Th e architectural objects have diff erent functions (church, statue, department store, bridge, street etc.) and meanings (the sphere of the sacred and the profane, place of trauma, victory symbols, symbols of power, birthplace of a signifi cant person etc.) and they have history of their own, a story resulting from how they are used and which social practices are performed.
Let me show how the diagnosis of “mnemonic decapitation” (Zerubavel 1997) is refl ected in the data. Th e majority of Wrocław’s inhabitants interviewed declare no interest in any period of history, and the most popular period of interest are the postwar years, which are either remembered through personal experience or transmitted through cross-generational memory. Specifi c periods such as the foundation of the town are not signifi cantly present in collective memory, though
their memory rests on the Piast myth which is embodied in names of urban space (the name of the street, the plaza and the bridge refers to the Battle of Grunwald).
Th e Piast past is mythologized in more fundamental ways as a founding dynasty of Poland. Lately, there has been a debate in Polish parliament on commemor- ation of Mieszko I, the instigator of the Piast dynasty. Th e discussion showed that right wing politicians do not see this fi gure in a historical way, but rather as a symbolic fi gure, as the father and founder of the Polish Kingdom. Medieval events and fi gures construct the myth of origins (Piastowski Wrocław) which today is just slightly present in collective memory, even though it is represented in names within the urban space and was a major discourse under Communism.
It is worth remembering that the founding myth of Piastowski Wrocław is not just a story of the beginning of the place. It is strictly related to the strategy of
“re-Polonisation” of western territory, and as such it is a creation of hidden anti- German memory of the place (for more about the Piast Myth see: Klopot 2011, 2012a, 2012b; Th um 2008).
Th e presence of the German past is peculiar: Wrocław is infused with a Ger- man atmosphere of urban heritage (see Figure 3), but that does not mean the city’s community includes this legacy in its memory. Th e German history of Wrocław is problematic for contemporary citizens. Th e German memory is not entirely erased but the form of its presence is hidden, which means it is not manifested superfi cially but it appears in the background and especially in situations of con- fl ict.
What is the collective memory of Wrocław?
In our study we took as our point of departure that we have to deal with up- rooted memory communities, or communities without the continuity of space;
that the city carries the memory of “foreign” cultures. Th e object of our research included: knowledge of the past, attitudes to history and commemoration, per- ception of urban space, the role of space in the city, and the preferred practices of commemoration. Th e population of the city is the subject of policies towards historical memory in education, and through the mass media. Th e results of such diff erent stimuli are that they leave traces in collective memory. Th ere is also a specifi c impact on policy in the city: life in the urban space, the creation of signifi cant patterns or practices associated with a specifi c memory space (e.g. the voluntary commemoration of Independence Day in Wrocław through marches to the monument of Boleslaw Chrobry (who was the fi rst crowned king of Poland and is considered the creator of the autonomy of the state from the Holy Roman Empire; for this reason his fi gure is used by nationalists as the symbol of Polish- ness and the Polish state). Th e memory of the city is embedded in urban space, in specifi c places and in the knowledge of the local community.
Th e collective memory of the city consists of 1. a narrative about the history of the city, and 2. memory of places in the city. Only some events from history are
“selected” and “worth remembering”. Th ere are some specifi c features of collect- ive memory (and collective memory of the city). First, it is unstable and changes over time. Th us, what Wrocław’s population remembers from the past changes over time. One of the reasons for this is that memory is a generation knowledge (Mannheim 1952; Schuman and Scott 1989). As was also shown by Szacka’s re- search, the cross-generational comparison of collective memory reveals that each generation has its peculiar form of collective memory, and this distinctiveness is at the same time a form of generational identity. Each generation has its own events which constitute its memory (Szacka 2006). It means that collective mem- ory is always formed in a given social and historical context. Such cross-genera- tional diff erences also appear in our research.
