I. THEORIZING THE CITY: CITY CULTURE AND ART CITIES IN CENTRAL­EASTERN EUROPE IN THE tHEORY OF mUltiCUltURAliSm

The article presents the painting of cities of Central and Eastern Europe in per­ spective of theory of multiculturalism. Laid on Eastern civilization borderland cities are culturally heterogeneous. At present, “heterogeneous city” in perspec­ tive of theory of multiculturalism includes at least several transitional categories (subcategories), such as: culturally diverse city, pluralist city or multicultural city. The author believes, that using such concepts and many others ought to be related to the possibility to refer to a coherent theory which needs to be for­ mulated – a theory of multiculturalism. Theory of multiculturalism is, in fact, a theory of a state and an advanced integration process in a society being cultur­ ally diverse. Multicultural city is the one which is prepared to welcome mul­ ticultural society willing to live and work there, in structural, organizational and intellectual terms. In conclusions author suggests that the communities and local authorities of the cities being the subject of the research ought to face the necessity to accept great challenges aimed at constructing multicultural envi­ ronment in their cities.

The article presents the painting of cities of Central and Eastern Europe in per spective of theory of multiculturalism. Laid on Eastern civilization borderland cities are culturally heterogeneous. At present, "heterogeneous city" in perspec tive of theory of multiculturalism includes at least several transitional categories (subcategories), such as: culturally diverse city, pluralist city or multicultural city. The author believes, that using such concepts and many others ought to be related to the possibility to refer to a coherent theory which needs to be for mulated -a theory of multiculturalism. Theory of multiculturalism is, in fact, a theory of a state and an advanced integration process in a society being cultur ally diverse. Multicultural city is the one which is prepared to welcome mul ticultural society willing to live and work there, in structural, organizational and intellectual terms. In conclusions author suggests that the communities and local authorities of the cities being the subject of the research ought to face the necessity to accept great challenges aimed at constructing multicultural envi ronment in their cities.
introduction Although each contemporary large city is culturally heterogeneous, this fact is not always reflected in its inhabitants' minds. A city that is culturally heterogeneous is an open and creative city, holding positive approach towards cultural diversity of both its residents and newcomers. These are culturally homogeneous cities that are becoming more conventional, traditional, even boring and not attractive enough to be a desirable place to live for the educated professionals willing to be the residents of new, open Europe. The definition of a city itself regards it as a kind of a community, the char acteristics of which is its heterogeneous structure (Kwaśniewicz 1999: 228). It means that while considering the nature of a city its cultural heterogeneity is frequently not mentioned.
The concept of city heterogeneity needs to be treated as a dichotomous opposite of a possible homogeneity. At present, "heterogeneous city" category would need ap plying another theoretical position, since being treated as a dichotomous category to wards homogeneity it includes at least several transitional categories (subcategories), such as: culturally diverse city, pluralist city or multicultural city. In my opinion, het erogeneous character of a city begins at the point, when there appears cultural diver sity among its residents 1 and its complete dimension is achieved in multicultural city conditions. I believe that using such concepts as: cultural pluralism, multiculturalism, multicul tural society, multicultural city and many others ought to be related to the possibility to refer to a coherent theory which needs to be formulated -a theory of multicultur alism. This is a theory of a diverse society development. Theory of multiculturalism is, in fact, a theory of a state and an advanced integration process in a society being culturally diverse. Despite numerous varying theoretical positions concerning multi culturalism on which I do not intend to take a stance, it seems that various attempts to formulate a multiculturalism theory are based on several similar initial assumptions.
They do not accept any forms of returning to the ideas that were socially rejected, such as assimilation or a "melting pot" concept, they object to any forms of discrimi nation against social and cultural minorities and they assume that cultural diversity within societies is preserved, strengthened and developed as a social value and as an advantageous phenomenon for the society.
A traditional approach towards cultural diversity in particular societies as an auto telic value results from basic values shared by a democratic society, being especially devoted to such values as: human rights, equality and freedom. I assume that search ing for technical and organizational solutions that concern their implementation into practice will be leading to more and more advanced and stately solutions concerning coexisting of culturally diverse individuals and communities. This issue, by analogy, considers culturally diverse cities.
At present, the socalled multiculturalism theory does not have even minimum elaborated notions 2 .
An attempt to define multicultural city A concept of multicultural city was formulated at the turn of the 1970s and 1980s when problems related to friendly coexistence between local inhabitants and large groups of culturally different newcomers appeared. Inflow of people of a lower mate rial status and a different culture caused a lot of fears amongst residents. These fears 115 limes: Borderland studies, 2011, Vol. 4, No. 2: 113-121 were related to job and lifestyle security as well as losing the identities of particular cities. Popularization of multiculturalism ideas, particularly in American and West European big cities, was supposed to be a kind of remedy for both real and imaginary fears experienced by local inhabitants.
