Communitarian Dimensions in the Socio-Political Thought of the Solidarity Movement in 1980–1981

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is an interpretation of the social and political thought of the Solidarity movement in the light of the political philosophy of communitarianism. In the first part of the paper, the controversies between liberalism and communitarianism are characterized in order to outline the communitarian response toward the authoritarian/totalitarian challenge. In the second part, the programme of a self-governing republic created by Solidarity is interpreted in the spirit of communitarianism. I reconstruct the ideal vision of human being expressed in of ficial trade union’s documents and essays of Solidarity’s advisers e.g., Stefan Kurowski and Jozef Tischner, and the efforts of the movement for telling the truth about history and its vision of Polish history. Also, I interpret the programme of Self-Governing Republic adopted during the First National Convention of Delegates of Solidarity. In these programmatic documents of Solidarity, one may find ideas characteristic both of the communitarian and liberal political philosophy. However, the liberal ones—including, primarily, the guarantee of human and citizens’ rights, and of individual liberties—were subordinated to the postulate of reconstructing the national and social community. In the course of transformation after 1989, these communitarian elements of Solidarity programme, incompatible with liberal ideological agenda, have been erased.

Liberals Versus Communitarians: Psychosocial Sources of the Conflict Over Democracy in Today’s Poland

“…Communitarians believe that the condition of individual freedom is freedom of the political community, based on the authority of law, customs, and/or religion. Civil society is a community of people who accept group values and norms and actively care for the common good (Brzechczyn, 2019;Śpiewak, 2004;Szahaj, 2006).…”

“…It refers to the last 40 years of Polish history, with two key moments: the emergence of the great social movement Solidarity in 1980 and the subsequent takeover of political power in 1989 by Solidarity. Many scholars see Solidarity in the period 1980-1989 as a kind of political melting pot in which opposing concepts of liberal and communitarian ideal social order clashed with each other (e.g., Brzechczyn, 2019;Dudek, 2005;Gawin, 2002;Mason, 1989). Generally speaking, the most critical issues concerned selecting optimal policies on four disputed dimensions: proceduralism versus common good, economic reductionism versus autonomism, ahistoricalism versus traditionalism, and cosmopolitism versus patriotism (see Brzechczyn, 2019).…”

“…Many scholars see Solidarity in the period 1980-1989 as a kind of political melting pot in which opposing concepts of liberal and communitarian ideal social order clashed with each other (e.g., Brzechczyn, 2019;Dudek, 2005;Gawin, 2002;Mason, 1989). Generally speaking, the most critical issues concerned selecting optimal policies on four disputed dimensions: proceduralism versus common good, economic reductionism versus autonomism, ahistoricalism versus traditionalism, and cosmopolitism versus patriotism (see Brzechczyn, 2019). As Brzechczyn (2019) proves, numerous elements of liberalism and communitarianism have been present since 1980 in the main program postulates of the Solidarity.…”

“…Generally speaking, the most critical issues concerned selecting optimal policies on four disputed dimensions: proceduralism versus common good, economic reductionism versus autonomism, ahistoricalism versus traditionalism, and cosmopolitism versus patriotism (see Brzechczyn, 2019). As Brzechczyn (2019) proves, numerous elements of liberalism and communitarianism have been present since 1980 in the main program postulates of the Solidarity. He writes,…”

“…The instrument for measuring both orientations (LIB-COM Questionnaire) was created in several stages. First, based on a review of the literature describing the essence of the dispute between liberals and communitarians (Bartyzel, 2015;Brzechczyn, 2019;Śpiewak, 2004;Szahaj, 2006), we have compiled a list of 84 (2 × 42) characteristics of both orientations. The initial pool of items was verified in pilot studies, which resulted in a 32-item (2 × 16) instrument containing the statements with the best discriminatory power.…”