Bohdan Dziemidok 
Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity 
The turn of the 20th and the 21st century is a very interesting period. On 
the one hand, there is a growth of internationalist tendencies, which make 
us look for common values and universal culture, and on the other hand, 
the centrifugal tendencies lead to the revival of new forms of nationalism 
and national and religious conflicts. 
Integrative tendencies are an unquestioned fact of every aspect of 
societal life: economic (emergence of the world market, rise of international 
exchange and cooperation, modernization of technology, popularization 
of Western patterns of consumption, great development of transport and 
means of communication, etc.), political (expansion of liberal democracy, 
creation of an united Europe), and in culture, which succumbs to a tendency 
to create global and universal mass culture (mass media, tourism, fashion, 
show business, etc.). It turns out, however, that nei ther international 
commerce, nor the blossoming systems of communication and transport, 
provide us with the common feeling of identity or belonging. At the same 
time the need for those does not cease to exist. As a result, »people rediscover 
or create a new historical identity«, since they feel uprooted and »need new 
sources of identity and new forms of stable community, new systems of moral 
imperatives, which could give them a sense of a meaningful and purposeful 
life« (Huntington, 1997, pp. 132, 133). 
One of the most important forms of collective and cultural identity still 
turns out to be the national one. The prophecies of the end of the era of 
nations have not come true. 
»The strength of national sentiments - writes Jerzy Szacki - even if 
changeable in time and diverse in space, does not show any symptoms of 
clear decline, (...) the era of nations keeps lasting and nothing predicts it 
will end soon« (1997, p. 58). 
In 1882, Isaiah Berlin called nationalism »the neglected power«, having 
at the same time supposed that »nationalism can dominate the last part of 
our century to such a degree, that no movement or revolution will have any 
chances of success unless allied with it« (1982, p. 206). 
In the eighties, Berlin's convictions might have seemed exaggerated. 
Some claimed that nationalism would either become a merely historical term 
Filozofski vestnik, XX (2/1999 - XTVICA), pp. 237-251. 237 
Bohdan Dziemidok 
or would function on the peripheries of the 'civilized' world - somewhere 
in the third or fourth world, and definitely would play no part in the unified 
communities of Europe. Truly, during the Cold War, international conflicts 
were mainly of an ideological flavor and many observers though t the 
situation to be unlikely to change quickly. However, the end of the Cold 
War brought a radical change of situation. One of the main reasons (but 
not the only one) for that, was the collapse of multinational states like the 
Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, and binational ones like Czechoslovakia. The 
problems of nationalism, xenophobia, ethnic conflicts, national identity, 
autonomy, and national culture became the center of attention in the social 
sciences. This happened not only because of the situation in Central and 
Eastern Europe and in the East, but also due to the growing separatisms or 
claims for cultural autonomy in Belgium, Spain, Canada and Great Britain. 
»With the end of the Cold War - writes Will Kymlicka - the demands of the 
ethnic and the national groups have taken over the center stage of political 
life both domestically and internationally« (1995, p. 193). The same author 
in another paper underlines that »a striking fact of 20th century history is 
tenacity with which ethno-national groups have maintained their distinct 
identity, institutions, and desire for self-government« (1995, p. 164). 
Before one can begin dealing with the question of artistic expression 
of national cultural identity, one has to deal with several fundamentals. What 
is »identity«, what is »nation« and »nationalism«, and, finally, what is 
»collective identity«. 
The issues of nation, national culture, international coexistence, national 
conflicts, nationalism, patriotism and national identity are still crucial and 
complex. The complexity is to a large degree caused by the lack of clarity of 
the terms themselves (national identity, nationalism, patriotism) which greatly 
adds to the difficulty of the academic discourse. For the purpose of this paper, 
some working distinctions between those terms are made below. 
I believe that an attempt to identify the term 'nationalism' should be 
our point of departure. Ernest Gellner, an outstanding expert in the field, 
coined a well-known and popular definition of nationalism. According to 
him, »nationalism is primarily a political principle, which holds that the 
political and the national unit should be congruent« (1983, p. 1). This 
definition seems to be, on the one hand, too narrow for it does not cover 
some forms of nationalism (e.g. cultural nationalism); and, on the other hand, 
too broad, since it follows that all supporters of nation-states would be 
nationalists, regardless of the fact that some of them are opposed to 
nationalism as an ideology. 
Consequently, it can be argued that Gellner's definition is insufficient. 
