1

Joanna Bielecka – Prus, Aleksandra Walentynowicz

Recontextualisations of a public intellectual: the case of Gunnar Myrdal and the Polish Public

w: Academics as Public Intellectuals. The Role of Sociologists in Modern Societies, Ragnvald

Kalleberg, Sven Eliaeson (red.), Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge 2008, s.196-225.

“Intellectuals are practitioners of the politics of time with posterity as their constituency.”

(Fuller 2005:133)

Each society or community has its specific ways of constructing a role for

intellectuals, according to its own dominant narrative or ideology. National continuity is not

guaranteed, since the ideological and cultural components have a tendency to change

throughout history and so does the pressure of their power. This process is not dependent on

the author-intellectual as a social actor, but on other elements: the ways in which science and

the role of the intellectual are defined in society, the political situation of the nation and the

dominant ideology.

The ways in which the socio-political elements influence the reception of academic

work are particularly visible for those who practice outsider of a given cultural and

ideological systemŚ outside of the given nation or „ideological” camp, where the relations are

those of mutual mistrust or hostility. It would be difficult to conceive of free intellectual

exchange on such grounds. The works of those authors seen as suspicious, because they are in

some way “foreign”, are then intra muros treated with utmost caution. Their ideological

utility is tested and, if the test proves positive, they are allowed to enter the internal public

circulation. That does not however mean that all of the given academic’s work reaches the

public. Most likely the censors and the publishing houses will select works, or their

fragments, in ways which make those appropriate and in line with the hegemonic ideology.

That is part of the process of recontextualisation: a choice of fragments or some elements of

the works of a given public intellectual, and then, pars pro toto, the presentation of it as the

entirety of their work, which falsifies the image of their oeuvre. In this way

2

recontextualisation is different from selective reception, since it serves an intrinsic political

function.

It seems interesting then to study the influence of the political climate on the process

of recontextualisation and of its effects on the role of the intellectual in public discourse.

What remains close to the author and what is removed from them forms an important part of

the discursive formation that this author is the basis for. The ideas, or elements of those, that

are silenced, that do not fare well in time and space are an extremely useful point of entry.

The analysis of the recontextualisation of Gunnar Myrdal’s work can be an interesting case

study, which will allow us to untie the knot of the unholy union between intellectual activity

and dominant national ideology. The current work will perhaps highlight the nuances of

ideological hindrances to the process of recontextualisation of his works and its long-term

effects on becoming “public”.

What makes a public intellectual?

As far as ideology is connected with identity, if not overtly so, then at a connotative

level, being a public intellectual may mean that one conforms to the way the public as the

source of power legitimises them. żender, class or ethnicity may exclude or promote one’s

status, depending on the given context. Nothing of what is known about the author, or that

which can be implied, is beside the point. This seems to be true of Gunnar Myrdal. Having

left behind an impressive personal archive, he is one of the social scientists one could know

almost intimately. Far more importantly, he was a public figure as a scientist, politician,

intellectual, and somewhat ironically as a father. What he did in each of those functions

reflected on how the authority of his texts was constructed and perceived. From 1932 to 1938

he was involved in political life in Sweden as an economic planner, author, public speaker,

member of royal commissions, member of Parliament, and expert of the Bank of Sweden

(Jackson 1990:81). Disappointed with the routine of political life, he withdrew to America

and worked on An American Dilemma. He served as the Minister of Trade between 1945 and

1947, and in 1947 took up the post of Secretary General of the United Nations’ źconomic

Commission for Europe, which he held for ten years. The last thirty years of his life were

devoted to scholarly activity, offering him a position to speak in less diplomatic terms about

the issues he found most distressing (see Jackson 1990:332).

There is no doubt to the present authors that Myrdal deserves to be seen as one of the

most important public intellectuals among social scientists. Like the work of any ‘great dead’

3

his oeuvre is now subject to editions and re-editions and in this process some systematic

evaluation of his own development is imposed on the things that he wrote. At the same time

the very selection is not disinterested, as omissions of early texts from the recent The

Essential Gunnar Myrdal prove. Much of this work, of constructing and perception, was and

is being done by the public. But who do we understand to be the public here? On the one hand

these are the real people who read his work, on the other the imagined, constructed entities to

which these people belong, communities of all sorts, publics of various forms. The author

himself would obviously also have a community in mind, a group to which he addressed his

work, and this is of no lesser importance. Myrdal’s work was written with two types of

‘publics’ in mind, the first being the actual society or societies he analysed, the other the more

universalising ‘human’, which he perceived in almost enlightenment terms. And, as one critic

notes:

In modern democratic society the expert is faced with the task not only of justifying policy

recommendations and of maintaining a certain reflexivity concerning his or her own value

assumptions, but also of justifying the reconstruction of the attitudes of the interest group he or

she is claiming to represent (Eyerman, 1985:798).

An author is typically seen as speaking from a given position and his or her views are

always read into their texts by their audience. Who the author is publicly matters greatly and

any change in status is important. Myrdal’s position in Swedish public life has changed

several times over his lifetime. From economy’s most prodigious student, a governmental

expert, parliamentary and cabinet member, a respected and world-renowned scientist, to being

his wife’s husband, when it was her and not him who occupied government positions. At this

stage he remarked that being in America “a wise guy, an elder statesman. In Sweden I’m

nobody. I like to be treated with irreverence” (quoted in Jackson, 1990:344). In the States he

quickly came to enjoy a celebrity status, ever since his initial journey remaining an intriguing

presence and on his frequent visits “going around like a light from Nazareth with opinions

ready on everything possible” (Jackson, 1990:60). While he served as the United Nations

źconomic Commission for źurope’s secretary-general, he became a figure in international

politics, a position which for some time overshadowed his ‘intellectual’ status. Remarkably,

however, Myrdal was able to regain his position as a critic, despite perhaps his being tainted

as an ‘operator’. If anything, this knowledge aided him to produce criticism aimed at

improvement of the existing structures. He became a respected critical voice on the subject of

Third World development.

