This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (Every national group must deal with its own past and its consequences embodied in tangible or intangible forms. Historical processes often transform public spaces into transmitters of symbolic values and collective memory. Controversies surrounding the evaluation of the past may therefore be reflected in attitudes towards the places in which it is incarnated. Some people may want to get rid of places that symbolize the unwanted past, others may want this past to be commemorated, and finally some may want to ‘make peace with history’ and simply treat these places as part of historical continuity. To make the situation even more complex, many people develop positive or negative attitudes towards historical places on the basis of their personal experience and memories, regardless of the places’ historical meaning. This diversity of views means that the future of these places―whether they should be preserved or removed―is often the subject of heated disputes.
Surprisingly, so far there has been no research to examine the role of a key phenomenon in the people-place relationship, namely place attachment, in shaping attitudes towards two types of historical places: ideologically contaminated and ideologically free ones. Our research aims to fill this gap in the context of the communist heritage of Polish People’s Republic (PPR) in three Polish cities. We examine whether and how the two types of place attachment: traditional and active, predict attitudes towards the presence of buildings or monuments from the previous communist regime. We also consider factors potentially influencing this relationship: interest in a city’s history and political orientation.
Attitudes Towards Communist Heritage: Context of Poland
Although 30 years have passed since the demise of communism in Poland, we are still surrounded by places related to the PPR. Buildings, monuments and street names associated with this past period are a crucial part of the daily life scenography for many Polish people. These tangible forms, which remind us of the past, are often the subject of debates among citizens. Should these places be left, forgotten, neglected, changed or maybe even destroyed? Some of these debates are fuelled by the current political climate or media narratives, all willing citizens to embrace one commonly shared vision of the past that is Manichean.
The communist period is commonly associated with a lack of political and social freedoms, censorship and a shortage of necessities (Prusik, 2011). However, attitudes towards this former period in Polish history are neither simple nor predictable; nor do they accord with the vision put forward by the government or the views of the Polish intelligentsia. First of all, for some in Polish society, surprisingly, there is a high degree of nostalgia for the period before 1989. According to one study, between 64% and 88% of Polish people rated various aspects of their life before 1989 highly or even better than it is now―a phenomenon subsequently described as ‘lost paradise’ (Prusik & Lewicka, 2016). Additionally, this phenomenon is not isolated to Poland; other studies have suggested that similar effects are apparent in other post-communist countries (Pew Research Center, 2009). Moreover, the symptoms of nostalgia are observable in the daily lives of Polish people: the popularity of fashion and products relating to the PPR, cafes decorated in the style of the PPR era and PPR comedies, museum exhibitions and special theme tours in old cars around major Polish cities. Secondly, what characterizes Polish attitudes towards the communist period is blatant contradictions in the way Polish people view the past. For example, the early eighties―a period associated with the imposition of martial law―are commonly considered by the mass media as the ‘dark ages’ of Polish history; conversely, according to the results of a poll of a nationally representative sample, many people who remember the communist period (aged 40+ years) ‘on an individual level’, refer to this period as the best of their life―it was when they were socially active, started their work and family (Prusik & Lewicka, 2016).
The way we see or want to see the past also affects the way we see things that remind us of the past. According to the Psychological Distance Hypothesis (Pennebaker & Banasik, 1997), monuments are not simply built ‘overnight’; a period of deliberation is invariably necessary before people are able to review and judge important national events and afford them a certain form of commemoration. The process of looking back and commemorating the past is cyclical, occurring every 20 to 30 years or so (Pennebaker & Banasik, 1997). Hence, the current time, which is around the 30th anniversary of the fall of communism, is probably an excellent moment to investigate the Polish people’s attitudes towards PPR places; this being the period of the cycle when the process of dealing with the past is probably intensified. The process can be seen in nearly every Polish city, including Warsaw (the capital of Poland); where people are deciding what to do with the remnants of the past. There is, for example, an ongoing debate on what to do with the Palace of Culture and Science1 in Warsaw. For some, it is an unwanted gift reminding us of Soviet domination over Poland (Chomątowska, 2015); for others, it is a cultural establishment containing theatres, exhibitions, sports facilities and nightclubs.
From time to time, arguments arise as to whether it should be demolished, or perhaps its surroundings rearranged so that it no longer dominates the space and loses its negative connotations. One of the most recent examples is the ‘street name problem’, with many cities ending up in the courts since not everyone perceives the streets associated with the PPR in a negative way.
Sometimes the decision on whether a place should be kept or removed seems to be more difficult, especially where the buildings or remnants are associated with a former ideology or constraints on freedom; and sometimes it can be easier, for example, when a building performs a purely cultural function.
