How do new nations arise? The case of the Kashubians

Theoretical background

The concept of a nation is still deeply rooted in the current means of shaping personal and community identity. It is a reference system in relation to which given visions of the world are created and various actions are taken under the banners of a nation (Calhoun, 1997). In the theory of the nation, various conceptualisations of this phenomenon can be mentioned, most of which are associated the names of their supporters, as Josep R Llobera (1999) and Smith (1983, 2003). These concepts include primordialist (Geertz, 1993; Van den Berghe, 1981), instrumentalist (Barth, 1969), modernization theories (inter alia Anderson, 1983; Gellner, 1983; Hroch, 1985, 2015), ethnosymbolic (Smith, 1998), evolutionary theories (inter alia, Armstrong, 1982), politico-ideological (inter alia, Breuilly, 1993), perennialist (Smith, 1987) and culturalist (Znaniecki, 1952). All of them are already classic and well known to the researchers of the nation’s problems and, for this reason, the article will mainly refer to the literature on the subject without detailed discussion (see also Grosby, 2005; Guibernau and Hutchinson, 2001; Hutchinson and Smith, 1994; Malešević, 2019; Szacki, 1990).

In order to indicate the theoretical perspective which would contextualize the phenomena described in this article, Rogers Brubaker’s concept of factual perspective (Brubaker, 1996) would be primarily applicable, as oppose to a processual, progressive in the understanding the nation (AD Smith, E Hobsbawn, E Gellner and B Anderson). Unlike the latter, it predominantly focuses on the analysis of national phenomena, as an event, as something that appears here and now, as a result of a certain case or circumstances that determine the emergence of a fluid and impermanent foundation of individual and collective action, and not as a gradually evolving phenomenon. Thus, as Calhoun wrote, this factual perspective enables the following of the means in which the category of the nation organizes or creates ways to understand basic identities, how it unites people as members of the same nation and how it is used to distinguish them from other nations (Calhoun, 2008). This would be a constructivist approach. In its context, a perspective that allows describing making the nation, but not a nation’s existence or development (the existence of the nation as a historical subject and processes of its development) appears. One can then look at the nation, not as a group, but as kinds of relationships, modes of dissemination of the national idea, and can concentrate on a larger ethnic discourse created by the people involved in the processes of creating a national vision. Then, it is irrelevant whether the nation is dealt with as an essential entity (whose existence the researcher or politician states), but rather, it is possible to observe a kind of ethnic cuisine whose ingredients appear if field research is conducted, during which the interlocutors are invited to tell their national stories or follow their activities undertaken in the name of a shared vision.

The category of nationalism, as researchers claim, is also ambiguous, functioning in scientific, public or political discourse. As Smith wrote, two basic parameters of this phenomenon can be mentioned – to see it as an ideology which puts the nation at its centre, as well as actions for its benefit (Smith, 2003). He formulates a working definition of nationalism, stating that it is an ideological movement aimed at obtaining and preserving the autonomy, unity and identity of a given group whose members are considered to be an actual or potential nation. One can also claim, as Rogers Brubaker does, that nationalism is ‘a set of “nation-oriented” idioms, practices and opportunities that are still available or “endemic” to modern cultural and political life’ (Brubaker, 1996).

To understand contemporary processes involving the nation, nationalism and national identity, it is important to be aware of the historical, political or social context in relation to which they are formulated. This is the context which largely determines the content and form of a given national discourse created within the dominant and subordinate groups. Apart from local factors, there are also important aspects of globalising the idea of a nation and the aspirations formulated on its behalf or the concept of the individual’s rights to his or her own identity as a key value.

It should be noted that the current pattern of these activities (which, in previous decades were described as nationalism) is changing. In the case of nationalisms of minority groups, older models of the relations between the state and ethnic minorities, based on the policy of assimilation and homogenization, are replaced by state multicultural and citizenship-based models (Kymlicka, 2007: 1). This is expressed in the form of greater acceptance for the demands expressed by minority groups, whether for greater territorial autonomy, the acknowledgement of language or the right to self-determination. It is possible to mention the emergence of an international or global political discourse that values cultural differences, such as the constitution of international legal regulations covering minority rights (Kymlicka, 2007: 2).

Ephraim Nimni, as much as Kymlicka, indicates that currently it is possible to observe a kind of expansion of various demands formulated by cultural communities and aimed at obtaining recognition of their individuality and subjectivity – which take many forms, including Indian emancipation movements, minority nationalisms or the policy of recognition for ethnic minorities (Nimni, 2010: 22). What is important is that they are hardly oriented towards building a separate nation-state. As Nimni emphasises, this is because their claims are directed towards other goals, or they simply have no chance of creating their own statehood. In his opinion, in connection with the above-mentioned phenomena, two most popular interpretation paradigms should be verified in relation to the categories of nationalism: modernist (Gellner and Anderson) and ethnosymbolic (Smith), according to which the relationship between the nation and the state is important. Previous models of nationalism emphasizing the importance of state aspirations among ethnocultural groups do not reflect today's reality, when many countries are multiethnic or multinational in character, and different national communities live in the same places and accommodate to the inhabited territory in different ways (Nimni, 2010: 28). Hence, in his opinion, the inappropriate starting point for understanding today’s national processes is the endorsement of the argumentation formulated by the supporters of the ‘post-national’ perspective assuming that, nowadays, the nation, ethnicity or national identity are irrelevant. They are still relevant, multidimensional and visible on the social scene, as will be demonstrated by the Kashubian example in this text.

The Kashubians – An introduction

The contemporary Kashubians are a community which, according to the latest census of 2011, consists of more than 232,547 people (www.stat.gov.pl) who declared their Kashubian ethnocultural identity, although some estimations reach 500,000 (Mordawski, 2005). They mainly live in the area stretching from Gdansk towards Leba and the areas of the Tuchola Forests, i.e. in the northwest part of Poland.

In sociological terms, this group can be described as an ethnic minority community, representing the example of a group defined as an old minority. It is also referred to as historical, traditional, or autochthonous. According to Roberta Medda-Windischer, the members of this type of community use their own language, share common traditions, culture or religion as opposed to other members of the population. They do not usually acquire the status of a group having its own state, as the territory they inhabit even in the course of centuries and border changes has remained a part of another sovereign country (Medda-Windischer, 2009, 2015: 3).