4

According to Bourricaud, being an intellectual is a role performed in the public sphere,

with certain conditions on one willing to adopt it (1980:17, 25). First, the role of a public

intellectual requires linguistic aptitude. This should clearly alert us to the fact that ideas in

translation may fare much worse depending on such factors as quality of translation and

persona of translator, but also the actual content of the publication in translated version. In the

case of Gunnar Myrdal, the mastery of his mother tongue is not for the present authors to do

judge. But being a proficient user of English, he produced works with great popular appeal

and often improved the quality of translations of his work. At the same time the poor quality

of translations, their fragmentary nature, censor intrusions and low availability all play a part

in jeopardizing his status as a public intellectual in Poland. There is no denying Myrdal’s

cognitive competence, which Bourricaud names as a second pre-requisite to being an

intellectual. Yet the third condition of being well informed and occupying a privileged

position in the networks of communication seems problematic. On one hand, Myrdal’s

position in the system of world politics helped tremendously in his establishing contacts many

social scientists of the day could only dream of. Not only that, it also gave him a chance to

uphold those contacts in most difficult circumstances. But such a high status within

institutions and organisations of government and knowledge also puts an intellectual under

cross pressures (Bourricaud, 1980:17).

It would be hard to judge whether Myrdal thought of himself more as a public persona

or more of an intellectual. Institutional practices are, nevertheless, a level at which pressures

may operate, causing a clash between personal values and the expected outcomes – here we

may think of the funding received by Myrdal from various sources and its influence on his

publications, or of the observations he kept to his private correspondence. But Bourricaud

points to the fact that a stance in relation to the central values of a society is the responsibility

and vocation of a public intellectual (Bourricaud, 1980:25). This being the case, Myrdal

certainly seems a model figure in the US, where he actively engaged in public debates beyond

An American Dilemma. But the role of an intellectual, a public intellectual, requires a specific

public narrative (Bourricaud, 1980:29). The actor has not the last word on what counts as a

meaningful performance of the role of a public intellectual.

While żunnar Myrdal’s performance in the public eye changed with all the roles he

took on, two elements which constituted it were fairly fixed, namely his academic credibility

and political orientation, which stayed firm throughout his life. But the performance was read

differently depending on the context of the performance and those doing the reading. If the

Swedish public had an opinion of Myrdal as a politician, it was in the first order on the

5

national, and only later on the international plane, with the former influencing the optics on

the latter. The very same positions in politics were obviously viewed very differently from the

Polish perspective. To an extent the construct ‘public intellectual’ we are talking about serves

its functional purpose only in regular democratic societies – in the conditions of a totalitarian

regime it is a laughable proposition, since the power to accord a place in the public space rests

not with the public, but with the partisan. The lack of sensitivity to the moral choices facing

an intellectual and a scientist are somewhat absent in the model of “public intellectual” geared

toward a functioning democratic public space. At any rate, it is only after 1989 that we may

consider the Polish public sphere as democratic, though still not free from historical ‘debris’.

In totalitarian regimes, which the countries of the socialist bloc with the dominant

Soviet big brother were, the public sphere was a controlled entity. Only using wit and great

effort could individuals afford the faintest degree of free intellectual exchange. Institutions

subservient to the party-state decided on themes, on what was studied and people who were

legitimated to ask the questions. Also, to an extent, the existence of ‘intellectuals’ was

impossible in the official sphere. There was little room for independent criticism, not that it

did not happen, since the party had new roles laid out for the intellectuals and scientists. In

official parlance we had a ‘working intelligentsia’ meaning the sort of productive intellectual

worker that valued practice above theory. There always exists a script for performing a role,

the role of intellectual being no exception here, and the preferred mode of performance

depends on the context. In Poland at that time there simply was no place for the performance

of a public intellectual as discussed in the democratic societies.

An intellectual at the service of nation and country

Prior to the independence regained in 1918, Polish intelligentsia, and intellectuals in

particular – professors, writers, artists – played an important role in keeping the nation’s spirit

alive. The socio-cultural role was unmistakable and based on care and development of the

national culture and seeking new ways to its political freedom. After 1918 these were the

people at the core of the national and regional administration (Szczepański, 1957: 26,27).

Around this time, in an article, originally published in 1937, on the social roles of men of

knowledge („Społeczne role uczonych a historyczne cechy wiedzy”) Florian Znaniecki

developed a typology of thinkers which includes the sage, the scholar and the creators of

knowledge. The sage is pragmatic, and his authority is based on ways in which he solves

practical problems, the ways in which he advises on solutions to problems, creates reform

6

programmes and ideologies. He may serve as advisor to men of action with his expertise. His

efficiency and ability to enlist social support are a measure of his knowledge, as is his ability

to eliminate opposition. The scholar is the type of thinker who draws his authority from

affiliation to the accepted schools or canonical texts. His role was systematisation,

consolidating the position of canonized texts and combating heresy. The creator of

knowledge, the researcher, is an explorer looking for unknown facts, but not in a way that

could result in the approval of the canonical or the solution of a practical problem. His actions

are a result of curiosity and pure epistemological and cognitive drive (Znaniecki, 1984).

Znaniecki believed that in Poland two roles are of particular importance: the sage-expert,

“showing the ways to progressively transform, improve and develop the cultural life of the

society” and the creators of knowledge enriching the systems of truth (Znaniecki, 1984: 242).

After Word War II a new, socialist order was imposed on Poland. The Working

people's government rejected the leading cultural and educational role of the Polish

intelligentsia and the Party led a politics aimed at lowering its influence. The ideology

stipulated that science was to be cultivated “in the service of the people”, so it ought to be

conducted in accordance with the principles of Marxism-Leninism. According to Bolesław

Bierut, the leader of the Polish United Workers' Party, intellectuals were supposed to

propagate revolutionary ideas among the masses and to instruct the ideological cadre (Bierut,

1955:3). Science was to shape consciousness by ”eliminating relics of bourgeois thinking”, to

defend Marxist-Leninist ideals and denounce the falsity of bourgeois science (Suchodolski,

1974: 149, 190).

The Party did not trust the intelligentsia whose lifestyle and values were of manorial

and bourgeois origin (Szczepański, 1957Ś 23). On the other hand the planned economy and

demand for specialist knowledge forced the Party to compromise. The assumption, which

proved correct, was that full loyalty of the intelligentsia could not be guaranteed in any way,

do the possibility to develop any political ideas by the stratum had to be removed, and

doctrinaire correctness dominated over truth (Marmuszewski, 1994: 118). The intellectuals

were faced with a difficult choice: to accept the party science which was consistent with

Bolshevik doctrine, in other words, whether to function as a scholar in Znaniecki’s typology

and make sure that the doctrine was obeyed, or to go over to the opposition which condemned

a scientist to be isolated from public intellectual life. One could also hope to play a “double

game” and attempt to keep both roles, or try to find “ecological niches” – safe subjects and

research themes (żoćkowski, 1995Ś 273, 1996: 226). With the hegemony of Marxism as the

official ideology of the party-state the role of the critical intellectual remained shut off, but

7

some of Polish scientist found a way to express an orientation where freedom of such

expression was impossible. The codes, ways of reading and writing in ways which fooled the

censors, typical of a tactic opposing a state strategy of dominance, were also practiced.

