Jews and Poles en gros (s) 
Perhaps many readers are already tired of discussing the Golden harvest Grossów. In truth, we do. But two days ago we had the rare opportunity to see meaningful discussion of authors and scientists who have different views on the most important theses of the book. In an interview attended by Irena Grudzińska-Gross, Jan Tomasz Gross, Joanna Tokarska-Bakir, Alina Skibińska, Paul Machcewicz and Marcin Zaremba. Please note that this entry relates not so much the book itself, as discussions with the March 16. and what was said in this discussion about the book
Already in the first sentences of Gross Harvest quoted passage, which had set the problem as it is presented in the book. - Are crimes committed by Poles against Jews during World War II were only deviant behavior, or sanctioned common practice?
is a false alternative. It is not so, that we must choose between these two possibilities. It is possible that raking the Jews there was no universally recognized standard deviation or a manifestation of people from the "margin". We will try to justify it further.
Tokarska-Bakir presented a view according to which every genre of writing has its own rules and formal patterns. Confusion, preventing classify a song as belonging to a particular genre, in fact impossible to understand work, interpretation and possible controversy. Speaking of harvest, Tokarska said: - K siążka Gross is read in a barbaric way, still used outside of the genre to which it belongs. This historical essay, and is judged to be only the most common form of writing about history, is required to balance the arithmetic wrong one and the other
Sociology as sunflowers
Znowuż, this is a false definition of dispute. It is not about to Harvest "arithmetically weighed the arguments on both sides." Trouble the book is that the questions are there, a scientific hypothesis, namely, that the looting of Jews by Poles during and after the war was the norm of behavior, moral norm, social practice. So we have to deal with the text, which puts scientific hypotheses and even worse, pretending to be resolved. At the same time, when trying to verify both hypotheses and the way to settle them, the text suddenly turns out to be unscientific text, so that you do not apply the criteria of scientific method. Is it just is not stirring orders that prevent understanding, interpretation text and reference to it?
fact that "the Harvest" place such a hypothesis is confirmed quoting Gross at the beginning of the passage in which he presented an alternative to the standard deviation vs. Then do not relate to the words Tokarska-Bakir. This does not apply well to the more sociological than historical grounds sitting next to him dr. Zaremba. Thus confirms that it does not even attempt to prove their claims under the rules of art, which was the terminology used (assertions, that robbery was the "norm", "social practice" etc)
believe this attitude is not only unfair. It is the treatment of sociology as van Gogh's sunflowers hanged on the walls in millions of banal reproduction. Allow ourselves to assume that most people hanging Sunflowers, doing it only because I heard that this is a masterpiece and it is a road picture. Umieliby not say why but it is a masterpiece, why is it more expensive for thousands of stylistically similar niearcydzieł or why impressionism (not to mention postimpresjonizmie) was innovative.
We believe that, in the case of the "Golden Harvest". The authors probably believe that making his assertions sound sociological make will be perceived as real, more valuable. Unfortunately, not present (not presented during the discussions) any sociological evidence to support their hypotheses.
Half of poverty, if only for sunflowers. The trivialization of their acceptance does not make you become something other than what they are. In the case of sociology, the threat is serious, the more that come from scientific backgrounds are considered. If you warp the meaning of sociology, it destroys it. I do not fetishize sociology in any way. We do not believe that it is somehow better than essay writing, bajkopisarstwa or manual fire extinguisher. It can not be said that the sociological claims are more "real" or more "objective", rather than essays or stories. They are in fact only verifiable claims on the basis of their own internal logic.
example, if we express the sociological thesis that Poles (or many of them) are anti-Semites, then this is not a revealed truth. It is (or at least should be) statement regarding to a particular definition of anti-Semitism zoperacjonalizowanej through concrete and specific indicators of the phenomenon or attitude , chosen among many other possible definitions. I always think of m marked as valid other definitions and other indicators that might give a different result.
why sociology is not "better" than stories and instructions. It's just different than they are. About this difference need to take care, lest sociology will cease to be a tool for what we expect from it. The fact that sociology is not "better" from the fairy tales are not means that we'll be left with no sociology, but of fairy tales. Although we do not feel in the historical sciences as well as in sociology, we are confident that the story also has a separate value that you want to keep.
Abnormal standard
Tokarska-Bakir noticed a problem (for which the glory of it) and decided to refer to him, but in a rather problematic way. Cited example of highlanders who cultivate premarital virginity. It is in these highly socially sanctioned norm. At the same time allow the possibility of premarital relations, provided that the couple will not be caught on this. So they can be negative while the standards themselves. We suspect that this is a suggestion of Poles under occupation: everyone knew that one should not steal from others, especially those who are worse off, while there were standards to allow bypass this first rule against the Jews.
Perhaps so. Perhaps there is a norm among the inhabitants of Polish villages. The problem is that we do not know and probably not the way to settle this today. Irena Grudzińska-Gross at one point admitted that yes indeed it is. Did not do this directly. She asked how, therefore, called the phenomenon of so drastic and so widespread, if not the norm, social practice. Thus revealed a distinctive logic. Described the phenomenon is so important and momentous that no words can describe it is too small caliber. Only scientific terminology turns out to be sufficiently "worthy" to name the phenomenon, despite the absence of grounds to use this terminology.