From the point of view of the Polish legal regulations, the Kashubians are not treated as an ethnic or national minority. The Polish state, constitutionally and under a separate law, protects Polish citizens, members of ethnic and national minorities and keeps the individualized approach to minority protection (The Act on National and Ethnic Minorities and the community speaking regional language from 2005). Poland also ratified the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages ​​(ratified in 2009). The Act of 2005 protects a total of 14 listed ethnic minorities, and the Kashubian group as a community with its own regional language in accordance with the Charter for Languages. The Kashubians, as mentioned above, have a special status, being officially recognized as a language community.

It can be claimed that this status is, on the one hand, specific in comparison with other groups covered by the Act – as the group does not have a minority character. On the other hand, including the Kashubians under this regulation contextually links them with the legal discourse regarding minorities. Language protection guaranteed by the law translates into certain rights: preservation, maintenance and development of their own, regional, as it is called, language. It gives them, just as other groups included in the Act, access to education, media, and the existence of language in public. It also grants access to symbolic and material resources but limits these to a strictly designated linguistic area.

History

According to Polish historians, the contemporary Kashubians are the descendants of the Slavs who lived in Pomerania in the Middle Ages, i.e. the Baltic Sea region in the north, the Notec and the Warta in the south, the Odra in the west and the lower Vistula in the east. The history of the Kashubians even dates back to the Middle Ages in the history of Pomerania, which in those times belonged to Germany and Poland, taking a variety of formal and political shapes. (Borzyszkowski, 2011; Obracht-Prondzyński, 2010).

When writing about the history of the community, first of all it should be underlined that Pomerania, including the Kashubians, has always been a part of stronger, dominant, political bodies (Polish, Prussian or German). This location led to the processes of marginalization of this community, the processes of linguistic or cultural assimilation to the politically dominant group, taking various forms depending on historical times. This in practice resulted in the relative isolation of the Kashubians within their own community for many decades (Borzyszkowski, 2011; Obracht-Prondzyński, 2010).

The 20th century brought fundamental changes in the Kashubian position, starting with the emergence of a new political order after the end of the First World War, under which the part of the territory traditionally inhabited by the Kashubians fell to the Polish state, and ending with the changes after the Second World War, when the whole of Kashubia became a part of the Polish state.

Moreover, the period of the People’s Republic of Poland is also essential to understand today’s Kashubian situation. During these years, they had to deal with the state’s policy based not only on the idea of Polish society as an ethnic monolith, but also on the assimilation strategy as a fundamental policy toward ethnic communities. It was also clearly aimed at blurring differences in this aspect and reducing them to ethnographic differences. By imposing restrictions on public and cultural activity, not only were the communities controlled, but their ethnicity was shaped and organized under the patronage of the state according to the current power interests (Warmińska, 2015).

During that period, the activities that were conducted under the ‘Kashubian’ banner took different forms, from spontaneous (for example, amateur theatres), to organized as folklore groups, cultural centres or museums. An important moment in the socio-cultural Kashubian life was the establishment in 1956 of the Kashubian Association, which since 1964 has been called the Kashubian-Pomeranian Association. It had, at that time, numerous local branches. This organization, which operates to date, has a social and cultural character with a dominant Pomeranian-regional option including the Kashubians as the residents of Pomerania (Borzyszkowski, 2011; Obracht-Prondzyński, 2002, 2006).

The political changes after 1989 in the case of the Kashubians resulted in ethnic revival and greater cultural, organizational and ideological activity.

In order to describe actions of various entities with regard to Kashubianness in the last 30 years, many spheres of life – both local and nationwide – should be referred to. Some of them are a continuation of previous times (for example, cultural institutions, museums, and song and dance groups), although new and diverse initiatives have emerged as well. There are educational, and scientific institutions such as Instytut Kaszubski (e.g. the Kashubian Institute) established in 1996, as well as publishing houses. Every year, the Kashubian Unity Day is celebrated, and Kashubian conventions gathering people from different parts of the region are arranged. There are festivals, meetings and competitions with Kashubia as their focal point, including Kashubian religious pilgrimages to important (for the Kashubian Catholics) places of worship. The project policy, which allows funding from a range of sources both from national and European funds, is becoming increasingly popular, and is being consumed by both the Association and the local organizations (Dołowy-Rybińska, 2011; Obracht-Prondzyński, 2007). Of course, the extent of these cultural activities within the groups and the clients to which they are directed can be questioned, as they vary considerably. The Kashubians, having their representation in the Polish parliament, founded a Kashubian group there. They are also involved in local politics and local government. They have representation in the Joint Commission of Government and National and Ethnic Minorities.

As the language was recognized by Kashubian leaders as the basic determinant of Kashubian identity, language issues were of special importance for the Kashubians in the years after 1989. It became important to establish the status of the Kashubian language – if it actually is a dialect of Polish (and this opinion dominated among linguists for years) or a completely separate language (Dołowy-Rybińska, 2011). Due to the internal regional variations, it primarily required the codification of spelling, grammar and vocabulary. As a consequence of numerous discussions under the auspices of the Association in 1996, the protocol on spelling rules was signed, which set the standards for Kashubian. Since 2006, the Kashubian Language Council has been responsible for the language of the Kashubian community, and is responsible, not only for linguistic matters, but also for the issues of everyday language, education, the media and administration. Consequently, the Kashubian language exists in two spheres: non-standardised, full of local, dialectical, and regional differences; and general, called literary language. The standard language has been successively introduced into schools, and textbooks have been developed for teaching it. In 2003, it was given the internationally recognized ISO 639–2 (CBS) code, although UNESCO considers the language to be endangered. It also serves as an auxiliary language to municipalities where, according to the census (2011) at least 20% of its inhabitants declare their membership in the Kashubian community, and under the law, bilingual names of localities can be introduced. According to data from the last census in 2011,108,140 people reported using the Kashubian language in their personal contacts, while in 2002 it was over 52,000 (www.stat.gov.pl). Thus, a significant increase in language declarations can be observed.

Kashubian identity in the light of research

Systematic research on the ethnic status of the group was initiated in the 1980s. It resulted in two books. One, edited by Marek Latoszek, Kaszubi. Monografia socjologiczna (Kashubians. Sociological Monograph), was published in 1990 and provided a broad overview of the group's ethnic status, the size and distribution of its population of Kashubian origin and the cultural identity of the Kashubians. At that time, it was a basic source of information on ethnocultural issues. However, it seems that the work which had a greater impact on the researchers of the Kashubian region was the monograph Kaszubska tożsamość. Ciągłość i zmiana. Studium socjologiczne (Kashubian identity. Continuity and change. Sociological study) by Bruno Synak (1998).