238 
Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity 
It seems that the definition of nationalism should be descriptive, and as 
axiologically neutral as possible. Such an approach would allow us to avoid 
the impoverished vision of nationalism as only aggressive, expansionist and 
xenophobic. This narrow, clearly pejorative understanding of nationalism 
is, for example, very popular in the Polish language. The meaning of this 
term should be broad enough to cover all its most distinguished forms. Its 
definition should integrate not only ethnic nationalism (also called 'ethno-
nationalism'), but also civic as well as (political) nationalism (present both 
in liberal democracies and in autocracies), cultural nationalism (the necessity 
to distinguish this particular form of nationalism is mainly argued for by 
the Canadian philosophers W. Kymilcka, 1995, and K. Nielsen). It should 
also re f l ec t the d i f f e r ences between imperial ist ic and l iberat ionis t 
nationalism, as well as between aggressive, »hot« (in its exclusive and 
inclusive, expansionist form) and banal nationalism (see M. Billig), specific 
for the developed nation-states of the West (e.g. USA or UK). 
Andrzej Walicki approaches nationalism as an ideology »centered 
around the concept of nation, promoting national ties, national identity, 
national consciousness and nation-state« (1997, p. 32). 
Also Isaiah Berlin thinks that »'nationalism' is not only a state of mind 
but also a self-conscious doctrine« (1991, p. 206). Nationalism »is an elevation 
of values of unity and self-determination of a nation to the position of the 
highest good« (1991, p. 202). 
A similar definition of nationalism can be found in the book by Peter 
Alter: »Nationalism exists everywhere, where individuals feel belonging 
above all to the nation and where sentimental ties and loyalty to a nation 
trump all other bonds and loyalties« (1983, p. 9, see J. Szacki, p. 27). 
The quoted definitions of nationalism are formulated in such a manner, 
that the term 'nationalism' can be substituted by that of 'patriotism'. Still, 
most authors believe that it is rational and right to distinguish the two related 
terms. I would like to analyze three out of many venues to draw the line 
between them. The simplest approach is the one declaring »patriotism as a 
feeling and nationalism as a doctrine« (see J. Jedlicki, 1997). This simple 
distinction does not get us far, since even if nationalism is mostly treated as 
an ideology or a doctrine, we still can speak about nationalistic feelings or 
behaviors which do not construe an ideology. Patriotism is indeed very often 
seen as love of the homeland and the nation or »strong emotional ties with 
the nation« (M. Waldenberg 1992, pp. 18-24). Antonina Kloskowska defines 
patriotism as a »strong, emotional attachment with one's own ethnic group« 
(1996, p. 16). MorrisJanovitz distinguishes patriotism from xenophobia and 
239 
Bohdan Dziemidok 
hatred for foreigners as »the persistence of love or attachment to a country« 
(1983, p. 194). 
Patriotism understood in such a way is opposed to nationalism in a 
narrow sense. Consequently, patriotism is seen as a synonym for love of 
homeland or nation but lacking aggressive sent iments towards o the r 
countries or nations. At the same time nationalism represents primordial 
aggression, irrational exclusion, xenophobia, and fanaticism. This picture 
of patriotism and nationalism as two different sentiments or states of mind 
cannot be seen as satisfactory. As A. Kloskowska and M. Billig rightly point 
out, in practice it is hardly possible to distinguish one from another. There 
is a popular tendency to call one's own nationalism 'patriotism' and to treat 
the patriotism of others as 'nationalism'. »The problem is how to distinguish 
in practice these two allegedly very different states of mind. One cannot 
merely ask potential patriots whether they either love or hate foreigners. 
Even the most extreme of nationalists will claim the patriotic motivation for 
themselves« (M. Billig, 1997, p. 57). 
The third method of telling nationalism and patriodsm apart is suggested 
by Andrzej Walicki and Charles Taylor. As opposed to nadonalism connected 
with »nation«, patriotism is linked to the concept of »patria« de f ined 
politically, i.e. »without reference to a prepolitical identity«. Patriotism is 
»a s t rong sense of ident i f icat ion with polity«; it is »a s t rong cit izen 
identification« (C. Taylor, 1997, p. 253). 
Walicki sees patriotism as »a territorial concept which can be separate 
from nationality« (1997, p. 34). 