The other cities in post-Soviet countries of Central Europe face similar challenges regarding the public sphere. The change in ideology led to the rejection of some of the past relics but at the same time to acceptance of others (Ashworth & Tunbridge, 1999). The residents of post-Soviet countries may have a positive judgment of some aspects of the past period. Similar results were obtained for Poland (Prusik & Lewicka, 2016) and for the former eastern part of Germany (Stockemer & Elder, 2015). Also, research from Lithuania has shown that various attitudes have to be taken into consideration when dealing with the Soviet legacy (Grazuleviciute-Vileniske & Urbonas, 2014). As Czepczyński (2010) posits, societies from Central Europe have a choice to make regarding what to remember and what to forget. Boym (2002) argues that attitudes towards artifacts from the past can be affected in two ways: the first attempts a trans-historical reconstruction of a lost home, protects the absolute truth, manifests itself in the total reconstruction of monuments of the past and refers to a national memory based on a single idea of national identity; and the second one calls truth into doubt, does not follow a single idea and loves details rather than symbols. This offers a theoretical background for speculations on why we sometimes wish to keep places unchanged, keep them by giving them slightly or totally different functions, or truthfully reconstruct them. In this paper we argue that decisions on whether to retain or remove places associated with the communist period may depend on attachment to one’s place of residence, i.e., one’s emotional bond with the city in which one lives may predict one’s attitude towards PPR sites.
Place Attachment and Interest in a Place’s History
One of the most researched and surveyed concepts in environmental psychology is place attachment. It is most often defined as an emotional, cognitive and behavioral bond that people develop with places, usually their place of residence (Giuliani & Feldman, 1993; Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001; Lewicka, 2012; Scannell & Gifford, 2010). Established predictors of place attachment include, e.g., length of residence and strength of neighborhood ties, but also the presence of historical sites (Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2004; Lewicka, 2010, 2012; Mesch & Manor, 1998). Place attachment can be developed for different-sized environments, such as the home (Cuba & Hummon, 1993; Hidalgo & Hernández, 2001), the neighborhood (Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003; Cuba & Hummon, 1993) or the city (Lewicka, 2010). In this research we will measure place attachment on the city level.
Despite decades of research on the importance of place attachment in the formation of people-place relationships, surprisingly few studies have been devoted to the relationship between place attachment and spatial changes occurring in a given place (von Wirth, Grêt-Regamey, Moser, & Stauffacher, 2016). Generally, attributing meaning to the place where one lives makes the person more involved in protecting and improving it (Scannell & Gifford, 2010). The importance of place attachment has been shown, for example, in the context of engagement in pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Gosling & Williams, 2010; Halpenny, 2010), e.g., negative reactions towards risky environmental changes (Vorkinn & Riese, 2001) and activism aimed at protecting and caring about places (Lewicka, 2005). Furthermore, it has been proposed that place attachment is related to so-called NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard, Burningham, Barnett, & Thrush, 2006), place-protectionist attitudes and tactics used against unwelcome changes (Devine-Wright & Howes, 2010). However, the relationship between place attachment and attitudes towards place change related to removal of objects (buildings, monuments, etc.) symbolizing a controversial political ideology remains unexplored. In times of increasing political polarization, the presence of ideological symbols in the public space may provoke increasing conflicts over the fundamental question - who has the right to express their views in the city? For this reason, the main goal of our study was to examine the relationship between city attachment and attitudes towards potential changes in the public space concerning the preservation or removal of sites and symbols associated with the former communist regime in Poland.
For the purpose of this study, we used the place attachment typology developed by Lewicka (2011, 2012). The scale created on the basis of this typology takes into account three aspects: traditional and active place attachments and place relativity (Lewicka, 2011). However, in this study we take into account two types of place attachment: traditional and active. These two types of attachment show some similarities; for example, both are related to a strong sense of local identity and strong ties with the local community. However, they differ in terms of how they are developed and what their correlates are (Lewicka, 2011). Traditional place attachment is characterized by a feeling of rootedness and is taken for granted, meaning that it is natural, simple, unintentional and related to biographical events and length of residency rather than a conscious choice of place to live. Traditionally attached people, compared with the actively attached, tend to be older and less educated, and generally have lower cultural capital and more affirmed conservative values. Conversely, active place attachment entails a conscious identification with a place based on interest in its history, greater exploration and present opportunities. Actively attached individuals tend to be endowed with the highest cultural capital, are young or middle-aged, have differentiated social networks and high levels of trust (Lewicka, 2012). Furthermore, while both actively and traditionally attached people score high on local identity, the traditionally attached also display relatively high national identity, whereas the actively attached identify with European and non-territorial categories.
On the basis of the above studies, we assume that these different types of place attachment will be associated with the acceptance (or lack of it) of buildings and monuments from the previous communist regime. Appraisals of the PPR period still provoke numerous controversies―while some people consider the PPR to be another episode in the occupation of the Polish state by an external power and a time of bloody dictatorship, others feel sentimental towards the times of their childhood or consider the PPR to be an era in which life was much easier (Prusik & Lewicka, 2016). Buildings created during this period may therefore arouse resistance and negative attitudes if they are perceived as the symbolic remnants of violence perpetrated during a dark period in the state’s history (see discussions on the Palace of Culture in Warsaw mentioned above); or they can be treated as elements of everyday life, maybe even related to an individual's own memories, good or bad. Such objects can also be viewed as evidence of the continuity and complexity of history during which successive generations, characterized by different values and ideologies, gradually built the place we see today. Research shows that people greatly value historical places over modern ones and develop positive emotional bonds with them (Galindo & Hidalgo, 2005; Lewicka, 2012; Nasar, 1990; Oleksy & Wnuk, 2016). Low (1992) showed that history of place is crucial in shaping place meaning, while historical places are also an important factor in providing a sense of continuity with the past (Devine-Wright & Lyons, 1997).