Discussing the research results the author presents the self-identification of the respondents and the criteria of Kashubianness they pointed to. According to Synak, those who referred to Kashubian as the first criterion indicated a sense of being Kashubian, the so-called auto-attribution criterion, which was founded on genealogical and cultural decisive factors. Kashubian autodefinitions were presented as complex and multidimensional. He underlined that, in particular cases, various aspects of Kashubian character were different. Synak formulated the concept of the double Polish-Kashubian identity, as indicated by the respondents. Kashubianness and Polishness were described as an indisputable, coexisting contexts and elements of studied identities. He defined the Kashubians as an ethnic group of a regional character, forming a part of a broader Polish community of national-state character. The Kashubians had developed a sense of distinctiveness, but not based on their own nation or state. Only a small percentage of respondents shared a belief in the genetic-historical distinction of a national kind. At the same time, the study showed that nearly 70% of the respondents claimed that there were few or no differences between the Kashubians and the rest of the country, but 85% said they had to strive to defend the differences. He also noted that Kashubian identification over the years has changed from habitual and mechanical to an identity that is increasingly intentional and symbolic (Synak, 1998, 2008). Synak’s study should be quoted more broadly, since it has been for long the canon of the description of Kashubian ethnicity. However, there is also another context in which Synak’s work can be viewed. It concerns the other, not strictly academic, usage of his concept of dual Kashubian-Polish identity. It has been very often used in the context of ideological discussion between different parties in Kashubian communities being an argument for or against a given group’s characteristics. Synak’s case shows very well the relationship between the order of scientific description and the order of cultural practice.

The works of subsequent sociologists have also confirmed the thesis formulated by B Synak. Monika Mazurek, in her work, shows that the respondents predominantly referred to themselves as Poles/Kashubians or Kashubians/Poles at the same time (about 70% in total); the rest of the respondents declared only Kashubianness (about 11%) or only Polishness (approximately 17%) (Mazurek, 2009, 2010). A total of 97% of the respondents agreed that the Kashubians were Poles; almost 90% said they felt like Poles. On the other hand, the claim that the Kashubians form a nation has been agreed by about 37% of nearly a thousand people surveyed – against the notion the total was approximately 43%.

B Synak’s and M Mazurek’s research was, in some sense, confirmed in the results of the 2011 census. There were two questions concerning national/ethnic issues: 1) ‘What is your nationality?’; 2) ‘Do you feel attached to another nation or ethnic community?’ (www.stat.gov.pl). Among all 232,547 Kashubian declarations, 215,800 contained Polish identity chosen as the first one, and Kashubian as the second one. Whereas 17,746 respondents declared Kashubian identification as their first choice, including 16,377 chose Kashubian as the only one. The picture appearing on the basis of these sources, which is particularly important in the context of the discussion subject in this text, points attention to the fact that Kashubianness as the only, or the first, national identification is chosen by a relatively insignificant proportion of the researched, although its existence can still be noticed. Considering the census results concerning language used at home, the relation between chosen language and national identity of the Kashubian respondents is worth mentioning. Among 108,140 people using the Kashubian language, the majority – 81,5% (88,042 people) – declared their identity as Polish and Kashubian (concurrently), 9,5% (10 425 people) provided only Polish identity. However, 9% (9,672 people) who speak Kashubian declared only a Kashubian identity. These data show that the usage of the Kashubian language is not in accordance with national declarations. There are people who declared double Polish-Kashubian identity and who do not use ethnic language at home; as well as there being people who have chosen only a Kashubian identity who do not speak the language at all. The language issues are complicated and will be described in the empirical part of this article.

Ideological options

An important context for the understanding of the problem of functioning of a national idea among the Kashubians is to point to the existence of a certain Kashubian ideological tradition dating back to the 19th century and continuing to this day.

In this context, it is interesting to note what happened in this community in the 19th century which is described as the time of nascent nationalism in Europe (Hobsbawm, 1992; Smith, 1987). The researchers of the Kashubians are pondering in this context on the position of this group, and they generally claim that the group did not actually enter the orbit of these processes. It was caused by the lack of an intelligentsia that could formulate national ideas, closing the community in its own local worlds, and by strong Germanizing pressures in these years (Dołowy-Rybińska, 2011). This does not mean that no action was taken to address the Kashubian issue. Florian Ceynowa was recognized as the ‘father’ of the Kashubian idea of talking about Kashubian distinctiveness. In 1848, he formulated his own Kashubian defence programme in which he urged his compatriots to take Kashubian affairs into their own hands, and especially to protect their own language and customs, which was supposed to protect the group against Germanization, but also the Polonization which the Kashubians were subject to in the centuries before the partition of Poland (Borzyszkowski, 1982). The second figure, working in later years, was Hieronim Derdowski whose visions of the Kashubians were in opposition to those created by Ceynowa. He was primarily the supporter of the Polonophilic movement, an idea about the Kashubian connection with the Polish nation, which he concluded in the words: ‘There is no Kashubia without Polonia and no Poland without Kashubia’, and the Kashubian language was considered a dialect of the Polish language. His ideas about Kashubian issues were aimed at bringing the group closer to Polishness while preserving local distinctiveness (Borzyszkowski, 1982; Dołowy-Rybińska, 2011). It could be said that these two programmes for Kashubians formulated at that time have become the main ideological visions concerning group status and have continued until now. Not to mention that these two men have become the symbolic figures for given options: Ceynowa – for the Kashubian national option, Derdowski for the Polish-Kashubian one.

According to T Bolduan, there are five basic ideological trends, in a sense, suspended in the period of the People’s Republic of Poland in the history of the Kashubian movement. It is worth mentioning, this approach still explains differences among given ideological orientations. The first was associated with Ceynowa and his Slavonian-Kashubian orientation; the second was Polo-Kashubian linked to Derdowski, the Young Kashubian orientation, the Autonomous-Kashubian and the Kashubian-Pomeranian orientation (Bolduan, 1996; Dołowy-Rybińska, 2011; Obracht-Prondzyński, 2011). Looking closer at the today’s Kashubian discourse, two main ways of conceptualising Kashubian status can be identified: the dominant vision that the Kashubians are an ethnic or ethnic-regional group, and the second, represented by a small part of them, postulating that the Kashubians are a nation. It is also possible to indicate the two main actors who stand on the aforementioned positions: it would be the Association and the people associated with that region and the second organization, the Association of People of Kashubian Nationality Kaszëbskô Jednota founded in 2011. This is a simplification because, in the public sphere, there are many voices on Kashubian matters although these two are the most audible. It can be said that they are now the point of reference for each other. The most audible opinion is formulated by the people connected by the Kashubian-Pomeranian Association. The Association influenced not only the creation of the ideological visions, but also by more concrete solutions concerning even the current formal and legal status of the group (Łodziński, 2005). It could be noted that, during last several decades, the ethnocultural politics undertaken by this organisation have been changing but the core idea is that the Kashubians are an ethnic or ethno-regional community and the most important aspect of their identity is their language. They are supporters of the concept of double Polish-Kashubian identification, they also reject the idea of the minority status of the group, claiming that the Kashubians are not a minority, for they are a majority in the Kashubian region and, at the same time, Polish.

