Jerzy Giedroyc

Maciej Zakrzewski, Rewolucja konserwatywna – przypadek polski. Myśl polityczna środowiska „Buntu Młodych” i „Polityki” (1931–1939), IPN, Ośrodek Myśli Politycznej, Kraków 2021, 626 s., ISBN 978-83-8229-314-2

Stefan Kisielewski charakteryzował „Bunt Młodych” (od 1937 r. „Politykę”), jako pismo o charakterze „intelektualistyczno-rewolwerowym”. W swojej głośniej powieści „Sprzysiężenie” pod tytułem „Polityka i Sztuka” opisywał środowisko „Buntu”, pisał: „ „rewolwerowość” miała w rzeczywistości charakter czystko intelektualny i raczej abstrakcyjny – polegała po prostu na mówieniu prawdy, (…) głoszeniu z pasją i z upodobaniem myśli i idei niepopularnych, wreszcie na wykrzykiwaniu z rozkoszą rzeczy, o których nie lubili mówić – nawet po cichu – wszyscy inni; istnieją takie sprawy, milcząco wyklęte i wykreślone ze słowika zarówno przez rząd, jak i przez opozycję, zarówno przez prawicę, jak i przez lewicę i przez centrum, zarówno przez burżuazję, jak i przez proletariat – słowem sprawy nieprzyzwoite. A w takich sprawach lubował się cały zespół „Polityki i Sztuki” gorąco – przekora i ukochanie prowokacji intelektualnej, stosowanej wobec ludzi o nazbyt ustalonych i zaskorupiałych poglądach, były w tej redakcji legitymacją członkowską”.
Książka opisuje fenomen jednego z najciekawszych środowiska intelektualnego okresu dwudziestolecia międzywojennego. „Bunt Młodych” był początkiem drogi wielu wybitnych postaci, takich jak: Jerzy Giedroyc, Adolf i Aleksander Bocheński, Ksawery i Mieczysław Pruszyńscy, Kazimierz Studentowicz, Stefan Kisielewski i wielu innych.  Dorobek pisma jest świadectwem poszukiwań intelektualnych dróg w czasach pochodu totalitaryzmów, zmagań z „polską formą”. Pod hasłem „mocarstwowości” skrywał się program będący syntezą konserwatyzmu Bobrzyńskiego i rewolucjonizmu Brzozowskiego. Historia myśli politycznej „Buntu” wprowadza w genealogię polskiej inteligencji, która wzrastała w wolnym państwie, po 1945 r. zdawała egzamin z politycznej dojrzałości.

Obraz badanego wycinka polskich elit, który wyłania się z przeprowadzonych badań opartych na pogłębionych wywiadach badawczych, analizie litera tury
i prasy oraz dokumentach instytucji eksperckich, jest wielowątkowy. Składają się
na niego obserwacje różnej wagi i o różnej precyzji. Opierając się na zgromadzonym materiale badawczym, zaryzykować można wydestylowanie kluczowej
„opowieści”. Jej głównymi bohaterami są przedstawiciele młodego pokolenia
opozycyjnie nastawionej inteligencji, którzy po 1989 r., ciesząc się wsparciem
niektórych szczególnie istotnych postaci inteligenckiej elity oraz ważnych figur
środowisk emigracji, stworzyli trzon medialno-ekspercko-biurokratycznej infrastruktury związanej z relacjami Polski ze Wschodem.

In this article the author reveals the three approaches, which dominated
in the twentieth century, to the study of the Jagiellonian’s era in Central and Eastern Europe in 20th century. The author links the a formation of national scientifi c and methodological schools with the development of ideas pronounced by Oskar Halecki, Aleksander Gieysztor and Jerzy Giedroyc. He also highlights key issues in each particular national historiography. The content of this papers considers the process of internationalization in the national historiography schools, reveals new mechanisms of the knowledge formation about the Jagiellonian’s epoch in the contemporary society.