Sam Gross put forward the argument that the mass scale of this phenomenon is reason enough to consider them as a socially sanctioned norm. Villages where the public or with the knowledge of all the Jews were murdered and robbed without consequences, you can count in the thousands. From what we know, these numbers result from the court records, so probably are understated because not all cases were detected. But the sheer size is not a prerequisite to a finding that it was the norm. To present it as simply, you refer to may be a bit strange analogy.
If we take the 100 rats that had grown up in relatively similar conditions and put them suddenly alone in extremely unfavorable, but identical for all conditions, it can be assumed that they will react very similarly. And if they are differences in the responses, the differences are explainable fairly simple factors, for example, may react differently males, females differently. There will have to communicate to behave identically.
war has created just such an extreme disadvantage conditions. Tens of millions of people suddenly had to adapt to them or perish. Gross called Radziwiłowa example in which the deportation of Jews, people going down carts to load them formerly Jewish property. Sitting next to the Gross Zaremba called the entire military history of this town. Its residents repeatedly fell victim to organized and massive looting of the Wehrmacht or the Volga settlers, who went from house to house and chose a cabinet everything they liked. He called the theory of Foster, as that the behavior of peasants can be considered very reasonable, as guided by the conviction of a permanent limited access to resources. This theory does not apply to war only to an alleged irrational behavior in rural communities, which wytknęła Tokarska. However, we believe that it is very important detail.
Not so surprising is that many people raised in the same situation behave identically if it is considered the most effective way of survival or reduction, and so the existing probability of death.
If someone seem that putting such a case demonstrates our uprzedmiotowieniu peasants, perceiving them as puppets controlled by strings of different "factors", it will be wrong. We write because we do not know how to be responsible behavior for themselves in this situation and we know that we can not exclude that we would find ourselves among those "greedy" farmers. I do not know anyone who could not be excluded that lived it.
can not deny that, as already mentioned, murders and robberies committed against the Jews were in the public or with the knowledge of all the inhabitants of the village and that they remained socially outstanding. Perpetrators (do not know or never, but certainly in many cases) are not met with the condemnation of society. This means that there must have been a social mechanism that allows such a situation. Perhaps there is such a standard. This, as mentioned, it is impossible to tell. Seems equally possible, however, that it was a Tie each time a kind of "dirty community" or just a community of fear and silence of the community the actions taken by a rare bunch. This community would not effect any pre-existing standards, but suddenly arisen a situation in which all willy-nilly, involved in such a way that they knew about it
Gross last argument was more or less. He was not quantitative research, but about showing a few events. For example, this accumulation of peasants with carts before deportation (the date was previously known). Situation in which Jews became lined up as if in a queue at the wall to be shot, and the Poles are not standing around waiting, until the others will perish, and stripped of clothes just waiting for execution.
Special Violence, violence, significant?
These events, these images - said Gross - are so shocking that it demanded the naming of a special, special treatment, special status. We allow you to explore this idea of \u200b\u200bprofessor.
In a sense, this is a compromise of allegations sociology. Gross, again, not directly, but still allows the possibility for that his hypotheses are not scientific legitimacy. But in return, he elevates this violence. Reflection about her move from the sociological to the level of anthropological, kulturoznawczy. What does it mean that these crimes are something, says Gross, a special? I mean, that would not happen anytime and anywhere where people would have been put in a similar situation. They can not be explained by "agents" sociological: war, famine, etc. It happened here because Poles are Poles, and their identity and culture is contempt for Jews and a desire zagrabienia their assets. Germany "only" they made this possible. Under this assumption, the moral standard would be only a derivative of the values \u200b\u200bupon which the culture, specifically the culture of the Polish countryside and probably Polish culture in general.
Even if Gross was right in the violence continues there would be nothing special. What is more ordinary than the negative ethnic stereotypes that lead to some form of aggression? The problem with this interpretation is the same as always. It would be necessary to somehow show and here begins the stairs, to which Gross is not trying to enter.
" Speciality" may mean something else. Can refer to the Jews themselves, and all violence against them is if something extraordinary. Do not write this ironically. Jews really are stigmatized by history as an oppressed nation within almost a few millennia. However, since the reflection historiosophical to Radziwiłowa is a very long way, too long for Grossów.
specialty of this violence may well depend on the nature of the relationship being robbed - okradający. Perhaps in this well have signed the Gross and similarly would not be able to demonstrate. An example of such analysis is, of course, "Modernity and the Holocaust," Bauman. Bauman showed that the "specialty" of the Holocaust was not about anti-Semitism, the Germans or even the number of victims. Consisted of (very short) to create a system where ordinary people can treat animals like yesterday's neighbors not because they were cruel, greedy, hungry, but because they do their job. At the same Bauman cites a whole lot of quantitative analysis, various studies the issues raised, and not the opinion of someone who has seen terrible things.
For such a method not even close to Gross. His method is essentially a sensation, shock-specific events. The problem is that Gross shows us the horrors, which the Jews suffered at the hands of the Poles, but does not say, "Yes it was and take it to the message." Gross says: "It must mean something." Unfortunately, he can not tell you what.