The second option defined as ‘national’ began to emerge in the 1990s. The actions of different kinds (cultural, lingual, political, on the web and in the public sphere, publications) undertaken by the activists having on the banners the Kashubians being a nation faced great criticism from the key activists of the Association, who argued against this ideological proposal, the Kashubians accusing the opponents of these actions of acting against the Kashubians (Warmińska, 2007). In this way, the Association is dissociated from the national idea. The founding of the Kaszëbskô Jednota in 2011 was a kind of response to the Association’s actions, as well as the way to organise these who support the national concept. The members of this organization have been convinced that the Kashubian national movement requires consolidation, and the development of a national option is the best form of protection and development of Kashubian cultural potential, its statutory objectives through various types of education, artistic, commemorating and promoting Kashubianness actions.

It is possible to notice that the Kashubian-Pomeranian Association is declared as an organization whose goals are wider than the Kashubian, and it also represents other Pomeranian people. The Kaszëbskô Jednota is an organization of strictly ethnic national character.

Obviously, it should be emphasized that the human and organizational potential of both Kashubian organizations is disproportionate, since the Kashubian-Pomeranian Association is an organization of almost 6,000 members organized in more than 60 local divisions. The Kaszëbskô Jednota is a small group amounting to a few dozens of members and sympathizers. This does not change the fact that the clash of two views on Kashubian issues does not exist. ‘The Kaszëbskô Jednota and the Kashubian-Pomeranian Association have many common goals – the most important is the protection and development of the Kashubian language’ (http://kaszebsko.com/faq.html. Accessed 1.06.2018). Such open declarations of similarity are not expressed by the Association, although, in fact, at the local level, the activists from both organizations not only know each other very well but also cooperate.

Who are the Kashubians?

The empirical material which is the base of this part comes from the field work (interviews, participant observation, the Internet analysis) which has been conducted since 2008, with special attention paid to the identity issues in the Kashubian group. The research material comprises 60 interviews but, in this analysis, only 15 are used, and which were carried out during last five years among those who declare being Kashubians of national option, as they very often describe themselves. All interlocutors were the members of Kaszëbskô Jednota. ¹ The interviews had an in-depth character, and gave the interlocutors a broad scope of possibilities to construct their utterances. They were conducted in the Polish language, something which was agreed with each participant. The snowball technique of sampling was implemented at this point. The general strategy of building the narration in this article is based on the will to present discussed topics from the interviewee’s point of view, to look from within, from the emic perspective.

This part of the article indicates how the participants of the research talked about their group of belonging.

Each interview began with the question ‘Who are Kashubians?’ Thus, it was assumed that, when talking about the Kashubians, when the name is referred to, it would be clearer for the interlocutors who the interview was going to be about. Such specification made it possible to find a common reference point in the dialogue and follow the emic perspective.

Various opinions appeared in response to this question. Some of the respondents defined Kashubians directly as a nation, as one of them said: This is a nation. Is that enough? (14). Here the formula of the description was unambiguous and determined.

If Kashubians appeared in descriptions as a nation, it was sometimes also described as small in number or, more often, as Slavic: Kashubians are Slavic people living in Central Europe on the Baltic Sea (1); The Kashubians are such a small nation, like for example the Basques in Spain (9). Sometimes the Kashubians were located as a nation in a specific territory: In my opinion, it is the indigenous nation currently inhabiting the areas of northern Poland. There are different theories. It is known that the Kashubians are Slavs (7).

There were also other ways of conceptualizing the Kashubians. For example, they were referred to as a group with some attributes:  … for sure, it is a group with a separate culture, inhabiting a certain area … one place in the world (8). As well as: … the people with a history and other characteristics that differentiate them from others, like language, mentality (15).

It should be emphasized that the interlocutors were looking for something in the form of an appropriate definition of the Kashubians, which was to emphasize the fact that they can be defined in a variety of ways. The following statement illustrates this attitude well: The Kashubians can be called an ethnic group, a nation, even a social group depending on what someone wants to choose (4). The interlocutor mentioned above, who described the Kashubians as a group, at the same time added that Now, there is a problem how to name this community. It is somehow a contractual issue. In the Slavic language it is a nation, in Kashubian it is also a nation and could be the subject of some dispute (8).

Another interlocutor looking for the available definitions stated that the Kashubians are a nation because  … we aren’t some diaspora, an exiled nation, we have our historical territory, inhabited, we have a great community group …  (15).

Thus, the respondents’ opinions can be marked on a scale from strong, unambiguous, whose authors were inclined towards the Kashubian vision simply as a nation, through more descriptive, in which this nation had certain characteristics (Slavic, small), to ambiguous, indicating the existence of ‘different theories’ (quoting the words of one interlocutor) or possible descriptions of the group (as a national, ethnic, people).

What is a nation?

The interlocutors were asked to think about what it means that the Kashubians are a nation and what a nation as such is. They were set as competent people in relation to the world that was described during the interviews, but also in the role of theoreticians.

In this context, there were various arguments for the Kashubian vision as a nation. Among them there were references to history, culture, language, tradition or territory as determinants allowing to describe the Kashubians as a nation. Here are some examples of the utterances: The Kashubians were a nation, it follows from history that they were a nation. They have their own culture, everything. Not only these chants, embroidery, but as a nation, but without statehood (12); That they are a nation because they have their own different history, their language, have their traditions, have their own land. They also have a community of interests (1).

A similar way of thinking appeared when aimed at determining how the interlocutors understood the very concept of the nation. They were asked about it directly, or the reflections on this subject appeared in relation to the issue of the Kashubians as a nation, as described above. In a sense, when formulating the understanding of the nation as such, they talked also about the Kashubians themselves. Here are some typical statements: A nation is a group of people that has some sort of distinctiveness. Right. It has its culture, which is contained in language, in everyday customs, in folk tales, has its own history, has its own identity, and to stick to this nationality, they have national symbols, emblems, flags, hymns, literature, the art of national bards (4); What is a nation? A nation – different sources define what a nation is. The most often it is a group of people who live on some specific historical site. It has its own history; it differs from other nations with particular elements of its culture. There are, of course, language differences, including differences in traditions, customs and rituals, and it produces its own centres of higher culture, that is literature, music, elements of theatre, film. Etc. (6).