Russian intervention in Donbas and annexation of Crimea have triggered a fundamental revision of the EU policy towards Easter neighbourhood and Russia. The main goal of this paper is to develop discussion about the EU strategy towards Russia by presenting political concept named “The Giedroyc doctrine”, created by Polish intellectuals on exile, when Poland was under Soviet domination. Although created a few decades ago, some elements of this doctrine are still surprisingly relevant today and may contribute to contemporary European debate. In particular, we argue that strengthening the prosperity, stability and security in Eastern Europe is possible only when Russia transforms itself into a prosperous and democratic state. Autocratic and neo-imperial Russia undermines any major pro-Western political changes in the region. Therefore, successful transformation of Russia into stable, prosperous and democratic state should be included into the long-term vision of European politicians who...

This dissertation focuses on the analysis of Polish discourses concerning Russia, Polish-Russian relations and Eastern policy after 1989 as well as on the social structures within which analyzed discourses were produced. The main body of the dissertation consists of four chapters. Chapter I presents main theoretical inspirations, including those concerning understanding of the concept of discourse, Pierre Bourdieu's field analysis and adaptation of his research proposals to the specific conditions. Chapter I contains also a review of the literature on the peripheral position of Poland and Central and Eastern Europe. The chapter ends with a critical analysis of literature on Polish-Russian relations and Polish policy towards Russia. Chapter II deals with the process of emergence of the space of opinion in the Third Polish Republic, in particular of its part devoted to the policy towards Russia, Polish-Russian relations and Eastern policy. At the beginning, both the structure of the space of opinion from the period of before 1989 and characteristics of issues concerning the East (USSR), are outlined. The analysis in Chapter II also covers the issue of which political concepts dominated in particular parts of the space of opinion. The following sections discuss the processes of transformation of several social fields, at the crossroads of which the space of opinion is located. Apart from outlining structures of the space of opinion, an important part of Chapter II is devoted to analysis of social relations between factions of the Polish elite, which I situate in the opposite poles of the space of opinion. Chapter III continues the analysis of the first years of the Third Polish Republic as I attempt to shed light on factors, which contributed to the domination of those factions of the Polish elite, which views were in line with the "Promethean" tradition in the Polish Eastern policy. For this purpose, I analyse political conditions, including fluctuations in the Polish eastern policy between the "realistic" and "Promethean" tendencies, and factors that caused these fluctuations. In Chapter III, I also continue to outline the structures of the Polish space of opinion, complementing the picture with an additional dimension – concerning the priority of the western vector of the Polish foreign policy. I also try to show the dynamics and evolution of relations between particular parts of the structure, through an analysis of positions taken in debates by the leading representatives of particular factions. Chapter IV is devoted to an analysis of the structure of the space of opinion in the years following the turn of 1989. I attempt to verify accuracy of Zarycki's observations concerning the changing structure of the Polish field of power, focusing on the part of the space of opinion. The next section of this chapter is devoted to an analysis of the impact, that the pressure from Western (and Russian) elites had on Polish experts dealing with issues of policy towards Russia and Eastern policy. The analysis of both, structures of the space of opinion itself, and of discourses is preceded by a section devoted to the discussion of political conditions. The last chapter also covers analysis of processes taking place in the space of opinion during this period. They included emergence of discourses questioning the then-current assumptions for the Eastern policy. An important element of these debates concerned an evaluation of the significance and meaning of the achievements of Jerzy Giedroyc and the Paris-based “Kultura”, that he led. In Chapter IV, I present my own interpretation of these debates and a function that the figure of the Editor-in-chief of the famous émigré review has played for representatives of the Polish intelligentsia. The chapter ends with a discourse analysis based on debates concerning the "reset policy" of towards Russia.