One of the purposes of our study was to distinguish between acceptance of: 1) clear symbols of the former regime, such as monuments (e.g., the Brotherhood in Arms monument depicting the joint Polish-Soviet struggle in World War II) and street names (e.g., Red Army Street in Poznań)―ICPs; and 2) public spaces associated with the time of the communist regime that have since become part of the urban landscape and serve modern society (cinemas, sports facilities, etc.)―IFPs. Obviously, this division cannot be considered unambiguous in every case; for example, some buildings, such as the Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw, can simultaneously be a meeting place and site of many popular institutions (such as a theatre and an exhibition of scorpions and spiders) and, for others, one of the most glaring symbols of the former Soviet occupation of Poland. For the purpose of this study we employ a broad definition of place which comprises every site associated with PPR period, e.g., a building, a monument, a neon sign, a cafe, a restaurant or a street name. In each case study−city experts selected a number of places associated with the PPR period, which were later evaluated by the research team in order to prepare a set of sites comparable between cities (i.e., in each city we tried to have the same types of place: cinemas, monuments, similar street names, etc.).
Because of the above-mentioned complex attitudes of Poles today towards PPR, our study was to some extent exploratory. Nevertheless, we expected to find a relationship between the different types of place attachment and acceptance of symbols and buildings from the time of the communist regime. We assumed that active place attachment, related to both interest in the history of the city and exploration of the city, would be positively correlated with acceptance of the presence of everyday PPR sites (IFPs) in their current form. We then tested the mediating role of interest in the city's history in the relationship between active place attachment and attitudes towards these sites. Lewicka (2012) found that interest in the history of one’s place of residence was predicted by active place attachment and related to openness to the multicultural past of a place. A large study devoted to the place memory of previously ethnically heterogeneous and now predominantly homogeneous cities in Eastern Europe (Lewicka, 2008) revealed a powerful ethnic bias in perceptions of the past of these cities (overestimation of the role played in the city’s history by one’s own ethnic group). As further research conducted in Poland and Ukraine showed, the strength of ethnic bias was consistently lower in people who declared an interest in the city’s past and who represented the active form of place attachment (Goliszek, 2013; Lewicka, 2012). Moreover, in several correlational studies, interest in a place’s history was positively related to the perceived continuity of the place (Lewicka, 2015). Thus, we believe that interest in a city’s history will be related to the preservation of PPR sites, since the latter may be treated as a part of a complex heritage and their preservation viewed as an important facet of place continuity.
Traditional place attachment may be related to acceptance of everyday, public PPR sites (IFPs). However, because of the greater component of nationalistic and conservative attitudes in this category as opposed to the active place attachment category, it may also be associated with the desire to remove symbols of the communist regime (ICPs) from public spaces.
Political Orientations and Attitudes Towards the Past Under Communism
The Hypothesis of Generational Resources states that in order to commemorate national events, certain levels of economic resources and a specific social and political climate is required (Pennebaker & Banasik, 1997). Different groups, including those based on political orientation, may have varying views on commemorating the past and see various possibilities/advantages (i.e., political power) in doing so. This can often trigger tensions in society: who should be commemorated, who deserves to be a hero, whose monument should be overthrown, who deserves a street name, who should be described in history books and which historical events require a national memorial? Demarcation lines usually lie along right and left divisions. Political orientation and the current political climate can definitely shape attitudes towards PPR places. It might be expected that those who support the current right-wing government are more likely to be against places that remind us of our communist past. The question is whether they are against all places associated with PPR or just those that are ideologically contaminated, i.e., they have nothing against places whose functions are now useful or culturally oriented. The trickier relationship might lie with those with a left-wing orientation. Unfortunately, the Polish political scene is not that predictable and the classic right-left division is not entirely applicable (Piurko, Schwartz, & Davidov, 2011). For example, there are negative connotations with the word ‘left’ that originate in the fact that Poland was for a long time under the rule of the Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR). After ‘89, the political parties, even those with a left-leaning economic program, avoided associations with ‘the left’. Hence, it might be predicted that those on the left would be more likely to prefer the preservation of various PPR places. However, this group is not necessarily homogeneous and different mechanisms might lie behind their choices of what to do with PPR places. Also, attitudes towards PPR places might differ according to the two possible dimensions of general political preference: social views (liberal or conservative) or economic views (social or liberal). According to Haidt (2012), what distinguishes conservatives from liberals is the weight given to moral foundations described as loyalty, authority and sanctity. Compassion and fairness are common to both groups. Thus, it might be expected that those who describe themselves as right wing are also more likely to identify with the national group and be more interested in finding the ‘right’ version of national history, with a tendency to distort memories to some extent rather than destroy a positive image of the national group. On the other hand, left-wing supporters might be more interested in revealing painful historical facts even if doing so might tarnish the good image of Polish society and history. Thus, it might be expected that a general left-wing orientation would be allied with a tendency to want to preserve PPR places, while a right-wing orientation might be associated with a willingness to remove PPR places from the public space.