Multicultural city is the one which is prepared to welcome multicultural society willing to live and work there, in structural, organizational and intellectual terms. The characteristic feature of multicultural city is an absolute awareness of cultural diversity shared by its residents, the acceptance for this diversity and appreciating its autotelic values, rational management of cultural diversity, taking it into consideration in the practice of community life so as to use it in order to increase economic, social and cultural capital of the community.
The concept of multicultural city still needs to be elaborated. I will only mention the features that seem to be characteristic for a multicultural city in my opinion. Its residents' attitudes towards cultural diversity are changing. These are both tolerant at titudes and positive acceptance that are prevailing. It is an advantageous situation as it keeps transforming into capital supplies of the city.
In this city a principle of respect for its inhabitants' cultural autonomy is a domi nant attribute. There is no place for enclaves, ghettos, areas of social exclusion and alienation in this city. An administration structure in a multicultural city promotes the diversity, allowing differences to be manifested and seen in public space. Diversity is cultivated through the number of institutions and activities aiming at maintaining and development of residents' heterogeneity.
This city functions are within multicultural social structure. Principles of equal ity and freedom in a cultural sphere have been absorbed both in this city and in the whole society. Equality seems to express the right of all cultural communities to func tion and develop in cities whereas freedom means the freedom of choice for each of them. I want to refute an opinion commonly appearing in the literature claiming that multiculturalism supposedly assumes the coercion to submit individuals to their eth nic affiliation. According to this opinion, multiculturalism, in the name of respect for group rights, forced even unwilling individuals wanting independence towards eth nicity (Buraś 2009: 7). On the contrary, multiculturalism assumes freedom of choice for all existing cultures, their values or even constructing new ones.
According to Kazimierz Krzysztofek, there are two tendencies forming the me tropolis: transforming city centers into culture industry centers and taking advan tage of multiculturalism and ethnic pluralism as developmental potential. The author stresses that city multiculturalization is an effect of globalization processes and that these are cities that are becoming an instrument of the integration of various social groups. Cultural industries developing in cities are orientated towards diversity that, in its various forms, is becoming a market product. The author then argues that these cultures that are able to "translate" their values into a performance, a market product, will be the winners. It is culture marketing that allows it to survive and to let ethnic cultures be introduced into a world circulation (Krzysztofek 2008: 37). My article refers to big cities located in CentralEastern Europe. In the past, cit ies in CentralEastern Europe were culturally heterogeneous. They were frequently referred to as multicultural cities, as they reflected, in their ethnic and cultural com position, a diverse social and cultural nature of the inhabitants of Eastern national, religious and even civilizational borderland. Cultural diversity of these cities before World War II needs conducting independent studies in historic sociology perspective.

specificity of cities in Central and eastern europe
Negative experience of World War II, including both German and Soviet occupa tion, War and postwar migrations and other factors, was the reason for significant transformations in ethnic and cultural composition of these cities. these transfor mations were related to the elimination (Holocaust) of Jewish minority, compulsory exodus of German minority and representatives of political elites of past neighboring empires. Moreover, victimized groups were capitalist social strata, being the carri ers of cultural diversity before the War, due to -among other factors -their dif ferent lifestyle. They were deprived of their capital and property, frequently sent to labor camps, relocated or victimized in other ways. The huge number of reprisals di rected to inhabitants being culturally different, even if they managed to avoid them, made them accept acculturation or assimilation to dominating majorities directly after World War ii.
World War II was a period deeply changing political affiliation, size, social and ethnic structure of the cities being the subject of my research. Prewar culturally het erogeneous cities became culturally homogeneous ones. The reason for this transfor mation was not ethnic and cultural structure becoming homogeneous. The reason was that cultural diversity being the result of new migration and other processes appearing after the War was victimized by new political institutions of power, resulting from simplified ideas of constructing national or transnational states (and citiesAS), of ten of socialist character. Certain explicit cultural structures were transformed into hidden ones, formal into informal ones, towards new kinds of diversity. This kind of policy was maintained by numerous representatives of new cultural majorities.