The book beautifully describes Borderland’s activities and the ideas behind them. The authors not only understand but also share the intellectual, artistic and emotional intentions that govern the practice of the Borderlanders. They have read the same books that inspired the Borderlanders, they understand what the Borderland’s practice consists of, what its objectives are. Though Borderland’s work and its conceptual
underpinning has evolved and developed with time, its constant mission is to grow social connective tissue so as to mend society’s ruptures. The authors of the book present the stages of the unending process of the reconstruction of the diversity of traditions: together with the Borderlanders, they listen to the voices of the past. They share the loyalty towards the place, and to any of the places the Borderlanders collaborate with, avoiding preferential treatment for majority cultures, for hierarchy
linked to state power. And, very importantly, they describe Borderland’s effort to create a space for the voices of those who are not here anymore, for the murdered, the expelled, and the forgotten. Such work requires not only modesty and devotion, but also courage. - Prof. Irena Grudzińska-Gross
‘Dialogue with the Other is building,’ Czyżewski wrote in his essay
‘The Bridge and the Person'. This also means that in order to be able to develop and practise dialogic thinking, one first has to re-discover and re-interpret the craft of the builders of Bosnia’s bridges, the neimars. This is not simply the licentia poetica of the Borderlanders; it is a clear signal that the modern-day activist working in a multicultural community has to combine knowledge with know-how, imagination with competence; that their work will nonetheless come to naught if there is no vision in what they do, or, conversely, if they lack the strength and skill to put their vision into practice.

The main purpose of this article is to consider the question: Do authors always decide on the final form of their works? To explore the answer, this essay describes relations between authors and editors in chief. To this end, the essay provides some examples of the various forms this activity can take, and reflects on what we can learn about a text’s creation after the author regards it as finished. The examples will be derived from the manuscripts of the Polish author Leopold Tyrmand. His literary output was studied by many scholars. So far, however, such analyses of his works were mainly of a literary nature — and only examined rarely from a philological point of view. Nevertheless, it would not be fair to blame the scholars for this lacuna: surely many of them would consider such an inquiry if they did not lack the proper source materials. As a result, in the research of Tyrmand’s literary output practically no examination of Tyrmand’s creative process, no closer examination of t...

This article focuses on presenting the history of cooperation between Mikhail Heller and the Literary Institute, a Polish emigration publishing house in Paris, whose founder and editor was Jerzy Giedroyc. The main subject of the article is the issue of publication of The Gulag Archipelago of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn by the Literary Institute and the willingness of Jerzy Giedroyc to enter into a dialogue with its author. In both of these issues, an important person, the liaison in the contacts of both intellectuals was Mikhail Heller, a Soviet emigrant, historian and literary scholar who lived and worked in Paris since 1968. In the article, the author presented examples of the activity of the Literary Institute aimed at establishing contact with Russian emigrants, both in publishing and political context. Mikhail Heller was the main adviser to Jerzy Giedroyc on Russian affairs, he enjoyed enormous respect from both Polish and Russian emigrants, and thus acted as an intermediary in the contacts of both environments.

The years 1918-1921 were a period of particularly complicated Polish-Ukrainian relations, a time of the formation of states, wars and alliances. Many films were made on this subject, which represented different versions of these events. The article organizes this material from the point of view of visual history. Anti-Polish interpretations dominated the Soviet films of the 1920s and 1930s, and strengthened Ukrainian activity on the Soviet side. After the war, it is difficult to find Polish-Ukrainian aspects in films, especially regarding periods  just after the Great War. New opportunities appeared after the fall of the USSR. The article is a jubilee (100 anniversary of the Kyiv expedition, the Polish-Ukrainian alliance against the Bolsheviks in 1920).

Był bowiem Stempowski mędrcem w sensie ścisłym, zakochanym w starożytności, kosmopolitycznym i oderwanym od ciasnych nacjonalizmów, ale przecież zanurzonym po uszy w europejskiej rzeczywistości swoich czasów. Przed wojną pracował dla polskiego wywiadu, był szefem gabinetu premiera Kazimierza Bartla, działaczem masońskim, wykładowcą w szkole teatralnej, mieszkańcem sadyby karpackich przemytników, politycznie zaangażowanym emigrantem, wytwórcą szczotek, jednym z niewielu przyjaciół Jerzego Giedroycia i raczej kiepskim ojcem dwóch bliźniaczek. Życiorys, którym obdzielić można by kilka osób, znamionujący postać zupełnie nietuzinkową.

