National and ethnic minorities in Polish media before 1989

Ethnic and national minorities have been present in polish public media sphere since we can observe such phenomenon. Polish public media sphere dates back 1918 when Poland regained independence after over 100 years annexation and became integral country with one media system. This early media public sphere covered press only and on this field minorities were extremely active. At that time ethnic and national minorities constituted the third part of Polish society and their participation in media fully reflected it. The most active minority group were the Ukrainians who published more than 800 titles which mean they covered 5% of publishing market (publishing 124 newspapers in 1937 only). Other active groups as Germans and Jews among others made Polish public and media sphere diverse and multilingual even if a large number of published by them magazines had temporary, political or religious character.

This situation dramatically changed after the WW2 when many regions inhabited by minority groups became part of Soviet Union and other active groups almost vanished from Polish demographical landscape due to war caused migrations (the Germans) and Holocaust. Those who remained had to deal with new communist reality under which all groups not matching the officially accepted ideal – with minorities among them – were doomed to media nonexistence. Minorities were not mentioned in an official diofficialy or were the subject of negative or missinformational discourse (their quantity was downsized, in some cases their existence was denied). The aim of the ruling party, which was the only one in fact, was to delete these groups from public sphere and due to that delete them from social consciousness. The media treated by the party as a powerful tool of propaganda was rajter normative than descriptive. The model of Polish society was simple: one nation, one ideology, one life style. For minorities the process of re-entering Polish media sphere was long and taken step by step. The access to media was restricted and depended on political situation. It was treated by authorities as a punishment or reward - just as many other goods as private telephone or passport.

After the thaw of 1956 the party allowed minority groups to create their own cultural societies - one for each group. They were the only permitted minorities’ activities and had to cover groups needs in all aspects. In late 1950’s those societies began publishing magazines (also one for each group). Although it was a big breakthrough publishing in native tongues did not mean presenting minorities’ own ideas or lifestyles. Those magazines were censured as well as Polish ones and had to represent the same rule of “national form, but socialistic content”. There were topics and people editors weren’t allowed to mention, there were also issues they had to present. Still there were some minority groups that were not granted the access to media: the Germans, Silesians and Kashubian people – all regarded as German and due to that dangerous element in Polish society - and the Roma people – the group stigmatised in the whole Eastern Europe.

All potentially dangerous, heteronymous content (as historical or social issues) was deleted from the minoritys’ magazines (as well as from minorities’public activities) – due to that the pattern of colourful, happy and folkloristic minority was shaped and is still very strong in both Polish minority and ethnic and national minorities, that rather organise another traditional-song-and-dance festival than ground political organisation.

In the late 1950’s two minorities – the Ukrainians and the Byelorussians – were allowed to create their own programmes on the radio. Those programmes were presented in local subsidiaries of Polish Radio. In Podlasie region the Byelorussians had access to five-minutes programme in national language a week. It may seem nothing, but in late 1950’s those several minutes was regarded as a mile step and concession made by the authorities. Just as on press market the content of those programmes was concentrating on issues as culture and education. No political or social topics were allowed at that time. With years the time amount devoted to Byelorussians programmes was growing constantly and reached thirty minutes a week at late 1980’s.

In case of the Ukrainians government was also quite open letting them ground association and press in Ukrainian language and even letting them teach the mother tongue at schools but such open policy was conducted in central Poland where the Ukrainians and Lemkos were translocated in 1947 from southern part of the country. The official reason for the relocation was to brake the groups of Ukrainians national insurgents for the anti-polish actions taken by the members of those groups. For Polish government radio programmes, Ukrainian language at schools were to prevent Ukrainians and Lemkos from coming back to their homes in the southern part of Poland.

Although the party was ready to accept minorities on the press market and in the radio, television was absolutely beyond minorities’ reach until the communism fell down. Power of television in creating reality was too important for the party to let minorities to it. Television’s message had to be monolith clear without the slightest taste of different ideology, lifestyle, language. It had to give the impression of one nation closed in one country. Television was one of the most important weapons in fight with potential (mostly imaginary) enemies.

Magazines or radio programmes for minority groups were not enough for their needs. They were not the means of their own expression, they could not cover hard, painful or difficult topics. They were by no means an alternative for stereotypes and prejudices spread by official media: minorities’ population was understated creating the image of monoethnicity. Two minority groups had even more difficult media (as well as social) situation. The Germans were the last to reach media representation and weren’t treated as a separate group till 1989. Roms (discriminated in all communist bloc) didn’t have media representation at all.

Few magazines and several minutes in local broadcasting stations were rather proves of government’s concession when minorities tried to fight for their rights, for the real and fair representation.

An interesting casus is the group of Byelorussians, that was active and determined enough to create its own non-official press market – as the only minority group in Poland. According to press historians in years 1981-1980 non-officially about fifty titles were published (regular titles, brochures, cards among them). In those publications mostly archival as well as social articles were published but some of them were the text that had no chances to get through the official censorship. In the late 1980’s the group of Byelorussian students was very active – they have contacted Polish political opposition a well as opposition organisation from Byelorussia. That dynamised the non-official publishing activity of the group.