After World War II cities in CentralEastern Europe reconstructed their ethnic and cultural composition. In a postwar period these cities increased their population both by "imported" elites and newcomers from nearby villages. These newcomers were culturally different from earlier native inhabitants of cities. It needs to be added that big cities of Eastern borderland were predominantly inhabited by people of ethnic origin being dominant in the states, they maintained their state and national nature, being surrounded by smaller towns and villages inhabited by local peasants. Their na tional, regional and local identities often differed in the ethnic substratum from politi cally and culturally dominant city inhabitants. I mean such cities, as: Vilnius, Hrodna, Białystok, Brest, Lviv, Uzhgorod, Debrecen, Oradea, Novi Sad, Sarajevo, Trieste and other cities in the Eastern and Southern part of Eastern civilizational borderland of Western and Eastern Europe. In postwar period these cities experienced a heavy in flow of residents of neighboring areas of different ethnic, religious and national char acter, which resulted in a new cultural diversity in the cities being the subject of the research. in a situation when particular cities were put into new political and state structures, the representatives of prewar minorities became the representatives of ethnic majority in the cities. It was only then, when their mature national identity was formed. In these cities a real exchange of dominant and subordinate positions among respective minorities and majorities occurred. It was undoubtedly formed on the basis of previous discrimination, humiliation and injustice.
Even if the analysis excludes a large number of facts and actions being deliberate discrimination forms against religious and national minorities practiced by particular states, the feelings of injustice and humiliation were certainly present. It resulted from various reasons: living in a village perceived as worse than living in a city; limited or impossible directions of individual or social advancement; sense of deprivation related to cultural traits being treated as worse and reducing the access to socially desirable goods and values or the lack of required cultural competence to establish social rela tions based on partnership in the cities. I mean mass Lithuanian migration to Vilnius, Belarusian migration to Hrodna and Brest, Ukrainian migration to Lviv, and others. Their possible dislike was directed towards dominant Polish majority residing there previously, and after changing the borders becoming Polish minority.
It needs to be kept in mind that forming postwar borders in Europe, especially in Eastern borderland, was connected with a policy of violent ethnic cleansing, the consequence of which was widespread belief in ethnically homogeneous states (and cities). People, migrating from smaller towns and villages to the cities becoming the centers of new states in new postwar political conditions, strengthened their ethni cally homogeneous character and reduced their prewar heterogeneous dimension.
People representing ethnic and religious minorities in new conditions, migrating to the cities (people of Polish origin in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine) tended to hide their real cultural identities, accepting new assimilation identities. In practice they adopted the tasks of acculturation, modifying their cultural traits in order to be melted into urban societies. In the initial stage of new city ethnic structure being formed, minority representatives were identified with nationalities that were dominant earli er, with citizens of previously dominant states, which caused high level of intolerant attitudes towards them. During the Soviet rule, people of Polish origin in Vilnius, Hrodna, Brest and Lviv were subjected to Russian acculturation, which could be per ceived as a spontaneous or deliberate strategy of ingenuity in conditions of cultural submission, or the acculturation to Polish culture being distant to the cultures of new national states. After Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus gained independence, Polish minority paid high price for group ingenuity they had applied. Generally, Polish mi nority was imputed to practice either proRussian or proPolish affiliation.
The question concerning the types of group ingenuity of ethnic minorities during a significant political and social change still remains open. These strategies mainly appear in culturally diverse cities.
The processes of forming heterogeneous society in the cities that remained in the same countries but fell into the Soviet zone of influence (new submission) were different.
What I mean is Belarusian minority in Białystok, Lemko minority in the cities of Western Ukraine, Ukrainian and even Polish minority in North East Romania (Suceava) and Hungarian minority in Romania (Transylvania).
For example, Belarusians who moved from their villages to Białystok as a result of postwar migration, underwent clear assimilation processes towards Polish culture. Despite postwar processes of cultural diversification among city residents for at least two postwar generations, including generations of social elites, these cities became culturally homogeneous. It did not only result from the deprivation of their heteroge neous cultural substratum, but mainly because the policy of restitution of their cul tural homogeneity was conducted there. Under the banner of socialist society being constructed, where no ethnic and religious conflicts were supposed to occur, these were nationally homogeneous cities that were formed. They were especially big cit ies of Eastern Polish borderland, Western cities of the Soviet Union but also other cities located on the civilizational borderland between Western and Eastern Europe that were perceived as political and national ramparts and symbols of the extent of dominant ethnic and civilizational cultures. As a consequence of activities aiming at political and cultural homogeneity of cities, new or strengthened egocentric and xeno phobic attitudes towards "others" were created.
It needs to be emphasized that their restitution in postwar cities was relatively easy, as it referred (implicite or explicite) to negative examples of crossethnic rela tions in particular cities during an interwar period and earlier. Negative experience related to crossethnic relations accumulated for a long period formed numerous ster eotypical images of our neighbors and the prejudice being their consequence, which noone tried to change in a rational way. Stereotypes and prejudice to other nationali ties and religions were aggregated in social consciousness and passed from generation to generation in form of myths, legends or, to a large extent, mythologized facts and events. As a result, positive opinions about "dark" ethnic conflicts and problems from the past being finally removed from public city space as a consequence of such his toric events, as Holocaust, were expressed.