Both authors claim that patriotism understood in such a way was present 
in both the American and the French Revolut ion. »The c o n c e p t of 
Frenchman (...) was shaped under the influence of territorial and state 
identity« (A. Walicki, 1997, p. 34). This profile of patriotism is/was present 
in binational states like Czechoslovakia or multinational ones like the Soviet 
Union, Yugoslavia, and the USA. As a result, if patriotism is merely a political/ 
territorial phenomenon, »nationalism can provide fuel for patriotism, can 
be one basis for patriotism but not the only one« (C. Taylor, 1997, p. 253). 
This situation makes them difficult to distinguish from one another, however, 
although this distinction should be clearly made, »if we want to understand 
our history« (C. Taylor, 1997, p. 253). 
A similar understanding of patriotism is shown by Will Kymlicka, who 
thinks that »we should distinguish patriotism, the feeling of allegiance to state, 
from national identity, the sense of membership in a national group« (p. 
13). The necessity to distinguish those concepts justifies the relation between 
patriotism and national identity of the Swiss. Kymlicka says with respect to 
240 
Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity 
Switzerland: »National groups feel allegiance to the larger state only because 
the larger state recognizes and respects their distinct national existence« 
(1995, p. 13). 
All three approaches towards the divisive line between patriotism and 
nationalism can be argued for and against. The latter one, however, seems 
to be most precise. 
As is well known, the concept of identity has two important meanings: 
one is »remaining the same« (sameness) and the other differentiation 
(distinctiveness) from other subjects of individual or collective identity. 
Neither can be overlooked in reflecting on national cultural identity. There 
is no »we« without »they«. Some authors (e. g., F. Barth and Z. Bokszanski) 
are even of the opinion that it is not the tenacity of national tradition or 
culture, nor the collective memory and a feeling of commonality of fate, 
but precisely the borderlines between »us« and »them« which are the most 
important for collective identity. 
In contemporary theories of the nation and nationalism, alongside the 
anthropological and cultural constructions of nation and national identity 
(B. Anderson, J. Armstrong, A. Kioskowska, W. Kymlicka, Y. Tamir and 
others) there is also a political or »civic« way of defining a nation (its origin 
and functioning) and nationalism (E. Gellner, L. Greenfeld, E. Hobsbawm, 
M. Ignatieff and others). In both these approaches what is stressed, however, 
is the importance (although different) of culture (variously understood by 
different thinkers) in shaping the nation and national identity. The national 
cultural identity is usually treated as a very important form of collective 
identity because of its tenacity and axiological essentiality. 
The question of collective identity is an equally controversial and vexing 
problem. This is so because it is neither quite clear who, and in what sense, 
is the subject of the collective identity, nor what is the role of the subjective 
and the objective indicators of that identity. 
It would be interesting to propose some fresh answers to these questions, 
but as I need to get to the question of artistic expression of national identity, 
I will base my fundamental distinctions on the findings of other authors. 
The problem of a culturally defined national identity is one of the most 
crucial (urgent and controversial) issues discussed today within the domain 
of social sciences. The notion of »national identity« should be distinguished 
not only from the notion of »patriotism«, but also from that of »nationalism«. 
Even staunch adherence to a given national identity does not necessarily lead 
to nationalism. After all, it follows from the sociological research carried 
out by Antonina Kioskowska and her associates that, »individual cases prove 
241 
Bohdan Dziemidok 
that there is no necessary connection between strong, assertive national 
identification and ethnocentric nationalism« (1996, p. 468). 
Research carried out by scores of sociologists, anthropologists, political 
scientists, historians and social psychologists demonstrates that national 
identity is one of the most important and most stable forms of collective 
identity. Most research workers believe today diatetiinic identity and national 
identity are rooted in culture which serves as the main bond within a group. 
Some authors go so far as to use interchangeably in some contexts the notions 
of »national identity« and »cultural identity«, since any national or ethnic 
identity could be largely reduced to cultural identity. For example, according 
to Kloskowska, both ethnic and national groups are »corporate bodies in 
the form of communities determined by the relative identity and relative 
separateness of their cultural traits« (1996, p. 36), since »a common national 
cu l ture const i tutes a s t ronger , m o r e t enac ious a n d m o r e ef fec t ive 
determinant of social bonds than a common government« (1996, p. 27). 
The persistence of national culture endows the national community with a 
sense of continuity which is a prominent element of any identity. 
Literature on this and related issues abounds in different, although often 
convergent, justifications of the special status of national identity. For 
example, Walicki notes that »the nation [...] possesses a powerful, historically 
shaped collective identity, encompassing both past and future generations, 
which is constantly bolstered even while it is being contested, and finds 
expression in the shared perception of a communion of anxieties, of a shared 
responsibility for the past and the future« (1997, p. 45). 