Overview of the Study
To summarize, our study aimed to investigate the relationship between place attachment and attitudes towards places associated with the PPR period. Additionally, we wanted to examine the structure of these attitudes. Is it, as expected, a simple division between the inclination to remove and the inclination to preserve various PPR places? How are attitudes to PPR places shaped by various forms of place attachment? And does interest in a city’s past play, as supposed, a mediating role in the relationship between place attachment and attitudes towards PPR places? As an additional element, we also examined the role of political views on attitudes towards PPR places.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were residents of three Polish cities: Warsaw, Poznań and Toruń2. A total of 38.7% of participants lived in Warsaw, 32.2% in Poznań and 29.1% in Toruń. The distribution of place of residence was equal, χ2(2) = 2.84, p = .241. The study was conducted in November and December of 2018 over the Internet and the sample was a convenience sample. As is typical of online studies, there was some degree of missing data. However, only data from participants who answered most of the questions relating to the measurement of our dependent variable qualified for further analysis (less than 15% of the missing data related to the dependent variables, equivalent to two questions out of 11 or 13). The remaining missing data (for place attachment subscales and questions relating to political orientation) were completely randomly distributed according to Little’s MCAR test, χ2(17) = 13.69, p = .689. No remedial action to replace the missing data was taken since the amount of additional missing data was low and the pairwise option for particular analyses seemed to be sufficient. The total final sample consisted of 199 persons aged between 18 and 65 years, the average age being Mage = 27.60 years (SD = 10.34). Women were over-represented (81.9%), χ2(1) = 81.03, p < .001, as were well-educated participants, χ2(5) = 287.18, p < .001, the latter being typical in these kinds of studies. Participants’ education levels were as follows: 46.7% had a university education, 44.7% were enrolled in a university program, 8.0% had a high-school education and 0.5% had a vocational education. The online questionnaire was distributed via the Internet on different Facebook groups. Participants were not strictly remunerated; however, they were offered the possibility of compensation (participation in a prize draw for four vouchers worth around $10 each).
Measures
Place Attachment
Place attachment was measured by the shortened version of the Place Attachment Scale developed by Lewicka (2011, 2012). The scale has nine Likert-type items (the range of the used scale was from 1 – totally disagree to 7 – totally agree) and three sub-dimensions: active place attachment, traditional place attachment, and place relativity. However, in the current study we focused on two sub-dimensions: active place attachment, e.g., ‘I like to wander around my city and discover new places’, α = .74, ω = .75; and traditional place attachment, e.g., ‘I have never considered living somewhere else’, α = .77, ω = .79.
Interest in a City’s Past
Interest in a city’s past was measured by the shortened version of the Interest in Place History Scale (Lewicka, 2012). The scale consists of four Likert-type items (from 1 – totally disagree to 7 – totally agree), e.g., ‘I am interested in the history of my city’, α = .86, ω = .87.
Attitudes to Changes to Places Associated With the PPR Period
Attitudes to changes to places associated with the PPR period were measured with either 11 or 13 questions (13 for Warsaw and 11 for Toruń and Poznań) specifically designed for the purpose of this study. In each city, participants were asked about their attitudes towards the preservation or removal of places and symbols (e.g., buildings, monuments, bars, restaurants, cinemas, etc.) associated with the former communist regime in Poland―the PPR period. The selection of statements aimed to reflect a naturally occurring pattern of Polish people’s attitudes towards places associated with the PPR period. The list was created based on observations, newspaper articles, analysis of the general mass media narrative, daily conversations of Polish people, and materials collected by our research team. A similar core of questions (9 Likert-style items from 1 – totally disagree to 7 – totally agree, almost identical for each city) was factor analyzed. The scale yielded two factors: Preservation of PPR places, α = .68, ω = .69; and Removal of PPR places, α = .83, ω = .84 (more details are given in Results).
Political Attitudes and Socio-Demographic Characteristics
Additionally, we measured political views―general view (left or right), social values (conservative or liberal) and economic dimension (social or liberal)―using three Likert-type items (answering scale from 1 – totally disagree to 7 – totally agree), as well as the usual socio-demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, education and length of residence in the city.
Results
Attitudes Towards Places Commonly Associated With the PPR Period
Participants from each city were asked about their attitudes towards places commonly associated with the PPR. In general, the questions took a similar form for each city, except for two additional questions asked in Warsaw only. The results are presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3 separately for each city.
Figure 1
Comparison of means for the Likert scale (1 – totally disagree to 7 – totally agree) for attitudes towards places in Warsaw associated with PPR.
Figure 2
Comparison of means for the Likert scale (1 – totally disagree to 7 – totally agree) for attitudes towards places in Toruń associated with PPR.