Scrutinising the ways of speaking, it can be seen that the interlocutors know the language used to describe the phenomenon defined by academics as a nation and partly realize that there are different approaches to this issue. The knowledge of vocabulary, as noted by Calhoun (2008), is a phenomenon typical of people interested in the national idea. The following quote is a good example of the interpenetration of colloquial and scientific thinking: A nation is an abstract creation, I didn’t invent it, I read somewhere … it is known that it is a invented construct, it cannot be attributed to certain people, it is known that there is some ideological assumption, everyone can say that a given group is a nation (8). A clear reference to the Andersonian concept of the nation as an imagined community can be found noticed here (Anderson, 1983).

It should be noted that the authors of the definition of a nation did not mention, in this context, the question of the nation state or the desire to own it, as an important attribute of this type of community. As Kymlicka wrote, many current nationalisms of minority groups in a lesser degree are oriented toward building a separate state but rather they want to be recognized in existing political conditions (Kymlicka, 2007).

Thus, it can be observed a culturalist rather than a political approach to a nation. When the question was asked what a nation as such is, there were not many references to the consciousness or identity criterion, which, as it will be later written, constitutes a very important decisive criterion for the interlocutors to decide about belonging to the Kashubian nation.

‘The feeling of a nation is more important than the criteria’ – Criteria/boundaries

The issues regarding the criteria to meet by those who the interlocutors referred to as Kashubians are important because they allow to clarify the manner in which the interlocutors draw the boundaries of the Kashubian community, whose existence they postulate in part. Since the publication of Ethnic groups and boundaries edited by Frederik Barth (1969), the matter of boundaries and their construction in ethno-cultural relations has become the focus of researchers of ethnicity. The following problems become important in this context: how do the respondents draw boundaries; what content do they place in them, in what contexts and what do they recall; what do they blur and what do they emphasize; what is the range of durability/variability of the demarcation lines? (Barth, 1969; Donnan and Wilson, 1999; Warmińska, 2013).

It was interesting, therefore, to recognize which demarcators the respondents used when talking about the Kashubian ‘we’.

The answers to the question about the criteria of Kashubianness can be placed on a continuum from those whose authors had no problem with indicating the determinants of Kashubianness, listed them in one breath; through those who discussed or considered individual elements, looking for, in their opinion, the best description of the existing state of affairs; ending with those who questioned the existence of any criteria or argued that there is no point in talking about them at all. It should also be mentioned that the considerations on Kashubianness in this context were often extensive, multithreaded. The views on this issue sometimes appeared in a longer discussion, initiated by the interlocutor, indicating what the criteria are for Kashubianness and which of them is considered crucial, at other times they were asked directly to indicate the most important criteria. The dynamics of particular interviews determined the strategy. Additionally, despite initial disambiguation of the Kashubians as a nation, it was difficult, to clearly indicate on the basis of the answers how they understood ‘Kashubians’: the Kashubians in general, the Kashubians as a category or group or the Kashubians as a nation. In a sense, different conceptualizations merged into one word.

In order to determine in an enumerating way the determinants of Kashubianness, mentioned by the interlocutors, in various configurations, as to the order and rank, (the order does not matter) language, culture, identity, origin, sense of belonging, awareness of being Kashubian, place of residence and birth in Kashubia can be mentioned. Their specification serves only to outline the area of meaning within which choices can be located.

Starting from unambiguous, decisive declarations about what constitutes the criterion of Kashubianness, it can be quoted as follows: This is standard – identity, language, affiliation, more declarative affiliation is a set of common something (1); This is the fact of being born in Kashubia, and then the language. The fact that we have our language is a very big value (4).

However, the most important element of Kashubianness was the awareness, identity and feeling of being Kashubian, which, as the researcher would say, in contrast to the so-called objective criteria indicated above, are self-attributive and subjective elements.

Here are examples of utterances: The awareness of Kashubianness, such an ideological choice, this is the most important (11); This is a feeling that you are a Kashubian person built on various aspects, on a historic one, on the place of residence, on the feeling that these people around me are also Kashubians, this sense of community. The issue of awareness should be the most important thing. (5); For me, the most important is the identity, so that people feel the part of this community. They must feel Kashubian, to feel as a nation (15). This way of thinking is well summarized by this quote: The feeling of this nation is more important than the criteria (5).

Attributing significant importance to the subjective elements was also associated with the fact that some of the interlocutors claimed that being a Kashub is a choice that anyone who identifies with this community can take. The Kashubian identity has a voluntary dimension, as one of the interlocutors said: We are returning to this voluntary identity. It means that I think that the most important is the category of the identity than the nation (8).

Some interlocutors denied the sense of talking about criteria, either because they think such determinants simply do not exist, but if they do, they are not unambiguous, or nobody has discussed them before, and there is nothing that can be ordered to anyone. In this context, the question about criteria was associated with what was external and imposed, not internalized, not chosen as identity, not related to the consciousness of Kashubianness, as its main determinant. One of the interlocutors stated that there is no a such definition (7) and another one stated that  … there’s been no such discussion, I would say technical (14), and another one said: You cannot set such a thing (2).

The complexity of reflections on what constitutes the determinants of Kashubianness shows the attitude of the respondents to the language as an element indicating the group’s distinctiveness.

It should be noted that language was the criterion that attracted the attention of the interlocutors. On the one hand, many considered its command to be important and mentioned it as a determinant of Kashubianness. On the other hand, the need to use the Kashubian language to be considered a Kashubian was contested. It can be noted that the attitude to language as a key criterion was ambivalent. The language was often mentioned as a factor of inclusion in the group, but even more often as a problematic element, potentially excluding people who feel Kashubian, but do not know the language. The following quote illustrates this problem well: language  … is a determinant of Kashubianness. However, the language is important, but not the most important. It is important who you feel. Because if you look at the fact that the language is Kashubian, it would be much less than the declaration shows (7).

In addition, the command of language is in a way a hard criterion of belonging, which is easy to recognize, and as it can be noticed, most of the respondents tend to move away from building a vision of Kashubianness based on ‘tangible’ criteria, in favour of choosing soft, conscious determinants.