Other factors which highlight the importance of national identity are 
discussed by Kai Nielsen, who states that it is »indeed a very impor tan t 
identity, an identity essential for many people to give meaning to their lives, 
vital for their sense of self-respect, essential for their sense of belonging and 
security- all things of fundamental value to human beings« (1996-97, p. 43). 
An interesting vindication of the importance of national and cultural 
identity for individual human beings may be found in the works of W. 
Kymlicka and the Israeli researcher, Yael Tamir, who emphatically state that 
an individual cannot function outside h i s /her cultural context. It therefore 
follows that h is /her autonomous decisions must depend on the cultural 
context. The instrumental value of national identity is largely based on the 
above observation. The cultural-national background plays a crucial role 
in the shaping of human axiological vistas and or ientat ions , guid ing 
individuals in their choice of appropriate conceptions of good, lifestyles, 
preferences and interests. And in particular, in shaping »their self-esteem 
demand on their ties with a lively and well respected community« (1998, p. 111). 
242 
Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity 
But it is in the work of Kymlicka that one may f ind the most 
comprehensive appraisal of the value of national and cultural identity. I will 
limit myself to a presentation of only two of her main arguments. First and 
foremost, it is this identity which is particularly important from the point of 
view of an individual's personal freedom. For freedom cannot be simply 
reduced to the possibility of having a choice. Actually, freedom involves 
making a thoughtful, sensible choice out of »various options«. It is thanks 
to their allegiance to their national culture that »people have access to a 
range of meaningful options« (1995, p. 83), if only because allegiance to a 
culture and »familiarity with a culture« determines the limits of human 
knowledge and imagination. Broadly understood societal culture, which 
»tends to be a national culture [...] provides its members with meaningful 
ways of life across the full range of human activities, including social, 
educational, religious, recreational, and economic life, encompassing both 
the public and the private sphere« (1995, p. 76). Secondly, »cultural identity 
provides an anchor for people's self-identification and the safety of effortless 
secure belonging« (1995, p. 98). The point is that identification ensured by 
national identity »is based on belonging, not accomplishment« and such form 
of identificadon, independent of an individual's personal accomplishments, 
»is more secure, less liable to be threatened« (1995, p. 89). 
Some contemporary authors, writing on national identity, claim that 
inevitable modernization processes and the liberalization of social life must 
result in the d iminishment of inherited national identity, which today 
increasingly often becomes a matter of free choice. In this context some 
authors mention individuals who, opting for a cosmopolitan identity, try to 
find happiness precisely in the possibility of functioning between different 
cultures and making use of their divergent values, and who, not feeling any 
need for being firmly rooted in one culture, change their national identity 
at will (cf. J. Weldron). 
W. Kymlicka and A. Walicki disagree with such views and defend the 
importance and persistence of national identity, which in their opinion may 
not be a question of free choice. First of all, the processes underlying national 
identity changes are of a highly individual and idiosyncratic character. They 
function over long time periods and are often difficult and even painful for 
the persons concerned, a fact which can be verified by any Czech who tried 
to become a Frenchman, or any Pole who wanted to be an Englishman, or 
a Vietnamese who would like to become Japanese. Secondly, it is not 
necessarily true that modernization of the world and liberalization of social 
life must inevitably endanger national identity. In some countries of the West 
(e.g. Canada, Belgium or Great Britain), »far from displacing national 
243 
Bohdan Dziemidok 
identity, liberalization has in fact gone hand in hand with an increased sense 
of nationhood« (W. Kymlicka, 1995, p. 88). The pro-autonomy aspirations 
of the Flemish, the Scots and the Québécois constitute more than adequate 
evidence for this suggestion. The fact that »culture became tolerant and 
pluralistic has, in no way, diminished the persuasiveness or intensity of 
people's desire to live and to work in their own country« {ibid., p. 89). 
Claiming that modernizat ion does no t const i tute a th rea t to the 
persistence of national culture and national identity, Kymlicka nevertheless 
completely agrees with Samuel H u n t i n g t o n , in spite of the obvious 
differences between their views, on such issues as multiculturality, the role 
of immigration and ethnic minorities in America. 
