In her book Anna Ziębińska-Witek deals with a question of displaying and interpreting the experience of communism in various historical exhibitions in Central and Eastern Europe. The book enables the readers to get acquainted with analysis of historical discourses concerning contemporary history conducted neither in form of sophisticated monographies, nor in form of superficial press commentaries, but basing on such an unique media as historical exhibitions. Ziębińska-Witek stresses here the fact that museums are more often than not instruments of the politics of memory than a method of disseminating objective historical knowledge. Therefore she analyses and deconstructs various types of exhibitions: those stressing heroism, those underlining martyrdom, and, finally, those with a gadget-focused sentimental approach. Although it is hard to speak about one single interpretation of communism in historical exhibitions in Central and Eastern Europe, Ziębińska-Witek points out that in all Central and Eastern European countries the dominant role is played by large, stateowned museums.

The author analyses a history of research on culture in communist Poland and the USSR (later Russian Federation). She finds similarities and differences. During the time of communist Poland a tendency was to standardize the supply of culture and make the access to it more democratic. The basic task of the sociology of culture in communist Poland was to control the advancement process of culture dissemination and research into the various forms of participation. However, in the second half of the 70s attention was more and more focused on the directions of cultural sociology development and functions. Following the fall of communism this discipline was faced with a challenge of embracing all the important directions of changes while indicating a now socio-cultural model at the same time. In the USSR, on the other hand, the government was interested only in the cultural research which was to confirm a hypothesis on fast cultural development of masses. Sociology of culture did not exist as a science, though. Following years of deep crisis, when perestroika period began, sociologists of post soviet Russia faced a serious challenge: how to move from “the only one true” Marxist paradigm to the mastering and usage of various theories which functioned in sociology around the world. The Author indicated the contribution in this respect i.a. of Vladimir Yadov or academics circled around Yurij Levada. In general one can say that in Poland as well as in Russia, the sociology of culture following the fall of communist regime and following certain major political, economic, social and cultural changes, found itself in entirely new reality.

Turkowski refers to Michał Przeperski’s much-read biography of Mieczysław F. Rakowski, which constitutes interesting literature not only for those interested in the political history of the Polish People’s Republic, but also for those researching social processes in post-war Poland. In particular, Turkowski ascertains that one can discover numerous valuable observations concerning the issue of social advancement in this biography, observations that question the durability of the heritage of the system of real socialism in this respect.

Lubiewo (2005) by Michał Witkowski presents a particularly high number of cultural elements related to the last decades of the Polish People’s Republic (1952–1989), which far from serving exclusively as a historical background, turn the latter into one of the novel’s main characters. The present paper aims at investigating and comparing the way these elements, whose translation is known to be problematic, have been transferred into the Russian ( Любиево 2007) and English ( Lovetown 2010) translations.

This article offers a survey of the careers of 54 Polish female historians who received the habilitacja degree in 1945–1989 at seven Polish universities – four of those were founded soon after the Second World War (University of Łódź, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, University of Wrocław, Maria Skłodowska‑Curie University in Lublin), while three had been established earlier (University of Warsaw, Jagiellonian University in Kraków and the Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań). Analysis of personal files and various biographical materials has led the author to a number of conclusions about female historians’ academic careers. The careers reflected the discipline’s development, both in terms of the expansion of its field of inquiry, as well its methodological diversity and the conditions in which it operated. Career paths followed by women were not much different from those followed by men. Neither advancement requirements, nor employment policy at the schools of higher learning were discriminatory towards any of the sexes. However, as far as the female career advancement is concerned, there were some differences between the old and new universities: it was easier for women to obtain managerial positions at the latter.