With regard to the language, a different context also appeared, namely a statutory provision treating Kashubians as a community using a regional language. Such a formula for describing the group’s distinctiveness was contested by some of the respondents. Their narratives showed a tension or disagreement for the group’s functioning in the legal field, disciplining and restricting the description of the group in terms of language and the perceived or shared vision of group characteristics. In their view, Kashubianness is not only the language and cannot be enclosed within the language: the Kashubians are not only those who speak Kashubian. A Kashub is whoever feels Kashubian, there is no need to speak the Kashubian language. According to this definition, passed by the Polish state, if someone feels Kashubian and does not speak Kashubian, is not Kashubian and all. There is a definition – a regional group using a regional language (11); The law limits this Kashubianness, because, according to the Act on Minorities, the Kashubians are those who speak the regional language. If they do not speak Kashubian, they are not Kashubian, are they? (7).

The interlocutors were also troubled by Polish-Kashubian boundary. With regard to this issue, the clear distinctiveness of their group of belonging from the Poles was emphasised. The necessity of a strong delineation of demarcation lines resulted both from the fact that both groups were simply different: the Kashubians want to be the Kashubians as a separate nationality. The Poles are different, and the Kashubians are different (12). One of the respondents considered this problem in such a way: One should only think about what it means to be Kashubian, are there any differences in being Kashubian and being Polish, doesn’t it bother each other and sometimes you have to face some choice or resign from some element of own culture, our Kashubian fathers, or some Polish element (6). As can be seen in the last statement, the designation of the boundary means that it should be a choice between one and the other. Although another participant of the research said: It is not so easy, we have been arguing about it for years. Whether to build on a language or build on this Kashubian-Polish opposition, or build on a conflict, on a cultural identity. It is difficult for me, I am not able to determine how much of a Kashub there is in me, how much of other influences, in fact. I sometimes don’t know if a given custom or dish is Kashubian or different. So, it is quite difficult to designate this Polish-Kashubian border within culture (8).

Pointing out the differences between Poles and Kashubians was not antagonistic, it only communicated the desire to define the Kashubians as a different ethno-cultural community. Moreover, the question of determining the principle of separateness is a derivative, as they said, of the decisions that Kashubians face, a choice about how to draw boundaries, considering the consequences of a given vision. This ambivalence is the worst, as one of the respondents said: Most Kashubians are characterized by such a hybrid idea. The worst is the ambivalence, I mean I would like to and I’m afraid of. And it is a bit of a case that the Kashubians would like to preserve their culture and identity, but on the other hand, they would like to be better Poles than the Poles themselves (4).

It can be said that, for the supporters of defining the Kashubians as a group separate from the Poles, double identity is a kind of threat associated primarily with the blurring of their group of belonging, and at the same time constitutes a challenge to act for their own national vision. As one of the research participants said:  … the threat is the blurring of identity, we must do our best (11).

The reflection on the criteria or determinants of Kashubianness is part of thinking about the boundaries that were to be reconstructed on the basis of narratives communicated by the interlocutors. On the borders, there are elements that include and exclude into the Kashubian ‘we’. On the one hand, they were drawn clearly and such a constant element was self- attribution (identity, consciousness, sense of belonging) or separateness from Poles. On the other hand, they sometimes took on a vague character when it was said that Kashubianness is a matter of choice that everyone takes themselves. But also, criteria were treated as contractual, which shows the relativity of the demarcation line. From the quoted statements it appears that being a Kashubian could mean being a member of a certain community, but also of a nation. Sometimes the context in which the border was delimited was the Kashubians as such, and sometimes the Kashubians who considered themselves to be members of the Kashubian nation vis-a-vis the other Kashubians. It can therefore be said that the demarcation line appeared inside ‘we’ and the divagation over the criteria served to define the national character of the community.

A good summary of work with borders is this quote:  … this is the problem of every minority in the world, how not to blur, and on the other hand, keep as much as possible at home, how to take more and let go the least. Because letting go is always natural in every nation, whether it [has] the most hermetic boundaries, or the most magnificent state in the world, which has the greatest care for its inhabitants. There is always an outflow. Only one has to somehow create strong culture, so that the least people want to leave it, and most want to accept it as their own (1).

‘We are building the Kashubian nation with full awareness’ – The nation-making mechanics

In order to describe the problem highlighted in the title of this part of the article, we should start with a specific diagnosis, which the interviewees made regarding the present condition of the Kashubian nation. The opinions which the interviewees outlined oscillated between the statement that the Kashub people do not exist and the conviction that today the nation is in full bloom.

Among the people who spoke on this subject there were those who directly claimed that the Kashubian nation does not exist at all – or only in small numbers: Well, it doesn’t exist, we have already agreed. Or it exists in very small numbers, we can say that (3). For those who firmly stated that the Kashub people exist: There are two things that should be decided if this nation exists. But I think that such a tangible structure functioning in the society is at this stage that it does exist (11).

If the participants of the research shared a belief about the existence of the nation, they described its functioning as difficult: A little exists, if to say what comes to my mind, this is a kind of underground (8).

Only one person enthusiastically claimed that at present we can talk about the spring of Kashubian culture, about its full bloom: Certainly, if our culture is at its greatest heyday in history. It is irrefutable at all (6).

In order to introduce the issue of the specific mechanics of ‘making a nation’ I will start with a quote that reflects very well the way of thinking of my interlocutors in this context: We build the Kashub people with full awareness (15). So what did they mean by that purposeful, as they said, active building of the nation? First of all, work was often referred to. The activity for the Kashubian nation is work at the grass roots. It can be said that, in this vision of building the nation, there was no question of romantic uprisings but deliberate actions. Here are the quotes illustrating this view:

Work in small nations around the world is the most important thing. In communities that are minorities …  (1); Above all, work at the grass roots, and in my opinion the most important element is the issue of the awareness. If the Kashubians themselves describe themselves as the Kashubians from the point of view of being a separate nation, they will take care of it. And if they did not have the awareness, they would not think about it and it would be indifferent to them (6).

So what is this work directed at? It was important, according to the respondents, to work on the Kashubian consciousness: I mean the use of all such activities to keep Kashubian awareness up. It will be this Kashubian Unity Day, some conventions will be, there will be these traditions, some … some symbols will be recognized, although they should be more recognizable (8); Well, but the work is to be done primarily here. Well, you have to realize that if you are paraphrasing an American politician who said economy first, you fool, but I would say awareness first (4).

The awareness of Kashubianness means two interweaving matters. On the one hand, it is understood as the awareness of the distinctiveness of the Kashubians as a community, and on the other as a nation. Some interlocutors delimited these issues, although in most cases they were combined. In this first context there were voices talking about the loss of a sense of community, ethnic diversity either as a result of assimilation actions implemented by the state during the period of the People’s Republic of Poland or activities of some Kashubian leaders promoting the concept of a Polish-Kashubian identity as related and consistent: I think that a very small percentage of the Kashubians has a sense of belonging to the community, I believe that the effect of these 50 years of communism was the Polonization of most Kashubians … As a result, Kashubianness died out here in Kashubia (6).