W 1989 roku po blisko półwieczu w Warszawie można było samodzielnie kształtować politykę wschodnią. Cele przed nią stojące wydawały się oczywiste. Rządzący odwoływali się do koncepcji z pierwszej połowy XX w. oraz tych ukształtowanych na łamach emigracyjnej „Kultury”. Wszystkie te pomysły łączyło jedno: wspierano niepodległościowe dążenia narodów zamieszkujących na wschód od polskich granic. Dwadzieścia pięć lat później trudno jednoznacznie zdefiniować cele polityki wschodniej. Elity III Rzeczpospolitej nie przedstawiły własnej wizji stosunków ze wschodnimi sąsiadami. Kształtujący politykę wschodnią wciąż odwołują się do dawnych idei. Równocześnie wiele z proponowanych w przeszłości rozwiązań zostało zrealizowanych bądź uległo dezaktualizacji. W związku z tym istotne wydaje się pytanie, czy współczesna polska polityka wschodnia jest mitem czy jedynie spuścizną pozostawioną przez poprzednie pokolenia.

The book "From Romanticism to the Era of New Media" consists of fourteen sketches. Eight of them are about Polish Romanticism, and in particular the works of its outstanding representatives, Mickiewicz, Goszczyński, Kamieński, Norwid, and Kraszewski. Two are on the subject of Parisian monthly “Kultura”, while four are devoted to films and the Internet. The book only appears as a whole to readers who are engaged in reflection on the need to constantly re-define one’s place in the world of culture, existing at present in a state of inescapable rush towards an as yet unknown destination.
Just as Polish emigrants after the Second World War based their philosophy of survival on re-modelled ideals of romanticism, which had often undergone painful changes, so now, at the beginning of the 21st Century, we are once more looking to the experiences of the Romantics to help us understand the role of our own history in defining the historical identity of Europe, which in the process of the onwards rush just mentioned is losing not only its dignity, but also its essential importance. A major role in understanding European cultures is played by films, which have achieved the Romantic ideal of a synthesis between the arts and new media, and the Internet in particular, thanks to which we have become familiar with recipients, or to be more exact, participants of art, to a greater extent than ever before. The effects of the new media are complex, and no-one should be too confident in making any definite statements about them or in attempting to predict how they will develop over the next few years.  Nevertheless, I feel that it is important to approach them from a perspective which can properly be understood as humanistic, using research tools developed by literary studies, cultural sociology, film studies, and studies of the history of ideas and of art. Only this can protect us from a growing sense of meaninglessness and of lost values, or counter the complaint that the media, together with the whole of contemporary culture, are doomed to commercialisation and simplified communication.
Studies of the new media, and, increasingly, film, require certain technological skills, and for this reason it cannot be excluded that a new area of specialized research linking the arts with information technology will arise. In the meantime, however, nothing relieves us of the responsibility of searching for the truth and defence against relativism in this, as in other fields, and therefore the final sketches in the book indicate the road which the author intends to follow during the next few years.

The Poles and the Ukrainians in the 20th century history had several political and ethnical conflicts, confrontations (Polish-Ukrainian war in Galicia in 1918–1919, massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia carried out by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army during WWII, forced displacement of the Ukrainian minority in Poland in 1947), but reconciliation  processes determined the events of the last quarter century. After gaining independence, the bloody conflicts of the last century could not be tools in politics in both Poland and Ukraine. Moreover, many common projects have been started since 1991. The Poles in the post-independence period showed appropriate empathy to their eastern neighbours’ problems (development of national identity and state-building) and were proactive during this period in improving Polish-Ukrainian relations. The article intends to show that in the Central  European region it is possible to conduct dialogue, achieve reconciliation between two neighbouring countries, show openness to this dialogue (with ourselves and with our neighbours), and manage the potential conflicts during these process. What is more, consistent behaviour of decision-makers (in political and civil sphere) was present in the past quarter century in the Polish-Ukrainian relations and was largely absent from Hungarian-Slovak, Hungarian-Romanian, Hungarian-Serbian, or Hungarian-Ukrainian relations.