Figure 3
Comparison of means for the Likert scale (1 – totally disagree to 7 – totally agree) for attitudes towards places in Poznań associated with PPR.
For the purpose of further analysis, we decided to create a composite measure based on Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for attitudes towards places commonly associated with the PPR. The data were factorable. The KMO was .77 (above the recommended .60) and the Bartlett Test of Sphericity was significant, χ2(36) = 488.98, p < .001. The initial run of EFA indicated a two-factorial solution (Scree test and Kaiser’s criteria of eigenvalue > 1). An additional parallel analysis also indicated a two-factor extraction. The first EFA run with oblique rotation showed none of the correlational coefficients between potential factors to exceed the criterion of .32 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Thus, we decided to extract uncorrelated factors using Varimax rotation in the final solution.
Overall, the EFA with principal axis factoring (PAF) and Varimax rotation resulted in two factors: (1) ‘Removal of PPR ideologically contaminated places (ICPs)’ (30.44% of total variance); and (2) ‘Preservation of PPR ideologically free places (IFPs)’ (24.73% of total variance). The model fit was very good with nonsignificant χ2 coefficient, χ2(19) = 28.01, p = .083. Other parameters also suggested a very good fit (RMSEA = .05, TLI = .96). The results of the EFA analysis are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Summary of Items and Factor Loadings for a Varimax Orthogonal Two-Factor Solution With PAF Extraction for Attitudes Towards Places Associated With PPR
| Item | M | SD | Factor loading
|
h² | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | |||||
| Factor 1: Removal of ICPs (α = .83, ω = .84) | ||||||
| Item 11 | 3.77 | 1.58 | .88 | -.05 | .23 | |
| W: Monuments from the time of the PPR should be removed. T: Monuments from the time of the PPR should be removed. P: Monuments from the time of the PPR should be removed. |
||||||
| Item 2 | 3.41 | 1.62 | .73 | -.17 | .44 | |
| W: It is good that the monument of The Four Sleeping Soldiers was removed from the
Warsaw Praga district. T: The monument of the Red Army Heroes should be removed from the Toruń Glinki district. P: The Monument to the Heroes―the so-called Obelisk with a Star―should be removed from the Poznań Citadel. |
||||||
| Item 8 | 3.54 | 1.60 | .73 | -.11 | .46 | |
| W: The bas-reliefs reminiscent of the time of the PPR should be removed from houses
in the Warsaw Marshal's Residential District. T: In my opinion it was right to remove some of the bas-reliefs from the Child Care Home on Toruń Szeroka Street. P: The bas-relief depicting a Polish and a Soviet soldier shaking hands should be removed from Poznań Ratajczaka Street. |
||||||
| Item 1 | 4.10 | 1.99 | .66 | -.02 | .56 | |
| W: I support changing the street name of the People’s Army to a non-PPR related one. T: I support changing the street name of the People’s Army to a non-PPR related one. P: I support changing the street name of the Red Army to a non-PPR related one. |
||||||
| Factor 2: Preservation of IFPs (α = .68, ω = .69) | ||||||
| Item 5 | 5.09 | 1.43 | -.10 | .65 | .57 | |
| W: It is a great pity that buildings such as the Moskwa Cinema have disappeared from
the Warsaw cultural map. T: It is a great pity that buildings such as the Flisak Cinema have disappeared from the Toruń cultural map. P: It is a great pity that buildings such as the Wilda Cinema have disappeared from the Poznań cultural map. |
||||||
| Item 6 | 5.02 | 1.52 | -.18 | .60 | .61 | |
| W: I think that the Warsaw neon signs from the PPR are iconic and I regret that they
have not been preserved. T: I think that the Toruń neon signs from the PPR are iconic and I regret that they have not been preserved. P: I think that the Poznań neon signs from the 70s are iconic and I regret that they have not all been preserved. |
||||||
| Item 10 | 4.15 | 1.55 | -.09 | .52 | .72 | |
| W: I am against the demolition and substitution of places such as the shopping pavilions
Emilia or Supersam. T: I am against the demolition and substitution of places such as the Kosmos Hotel. P: I am against the demolition and substitution of places such as the Alfa Department Store. |
||||||
| Item 3 | 4.15 | 1.66 | -.07 | .51 | .73 | |
| W: I would like the Warsaw cafes and milk bars created during the PPR to function
in an unchanged form. T: I would like the Toruń cafes and milk bars created during the PPR to function in an unchanged form. P: I would like the Poznań cafes and milk bars created during the PPR to function in an unchanged form. |
||||||
| Item 9 | 4.59 | 1.55 | .06 | .46 | .79 | |
| W: The Cepelia building in Marszałkowska Street should be preserved in its current
state. T: The campus of the University in Toruń should be preserved in its current state. P: The former department store Okrąglak should be preserved in its current state. |
||||||
Note. N = 199. The amount of total variance explained equals 43.20%. W = Warsaw, T = Toruń, P = Poznań. No cross-loadings were found. The values in bold indicate assignment to particular factor. Items 4, 7, 12, and 13 were not included in EFA since they did not have an identical form for each city.