For this purpose, they talked about the preparation of an offer for Kashubians, which can be understood as a certain option, which is offered by the interested parties themselves: There is a new offer, there is now a choice. You don’t have to stick to one option. Today we have an organization and we represent several thousands of people who declared Kashubian nationality (5);  … if we don’t propose such an offer, we will show by our own example that using the Kashubian language is a value that must be held … if we stop using it, our world will be broken, we’ll be nobody (9).

The participants of the research were also asked about more specific aspirations they want to implement. Thinking about them is closely connected with the issues indicated above. In order to describe the goals that the respondents set for themselves, it should be remembered that the interlocutors are those who are engaged (to a greater or lesser extent) in the activities of the Kaszebsci Jednote. In a sense, it positions them in the discourse on the Kashubians. In some of the statements, the subject ‘we’ clearly appeared, which can be understood as the supporters of the concept that the Kashubians are a separate nation or the members of the association: Now we have two ways to follow. Either we acknowledge that the language is not so important and we will build the awareness without the language, or we will find that almost no one has succeeded in history, and we are moving and trying to reverse what happened in the communist period, breaking the generational message. I am a madman and I choose the latter (3); We just want … more Kashubian[s] at school so that they won’t be ashamed of this Kashubianness and that they will awaken this awareness: we are the Kashubians and we want to speak Kashubian and we will learn Kashubian … change our attitude. What to do? Show that being a Kashub isn’t something bad (7).

It was also interesting to determine who has to realize the work at the grass roots, the acting entity in the creation of the Kashubian national project. As mentioned above, the authors of the utterances used the term ‘we’. So, who are they?

In my opinion, we are the bearers of this true Kashubian idea, unconnected in some way with nationwide regionalism. Not connected somewhere with the idea of self-government. From the very beginning, we refer to the ones who would like the Kashubian people to develop (3); We live on the wave of certain ideas, we argue whether the Kashubians are a nation or not, and there live people who don’t fit into this world … we are building our own vision of the world (8); The elites. They are the most aware of their Kashubianness. Not members of rural housewives’ or embroiderers’ associations, only the people who know what they are talking about, only them unfortunately. That’s why we did the Kaszëbskô Jednota. The association wants to organize more embroidery training than to teach Kashubian history and culture (1).

They also pointed to specific entities: I think that all Kashubian organizations and teachers in the biggest extent in schools. So teachers should first have some awareness of what and why they teach, first sometimes move towards teaching Kashubian in school (6).

As it can be noticed when listening to the utterances of the interlocutors, the work on a national idea is an elitist project. Few of the Kashubians, of course, carry it out, except for the small group in which the interviewees included themselves. They feel they are aware people who are ideologically involved and know the recipe for Kashubianness, like the national leaders that Znaniecki wrote about (Znaniecki, 1952). The subject to which their activities are directed are the Kashubians, understood as those who have no awareness of who they are and those who do not have a sense of distinctiveness or subjectivity. One of the interlocutors stated: For me, a nation is not as important as subjectivity and showing that the Kashubians are a subject (3). These ‘others’ also do not realize that there is a different self-definition formula within their reach – a national one, by which the boundaries between Polishness and Kashubianity are clearly defined, and no ‘hybrid thought’ is created. At the same time, they also communicated that the Kashubian awareness is different, so pluralism is also good. Where we have some competition, where we have many strengths, it is good rather than there is some hegemony of one (5).

The activity area is primarily awareness, which can be associated with the conviction shared by the interlocutors that this factor determines the existence of a nation. Hence, it is necessary to work on its building, rebuilding, creating, awakening, and developing, popularizing. It seems to be the language typical for those who see the process of nation building from a factual perspective, as something that is going on in the present; that which is dynamic, depending on given circumstances and activities of the people who are involved in the process.

The respondents differed in their assessment of the probability of success in this matter. The spectrum spread from pessimists saying that the nation would soon disappear and in this way share the fate of other small nations to these who believed in their power of influence, though they treated their national project as elitist.

At the same time, it should be noted that the respondents, to some extent, accepted the existence of a different identification option for the Kashubians than the national one. Their actions were to be directed at those who care about Kashubianness, but have not yet discovered an alternative to themselves, e.g. the national option. However, they also focused on those who have lost or are losing the sense of Kashubian community: … to rebuild Kashubian affiliation to the community. Blood ties or something like that. Let this culture live so that it won’t turn out that Kashubia is an open-air museum, a museum of some former culture that is shown in reserves. In America, there are reserves for the Indians and they are some tourist attraction (15).

Some interviewees also perceived themselves as continuing the idea of earlier Kashubian activists, postulating that the Kashubians are a nation: We demand what Ceynowa said, then Majkowski, then Zrzeszyńcy, Tatczëzna tried, it was a good move, they also tried, but they failed (9).

It should also be noted that the respondents were primarily oriented to the group as the potential recipients of their ideas, they are less interested in delineating the border in relations with the dominant group, though identity loss due to the Polonization processes or the unfavourable position in the statutory field were also mentioned.

Summary

The aim of the considerations presented in this text was not to build the theory of the national process, but rather to show the ‘nation-making’ in a concrete, empirical example. The answers to the question about ‘how new nations arise’ were indirectly provided by the participants of the research whose statements were quoted. Three overlapping visions can be listed here; though an analytical distinction can be noted, there is an indication that this summary goes to some extent beyond the material included in the interviews and was supplemented with the content obtained by studying the internet (especially www. kaszebsko.com).

In the first vision, according to the respondents’ utterances, the Kashubian nation has always existed, passing through various stages of existence. The current national process is the continuation of its previous instalment. Thus, these Kashubians accepted the vision of a nation as a long-lived phenomenon – from the beginning of the 13th century to the present day – which could be inscribed as a perennial approach to a nation. Looking from the other perspective, according to my respondents, the nation is not built or constructed, but it lasts, and the only thing that needs to be done is to take care of its existence, as is characteristic for a primordialist approach. It seems then, that there was a Kashubian ethnie from which the Kashubian nation had emerged (Smith, 1987). Such a perspective indicates adopting the processual vision of a nation as an entity with certain properties, a subject whose existence can be stated, and can be acted upon on its own behalf and for its own good. If we assume that this attitude is a part of the nationalist idea which places the nation and its interests in the centre, then it lacks the essential component, a political postulate, of owning a state. Such an idea was not communicated at all and, if it was a form of duration, it was in the form of autonomy within the Polish state, which was considered the main formal and legal actor. It was also connected with pointing to the difference between nationality and citizenship. This approach was in a definite minority.