It needs to be stressed that not only are these opinions unethical but they are al so inhumane while talking about our past. They ought to be morally condemned. It seems that in their structure the sources of a certain dislike to discover the heteroge neously complex past in cities of CentralEastern Europe can be found; the sources and conditions of contemporarily existing attitudes of appropriating multiethnic past, present in group and individual historical memory, by one ethnic group.
From the perspective of a cultural structure of CentralEastern European cities, the new situation, initiated by democratic changes, was formed at the beginning of the 1990s. Generally, social and cultural city structure was released, i.e. hidden and undemonstrative diversity was strengthened in social and political terms.
City inhabitants' rediscovered cultural diversity became more and more signifi cant. Its characteristic feature was institutionalization. Numerous institutions and or ganizations preserving inhabitants' cultural diversity were established. I would put forward the hypothesis that a large number of organizations and institutions of na tional and religious nature is characteristic for inhabitants' public life institutionaliza tion in the cities being the subject of the research rather than other civic structures. Past prejudice towards culturally different ethnic groups, transmitted to contemporary generations as cultural heritage, is an important factor influencing many city inhabit ants' problems and obstacles related to opening to "others".
It cannot be forgotten that an intellectual structure shared by contemporary city inhabitants in CentralEastern Europe does not include an empty sociocultural space concerning the past; contrary, this space is permeated with stereotypes and prejudice against the neighbors from the past. These stereotypes and prejudice are not likely to make concessions to accepting attitudes in a short time spontaneously, just through increasing crosscultural contacts. Their transformation requires a lot of organiza tional and educational efforts in order to prepare the residents for new, heterogeneous nature of modern cities. What I mean is initiating the programs of crosscultural edu cation, crosscultural dialog initiatives, constructing the legal and moral norms that would explicitly condemn racist, antiSemitic, jingoistic and similar attitudes being culturally intolerant.
These actions are being taken in CentralEastern Europe, in some cities at least two dichotomous patterns of group attitudes towards culturally different coinhabit ants or newcomers have been formed.
The first pattern is an attitude open to others, creative, promoting cultural diver sity, conducive to competition and new challenges, including stabilization and accus toming the newcomers. These attitudes preserve complex, or even painful, memory of the past, but it is done not to revive long forgotten conflicts but rather in order to construct the image of heterogeneous (multicultural) past of the city as a shared value for all its inhabitants. This city is genuinely open for all who wish to refer to its multi cultural past and develop it accordingly to new challenges.
The other pattern is constructing city life as a rampart where patriotic values are defended and the memory of victims and suffering from neighbors -both from the East and the West -is still alive, as the place of deportations, displacement and ethnic cleansing, as the place of offense against the enemies, numerous victories and periods of dominance in the past. this place requires endless celebration, the aim of which is constructing contemporary national identities. It is the right of each nation to shape its citizens' national identity. However, it is important to remember that continuous refer ring to the past using the discourse and rhetoric of a victim culture, culture of mourn ing and distrust towards neighbors, culture of readiness to defend one's territory and people with no real danger existing -all these ingredients forming national identity will only stimulate or strengthen xenophobic and jingoistic attitudes, including this type of attitudes directed towards culturally different neighbors in cities.

Conclusions
I do believe that both the communities and local authorities of the cities being the subject of the research ought to face the necessity to accept great challenges aimed at constructing multicultural environment in their cities.
There are at least several tasks for both elites and residents of particular cities in CentralEastern Europe that can be hypothetically outlined as a part of projects aimed at constructing their multicultural image: 1. reconstructing the concept of cities being culturally heterogeneous, both in the past and at present, in social consciousness; 2. in order to achieve this aim it is necessary to provide social consciousness with genuine knowledge of history concerning the heterogeneous past in particular cities and the reasons why it was lost; 3. a serious intellectual challenge needs to be accepted in order to indicate both outer (relatively easy to be assimilated by social consciousness) and internal rea sons and conditions resulting in losing heterogeneous nature of a city. These lat ter ones are connected with negative experience of crossethnic relations, which became more intense during the period of ideological and political polarization of Europe and strengthening national identity among city residents, being ethni cally and religiously diverse earlier; 4. educational background needs to be provided for city residents to make them ready for contacts with newcomers. City residents need to acquire new com petencies to establish long lasting crosscultural contacts. These competences, being a part of social capital, will be critical for further development of cities. At present, these are the cities of multiculturalism brought to life again.