Th e second general tendency, also confi rmed in the presented research, is that people tend to remember more recent events compared with those which seem distant from their personal experiences (oral memory). It is related to generational memory because oral memory refers to the common but personal experience of people living in a given period. Moreover, people remember re- cent history and do not remember older history. Th e memory of history is not prevalent, especially if there were no specifi c events which are “worth” being remembered. Besides the location in time the type of events are crucial for mem- ory formation. History in collective memory is residual, erratic and incorrect.
I accept here the assumption that the form and durability of collective memory depends on the type of social situation in which it was formed. Memory can be formed either as a result of deliberate social actions, or as a result of random events. It depends on two factors: either it is a result of institutionalized social action to support social memory (education, art works etc.) or/and the emer- gence of specifi c social facts that apply to an entire population, that can unite the community and evoke strong emotional experiences, strengthening social ties.
Let me call them social threshold events. Th is type of events, for example trau- matic experiences, are better remembered. Th ey are remembered longer and by a larger segment of society, and because they are existential experiences, events by defi nition they are considered to be essential, which is why they constitute social memory. Sometimes threshold events became the basis for the creation of myths or mythological narratives. In contemporary Poland the Smoleńsk myth is a relevant example of such a threshold event which was able to not only stimulate mass national mourning but produce a myth which fi tted into Po- land’s historical narrative of martyrdom.
Th e empirical fi ndings of our study prove that people tend to remember most recent history better and they do not have extensive historical knowledge (see Table 5). Memory of the past is erratic and based on mythological thinking. As has been mentioned before, the state of memory of the pre-war Wrocław period can be called, aft er Zerubavel, “collective amnesia” (Zerubavel 1997), or rather:
the pre-war period is not the subject of memory, because people tend to focus on the history of the place with which they identify in any way, they are in some way related to it, and it is important for them. Th ey treat the story of a foreign place as something distant. For this reason, most nations nowadays focus on the history of their own nation and state, and know less about the history of other nations. Moreover, the focus on their own nations makes them interpret the his- tory of other nations from their own perspective. For Wrocław’s community this period is foreign, that is: German history. Th e most remembered events are from the post-war period. We ask people to name places in a city, events and people which they have in mind and think are worth remembering. Th e results are as follows: 68% of respondents declare they remember some events from the post- war period, whereas only a minority can indicate such events from the pre-war period (19%) (out of which 51% and respectively 16.5% were accurate answers).
Th us, memory of the pre-war period is very poor (see Tables 5, 6).
It has already been mentioned earlier that people declare that history is im- portant for them but this emotional declaration is not necessarily followed by deeper historical knowledge. Sites of memory are poorly present in collective knowledge, 91% of our sample could not point out any monument that would represent the past. On the basis of these data we can distinguish the “passive and active” types of memory. Th e active one is typical for the elite, or a minority who are more interested in history and commemoration activity, whereas the passive one is typical for the majority of society who have fragmented memory.
Th us, what is observed here is a “lack of memory”. Is there a diff erence between the lack of memory which is typical as passive memory, and the lack of mem- ory which appears in the case of an uprooted community? Unfortunately, the boundary is not obvious and clear here. I would agree with those who try to dis- tinguish the events specifi c to the site as an indicator of memory and identity, for instance, the Warsaw Uprising. Th e most popular events are the Flood of 1997, the European Football Championship in 2012 and the pilgrimage of John Paul II in 1997, which are not specifi c to the city, and could have happened anywhere.
One cannot exclude the possibility that there are cities without characteristic events in their history. Still, there is the issue of the social interpretation of historical facts.
Table 5. What events constitute memory? Th e content of memory Are there any pre-war events,
persons about which present inhabitants of Wrocław
should remember?
frequency %
Are there any post-1939 events, persons about which present inhabitants of Wrocław should remember?
frequency %
Events
no 443 81 no 174 32
yes 104 19 yes 373 68
Total 547 100 547 100
Persons
no 84 15,4
I do not know 386 70,7
yes 76 13,9
total 546 100
Content of
memory Pre-war events about which present inhabitants of Wrocław should remember?