Attitudes Towards Places Associated With the PPR Period and Other Psychological Constructs
In order to test concomitants of attitudes towards PPR places, descriptive statistics and differences between sub-samples for the study constructs (Table 2), a correlational matrix (Table 3) and regression coefficients based on the multivariate regression analysis were analyzed (Table 4).
The sub-samples appeared to be homogeneous. The only differences observed were for levels of ‘active’ place attachment and ‘Preservation of PPR places’. According to Tukey post-hoc tests, participants living in Toruń showed higher levels of ‘active’ attachment compared with those living in Warsaw (p = .011). Those living in Poznań showed a greater willingness to preserve places related to the PPR than people from Warsaw (p = .017) or Toruń (p = .040).
Based on the results of the correlational analysis, it could be claimed that ‘Removal of ICPs’ was related to greater interest in the city’s history, right-wing views in general and higher conservatism. ‘Preservation of IFPs’ was correlated with greater interest in the city’s history, both traditional and active place attachment, and rather liberal views.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for the Study Constructs and One-Way ANOVA Results
| Variable | N | M | SD | Warsaw
|
Toruń
|
Poznań
|
F | df | p | η2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | M | SD | ||||||||
| 1. Place attachment – Traditional | 168 | 3.23 | 1.39 | 3.21 | 1.32 | 3.54 | 1.56 | 2.96 | 1.25 | 2.41 | 2, 165 | .093 | .03 |
| 2. Place attachment - Active | 168 | 5.30 | 1.08 | 5.02 | 1.32 | 5.61 | 0.85 | 5.32 | 0.90 | 4.30 | 2, 165 | .015 | .05 |
| 3. Interest in the City’s History | 179 | 4.72 | 1.31 | 4.69 | 1.30 | 5.00 | 1.27 | 4.51 | 1.32 | 2.07 | 2, 176 | .129 | .02 |
| 4. Political orientation (left > right) | 166 | 3.65 | 1.32 | 3.69 | 1.39 | 3.74 | 1.21 | 3.53 | 1.35 | 0.36 | 2, 163 | .697 | .00 |
| 5. Political orientation – economic dimension (> social) | 162 | 3.57 | 1.65 | 3.63 | 1.61 | 3.50 | 1.62 | 3.57 | 1.75 | 0.08 | 2, 159 | .928 | .00 |
| 6. Political orientation – moral dimension (>liberal) | 164 | 5.30 | 1.74 | 5.18 | 1.72 | 5.24 | 1.89 | 5.48 | 1.62 | 0.49 | 2, 161 | .617 | .01 |
| 7. ‘Removal of ICPs’ | 199 | 3.71 | 1.39 | 3.51 | 1.34 | 3.94 | 1.47 | 3.73 | 1.37 | 1.58 | 2. 196 | .209 | .02 |
| 8. ‘Preservation of IFPs’ | 199 | 4.60 | 1.02 | 4.44 | 1.14 | 4.47 | 0.89 | 4.91 | 0.93 | 4.57 | 2, 196 | .012 | .05 |
Table 3
Matrix of Pearson’s r Correlational Coefficients for Study Variables (N = 136 - 179)
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Place attachment – Traditional | - | .28*** | .32*** | .09 | -.01 | -.08 | -.10 | .19* |
| 2. Place attachment - Active | .28*** | - | .48*** | -.02 | -.04 | .02 | .07 | .30*** |
| 3. Interest in the City’s History | .32*** | .48*** | - | .14 | .00 | -.11 | .22** | .30*** |
| 4. Political orientation (left > right) | .09 | -.02 | .14 | - | -.15 | -.64*** | .28*** | -.12 |
| 5. Political orientation – economic dimension (> social) | -.01 | -.04 | .00 | -.15 | - | .10 | -.07 | .15 |
| 6. Political orientation – moral dimension (> liberal) | -.08 | .02 | -.11 | -.64*** | .10 | - | -.23** | .16* |
| 7. ‘Removal of ICPs’ | -.10 | .07 | .22** | .28*** | -.07 | -.23** | - | -.19** |
| 8. ‘Preservation of IFPs’ | .19* | .30*** | .30*** | -.12 | .15 | .16* | -.19** | - |
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
According to the results of bootstrap regression, place attachment was not related to ‘Removal of ICPs’ in any of its forms, while active place attachment was a significant predictor of willingness to retain IFPs. The significance of traditional place attachment (compared with the correlational matrix, Table 3) was lost due to the suppressing effects of active place attachment, which emerged as a much stronger predictor.