One of the main motives of H u n t i n g t o n ' s seminal book was his 
constantly voiced opposition to the conception of the globalization of culture 
and Westernization of the world. In his opinion, Western civilization is not 
a universal civilizational model, and Westernization is not a necessary 
p r e c o n d i t i o n for modern iza t ion . Even if the inevi table adven t of 
modernization does destroy old authorit ies and communit ies , thereby 
uprooting people, this is not necessarily concomitant with the loss of the need 
for a separate identity. It often turns out that people need »new sources of 
identity, new forms of stable communities and new systems of moral norms, 
which would provide them with a sense of life and meaningfulness« (1997; 
p. 132). Modernization is not to be equated with Westernization, and at times 
it may even oppose it. The adoption by non-Western societies of »Western 
democratic institudons rouses nativist and anti-Western political movements« 
(1997; p. 127). 
It follows from Social Identity Theory that »people determine their 
identity on the basis of who they are not [...] on the basis of what makes 
them different from others« (S. Hundngton, p. 85). In the usual circumstances 
in this capacity they rely on stereotypes, both those describing members of 
their own community and those of others. »To achieve this positive identity, 
groups will tend to compare themselves positively with contrasting outgroups, 
and they seek dimensions of comparison on which they feel they fare well. 
For instance, nations will produce flattering stereotypes of themselves, and 
demeaning stereotypes of those other nations with which they compare 
themselves. The dimensions on which they pride their own qualities will be 
accorded importance. The flattering stereotypes, held by the ingroup about 
itself, and the unflattering ones about outgroups, will maintain the positive 
self-identity, which is necessary for the group's continuing existence« (M. 
Billig, p. 66). 
Thus it is absolutely impossible to avoid national stereotypes in the 
244 
Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity 
determination, articulation and consolidation of national identity. But if tiiis 
is true, then there is only one small step from the defense of national identity 
to nationalistic xenophobia . The existence of national stereotypes is a 
universal and inevitable phenomenon. »One might conceivably argue,« notes 
American anthropologist Allan Dundes, »whether or not there is such a thing 
as national character [...] but there can be absolutely no question that there 
is such a thing as national stereotypes« (1983, p. 250). The same author, a 
renowned expert on folklore, writes further: »Folklore provides one of the 
principal sources for articulation and communication of stereotypes. An 
individual may gain his first impression of a national or ethnic or religious 
or racial group by hearing traditional jokes or expressions referring to the 
alleged personality characteristics of that group« (1983, pp. 250-51). 
Today folklore no longer plays the important role it used to have in 
the past, but there exists a quasi-folklore in the form of mass culture which 
popularizes its own national stereotypes (usually xenophobic) to an extent 
quite comparable with that of traditional folklore. But what is even worse, it 
is not only folklore and mass culture but also official culture and authentic 
high art which contributes to the consolidation of national stereotypes. It is 
beyond the slightest doubt that national literatures have considerably 
contributed to the shaping of national identities. The classical example in 
Poland are the novels of Henryk Sienkiewicz, particularly his Trilogy and 
Teutonic Knights. A similar role was played by Walter Scott, Alexander Dumas, 
Lev Tolstoy, Alois Jirasek or Mor Jókai. They all glorified the magnificent 
past of their nations, and did not shun stereotypes in their literary missions. 
The first part of Sienkiewicz's Trilogy is absolutely cluttered with positive and 
negative nadonal stereotypes, a fact which the Ukrainians were quite justified 
to criticize, pointing out both the glorification of Polish knights and the 
simplified, obviously negadve image of the Cossacks. However, Sienkiewicz's 
Cossacks are almost angels compared to the Polish gentry as represented in 
Gogol's Taras Bulba. We may of course say that Sienkiewicz is »a first-class 
second-rate writer«, but we would certainly not venture a similar remark 
about Tolstoy. And yet we will also find out that in War and Peace negative 
characters are almost exclusively foreigners, while Russians epitomize all 
virtues. The same might be said about the works of Mikhail Bulgakov. 
Negative characters are invariably foreigners (Poles,Jews, Ukrainians), while 
Russians are always presented in a positive light. 
I think that in our times, especially in Central and Eastern Europe, art 
in a broad sense (comprising both 'high' and 'low' art) can, and indeed 
does play a very important role vis-á-vis reviving aggressive nationalism and 
a real need to preserve national identities. 
245 
Bohdan Dziemidok 
The problems of reviving or strengthening national identities and of 
the phenomenon of reviving authent ic and radical nationalisms that, 
unfortunately, often accompany it, are - as evidenced by the number of 
publications on this subject - the object of much contemporary research 
conducted by historians, philosophers, sociologists and political scientists. 