Through it, scientists escaped the need to make the better future of the communist nation and

its undying friendship with the Soviet Union the prime objective of their studies.

We could see three ways in which one was able to conduct scientific enquiry in

socialist Poland: party science which was an ”appropriate knowledge”, opposing science

which defied the regime, and academic science, which, on the one hand, required the

“partocracy’s” seal of approval, and on the other hand, tried to maintain the authenticity of

scientific inquiries and recognition all over the world (żoćkowski, 1996Ś 276).

The doctrinaire scholars were in great demand – not only would they snoop on any

misconduct of Party sanctioned science, but they would also use their scientific authority to

legitimise the regime and represent it at international scientific symposia. Only a few were

ranked as experts, sages, despite the fact that Marxism-Leninism was to be a “science” and

not an ideology. The implementation of the Party line required no intellectuals and the

planned economy did not report any need for research. Rejecting the role of Party expert or

scholar equalled a life in the margins of public life, ignored by the media, poorly paid, devoid

of investments in research and access to literature (Jałowiecki, 1995Ś 281). This is how, in an

economy of constant scarcity the Party forced the intellectuals to show if not allegiance then

at least a silent consent.

Myrdal as a public intellectual: the Polish case

Sweden was indeed particular in the “ease with which intellectuals moved into

positions of power and influence within the state” (źyerman, 1985Ś 780). Myrdal, among

others, assumed the role of expert with the social democratic party with great comfort and

ease and in the respect that his ideas gained popular support he could also be seen as an

‘agitator’ for the party (źyerman, 1985: 781). In the Swedish context knowledge as practical

productive activity rather than knowledge for its own sake was the preferred model, and

Myrdal believed that social engineering was the prime task of social scientists (Jackson,

1990:262). At the same time he stressed the development of science and education as

producing “international and universal benefits” (źyerman, 1985:789). The orientation of

Swedish intellectuals might then be said to be truly public.

8

The works of Swedish intellectuals were interesting in many ways. Taken broadly,

they would form a convenient background for a critique of the capitalist way of life. Sweden

was not typical of the “corrupt West” and though “Swedish way to socialism” was erroneous,

it was headed in the right direction. The social changes there, were naturally interesting to the

intellectuals and politicians of the Soviet bloc. They were treated with a degree of benevolent

interest, but also of fear, for the possibility of another, non-Marxist model of socialism. As

early as the 1950s there was a debate in Poland about the possibility of admitting elements of

bourgeois sciences into the socialist science and relaxing the dogmas. The lack of freedom of

intellectual exchange was taken on by some of the biggest names: Kazimierz Ajdukiewicz

(Ajdukiewicz, 1954), Józef Chałasiński (Chałasiński, 1955, 1975), Jan Szczepański

(Szczepański, 1955) and Leszek Kołakowski (Kołakowski, 1955Ś 1,2). But such a revolt

against the Marxist doctrine was made impossible by the defenders of its superiority Oskar

Lange (Lange, 1955: 2,4), Adam Schaff (Schaff, 1955: 1,2) and others.

But in Poland Myrdal could not have played the role of an expert, as someone

representing the bourgeois strain of socialism. And he could not be treated as a scholar, due to

a lack in his works of any apology of Marxism-Leninism. Nevertheless, while remaining

tainted as a “bourgeois ideologist” he could still be accepted, to a degree, by the Party and his

ideas allowed to circulate within the (publicly limited) academic sphere. His work,

recontextualised, would then, depending on the political situation, served diverse functions.

Myrdal’s works could have been very useful in mediating the ideas of Western scholars into

communist countries. And so the item “żunnar Myrdal” can be found in most lexicons and

encyclopaedias in Poland since at least 1966. But in the state-sanctioned public sphere

operated by the Party, the presence of Gunnar Myrdal was subject to censorship and selection.

Themes the comrades found interesting included the Swedish welfare state, but with the intent

to dispel the myth as “not real socialism”, the Third World, mostly to justify Soviet

manoeuvres there, and criticism of America, always stressed in discussion of Myrdal’s work.

Myrdal was known to Polish scientists and often known by them. He was regarded as ‘expert’

on certain issues, but local talent was valued highly – for instance in refutations of Hayek’s

theory Lange was much more prominent. Therefore we may say that Myrdal was not a

‘household name’ as was the case in the US.

In the space of the ‘underground’ or ‘second circuit’ the pride of place belonged to

critics of communism, dedicated historians championing Polish national cause and the

émigrés. Aided by the church as the only working remnant of civil society, and the only non-

party form of association, the underground press of the opposition took interest rather in

9

works engaging with the immediate context, and these took precedence over work seen as

more remote. The fact that the intended public of Myrdal was by and large that of the

democratic countries of the affluent ‘West’ also meant that his words did not have to be

heeded as closely as those of others writing in and about modes of totalitarianism. This

segment of the public sphere was therefore not really open to Myrdal. Also Myrdal’s

proposition to declare values openly was not an option in Poland, not because of ill will, but

because it could have been deeply problematic if not straightforwardly dangerous. At the

same time an empirical study of how science got done at the time was also impossible because

it would reveal the very tactic practiced in the academia.1 Polish ‘science of science’ with its

meta-scientific orientation speaks of this tactic, stressing efficiency and denying any political

influence in the scientific process, as a way to continue practicing science, to remain dissident

in ideology, without losing state subsidy.

One of the elements of the performance of a public intellectual is their ability to keep

debates alive. Here the success rate of Myrdal’s work in Poland differs greatly across space

and time. Some of the themes which surfaced after 1989 were the socio-economic models,

soft state and cumulative causation, the latter however used as an argument to lower taxation.

Myrdal’s ideas seemed somewhat forgotten, a ‘tool’ social scientists shied away from, or

having an ‘invisible presence’ where ideas and terms are not attributed to their originator.