Post-1939 event about which present inhabitants of Wrocław should remember?
frequ-
ency % % valid frequ-
ency % % valid
Events
false and true answers 0 0 91.8 52 9.5 13.9
true 90 16.5 8.2 279 51 74.8
false 8 1.5 100 42 7.7 11.3
total 98 17.9 373 68.2 100
did not know (= missing data) 449 82.1 174 31.8
total 547 100 547 100
% % valid
Persons
false and true answers 12 2.2 16.2
true 46 8.4 62.2
false 16 2.9 21.6
total 74 13.5 100
did not know (= missing data) 473 86.5
total 547 100
% % valid
Knowledge of merits of important
persons
there are some 24 4.4 23.8
do not know 77 14.1 76.2
total 101 18.5 100
lack of knowledge in the whole
sample (= missing data) 446 81.5
547 100
Table 6. Events in collective memory of the pre-war and post-war period. What should be remem- bered? N = 367
Pre-war events worth remembering frequ-ency % Post-1939 events worth
remembering frequ-
ency %
Changes of state belonging 36 40 Flood — 1997 175 47.7
Changes of urban and architectural
structure 15 16.7 European Football Championship
— 2012 115 31.3
Creating of cultural and scientifi c
institutions 14 15.6 Pilgrimage of John Paul II in 1997 69 18.8 Beginning in the Middle Ages 13 14.4 Reconstruction of the city after
the war 43 11.7
Changes of ethnic structure 11 12.2 Martial Law of 1981 41 11.2 Persecution of Poles and Jews 11 12.2 Solidarity strikes of 1980 39 10.6 Development of technical
infrastructure and communication 11 12.2 Other incorrect 38 10.4 Changes of religion structure 2 2.2 Festung Breslau of 1945 26 7.1
Other 6 6.7 Eucharistic congress 19 5.2
First pilgrimage of John Paul II
in 1979 13 3.5
Total 90 100 Other correct 99 27
Total (multiply responses >100%) 367
Figure 9. “Can you indicate any monuments dedicated to important pre-war events, people?”
N = 546
Oral memory is also important to transmit memory across generations. It is commonly observed that oral transmission can transmit content through the centuries. Th e primitive tribes of oral culture transmit patterns of production, art, etc. A good example may be Indian music. Although Indian ragas do not have musical notation they only survived across the centuries through unwrit- ten messages. Th e importance of oral memory for collective memory was shown by Szacka. Her study of memories of WWII proved that the memory of war and the Warsaw Uprising is strong and based on oral transmission. Th e reason for a strong memory of this event was directly related to personal and family histor- ies. It is known that oral memory, though it can be very fl exible and changeable, is important for the construction of collective memory. It involves the personal and thus emotional experience of history which increases interest in the past as well as ability to memorise it. Th us the oral transmission of personal experience can and frequently does create collective memory.
Figure 10. Oral transmission of memory from older generations (concerns only the part of the sample whose ancestors were born in Wrocław). Did your grandparents, parents talk to you about the city’s past, history?
In the case of Wrocław, cross-generational transmission of oral memory is rather rare among those whose predecessors lived in Wrocław, except among the elite group in which the majority were the subject of such a transition. In the gen- eral population it was a minority (about 1/4) (see Figure 10). Weak oral memory may be one of the factors behind the fact that city memory is not well developed.
Finally, collective memory as the image of the past events is related to the con- cept of identity. If memory is empty, identity becomes problematic (as a specifi c association). Th e present fi ndings, as well as the results of other studies (Lewicka and Pluta 2006) suggest that there is no specifi c local city identity in Wrocław, and the identity is quite a problematic phenomenon. Th e notion of identity is problematic in relation to complex phenomenon such as a city which consists of