In the second vision, the starting point is the belief in the existence of the Kashubians as a collective, a community, or a group. The Kashubian ‘we’ (variously understood, in some sense not fully defined or named with the help of a sociological lexicon of ethnic notions) is, in some sense, naturalized as a real entity. In this sense, one cannot speak of ethnicity without a group, paraphrasing the words of Rogers Brubaker (2004) because it was the Kashubian ‘we’ that the informants referred to. It is anchored, in their opinion, to certain objective criteria (language, origin, culture, traditions) and, above all, to the consciousness of its members. This last element differentiates the Kashubians from one another because there are those who feel they are either Poles or Kashubians, or both Poles and Kashubians. The sense, consciousness and identity are the conceptual framework which the respondents used to describe the existing Kashubian state of affairs. So how is the category of a nation inscribed in this way of thinking? It can be said that a nation as a derivative of consciousness is a potential entity that will come into existence when unaware people become conscious. Hence, nation-making work is directed at this resource. It is important to work with identity, to saturate it with the national content. In this sense, the existence of the Kashubian nation is a matter of choice, not of historical determination, as it was in the first vision. The nation, therefore, is formed by the will of the interested and has the power of action of those who have already acquired a national consciousness. In this project, the most important is the directional action defined as the work at the root, which should be led primarily by the leaders. If the category of identity is the key, the work on it primarily concerns the closure of the Kashubian identification in the national formula but treated as one of the possible options. Therefore, if the question as to how the nations are formed in this version of the Kashubian vision should be answered, there is the understanding of this process as being at the identification level (in part primarily individual), because the Kashubian nation and its success are in the hands of the people. The actions for the nation focus primarily on the perspectives of the present and the future, as in the factual approach; there are fewer references to past times, as was the case in the previously discussed concept. It can be said that the nation exists on the basis of the activities undertaken for it, aiming primarily at saturation with the content of national entities (Kashubians) and the world in which they live. As M Billig wrote, only if people believe that they have national identities, will such homelands, and the world of national homelands, be reproduced (Billig, 1995). Following the thought of this researcher, it can be claimed that the activities for the nation, mentioned by the interlocutors, in addition to work on awareness, also include flagging nationality in public space, organizing various projects that have Kashubianness in the headlines.

In the third vision, the key category is the national idea which has been circulating among the Kashubians at least since the 19th century. In this instance, the nation as an entity is placed in the background, and the foreground contains a certain ideology (having the nation in the centre) understood as a proposal for the Kashubians. It is in accordance with AD Smith’s (2003) understanding of nationalism as an ideology. Therefore, it becomes important to think about the Kashubians as a nation, and to use a certain language to describe this. To some extent, the nation begins with an idea that, if passed and accepted, will lead to the emergence/creation of the subject, of national characteristics. Also interesting in the descriptions appearing in the interviews were few references to the sphere of emotions, the language of the romantic description. In this approach, the idea of a return to what was suppressed, and what could not find its full expression due to external political restrictions, was visible.

In fact, to interpret this empirical example, one could find useful different theoretical approaches to national issues. On the one hand, it can be noticed that Kashubian nationalism could be inscribed in Smith’s conceptualisation of nationalism as an ideology and as the activities oriented to a nation. On the other, perennialist and primordialist elements are also visible in the utterances. Both objectivistic and subjectivist approaches to understanding the merits of a nation could be shown. Using Hroch’s A-B-C phases to schematize non-state national awakening, it could be concluded that Kashubians could be situated in phase B (called the period of patriotic agitation) (Hroch, 1985).

But the most promising theoretical perspective is the factual vision of the national issues. It helps to grasp ongoing activities and discourses concerning the Kashubian nation. Then, the attention is focused on the study of nationalism as a discursive formation, giving shape to a certain social world, living and happening before our eyes, as well as on the ways of speaking, writing or thinking about the nation (Calhoun, 2008). Processual visions of a nation are worth studying but, in the Kashubian case, this perspective could divert attention from the current multidimensional social and political context which determines here and now the national ways of thinking and doing. The past is important, but more important is the usage of this resource by its current disposers and its application to the interpretation of current issues.

The question arises as to whether nationalism is the only category to explain the processes related to nation making by social actors operating in multinational or multiethnic state organisms or, as in the Polish example, operating in the context of strong, hegemonic ethnic state nationalisms. There is also another conceptualization, that is ‘identity politics’. In this context, it is interesting to mention that one of my interlocutors directly named themselves as an identity politician. What does it possibly mean to be involved in this type of activity?

Primarily, it is essential to study the process of articulation or affirmation of the visions of the world in relation to the identification context, the cases of their mobilisation in the arena of social life to gain recognition for the postulated vision of the world (Calhoun, 1994; Clifford, 2000; Eisenberg and Kymlicka, 2011; Heyes, 2002). The political aspect of these activities results from their entanglement in the share of power, interest, marginalization and unequal treatment usually associated with the minority position of the social actor. Looking from this perspective on the Kashubian example, one could observe typical for identity politicians’ work with identity. The peculiar games with meanings is taking place within the circle of participants of these kind of activities. Emancipatory action is relevant in this sphere as well. Identity politicians are struggling on this path with existing cultural, historical and political limitations that seem to restrain the identification options available to a given collective entity. According to Eriksen (2002), nationalism, as a certain activity practice, can be treated as a kind of identity politics; it is possible to point to some discrepancy based on a different emphasis: if the nation is the key category for nationalism, then for an identity politics it is the identity, including the national one. Thus, the other category seems to be more general. It could be said that every nationalism involves some forms of politics of identity, while not all politics of identity would involve nationalism.

One would say, that applying a given interpretive framework emphasizes the particular aspect of the process discussed here, which this article refers to as ‘making nations’, a complex and multidimensional activity. Undoubtedly, the Kashubians are an example of an old minority rooted in a given place, in a country where national neutrality does not prevail but is strongly focused on the dominant national, Polish, identity discourse. As Kymlicka (2002) claims, this is specific to Eastern European countries, including Poland. This location gives a specific feature to the Kashubian national narrative as a part of the political parameters mentioned above. And the logic or methods of nation making are always an interesting subject to study because they show both the typical and the unique, so it is always worth exploring subsequent editions of contemporary national projects.