There were some ‘dead ends’ in the presentation of Myrdal’s work to the Polish public. Since

Bauman and Chodak’s articles on Myrdal’s stance on values in 1960 there were a few articles

on the subject and yet the debate never fully gained momentum. Another example is

Aleksander Hertz’ adopting the idea of caste in his bydzi w kulturze polskiej (Jews in Polish

Culture) published outside the country in 1961 by the Kultura (Culture) in Paris, and only

published in Poland in 2003. Generally, the legacy of An American Dilemma is hardly visible

in Poland, although the work by Carl-Ulrik Schierup on źU źurope’s ‘immigrant problem’

could make its way into Poland allowing for yet another recontextualisation of Gunnar

Myrdal’s work.

Analysis of archive materials in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, proves that the

warmer the relations between East and West, and the better the situation between Sweden and

Soviet Union, the more positive the reactions to Myrdal were, even in the scientific or

academic circles. Choices and selection were somehow connected to political events, hence

the decision to divide the gathered material according to time-lines connected with events in

1 interestingly this is what escaped Gieryn when he criticised the Polish nauka o nauce

10

Polish history. The omitted times are the time before the Second World War and the time

during the War. Of this we know that in 1937 an invitation to give lectures and to enter the

editorial committee of “Baltic and Scandinavian Countries” from the Baltic Institute in

Gdynia and the Polish Economic Society was received by Myrdal. A trace of his contact with

Poland and Poles during the war remains in the form correspondence with Oskar Lange, then

in the USA, asking Myrdal to help obtain visa for 11 Poles from Vilnus (one of them was

Feliks Gross, Polish anthropologist and sociologist), members of the Polish Socialist Party.

The degree to which his work was known remains unclear.

1945-55: a foreigner

After the Second Word War the USSR imposed the socialist system on Poland. These

were the most difficult years in Polish history: the Stalinist regime, Marxist hegemony, the

“eradication of class foes”. As early as 1945 Poland started its economic cooperation with

Sweden. As the Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs proves, the Polish and Soviet

government was hoping for a victory of the radical left in Sweden and their cooperation.

However soon after 1950 the Polish-Swedish relations deteriorated. This was a direct result of

Sweden granting asylum to Poles fleeing the country, especially the military sailors who

escaped with their ship. But it was also a result of a Swedish plane being brought down by the

Soviet army.

“Unar” Myrdal, as the Kurier Codzienny [Daily Courier] misspelled the name of the

Minister who visited Poland in August 1945 to sign trade agreements, is seen as a Swedish

politician first and foremost, a Swedish social democrat. Sweden is said to understand the

spirit of the time because of the social-democratic government. Myrdal noticed “żerman

barbarity” and was glad that not all Polish cities were as badly destroyed as Warsaw.

Communication with state officials (including birthday wishes from Lychowski 1947) was

part of his mission. In 1948 a review of his The Reconstruction of World Trade and Swedish

Trade Policy by Boduszyńska (Boduszyńska, 1948) appears in Jantar, giving a good account

of the original. Sweden is indeed seen as placed ‘between’ the blocs. One of the first signs

that good relations between Sweden and Russia may aid in żunnar Myrdal’s ‘career’ in

Poland. His participation in public debate, however, was made impossible due to the

hegemony of vulgar Marxism-Leninism and the growing political tensions.

11

1956-1969: not communist enough

With Stalin’s death in 1953 and Khrushchev coming to power the thaw came. In 1956

during the 20th Party Congress he denounced the Stalinist distortions. In Poland, as early as

1954 certain compromised institutions began falling apart and political prisoners were being

released. 1956 saw the workers in Poznań revolt against the system and Władysław żomułka,

seen as someone wishing to liberalise communism, came into power. For a moment the works

of Western intellectuals are slightly more available and some Polish scientists openly criticise

Marxism. But the beginning of the 1960s marks the end of the democratization of the soviet

bloc and a toughening of East-West relations with the construction of the Berlin wall in 1961.

The Marxist doctrine returns, the censorship hits back and in 1964 Khrushchev is removed

from power. In 1968 Polish forces join in suppressing the Prague uprising and all Polish

Jewish intellectuals are subjected to expulsion from the country. The saddest and most

regretable events in Polish history of the time came to Myrdal directly. In 1969 Myrdal was to

help secure a job for a communist, Polish Jew, Juliusz Katz-Suchy a former professor of

Warsaw University, expelled from Poland in 1968, but proved unsuccessful.

But the thaw brought a short period of revival in contacts with Western intellectuals.

Between 1958-1963 Myrdal wrote to Bauman, Oskar Lange and Bronisław Baczko, amongst

others. In 1958 the Polish translation of The Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions

appeared and plans were made for the next publication (An International Economy), which

never happened. J. Katz- Suchy, former ambassador in New Delhi and therefore himself an

acquaintance of Myrdal, provided an introduction to the volume. As can be expected an

assertion is made in the text that from a Marxist point of view some of Myrdal’s proposals

cannot be accepted. It is also said that he idealises the situation in the capitalist countries, does

not show the neocolonialism and imperialism of capitalistic countries and appreciate the best

solution showed by the Soviet Union.

Myrdal’s work was also present in the Polish context in the form of abbreviated

reprints from foreign publications. In 1956 a report from his open lecture in Moscow on the

ECE UN appeared in the form of an article attributed to him in the Nowe Czasy [New Times]

periodical. Two years later a summary of his article for The Hindu “On economy in India”

appeared in Gospodarka Planowa [Planned Economics]. Zeszyty Teoretyczno-Polityczne

[Theoretical-Political Issues] reprinted three of Myrdal’s articles, introduced with the hook of

“bourgeois Swedish economist” (Myrdal, 1964, 1965, 1966); two of those dealt with

developing countries and one with the role of government in economy. Interestingly, a

12

translation of Myrdal’s “Vietnam and the isolation of the US” in Vwiat [The World] in 1967

introduced him as an “eminent Swedish economist” (Myrdal, 1967). However, the History of

Development of Economics by Tylor, one of the most popular handbooks on the history of

economy, mentions Myrdal only briefly and in connection with the Swedish economic school

under influence of Wicksell (1958:302).

