Page 320 [320]
OCR
318 Tomasz Kalniuk botycki 1980: 78)), permitted cultural imitation. Generally, peasants were reluctant to accept Others. However, relatively often, they adopted for example Prussian technological innovations (Styk 1999). The isolation of consciousness, although generally true, was not absolute, and therefore the reality outside a person’s own boundaries was at the same time assessed as morally and aesthetically low, though materially better. The symbols of another reality that fill everyday life make it possible to, somehow, interact with this reality (Burszta 2013: 55). If it is not possible for a perfect world to exist, the super-West in this case, one can at least resort to its representations. The desired goods, namely the technological inventions present in the images, contain a mythical aspect. The images are attributed mythical status, which makes these goods metonymically present (Sontag 2009: 164). The confrontation with ‘Otherness’ fosters the building of cultural awareness (it is even essential in this process), therefore cultures agree to bear things that to some extent destabilise them. Encountering them shapes meta-awareness (Burszta 2013: 76). Their lives are an alternative to the mainstream of culture. The area of familiarity expressing the domesticated world accepts to some extent the elements of anti-structure represented by difference (Turner 2010). The Others both exist as part of an anti-structure, and at the same time construct structure. With regard to the Other, whose humanity is generally considered weaker in relation to the ‘self’, the group, on the principle of antithesis, confirms its own image: “Therefore the image of ‘the self’ becomes derivative from the perception of the Other and, as a negative, dependent on it” (Obrebski 1936: 187-190). Locating Others on the outskirts of the mainstream does not weaken their cultural impact (Perzanowski 2009: 201). In the case of Others, we are dealing with a paradox of ostracising an individual from the society (or some of its fields) and also a particular interest in it. The individualism of misfits draws attention to the individual, emphasises the issues of autonomy and diversity and constitutes an important element in the discourse of modernity. The lonely creativity of people at the margins (often appreciated after a time) fits into the realm of innovative activities. Voluntary or forced withdrawal from certain areas of life evokes an impression in the people critically assessing the present state (Makowiecki 1996: 135). National cultures, in shaping and expressing their character, use the potential of the ‘self—-Other’ dualism no less than traditional cultures. Since the nation became a substitute for the owned land, its members identify themselves with the country as their homeland, opposing themselves to other nations. Action of the categories of self and Other was moved from the material dimension to the symbolic. The borders of the world and culture defined on the basis of ‘we—our territory—our > The testimony of such an ambivalent reaction to the world had the form of peasants’ statements describing America as an ugly and at the same time vast land (Oledzki 1971: 185). See also Mysliwski 2004, and Stomma 2002: 160-184.
