The exhibition The Clinic of Collective Representations examines how communities are formed through care, empathy and mutual understanding. The featured works reflect a range of human experiences, situations and perspectives, inviting viewers to see the world through the eyes of others and recognise what we share.

It is generally accepted that the concept of collective representations was introduced into academic discourse by Émile Durkheim. The French sociologist defined them as forms of action, thought and feeling among individuals, arising from their cognitive, emotional or practical relationships with the community, as well as from the rules and principles established by that community. He further described collective representations as states of collective consciousness that express “the way in which the group conceives itself in its relations with the objects which affect it.” [1]

It is readily apparent that, in Polish, the term wyobrażenie [“representation”], like wyobraźnia [“imagination”], derives from the word obraz [“image”]. The PWN Dictionary defines wyobrażenie as “an image of an object, person or situation evoked in the mind.” [2]  In this context, however, the Polish wyobrażenie corresponds to the French représentations and the English representations, rather than to imaginations, which, in Durkheim’s usage, arise spontaneously. The representations discussed here, by contrast, emerge as a result of an external context.

A fundamental condition for the existence of collective representations is a set of interpretative codes held in common, making shared understanding possible. In other words, myths, stereotypes and collective memory form a distinctive mental unity within a given group. Such representations may take the form of archetypal patterns and clichés. Culturally transmitted across generations, they may appear permanent and unchanging; in practice, however, each repetition is partial and imprecise and may generate new representations:

“It is like the game of Chinese whispers. The rules are clear and everyone wants to follow them: the same words are repeated and whispered from one person to the next, yet what we eventually hear from the last person is entirely different from what we ourselves previously heard and repeated. Ultimately, it is also difficult to determine where the ‘error’ or ‘errors’ occurred.” [3]

In this sense, archetypes are continually transformed by changes occurring across different areas of communal life. As Magdalena Rekść points out, collective representations may be understood as comprising five elements: 1) myths and stereotypes; 2) collective memory; 3) collective identity; 4) the axiological and normative system; and 5) collective emotions. [4] These elements remain in a constant “feedback loop,” allowing the collective representations to be adjusted on an ongoing basis. As a result, most of us can influence the community in which we live.

We are able to function in society precisely because we share an imagination – a repertoire of symbols, meanings and values. At the level of proto-understanding, they enable us to interact, trust one another and recognise that, despite our differences, we belong to the same world. Paradoxically, however, this simplified and repeatedly reproduced reservoir of archetypes can cause us to perceive others in a fragmented, selective and sometimes even unjust manner. It is often precisely these ingrained and seemingly “immutable” (inviolable, sanctified by tradition) stereotypes that prevent us from fully seeing and understanding another person.

Fairy tales, myths and folk narratives occupy a special place in both the perpetuation and transformation of social perceptions. For generations, they have structured our understanding of the world through readily recognisable figures and oppositions. In analysing representations of groups at risk of exclusion, we have noticed that many contemporary stereotypes originate in precisely these narratives. Mature and older women are often portrayed as dangerous or sinister; people with disabilities appear either as villains or characters defined by a perceived lack or absence; girls are cast as caring, self-sacrificing and innocent, while boys are associated with courage and agency. In this way, features connected with age, gender, appearance or ability acquire a particular moral value and begin to function as part of a shared imaginarium.

Although fairy tales have always served a didactic purpose, the worlds they depict – structured around clear-cut oppositions – have often reinforced stereotypes and social hierarchies. For this reason, The Clinic of Collective Representations treats them not only as a source of inspiration, but also as a means of critical reflection on the ways in which we learn to perceive ourselves and others.

The theme of fairy tales is therefore one of the exhibition’s principal points of reference. In autumn 2025, the Art Transparent Foundation conducted pilot workshops as part of the educational programme accompanying The Clinic of Collective Representations. During the workshops, children and young people worked with Hans Christian Andersen’s The Wild Swans. The participants developed their own interpretations of the characters in the story, endowing them with qualities extending beyond traditional roles and stereotypes. Selected outcomes of these activities were subsequently reinterpreted by the designer Adriana Myśliwiec. The characters created by the children thus appear throughout the exhibition and in its visual identity, while an original typeface inspired by fairy-tale aesthetics formed the basis of the exhibition’s logo.

The Clinic of Collective Representations invites visitors to examine selected “representations” that shape our collective imagination. Drawing primarily on a repertoire of archetypes – found, among other sources, in fairy tales, myths and folk traditions – the exhibition reveals how proto-understanding influences our everyday behaviour, linguistic practices and social interactions.

For this reason, empathy lies at the heart of both the exhibition and its accompanying educational programme. It is approached not merely as an abstract value, but also as the everyday practice of listening to the voices of others and recognising the significance of their experiences. Although we are aware that, over the millennia, communities have primarily coalesced through the exclusion of “others” – however broadly defined – the community in whose creation we wish to participate should be founded on attentiveness, openness and a willingness to acknowledge another person’s perspective. This is a community whose overarching principle would be “the commandment of ethical coexistence with individual ‘neighbours’ who ‘never represent any general authority’ and occupy ‘their own and only their own place in the most legitimate manner.’” [5]

The Clinic of Collective Representations is therefore a space in which visitors can encounter motifs and images that shape our collective subconscious and exert a tangible influence on our everyday relationships. It is a place where art becomes a catalyst for conversations about care, mutual respect and responsibility for the world we co-create. It invites us to reflect together on the kind of community we need today and the ideas that might help us build it in the future.

Notes

[1] Quoted in Steven Lukes, Émile Durkheim: His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study, London, 1973, p. 6.

[2] “Wyobrażenie”, entry in Słownik języka polskiego PWN, https://sjp.pwn.pl/slowniki/wyobrażenie.html (accessed 17 June 2026).

[3] Karolina Krasuska, “Gra w przekład,” translator’s afterword in Judith Butler, Uwikłani w płeć. Feminizm i polityka tożsamości, trans. Karolina Krasuska (Warsaw, 2008), p. 269.

[4] Magdalena Rekść, “Wyobrażenia zbiorowe – próba kategoryzacji pojęcia” in W kręgu wyobrażeń zbiorowych. Polityka, władza, społeczeństwo, ed. Andrzej Dubicki, Magdalena Rekść and Andrzej Sepkowski, Łódź, 2019, p. 11.

[5] Agata Bielik-Robson, “Rozbita konstelacja. Teologia Agambena między tragedią a mesjanizmem” in Agamben. Przewodnik Krytyki Politycznej, ed. the Krytyka Polityczna editorial team, Warsaw, 2010, p. 178.