Myrdal’s name appears also in a few books. Jerzy Wiatr (Wiatr, 1959: 69, 125, 135)

appreciates Myrdal’s input into the research on race relations in the US, but critiques the lack

of engagement with the class relations and the exploitation by the white ruling class. But

Gunnar was seen primarily as an economist and expert on underdevelopment. On two

occasions, in 1961 and in 1962 Myrdal was asked to participate or contribute to symposia and

in 1964 the Central School of Planning and Statistics asked for his recommendation of an

Advanced Course in National Economic Planning. He was also mentioned as an authority on

the subject in books dealing with undeveloped countries (Dobrska, 1963). As an economist

and expert he figures in the reviews of L. Jankowiak (Jankowiak, 1961) on Beyond the

Welfare State, in which he is being critiqued for omitting the role of communism in building

social justice, but his analyses are noted as useful for socialist economists. He is similarly

treated by the Russian L. Stiepanov (Stiepanow, 1969, reprint), who in his analysis of Asian

Drama lauds Myrdal as one who excelled other bourgeois thinkers, trying to reconcile

Marxism with bourgeois ideology. Sylwester Zawadzki (Zawadzki, 1964) mentioned Myrdal

in his book on the welfare state as a case of misunderstanding of planned economy and

Marxism. According to the author, the idea of welfare state is an expression of capitalist fear

of the definitive victory of communism.

The reviews of the translated works and some polemical articles appeared in scientific

journals. In Kierunki [Directions] (R.W., 1958:2) the reviewer praised it for its “appeal to

human consciousness aimed at waking it and disconnecting from the heavy ballast of

doctrines” – an extremely daring statement. In Ekonomista [The Economist], A. Łukaszewicz

(Łukaszewicz, 1958) published his severe Marxist criticism in the form of polemic notes. To

him, the author of Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions describes the development

of western countries in too optimistic way, not noticing that planned economy is only possible

in socialist states. He did not present a constructive programme of social reform in the Third

World, while his work is logically flawed and moral revolution utopian. Nevertheless,

according to Łukaszewicz, he still deserves praise when compared to other bourgeois

thinkers. The same opinions are raised by Secomski who emphasises the novelty of

perspective, despite the lack of proper communist grounding (1958). The review by J. Sachs

13

(Sachs, 1957) predates the publication of the book by a year and seems the mildest, claiming

that Myrdal is in many points consistent with Marxism. Whereas J. Zajewski (Zajewski,

1958) in Tygodnik Powszechny [Universal Catholic Weekly] mentions the disagreement with

Stalin’s parallel trade markets,2 Okuniewski’s review (Okuniewski, 1958) mentioned

methodological premises but put the author down for not being communist. In the review of

Myrdal’s Une économie internationale Z. Kowalczyk (Kowalczyk, 1960) writes that the

book, in spite of his bourgeois attitude, is very realistic, but the author that the economic

integration of western countries is done in order to keep and guard the interests of great

monopolies.

This is the time when one of the ‘dead paths’ opens, with the first mention of

methodology and values in the work of Myrdal in an analysis by Bauman and Chodak

(Bauman, 1960; Chodak, 1960).3 In 1961 Bauman published his Problems of American

Sociology where he again devotes some attention to Myrdal. Nevertheless he asserts that he is

perfect in critical analysis but weak in creating a new programme and “only Marxism is

unrivalled so far in the interpretation of historical dynamic and the methodology of social

development research” (Bauman, 1961Ś 236).

By labelling the work ‘not communist enough’ the authorities displayed a double

message – on one hand there was never full legitimacy accorded Myrdal’s views, on the other

there remained a taint of affinity with the dominant worldview, a fact that has been often

mentioned post 1989.

1970-80: an expert on Third World

The growing economic crisis in Poland led to the protests of workers which

were bloodily put down by the authority. A more open attitude towards the West was adopted,

which allowed for credit taking and a momentary improvement of the planned economy. It

was a time of the “propaganda of success” aimed at holding up the belief in the correctness of

socialist ideas. This milder climate resulted in a livelier cultural and scientific activity,

energizing the opposition critical of the regime. Books were being published in the ‘second

circuit’, beyond the censor’s eye. But in Żebruary 1976 the communists changed the

constitution of the Polish People’s Republic, inscribing in it the eternal alliance with the

Soviet Union and the steering role of the PZPR (The Polish United Workers' Party). An open

2 Was this a criticism or a subtle promotion? 3 The articles mentioned an American Dilemma and presented it extensively.

14

letter to the government was written in protest, signed, amongst others by Stafan

Amsterdamski, Leszek Kołakowski, Wisława Szymborska, Jacek Kuroń and Adam Michnik.

The first signs of economic crisis appeared the very same year, leading to a new wave of

workers’ strikes, again brutally suppressed by the authorities. A social network develops,

initially as a way to help the repressed, but becoming with time an underground opposition

organization, leading on an information campaign. The repressive measures taken by the state

apparatus are less harsh than during the Stalinist era.

The intellectual climate of the 70s and 80s reintroduced Myrdal to the Polish public.

He was often written about and would exchange letters with Polish scientists. Some factors

had an influence on his work’s growing popularity. Firstly, in 1975 The Challenge of World

Poverty was translated into Polish, the introduction to which has been provided by Zygmunt

Szymański, whose criticism is directed on one hand at the excessive generalisations about the

Third World and in prescribing the course of action, and then at insufficient explanation of

historical roots of soft states. The ideologically correct route for underdeveloped countries is

said to be most effective when done under the example of the Soviet Union’s real socialism.

The edition (5000 copies) has been heavily censored. Myrdal wrote a special preface to the

Polish edition and in his letters to the editor insisted that chapter one ought not be ‘shortened’

except for references to Asian Drama. Most references to Myrdal’s other work have been

removed, so have any comments on the Soviet Union, the Cold War, Vietnam, Latin

American corruption, Soviet corruption, Swedish aid, and Marx. From the Appendix the

following passage has been tellingly removed:

Leadership is occasionally provided by the Church. A small but growing number of Catholic

priests are becoming socially and economically radical and sometimes revolutionary. This trend

might in time become important in Latin America as well as in the rest of the world, as new

signals in the same direction are coming from Rome.

Secondly, 1974 brought interest in Myrdal as the Nobel Prize Winner, which re-

activated interest in his books and especially in The Challenge. The reviews would stress the

originality of his thesis , see him as a mediator between East and West (Worcell, 1977) and

also praise the accessibility of his style (Bywalec, 1975). There were many articles devoted to

Myrdal around the Nobel Prize, giving his biography, but also positively disposed to his

achievements in economics and world peace, often contrasted by negative opinions abort

Friedrich von Hayek ( bylicz, 1974ś Dziewanowski, 1975ś Poznański, 1975).