Also Ukrainians saw the chance in the Polish opposition in the late 1980’s. In 1988 with the members of the other minority groups they have sent an open letter to Lech Wałęsa proposing the change of the minority’s mass media representation that spreads the negative stereotypes or even suggest that there are no minority members in the society. In 1989 an open report published by the Ukrainian association the cooperation with Ukrainian television as well as satellite transmission is suggested. They have pointed out that radio programmes in Ukrainian language are not reachable for many Ukrainians as being broadcastes on local subsidiaries of Polish Radio as well as proposed nationwide programmes to which minority members spread all over the city could listen to. On the petition regarding this ideas two thousand signatures were collected.

The 1989 brought complete change in almost all spheres of public life – it was a significant change for minority groups as well...

To be continued...

Netnography. Doing Ethnographic Research Online by Robert V. Kozinets

Netnography. Doing Ethnographic Research Online by Robert V. Kozinets (Sage 2010) was my first choice to dip into the method. And it was not only due to the really great cover (which fully matches my aesthetical needs). Kozinets handbook is a very coherently and clearly written introduction to the whole process of netnographic inquiry from the very begging: selecting the topic and the online community to be investigated, the pre-research reflection on how to enter the community, of how to present yourself, through the problem of keeping field notes during all the research stages and finally how to collect and analyse various kinds of data the netnographical paradigm provides. Last but not least, author covers two procedures of research that are not always taken into consideration in Polish context: how to conduct ethical research (with crucial for netnography: copyrights and data protection) and evaluation (that is generally weak chain of the qualitative, soft disciplines).

Many examples of author’s own work, analyses and mistakes makes an impression of going through the workshop designed by Kozinets for a reader. Exercises to which author strongly encourages and appendix with a ready for use form for conducting online research - it all makes this book very helpful.

The new thing for me, as far as academic discourse is concerned, was using feminine forms when mentioning hypothetical researcher. That is something completely unusual for Polish academic writing. It simply speaks to me.

As an ethnographer I never believed in observant participation – the most “ethnographical” method originally invented and developed by Alfred Radcliffe-Brown and Bronisław Malinowski almost century ago. The observer’s paradox – especially in the small communities – seemed an unavoidable and unacceptable element of inquiry to me. That is why in my research on mediated intercultural communication I have chosen open interviews with communities’ opinion leaders. The intereview-based method has its drawbacks, especially when it concerns media (television) decoding. In this case researcher is not investigating the media decoding itself, but the only data to which he/she has access is the autho-biographical metanarration on how respondent decodes herself media decoding. Not to mention that the process of interview analysis and report writing is another process of decoding (of interview transcription)*. Netnography seems to be the golden solution here. I believe it enables the observant participation much more than traditional ethnography, although (as Kozinets suggests) netnographer should always reveal his/her identity and research intentions to the investigated community.

A bit uneasy part of the research process Kozinsts suggests, is the member check. At first I was distrustful of this procedure. In traditional ethnographic inquiry the researcher is the last agenda to draw conclusions and to make the final interpretations. On the one hand member check is more equal procedure that makes a community member researcher’s partner and in some way co-producer of the final report. Still it is the member who knows his or her community the best. But on the other hand I would be afraid of some form of pressure that community might put on researcher to influence their own representation in the report/book or to somehow use the research for their own purposes**.

I strongly recommend Netnography. Doing Ethnographic Research Online as a basis and introduction to ethnography online, with some historical introduction, a kind of archeology of netnography and a discussion over phenomenons such as the distinction between online communities and communities online or the links and crossroads of ethno- and netnography. It is a very useful training as well as set of problems, issues researcher needs to bear before takien up the study.

Here are my notes - partly in Polish :)






*More on this: Researching Audiences, (2003), red. K. Schroeder, K. Drotner, S. Kline, C. Murray, Arnold Publication, London, p.18.

**No, I am not the conspiracy theory enthusiast, even though I am The X Files fan :)

Netnography

After finishing my PhD thesis the phase of The-Graet-Peace-and-Quiet came. I was just having peaceful life without exams, texts to be written for yesterday, analysis to be finished for today. I had only lectures and classes I to be prepared for tomorrow. I had some back logs. I had to catch up with Dexter, Dr House and finally I refreshed The X Files series (separate post will be devoted to this magnificent series that shaped me and my sister when we were children :). I was learning Czech, visited Malaysia and Singapore - the journey I wanted to undertake for a long, long time.
Just living my life.
But this cheerful time came to an end :) And now I have new plan on my horizon. And its name is netnography :)

For the ethnographer the natural next step is the netnography, the more, as Robert Kozinets states, pure offline ethnography seems impossible today. As online and offilne realities and communities become tighter and tighter bounded and blended the immanent element of “classical” ethnographical inquiry should be the virtual one.

As for an ethnographer researching media nethnography seems the obvious choice of methodology. So far I had been concentrating on television as a mean of intercultural communication. Now I would like to devote to new media and the Internet as a milieu for social movements (with particular emphasis on ethnicity and ethnicity-alike communities).

I am aware of the fact that when planning research on the online communities the administrative, map-grounded boundaries needs to be reconsidered. It may happen that the Polish teenage The X Files fan has more in common with his/her online friend from Hungary or Romania than with the neighbor nextdoor. Nonetheless I would like to limit my study to online communities grounded in four states of Vysehrad Group: Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. I hope to discover to what extend countries of such a similar historical experience, and such substantially different (as far as mentality, values are concerned) make a social/ ethnical use of new technologies.

Here on AUDIOVISUAL media ethnography culture I would like to devote mainly to my slowly evolving netnographic project. If you have any suggestions or ideas please feel free to contact me :)