These important current problems only to a slight extent attract the interest 
of aestheticians and other art students, though art has been and still is 
efficiently used in these two related but so different matters. 
The argument about the future shape of Europe concerns, among 
others, the issue whether this will be a commonwealth of citizens, or a 
commonwealth of nation-states, each of them preserving its distinctive 
autonomous culture. It is hard to tell what the final results of the unification 
process will be. At the moment, though, the opinion that the lesser stress 
put on national identity, the more European the entity becomes, does not 
stand the confrontation with reality. 
There is no doubt that in many European countries one can presently 
observe a visible revival of nationalistic ideologies. This revival may be a 
result, among others, of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and regaining 
of independence by such countries as Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Armenia, 
Georgia, Belorussia, Moldavia and Ukra ine ; the d i s m e m b e r m e n t of 
Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia and the regaining of greater autonomy by 
Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland and Romania. In all the countries which have 
recently gained autonomy the issue of national identity became paramount. 
In different countries the situation does not seem to be the same. It is 
different in countries with a strong national identity and a long history of 
independent statehood (e.g. Poland or Hungary), and different in countries 
which have a history of national s ta tehood bu t which were subject to 
Russification over the last 50-70 years (e.g. Armenia, Lithuania, and Ukraine). 
Still different is the situation in the countries lacking a history of past 
s tatehood (e.g. Belorussia, Moldavia and Slovakia). In some of these 
countries the national identity has to be rebuilt and s t rengthened (e.g. 
Ukraine), in others it has to be built from the scratch (e.g. Belorussia or 
Moldavia). 
Taking this into account, artists, scholars, journalists and other creators 
of culture may and should play an important role. They have to discover 
how to contribute to the rebirth of their national culture and identity, and 
how to support the validation of true national values without falling, at the 
same time, into radical nationalism and isolationism. 
If we abandon the vague idea of Volkgeist which, according to Herder, 
can be found in national culture and collective behavior, then one may say 
246 
Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity 
that national identity is a specific form of collective identity« and that the 
factor constituting this identity is, first of all, the existence of national culture 
and collective historical memory. »National identity - writes Leszek 
Kolakowski - requires historical memory. [... ] The thing is that no nation can 
exist without being conscious of the fact that its present existence is an 
extension of the existence in the past, and that the further back these real 
or imagined memories reach, the better grounded its national identity is. 
Apart from historical knowledge, the past is also stored in various symbols, 
means of self-expression, in old buildings, temples and graves« (1995, p. 49). 
It follows, t hen , tha t the historical memory is consol idated by 
monuments of the national culture. »The national culture is a repository, 
inter alia, of classificatory systems. It allows 'us ' to define ourselves in 
opposition to ' them' , understood as those beyond the boundaries of the 
nation« (P. Schlesinger, 1991, p. 174). 
The importance of historical memory is also stressed by Michael Billig. 
According to him, »national identity is not only something natural to possess, 
but also something natural to remember. This remembering, nevertheless, 
involves a forgetting, or rather there is a complex dialectic of remembering 
and forgetting« (1997, p. 37). »Every nation must have its history, its own 
collective memory. This r emember ing is simultaneously a collective 
forgetting: the nation which celebrates its antiquity, forgets its historical 
recency. Moreover, nations forget the violence which brought them into 
existence« (p. 38). 
The importance of the role of national culture for preserving national 
identity is consequently stressed by Antonina Klosowska (see A. Klosowska, 
1996). 
The formation, retention and reconstruction of national identity is not 
a single act, bu t a cont inuous process. In some historical periods the 
format ion of national identity was a part of the nationalistic program. 
»However, once the political boundaries of the nation-state have been 
achieved, a national identity, with all the accompanying mythico-cultural 
apparatus, may be in place and is not necessarily identical with nationalism 
as such.« (P. Schlesinger, 1991, p. 168) 
One can easily notice that at the turn of the 20"' and the 21st century 
also the disciplines of philosophy and aesthetics face new important scholarly 
challenges. How can one find common denominators and combine the 
universalizing tendencies with the wealth of regional and national cultures? 
How can one preserve the variety and identity of national cultures without 
giving up integration and a search for a better mutual understanding and 
closer ties between nations? 
