Where Is Poland? | Who is Polish?

Chapter 7

Who is Polish?

In 1894, Brandes came to Poland yet again, to visit acquaintances at a Masovian manor in Pawłowice. The lands of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were still very diverse in social and ethnic terms . Paradoxically, it was in times of foreign domination that the modern concept of the Polish nation first emerged.

Market scene in Warsaw, 1897. Photograph: B.W. Kilburn, Littleton, N.H. Source: Library of Congress

Social and ethnic contrasts

Under the partitions, the Poles lived in three different economic systems, which naturally translated into differences in their economic condition. The material situation of farmers from the wealthy Wielkopolska region (in the Prussian-held partition) was very different from that of farmers in Galicia (the Austrian-held province), which was famous for its poverty. The per-capita GDP in 1911 would have amounted to 242 Swiss francs in Galicia, 400 francs for the Russian-held Kingdom of Poland, and 718 francs for the Prussian partition and Upper Silesia. This was further complicated by class differences within the Polish society itself: social stratification was particularly evident in the Austrian and Russian partitions.

Because modernization efforts moved at different paces and urbanization processes proceeded differently, the scope of regional differentiation was vast. Whereas just 29% of the population was working in agriculture in the Prussian-held Upper Silesia at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century (after the industrial revolution), in Galicia the figure was still as high as 77%. In the Prussian-held lands, 24% of the population supported itself from industry and craftsmanship, whereas only 8% did in Galicia.

Patriotic demonstation, postcard from 1903 by Jan Raczyński. Source: Polona.pl

Sarmatians & Locals

Back in the times of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the ‘nation’ was considered to be the nobility, the upper stratum of society tracing its roots back to the knights of feudal times. The concept of nation was understood differently than it is today: it consisted of those inhabitants of a state who had full political rights (and thereby exerted an influence on its policies). This concept was distinct from ethnic questions, and so a Lithuanian or Ruthenian nobleman could describe himself as a ‘Polish noble of Lithuanian/Ruthenian origin’ ( gente Lithuanus/Ruthenus, natione Polonus ).

The peasants (85% of the population) were simply royal subjects, working land that was owned by the king, by a nobleman, or by the clergy. Their identity centred around their affiliation with the nearby district or region. From the seventeenth century onward, certain concepts became popular among upper-crust society, alleging that the Polish-speaking population actually consisted of two different nations, of differing ethnic origins. According to this theory, the higher social strata had roots stretching back to the Sarmatians, an ancient nomadic tribe, who were said to have colonized these lands and mixed with the indigenous population. Others took this back even further, all the way to biblical times, maintaining that the two different classes derived from two sons of Noah: the nobility descended from the father-obeying Japhet, whereas the peasants came from Ham, cursed by his father (a circumstance used to explain their status as serfs).

Burghers and Jews were not part of the Sarmatian definition of the nation. The nineteenth century saw the formation of modern theories of nationalism and the reconstruction of the very idea of the Polish nation. National ideologists started to recognise Polish-speaking peasants as their compatriots, even if villagers themselves would probably have described themselves as 'locals', rather than 'Poles'. Very soon, two rivaling concepts clashed within modern nationalism: inclusive and exclusive. According to the first, ethnic criteria are what define a nation, whereas the second instead sees a nation as a community united by cultural and linguistic bonds. On this second view, people of different ethnic backgrounds who feel that they belong to the nation are therefore members of it.