15

But the third, most important factor were the changes in the Third World, which

brought attention to Myrdal work: growing radicalisation and the influence of communist

ideology. Asian Drama, while never translated, has been discussed by A. Tokarczyk

(Tokarczyk, 1970) and by Dzięgiel (Dzięgiel, 1971) as presenting controversial, yet

interesting theses. The theme of Asian Drama surfaced in reviews of Challenge by A. Lubbe

(Lubbe, 1971) and Dzięgiel (Dzięgiel, 1972), in which we encounter, yet again, the statement

that the work of Myrdal is interesting despite him being a Westerner and not paying enough

attention to socialist (read: soviet) politics. A similar tone is audible in the 1973 article in

Ekonomista [the Economist] by Łukaszewicz (Łukaszewicz, 1973), touching upon both books

and calling Myrdal a “noble romantic”, while Tokarczyk (Tokarczyk, 1973) alludes to the

possibility of ‘bridge building between blocs’ inspired by such people as Myrdal, “a prophet

of noble utopia”.

At around that time a proposal to write about moral judgment for Etyka (Ethics) had

been put forward, which Myrdal declined for lack of time. In 1973 Literatura (Literature)

published his How scientific are social sciences? (Myrdal, 1973) and in 1974 The role of

values and social politics was reprinted (Myrdal, 1974). Etnografia Polska [Polish

Ethnography] published in 1974 an article by G. Kloska (Kloska, 1974), which reviewed the

Objektivitat in der Socialforschung: a decisively honest debate with Myrdal on his own terms.

But even here Myrdal is seen as a dreamer, one believing that capitalism may be reformed.

According to the author, he levitates between heaven and the earth, ideals and hard reality, but

as he used to sayŚ “ideals seduce and facts kick”.

The general attitude seems to be that towards a ‘nice’ bourgeois with some ideas

worthy of attention, but still too subservient to the capitalist system. Some of the ideas are

accepted, but given an improving touch of real socialism. żórski took up Myrdal’s ideas

twice in such a way, in 1972 and later in 1984 in his handbook on history of economy

(żórski, 1972, 1984), arguing for limiting private enterprise, increasing state expenditure and

minimising free trade. In 1971 Nowicki presented Myrdal as one of the figures in the Swedish

School in Political Economy, though not a major one.

Another factor influencing the recontextualisation of Myrdal’s work was the growing

interest in the social changes in Sweden. Between 1970-1980 a book on the subject would

appear every year, with Myrdal’s name featuring heavily. In those there is little outright

ideological criticism. But a certain degree of awe is mixed with criticism of the dehumanising

qualities of overt rationality – for example in a book by Józef Kozielecki dealing with the

issue of “happiness” (Kozielecki, 1974). Kozielecki mentions Myrdal as one of the “great

16

intellectuals influencing public life” in Sweden. In the same vain the book by Klepacki and

Ławniczak (1974) on contemporary Sweden mentions Gunnar and Alva Myrdal amongst the

most famous Swedes. Books by CieWlak (1971, 1978) and Nowicki (1971) on contemporary

Sweden fall in this category. An exception is the book by S. Rudolf on Swedish welfare

policy with its bold Marxist statements (1978). He believes, that the welfare state does not

develop humanist values, but blind consumption and that the whole reform programme has

low social legitimacy (Rudolf, 1978). However, W. Lamentowicz (Lamentowicz, 1977)

broadly presented Gunnar Myrdal and his role in the construction of the Swedish welfare

state. Most of his work is discussed in the article fairly favourably but Myrdal was criticised

for protecting private property. That is why he was called an ideologist rather than scientist.

1980-1989: decline

Mass strikes in 1980 and the growing political crisis forced the authorities to

some groundbreaking changes, and to officially accepting the „idependent self-governing

trade union „Solidarity” as a partner in negotiation. Moscow could not accept those changes,

and so in December the martial law has been introduced, leading to mass arrest and

repression. The death of political freedom, censorship, lowering of material conditions, lack

of perspectives – all these lead to the mass emigration of many scientists. The opposition,

however, remained and lead to another wave of protests in 1988, which culminated in the

Round Table negotiations in 1989.

This was not a good time for Myrdal in Poland, with an intellectual climate fixed on

internal affairs. The information about his death in 1987 appeared in the press, but there was

little beyond, though an article in the series on Nobel winners in economics reminded of

Myrdal’s achievements (Bomski, 1986; Tycner 1987, Czaja 1987). But his picture changed-

he became pessimistic supporter of neo-institutionalism. A brief mention of the

methodological implications of “is” and “ought” and a reference to Myrdal made by Nowak

in a book on Methodology of Social Research (1985) or the article by Kostrzewa-Tomczak

and Kropiwnicki (1983) are not enough to consider a dead path reopened, despite the fact that

the article is an in depth discussion, offering an unbiased comparison with Marxism. His

stance seen as a call to world solidarity had some resonance, nevertheless. The latter authors

take up cumulative causation in an article in 1985(Kostrzewa-Tomczak, 1985) Meanwhile in

1986 Myrdal is mentioned by St. Ossowski in his book On Social Structure (Ossowski, 1986)

17

, however the depth of insight is far from astounding. All this seems understandable,

considering that public attention was diverted to other worries and problems at the time.

1989- present: what now?

The year 1989 saw the end of the Party-state and the process of democratisation of

social life begun. Science was finally free from the bounds of Marxism-Leninism. This could

have meant an interest in the works by Myrdal, especially in full editions; but this did not

happen. The fact that he was not explored by the underground press of the opposition later put

him on the periphery of Polish public’s interests.

Paradoxically, the critique of Myrdal during the communist time did nothing to endear

him to the new democracy. The fact that his name ever got mentioned prior to 1989 was a

‘cardinal sin’. Myrdal’s association with the social democrats was problematic for being a

‘Western’ and ‘bourgeois’ socialism before 1989, and a ‘feebleness of mind’ of a ‘spoiled

Westerner’ “leftist” since. Myrdal’s economic ideas have since 1989 been increasingly

present in a negative way, often presented as ‘too leftist’ and reminiscent of the failure that

was planned economy as experienced in Poland. For example in 1989 an underground press

published book on non-Marxist economic theories (Niemarksistowskie teorie ekonomii)

Czuma asserts that many of Myrdals works had been translated into Polish, a surprising

statement if we take into account that the only two books to have been translated were heavily

censored. The search of virtual library catalogues also shows that the foreign versions are not

easily accessible. The authors of press articles in popular media accused Myrdal of “close ties

with the Stalinist Soviet Union” (Cegielski, 1997a), being a “pen pushing socialist”, “forcing

the Soviet model” and an antiglobalist ( Winiecki, 2004, 2005). And yet his name appeared in

economic publications, also in translations of older Western works for which it is only now

possible to appear in Poland. Interestingly in 2003 Jerzy Hausner, the then Minister of

Economy, Labour and Social Policy and Deputy Prime Minister of the Socialist government,

took up the ideas of żunnar Myrdal and particularly the ‘soft state’ as a basis for criticism of

the current Polish situation. In 1998 Zygmunt Bauman writing on the idea of “underclass”

reminded that it was Myrdal’s coinage.