247 
Bohdan Dziemidok 
As is well known, art broadly understood is often treated as a source of 
knowledge about cultures different from our own. Indeed, art in general 
(and literature and film in particular) can be employed as a very effective 
(»objective« and suggestive) form of presentation of another culture: of a 
different system of values, different attitudes and different mentality. In this 
respect, art can be a very useful and helpful means of mutual understanding 
between people of different cultures. On the other hand, however, it can 
also be used very effectively to achieve the opposite objective: namely, the 
presentation of a one-sided, tendent ious - shortly, false - picture of a 
different culture and of the representatives of a different system of values. 
Thus, instead of enhanc ing u n d e r s t a n d i n g , it b e c o m e s a source of 
misunderstanding, cultural prejudices and hostility. 
I am interested in the question of how and when such a distortion is 
possible in the case of a novel or a film which at the same time is aesthetically 
valuable. This again raises the need to answer the following question: what 
is the mutual relationship between the cognitive, the aesthetic and the artistic 
values of a work of art and its ideological function? Is there any dependence 
or some other kind of regular link between the cognitive, the aesthetic and 
the artistic values of a work of ar t and its ideological and poli t ical 
effectiveness? Is it possible to make a work of art which presents an alien 
culture in a false, one-sided way, but at the same time does it so suggestively 
that to the majority of beholders the work in question may seem aesthetically 
and cognitively valuable? 
I have no doubts that in such artistic domains as, for example, literature 
and the cinema, there exists a mutual connection between the cognitive 
aspects of a work and its artistic value, i.e. possible cognitive values of a 
literary or cinematic work enhance its artistic value. There is also a relation 
between the work's aesthetic attractiveness and the effectiveness of its 
ideological function, i.e. the higher the aesthetic clarity and suggestiveness 
of a work, the greater is its ideological impact. 
The relationship between the truthfulness of the message carried by 
the work and its artistic status and ideological effectiveness is much more 
complex. This is so because the knowledge which we derive from the arts is, 
in comparison to scientific knowledge, less systematic, less profound and 
specific, not always equally well founded and as thoroughly verifiable and, 
as a rule, much more ambiguous. Consequently, it is much more difficult 
to separate the truth from the falsehood in a work or art. Hence art may 
very efficiently misinform us and very convincingly and suggestively present 
various false and groundless historical and political claims, interpretations 
and evaluations. It seems quite probable that in many national cultures one 
248 
Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity 
could identify artworks which have played a significant role in shaping this 
nation's consciousness and identity, which are placed in the pantheon of 
national culture despite the fact that the picture of history or society they 
contain is, according to historians or sociologists, very one-sided, tendentious 
or evidently false. Hence one could risk the claim that even in those arts in 
which the cognitive values are very important - because they contribute to 
the value of the work itself (like in, e.g., literature or the cinema) - the 
cognitive (e.g., historical) falsity does not always disqualify the work of art 
qua work of art, provided that the work is distinguished by its formal 
perfectness and is not without some philosophical or psychological cognitive 
value. 
In our discussion I propose, however, to concentrate on still other, 
equally fundamental and difficult questions which will highlight fur ther 
aspects of the questions of national identity, collective consciousness, etc. 
These questions will deal with the role of art and artistic expression in shaping 
(structuring, sustaining, changing, etc.) the collective identity of nationals. 
Here I will try to specify the following problems: 
1. What is the specificity, importance and value of national identity, not only 
with respect to a nation and a country but with respect to an individual, 
too? 
2. Is it possible to combine one's loyalty to national values with national 
openness and, additionally, with axiological and cultural pluralism? 
3. Is it possible to have a double or even triple cultural identity? Can one 
simultaneously feel Bavarian, German and European or Kashubian, Polish 
and European? 
4. Can one speak of regional (subnational) and supranational cultural 
identities? Is there, for instance, on the one hand, a Moravian or Silesian 
cultural identity and, on the other, a Central European, European, Latin-
American, Slavonic or Islamic identity? 
5. What are the relationships between one's national identity and the 
symbolic culture, and especially with its broadly understood artistic means 
of communication (proper not only to high art but also, to some extent, 
to mass media)? Can various forms of artistic expression only express 
(reveal and bring forth) and preserve, or also shape and even construct 
someone's national identity? 
6. What is the relationship between national values and artistic values? I ask 
here not only whether art can strengthen a national culture, popularize 
a set of national values and strengthen one's national loyalty, but also 
whether the national values may enrich art, and especially, whether in 
the situation of the emergence of a global culture and market economy 
249 
Bohdan Dziemidok 
(which has also left its imprint on art) the national character condemns 
art to parochialism and provincialism. Is it true that, in order to endow a 
piece of art with universal values and ensure for it an existence on the 
international art market, one has to necessarily mineralize its national 
provenance, its ethnic coloring and dress it up is a cosmopolitan way? 