Gábor LAGZI (Budapest-Veszprém) Zainteresowanie Jerzego Giedroycia Europą Wschodnią jest oczywistością i zostało szeroko przedstawione w literaturze przedmiotu. Jednak wątki dotyczące Europy Środkowej (pod tym pojęciem należy zrozumieć kraje wyszehradzkie, czyli Czechy, Słowację/Czechosłowację oraz Węgry) w myśli politycznej Redaktora "Kultury" należą do znacznie mniej zbadanych tematów, z tego wynika, iż "sprawa węgierska" nie leżała w centrum zainteresowań Jerzego Giedroycia. Mimo tego Instytut Literacki opublikował dwie pozycje związane z "bratankami" Polaków: rewizjonistyczną minipowieść węgierskiego pisarza Tibora Déryego w 1959 roku, zaś rok później tom pod redakcją Czesława Miłosza pt. "Węgry", też wpisującą się w nurt rewizjonistyczny popierany ówcześnie przez Redaktora. Częściowo porusza tematykę węgierską-nie z politycznego punktu widzenia, jak te dwa wyżej wymienione pozycje-kilka esejów Stanisława Vincenza w zbiorze "Po stronie pamięci" z 1965 roku. Przeglądając poszczególne numery paryskiej "Kultury" (i "Zeszytów Historycznych") i szukając wątków oraz autorów węgierskich, można z łatwością natrafić na nazwisko George'a/Györgya Gömöriego. Niewątpliwie ten węgierski emigrant z 1956 roku był w pewnym sensie korespondentem w "Kulturze" literatury (w mniejszym stopniu polityki) węgierskiej, a zarazem korespondentem literatury (a także i polityki) polskiej w emigracyjnych wydawnictwach węgierskich. Innymi słowy-węgierski emigrant, zarazem literaturoznawca, wykładowca akademicki w Anglii był "pasem

Russian intervention in Donbas and annexation of Crimea have triggered a fundamental revision of the EU policy towards Easter neighbourhood and Russia. The main goal of this paper is to develop discussion about the EU strategy towards Russia by presenting political concept named “The Giedroyc doctrine”, created by Polish intellectuals on exile, when Poland was under Soviet domination. Although created a few decades ago, some elements of this doctrine are still surprisingly relevant today and may contribute to contemporary European debate. In particular, we argue that strengthening the prosperity, stability and security in Eastern Europe is possible only when Russia transforms itself into a prosperous and democratic state. Autocratic and neo-imperial Russia undermines any major pro-Western political changes in the region. Therefore, successful transformation of Russia into stable, prosperous and democratic state should be included into the long-term vision of European politicians who...

W 2020 roku minęło 20 lat od śmierci Jerzego Giedroycia i 100 lat od urodzin Bohdana Osadchuka, odpowiednio redaktora paryskiej «Kultury» i jej stałego autora. Na łamach czasopisma emigracyjnego powstał program polityczny, którego elementy stały się podstawą polityki wschodniej Polski po upadku komunizmu. Istotnie B. Osadczuk wniósł znaczący wkład w ukraińską część programu «Kultura», który zgodnie z wolą przestał ukazywać się wraz ze śmiercią redaktora J. Giedroycia. Celem artykułu jest analiza relacji między niepodległą Ukrainą a Polską w kontekście idei programowych pisma emigracyjnego, (nie)aktualności modyfikacji wizji J. Giedroycia i B. Osadczuka na dzień dzisiejszy. Słowa kluczowe: pojednanie polsko-ukraińskie, bezpieczeństwo regionalne, Międzymorze, mniejszość narodowa, granica, mit i stereotyp.

Polityka UBL „Kultury” i Jerzego Giedroycia nie była antyrosyjska ani nastawiona na konfrontację z Rosją, ale na zmianę Rosji i ułożenie z nią przez Polskę dobrych stosunków. Nie należy o tym zapominać kiedy na „Kulturę” niemal wszyscy się powołują, ale prawie nikt wskazań Redaktora nie realizuje.