The socio-economic transformation of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, was carried out by implementing institutional change based on western economic theories and institutional patterns. This process was significantly different then the historical European revolutions in that the potential of social creativity of the societies undergoing transformation, was consciously limited, as to allow for the change to be purely imitative. This means that that the individuals in societies of Central and Eastern Europe were objects rather then subjects of the transformation, their position was defined as that of “pupils”. The political, cultural and economic elites were, on the other hand, positioned as “teachers”, whose discourses were legitimized by the knowledge they have had about the democratic liberalism of the west. In this paper, I will attempt to provide a categorization and description of the discourses that allowed for the definition of individuals during the transformation as being in need of cultural and economic education rather then being able to actively participate in the socio-economic change. I am particularly interested in the way in which those different discourses construct subjects of change as subjects of education. The main categories I propose, are: (a) The reformers’ discourse – of the political actors responsible for the economic reform. Rooted in the neoclassical economics, it defined individuals as rational subjects, homini oeconomici, which do not need any additional education to adapt themselves to the “healthy”, free-market, institutional context. (b) The discourse of social sciences – especially of the different theories of reproduction that are used to explain why the reformers failed or partly failed in their actions. It described individuals in the societies undergoing transformation, as homini sovietici, that must be “reeducated” rather then educated, and which act as a hindrance to economic modernization and democratization. (c) The public discourses – of politics and the media, that used both of the above theoretical frameworks in an unsystematic manner. There is a strong need, articulated in these discourses, to “establish” social actors (such as citizens, civic organizations, social classes), that are exact copies of their western counterparts, thus defining the the citizen, as a “pupil” that has to internalize the western mode of life. These three discourses, I argue, aside from providing legitimization for the market reforms in countries such as Poland or Russia, also delegitimized the potential citizen activity in the public sphere by juxtaposing it against the meritocracy of the elites.

This paper is based upon a critical discourse analysis of a large sample of academic texts and press releases concerning the socio-economic transformation in Poland. It was also informed by academic texts concerning transformation in Hungary and East Germany. It draws upon my previous research, discourse analysis of quality press in Poland, concerning mass social movements. In developing categories that structured my research I used some concepts from post-colonial theory (center - periphery cleavage), and the theory of socialist education - understood as a lifelong education, which aim is to produce "new socialist man". Critical discourse analysis of texts written by policymakers, academics and politicians allowed me to explore the ways in which economic, cultural and political elites conceptualized their role (and the roles of other sectors of society) in the process of transformation.

The effect of the aforementioned discourses is that the transformation was, and is, seen as a one-sided transfer of information, from the enlightened elites / foreign advisors and institutions, towards the citizens of post-communist countries. What they also have in common, is that they delegitimize popular political activity by treating it as irrational, driven by anti-democratic or anti-market sentiment, especially if this activity is carried out by those sectors of society that were marginalized in the course of the transformation. They are ultimately self-defeating, as they try to ”teach” civic activity while at the same time stating that any action, aside from passive absorption of knowledge can undermine democracy and / or the free-market economy. I hope that my paper can serve as a basis for a discussion concerning the state of Central and Eastern European societies, and their ability to become active creators rather then passive receivers of knowledge.