Table 4
‘Removal of ICPs’ and ‘Preservation of IFPs’ Places Bootstrap Regressed on Place Attachment (N = 5000)
| Predictor | ‘Removal of ICPs’
|
‘Preservation of IFPs’
|
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Bias | SE | p | BCa 95% CI | B | Bias | SE | p | BCa 95% CI | |
| Traditional Place Attachment | -0.13 | 0.001 | 0.08 | .109 | [-0.28, .02] | 0.08 | -0.001 | 0.06 | .172 | [-0.04, 0.19] |
| Active Place Attachment | 0.14 | -0.006 | 0.12 | .267 | [-0.10, 0.36] | 0.25** | -0.004 | 0.08 | .003 | [0.09, 0.40] |
| R2 | .02 | .10 | ||||||||
| F(2, 165) | 1.67, p = .192 | 9.49, p < .001 | ||||||||
**p < .01.
The Mediating Role of Interest in a Place’s History
In order to test our hypothesis about the mediating role of interest in the city’s history in the relationship between attitudes towards PPR places and active place attachment, we decided to conduct a mediational analysis using the macro Process (Hayes, 2012, 2018) for SPSS 25. The results are shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Interest in a place’s history as a mediator of the relationship between active place attachment and attitudes towards PPR places in the form of preservation of IFPs.
Note. There was a significant indirect effect of active place attachment on preservation of IFPs through interest in place’s history, ab = 0.08, BCa CI [0.002, 0.15]. The effect size in the form of a completely standardized indirect effect is of small magnitude, abcs = .09, BCa CI [0.002, 0.16]. Bootstrap confidence intervals for the regression coefficients are in parentheses (N = 5000).
Interest in a place’s history was a partial mediator (the c` path remained significant and the indirect effect was significant based on bootstrap confidence intervals) for the relationship between active place attachment and willingness to preserve IFPs. Higher active place attachment was related to greater interest in the history of a place, and greater interest in the history of a place was correlated with higher willingness to retain IFPs. The direct effect of c` was positive, which could be interpreted as higher levels of place attachment contributing to an inclination to keep IFPs after controlling for interest in a place’s history. The mediation could be described as a ‘complementary mediation’ type (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). The role of a mediator was thus confirmed.
Discussion
There is ongoing controversy surrounding the post-Soviet heritage of countries in Central and Eastern Europe. While many places, and more notably monuments, are being demolished, other places are being renovated. In many cases, heated discussions accompany the process. In this paper we examined the relation between place attachment, interest in a city's history and attitudes towards places relating to the time of the PPR. Political views were also measured in the study. Places varied from the symbolic to those belonging to everyday life, and were chosen from three Polish cities: Toruń, Poznań and Warsaw.
The sites that participants either regretted most or would like to preserve most in Toruń were the Flisak Cinema3 and the University Campus4 . In Poznań, they were the Wilda Cinema5 and the Okrąglak department store6, and for Warsaw, the Moskwa Cinema7 and the Rotunda building8 In all three cities, participants regretted that the neon signs on buildings had not been preserved. In general, those living in Poznań showed more willingness to preserve places relating to the PPR than people from Warsaw or Toruń. A composite measure was created for attitudes towards places commonly associated with the PPR, in order to reveal their structure. This yielded two factors: the first one entitled ‘Removal of ICPs’; the second, ‘Preservation of IFPs’. This structure of attitudes towards the PPR was in accordance with our preliminary assumption of separate inclinations towards keeping ideologically free places (IFPs) and towards removing ideologically contaminated places (ICPs). The places included under the factor ‘Removal of ICPs’ were mostly of ideological character, while those included under ‘Preservation of IFPs’ mostly served cultural functions and were free from ideological features. We had also presumed that political orientation might be related to the way in which people preferred to deal with PPR places. Indeed, a more general, right-wing orientation was correlated with a higher tendency to want to demolish PPR places, but only for those places that were ICPs. We expected that a right-wing orientation would be related to willingness to remove all PPR places in general, regardless of their current functions or associations. However, it appears that some sentiments or nostalgia for the past probably prevented them from being too radical. The economic dimension of political orientation did not play a role. Notwithstanding this, more liberal views were related to a willingness to preserve both types of PPR places: ICPs and IFPs. It appears, unsurprisingly, that political views mainly differentiated attitudes towards ICPs. Right-wing supporters did not really care about IFPs but wanted to remove ICPs, while those with more left-wing views would rather keep both types of place.
The key results of our research showed that a desire to remove ICPs was related to greater interest in the city’s history and rather higher conservatism. The preservation of IFPs was correlated with greater interest in the city’s history, rather liberal views and both traditional and active place attachment (albeit active attachment was the stronger predictor).
We argue that the lack of relationship between place attachment and preference for the removal of ICPs could be caused by the fact that the awkward legacy epitomized by ICPs lies at the intersection of political conflicts and everyday life practices. As Lewicka (2008) wrote, place attachment emerges as a result of different processes, including the endorsement of different place identities and place meanings―from personal, through local, to national and supranational. For example, if a place's national identity (e.g., Warsaw as the capital of Poland or a symbol of national resistance during WW2―the ’unbroken city’) plays a crucial role in the formation of one's place attachment, we can expect this attachment to translate to greater support for removing ICPs. On the other hand, if attachment is based on the history of one's own life or the perception of the place as autonomous (with its own―as opposed to national―history), then attachment does not necessarily have to be related to a willingness to remove controversial traces of the past. Therefore, in order to solve this problem, further research is needed in which place meanings and perceived place identities are measured.
