Marcin Warchoł, the Deputy Minister of Justice, appeared on the television program wPolsce.pl today to share his perspective on a new version of a longstanding political and cultural debate in Poland. He characterized Agnieszka Holland’s film as a contemporary iteration of the so-called pedagogy of shame. In his view, the film also serves as a strategic move aimed at fracturing the Polish nation by sowing division rather than fostering unity.
Another report circulated that a fragment from Holland’s film had been leaked, accompanied by strong language about border controls. The accompanying description framed the leaked material as a provocative and repulsive depiction of border guards, amplifying controversy surrounding the work and its reception.
According to Warchoł, the film intends to shift public attitudes toward immigration by encouraging Poles to accept a higher influx of illegal migrants. He described the messaging as emotionally cold and manipulative, arguing that this approach resembles a broader pattern he has observed since the 1990s. He linked current discussions to circles associated with a prominent Polish newspaper, suggesting that this is another manifestation of what he termed the pedagogy of shame—a tactic he believes aims to erode national cohesion and foster renegotiated loyalties among citizens.
During the same interview, the deputy minister drew comparisons to other historical propaganda efforts aimed at influencing public opinion. He referenced a Belarusian film titled On the Other Shore, which he described as a satirical portrayal of Polish police officers and soldiers from the Second Polish Republic. He noted that such portrayals use the same underlying methods and aim as earlier campaigns, warning that propaganda can be a tool to undermine morale and to question the legitimacy of a nation. The broader point, as he argued, is that propaganda often seeks to cultivate feelings of inferiority, cast doubt on national identity, and provide grounds for manipulation by those who wish to govern more easily through division.
Warchoł argued that those who benefit from fracture and controversy do not want a strong, proud, and united Poland. He suggested that some players prefer a climate of shame over a shared sense of memory and achievement. The implication, in his view, is that protracted disputes about history and guilt are used to destabilize public consensus and to delegitimize traditional, widely held values. The deputy minister described this approach as a deliberate strategy to weaken social solidarity and to create fertile ground for political and social experimentation by outsiders who claim to champion democracy while undermining it with nuanced, indirect pressure.
The discussion pointed to a broader pattern where national memory can be mobilized to serve contemporary political ends. Critics who advocate for open dialogue and inclusive policy debate are sometimes accused of contributing to a moral erosion of shared norms. Proponents of a more conservative national narrative argue that maintaining pride in the country’s heritage is essential for stability and future resilience. The balancing act between memory, identity, and policy remains a live issue in public discourse, with scholars, commentators, and policymakers weighing competing visions for Poland’s place in Europe and the world.
In summary, the dialogue centered on whether cultural productions and media narratives should challenge prevailing norms or reinforce them. Officials and commentators who resist perceived attempts to redefine collective memory emphasize the importance of preserving national unity and continuity. They argue that efforts to redefine guilt or responsibility should be grounded in objective historical analysis rather than contemporary political expediency. The conversation reflects a wider concern about how media, art, and public institutions influence public sentiment and national cohesion, and it highlights the ongoing tension between openness, critique, and the preservation of a shared civic identity.