The eugenics debate echoed in popular media in Poland, albeit briefly, for example

Gazeta Wyborcza 10.09.1997 (Cegielski, 1997b) had an article on the subject. The association

of Myrdals with eugenics and of eugenics with population questions came at a time when

Poland begun to enter its own “population crisis” with a debate reminiscent of that in Sweden

in the 1930’s, although conducted in a much more histerical tone.

18

It would be foolish to assume, however, that his ideas would never re-enter the public

debate in Poland, especially since he touched on many popular topics: the idea of social

solidarity, participatory democracy and decentralisation, the growing importance of social

movements (Fuller 2005:123). It is clearly true that żunnar Myrdal’s ideas about Third World

development went far beyond the scope of his contemporaries concerns (Jackson,

1990:333,343) and that his position was ‘wedged’ between the two imperialising political and

economic systems, making him the dissenting social scientist par excellence (Streeten 1998).

But this ‘third way’ seemed, in the case of the Polish public, not enough of a protest against

the Soviet domination and in turn lead to interpretive mistakes, rooted directly in the

country’s political situation. Perhaps nothing can be done about the long term misuse,

misappropriation and neglect of important ideas, although sometimes it seems that changes in

the context provided by a society’s public sphere, the change in the attitudes of the publics,

and change of status of their originators offer a second chance.

Bibliography

Bauman, Z. (1960) ‘Value in Social Theory. A Selection of Essays on Methodology’ (rev.),

Studia Filozoficzne 5(20): 172-88.

Bauman, Z. (1961) Z zagadnień współczesnej socjologii amerykańskiej [On problems of

contemporary American socology]. WarszawaŚ Ksiącka i Wiedza.

Bauman, Z. (1998) ‘Zawrotna kariera "podklasy"’ [Great career of underclass], Przegląd

Społeczny 1-2: 35-36.

Bierut, B. (1955) ‘Inauguracja roku akademickiego w Instytucie Nauk Społecznych’

[Opening speech at the Institute of Social Scence], Trybuna Ludu 280:3.

Boduszyńska, M. (1948) ‘The reconstruction of World Trade and Swedish Trade Policy’

(rev.), Jantar 3 : 326-29.

Bomski, T.(1986) ‘Gunnar K.Myrdal’, Wektory 6: 62.

Bywalec, C. (1977) ‘The Challenge of World Poverty. A World Anti-poverty Program in

Outline ‘ (rev.), Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny39: 267-70.

Cegielski, P.(1997a) ‘Postępowcy górą’ [Progressives win], Gazeta Wyborcza, 30-05: 17.

Cegielski, P.(1997b) ‘Wytrzebieni dla dobra wspólnego’ [źxterminated for common welfare],

Gazeta Wyborcza, 10-09: 10.

Chałasiński, J. (1955), Przegląd kulturalny 41: 1,5.

Chodak, S. (1960)’Value in Social Theory’ (rev.), Studia Filozoficzne 5: 20.

19

CieWlak, T. (1978), Zarys historii najnowszej krajów skandynawskich [Outline of

contemporary history of Scandinavian countries]. Warszawa: PWN.

Czuma, Ł. (1989) Niemarksistowskie teorie ekonomii [Non-marxist economic theories].

Warszawaś Niezłomne.

Dobrska, Z.(1963), Wybór technik produkcji w krajach gospodarczo zacofanych [Choosing the

techniques of production in undeveloped countries]. Warszawa: PWE.

Dziewanowski, K. (1975) ‘Pewien Szwed’ [A certain Sweden], Literatura 3:15.

Dzięgiel, L. (1971)’Asian Drama’ (rev.), Kultura i Społeczeństwo 1.

L. Dzięgiel, (1972) ‘The challenge of World’ (rev.), Kultura i Społeczeństwo 4: 227-31.

Eyerman, R. (1985) ‘Rationalising intellectuals. Sweden in the 1930s and 1940s.’ ,Theory and

Society 14: 777-07.

Fuller, S. (2005) The Intellectual. Cambridge: Icon.

żoćkowski, J., Marmuszewski S., ed. (1995) Nauka, tocsamoWć i tradycja [ Scence, identity

and tradition]. KrakówŚ Universitas.

żórski J., (1972) Historia powszechnej myWli ekonomicznej [History of economic thought],

Warszawa: PWN.

Hausner, J, Marody, M. (2000)’Miękki kraj’ [Soft state], Polityka 50.

Hertz, A. (2003) bydzi w kulturze polskiej [Jews in Polish Culture].WarszawaŚ Więa.

Jackson, W. A. (1990) Gunnar Myrdal and America’s Conscience. London: The University

of North Carolina Press.

Jałowiecki, B. (1995) ‘ Nauka a rozwój społeczny’ [Scence and social development], in J.

żoćkowski, S. Marmuszewski (ed.) (1995) Nauka, tocsamoWć i tradycja. KrakówŚ

Universitas, pp.281-290.

Jankowiak, J. (1961) ‘Rich and Poor Countries (Beyond the Welfare State)’ (rev.), Ruch

Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 3: 351-53.

Klepacki, M.Z., Ławnicza, R. (1974) Współczesna Szwecja (Contemporary Sweden). Warszawa:

Wiedza Powszechna.

Kloska, ż. ( 1974) ’Objektivität in der Sozialforschung (rev.)’, Etnografia Polska 1:257-64.

Kostrzewa-Tomczak, T., Kropiwnicki, J. (1983) ‘ObiektywnoWć i wartoWciowanie w naukach

społecznych u żunnara Myrdala’ [Objectivity and Valuation in Social Sciences According to

G.M.], Acta Universitatis Lodziensis, Folia Oeconomica, 27: 67-89.

Kowalczyk, Z. (1960) Une économie internationale [International economy] (rev.), Ruch

Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny3: p.235-37.

Kozielecki, J. (1974) SzczęWcie po szwedzku [Happiness a la Swedish]. Warszawa: PIW.

20

Lamentowicz, W. (1977) ‘Wizja “państwa dobrobytu” żunnara Myrala’ [The vision of

welfare state in ż.M’s works], Wojsko Polskie 6.