And, finally, is it true that in all arts and on all their levels the situation is 
exactly the same? 
I hope that a thorough discussion of the above questions can throw more 
light on the role of the arts in shaping the national (collective) identities of 
peoples. 
Bibliography 
Alter Peter (1989), Nationalism, London. 
Anderson Benedict (1985), Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin 
and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso. 
Armstrong John (1982), Nations before Nationalism) North Corolina Press. 
Berlin Isaiah (1982), Nationalism, Past, Neglected and Present Power, quotations 
from the Polish edition of his essays Dwie koncepcje wolnosci, Warszawa, 
Respublica 1991. 
Billig Michael (1995), Banal Nationalism, London: Sage Publications. 
Bokoszyñski Zbigniew (1997), Stereotypy a kultura (Stereotypes and Culture), 
Wroclaw: FNP. 
Dundes Alan, Defining Identity through the Folklore, in Anita Jacobson-Widding 
(ed.); Identity: Personal and Socio-Cultural, A Symposium; Uppsala 1983. 
Gellner Ernest (1983), Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca: Cornell University 
Press. 
Greenfeld Liah (1992), Nationalism - Five Roads to Modernity, Cambridge 
Mass.: Harvard University Press. 
Hobsbawm Eric (1990), Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Programme, Myth, 
Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Huntington Samuel (1996), The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of the 
World Order, quotations from the Polish edition Zderzenia cywilizacji, 
Warszawa: Muza S.A. 1997. 
Ignatieff Michael (1993), Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New 
Nationalism, Farrer: Strauss and Giroux. 
Jacobson-Widding Anita, »Introduction «to Identity: Personal and Socio-Cultural, 
A Symposium, Uppsala 1983. 
250 
Artistic Expression of National Cultural Identity 
Jnowitz Morris (1983), The Reconstruction of Patriotism, Chicago: University 
of Chicago Press. 
JedlickiJerzy (1997), Nacjonalizm, patriotyzm i inicjacja kulturowa (Nationalism, 
Patriotism and Cultural Initiation), Znak r. XLIX, no. 502, pp. 51 - 61. 
Kloskowska Antonina (1996), Kultury narodowe u korzeni (National Cultures 
at the Grass Roots Level), Warszawa PWN. 
Kolakowski Leszek (1995), O tozsamoscizbiorowej (On Collective Identity); in 
Krzysztof Michalski (ed.), Tozsamosc w czasach zmiany (Identity in Time 
of Change); Kraków: Znak. 
Kymlicka (1996 a), Multicultural Citizenship-, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 
Kymlicka Will (1995 b), »Misunderstanding Nationalism«, Dissent (Winter 
1995). 
Nielsen Kai (1996), Cultural Nationalism, Neither Ethnic nor Civic4, The 
Philosophical Forum, vol. XXVIII, no. 1 - 2 (Fall-Winter 1996-97) pp. 
4 5 - 5 2 . 
Periwal Sukumer (ed. 1995), Notions of Nationalism, Budapest: CEU. 
Schlesinger Philip (1991), Media, State and Nations: Political Violence and 
Collective Identity, London. 
Szacki Jerzy (1997), O narodzie i nacjoanalizmie (Of Nations and Nationalism), 
Znak r. XLIX, no. 502, pp. 4 - 31. 
Tamir Yael (1993), Liberal Nationalism, Princeton: Princeton University Press. 
Taylor Charles (1997), »The Nationalism and Modernity«, in Robert McKim 
and Jeff McMaham (eds.), The Morality of Nationalism, New York: New 
York University Press, pp. 31 - 51. 
Tazbir janusz (1998), Wpogoni za Europq(ChasingEurope), Warszawa: Sic!. 
Walicki Andrze j , Czy mozliwy jest nacjoanalizm liberalny? (Is Liberal 
Nationalism Possible?), Znak, r. XLIX, no. 502. 
Waldenberg Marek (1992), Kwestia narodowa w Europie Srodkowo-Wschodniej 
(National Issues in Central Eastern Europe), Warszawa: PWN. 
Waldron Jerremy (1992), »Minority Cultures and the Cosmopolitan Alter-
native«, The University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 25, pp. 751-
793. 
This paper has been prepared as part of the research project »We - The 
Good People« and the »Dreadful They« funded by the Research Support Scheme 
of the Open Society Institute (RSS No 23/1996). 
251