The regression analysis of the three types of place attachment on support for the preservation of IFPs showed that the only important predictor was active place attachment. As we know from previous studies, active place attachment is related to conscious identification with a place, greater interest in its history, exploration of a place and showing friends or acquaintances around it (Lewicka, 2012). For those who are actively attached, traces of one’s city's history may be perceived as assets to be preserved and cultivated. Although our correlational results show that traditional place attachment is also associated with interest in a city's history, this relationship is weaker than that for active place attachment, which may explain its lesser impact on support for IFP preservation. Thus, our results show that for people with high active place attachment it is important to preserve buildings and sites dating back to the communist regime, but that this relationship does not occur when the sites blatantly commemorate communist values and ideology. Additionally, the relation between active place attachment and preservation of IFPs was explained by interest in a city's history. In accordance with our hypothesis, higher active place attachment was related to greater interest in the past of one’s place of residence (i.e., more exploration of a place's characteristics), leading to a willingness to preserve everyday sites connected to the PPR period. Actively attached people seem to be more willing to explore their city's history and may treat it as a valuable aspect of their place of residence; hence, the consequence is their inclination to save IFPs.
We have also shown that interest in a city's past correlates positively with both support for the removal of ICPs and the preservation of IFPs. The probable reason for this result is the fact that people who are interested in their city’s history may be particularly aware of which places are distinctive propagators of controversial communist ideology and which simply serve people in their daily lives. Knowledge of the nuances of history can lead people to take an even more extreme position in discussions about what should be preserved as reminders of history and what should be removed as the unjustified commemoration of an oppressive political system.
Limitations and Future Directions
First at all, the study had a cross-sectional form, meaning that we cannot draw causal conclusions. Also, the relation between place attachment and interest in a place’s history may be bidirectional, and correlational studies do not allow us to establish causal relations. It is possible that interest in a place’s history strengthens attachment to that place; however, it is equally plausible that those highly attached to their place of residence (for different reasons) are more attracted to its past. Nevertheless, the preliminary study presented here might serve as a good background for further experimental plans. Secondly, in anticipation of the potential objection that some participants in our study had no memories of the communist period, we would like to stress that even without direct memory of that time, people will have attitudes towards the general past as well as to places and various tangible forms relating to the PPR in the three cites that might be based on, e.g., the intergenerational transfer of memories. The transfer of memories to younger generations is an important part of collective memory mechanisms. For example, explaining the intergenerational foundations of collective memory, Halbwachs (1968) stressed the role of grandparents, who influence their grandchildren through their attitudes and ways of thinking about the past and are a source of facts for the younger generation. Elsewhere, Assmann (2011) distinguishes between two types of memories: personal (experiences or experiences of close ones, expressed in a communicative form such as storytelling); and national (related to national events; a type of cultural memory expressed in tangible forms). The first is presumed to be typical of the oldest generation able to remember certain historical events, since this type of memory is of a personal character; the second characterizes younger generations who have no direct experience of certain historical events but more knowledge that is relevant in national terms (Schuman & Scott, 1989). Thus, the transfer of memory is also based on the process of changing personal memory into the memory of national character. Furthermore, specific attitudes towards the past can also be transferred between people (Wildschut, Sedikides, & Robertson, 2018). Hence, we believe that even though the source of attitudes towards PPR places might differ, analyzing the mechanisms contributing to support for the preservation versus removal of PPR places is valuable even in a younger population. However, we are fully aware that some of our participants will have based their answers on direct memories, while others’ opinions will have been shaped mainly by the knowledge and opinions of their siblings, older generations, history textbooks, mass media, etc. Thirdly, as the study used a self-report format, several potential drawbacks could be anticipated. One of these is the fact that our participants’ responses could not be verified and may have been subject to several biases, e.g., selective memory, telescoping, attribution or exaggeration. Fourthly, we are aware that in a wider perspective our distinction among the IFPs and ICPs might be considered an arbitrary one. The reasons for the undertaken approach were explained in the Method part of the paper. Obviously, it would be optimal in further research to base our set of questions related to attitudes towards PPR places on more categories. Fifthly, typically for internet based studies, the sociodemographic composition of our study is not balanced, with overrepresentation of some categories of participants (e.g., women, highly educated people or those enrolled in university programs). Thus, the results as always should be interpreted with some caution and cannot be treated as representative for the entire Polish population and more importantly as a representation of elderly and less educated peoples’ attitudes. We also believe that there might be other potential moderators of study phenomena, such as sense of esthetics. The willingness to preserve or to remove a particular PPR place might be related to the perception of this place as aesthetically pleasing or beautiful, or quite the opposite, as e.g., architecturally ugly. Attitudes towards PPR places can also be shaped by mechanisms of commemoration, for example, in the form of willingness to commemorate or forget particular historical events or figures.
We believe that our research fills a gap in the literature and could serve as a preliminary study in the search for mechanisms governing relationships between attitudes towards PPR places and various relevant psychological constructs such as place attachment and interest in a city’s history.