Lange, O (1955)’ O konsekwentnie stosowanie analizy marksistowskiej’ [On usage Marx

analysis consistently], Przegląd Kulturalny 49: 1,2.

Lubbe, A.(1971) ‘The Challenge of the World Poverty’ (rev.) Sprawy Miedzynarodowe 7/8:

209-10.

Łukaszewicz, A., (1958) ‘źconomic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions’ (rev.), Ekonomista 2:

194-09.

Łukaszewicz, A. (1973) Ubóstwo i rozwój. DramatŚ azjatycki, Trzeciego Vwiata i Myrdala

[Poverty and Development. Asian Drama, Third World’s Drama and żunnar Myrdal’s

Drama], Ekonomista 1: 93-116.

Marmuszewski, S. (1994) ‘Nauka w czasach stalinowskich’ [Scence in Stalin’s time], inŚ

J.żoćkowski, P. Kisiel (ed.), Patologia i terapia cycia naukowego. KrakówŚ Universitas.

Myrdal, ż. (1956) ‘O działalnoWci źuropejskiej Komisji żosp.ONZ’ [On the ECE UN], Nowe

Czasy 14: 11-13.

Myrdal, ż.(1958) ‘O gospodarce Indii’ [On źconomy of India], Gospodarka Planowa 11: 46-

50.

Myrdal, G. (1964) ‘Decyzje gospodarcze krajów rozwijających się’[źconomic decisions of

developing countries], Zeszyty Teoretyczno-Polityczne 4: 92-01.

Myrdal, ż. (1965) ‘Rola rządu w gospodarce’ [The role of government in economy], Zeszyty

Teoretyczno-Polityczne 3: 63-73.

Myrdal, ż. (1966) ‘Drogi rozwoju krajów nierozwiniętych’[ The ways of development of the

Third World], Zeszyty Teoretyczno-Polityczne 6: 126-35.

Myrdal, G (1967) ‘Wietnam a izolacja USA’ [Vietnam and the isolation of the US], Vwiat 4: 6-7.

Myrdal, G. (1968) Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. New York: The Twentieth

Century Fund.

Myrdal, ż.(1973) ‘Jak dalece naukowe są dyscypliny społeczne’ [How scientific are social

sciences?], Literatura 26: 6.

Myrdal, ż.(1974) ‘Rola wartoWci i polityka społeczna’ [The role of values and social politics],

Zeszyty Teoretyczno-Polityczne 1: 56-58.

Nowicki, W. (1971) Szwedzi, polityka, obyczaje [Swedish. Politics and Customs].

Warszawa: Ksiącka i Wiedza.

Okuniewski, A. (1959) ‘źconomic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions’ (rev.), Ruch

Prawniczy i Ekonomiczny 1: 286-91.

21

Ossowski S. (1986) O strukturze społecznej [On Social Structure]. Warszawa :PWN.

R.C, (1958) ‘źconomic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions’ (rev.), Kierunki 24: 2.

Rudolf S. (1978) Szwedzka ‘polityka dobrobytu’ [Swedish ‘welfare policy’].Warszawa: PWN.

Sachs, J.(1957)‘źconomic Theory and Undeveloped Regions’(rev.), Przegląd Kulturalny 39:

9.

Schaff, A. (1955)’O pozytywny program badań społecznych’ [On positive programme of

social researches], Przegląd Kulturalny 45: 1,2.

Schierup, C. U. (1995) ‘A źuropean DilemmaŚ Myrdal, the American Creed and źU źurope’

International Sociology 10 :4.

Secomski (1958) ‘źconomic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions’ (rev.), Gospodarka

Planowa 5: 58-60.

Stiepanow, L. (1969) ‘Asian Drama .System wartoWci żunnara Myrdala’ [ż.Myrdal’s Value

System], Zeszyty Teoretyczno-Polityczne 6.

Streeten, P. (1998) ‘The Cheerful Pessimist: Gunnar Myrdal the Dissenter (1898-1987),

World Development 26, 3: 539-50.

Suchodolski , B. (1974) Nauka a WwiadomoWć społeczna [Scence and social consciousness],

Wrocław: Ossolineum.

Szczepański, J.(1957) Inteligencja i społeczeństwo [Intelligentsia and society]. Warszawa:

KIW.

Tokarczyk, A. (1970)’Asian Drama’ (rev.), Tygodnik Powszechny 2: 1,5.

Tokarczyk, A. (1973) ‘Prorok szlachetnej utopii’ [A prophet of noble utopia], Tygodnik

Powszechny 18.

Tylor, E. (1958) Historia rozwoju ekonomiki [History of Development of Economics]

Warszawa: PWN .

Wiatr, J.J. (1959) Zagadnienia rasowe w socjologii amerykańskiej [Racial Problems in

American Sociology].Warszawa: PWN.

Winiecki, J (2004)’ AntyglobaliWci Stiglitz i Nace grzeszą przeciwko zdrowemu rozsądkowi’

[ Antyglobalists Stiglic abd Nace are against common sence], Wprost 1144.

Winiecki, J (2004), ‘Sto kwiatów I chwast’ [100 flowers and one weed], Wprost 1184.

Worcell, H. (1977) ‘The Challenge of World Poverty’ (rev.), Literatura 38: 16.

Zawadzki, S. (1964) ‘Państwo dobrobytu- doktryna i praktyka’ [„Welfare state”- doctrine and

practice]. Warszawa: PWN.

Zajewski, J. (1958) Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions (rev.) Tygodnik

Powszechny 30:3.

22

Znaniecki, F. (1984) Społeczne role uczonych [ The social role sof the mman of knowledge],

Warszawa: PWN.

bylicz, T. (1974) ‘Wyłom w nagrodach [Departure from rules of Prizes], Kultura 44: 5.

keywords: Gunnar Myrdal, public intellectual, recontextualisation, Polish intellectuals,

ideology

Abstract

The article presents the influence of social and political factors on the reception of żunnar Myrdal’s

work in Poland from 1947 up to now. The process of recontextualisation: choice of work or its fragments in

order to create a false picture of the scientist’s achievement which serves a significant political function.

Analysis of the recontextualsation of żunnar Myrdal’s work may become an interesting study of coincidence

and help to solve intricate problems resulting from intellectual activity and dominant national ideology and will

perhaps highlight the nuances of ideological hindrances to the process of recontextualisation of his works and its

long-term effects on becoming “public”.

word-count of the paper: 7603