 are incompatible. Others, in turn, complement each other or discover new faces of this phenomenon. The subject of my interest is an attempt to draw attention to the dimensions of the pro-social subjectivity of people involved in community life. Man implements everyday life in which he functions by his embeddedness in the community. He assumes specific social roles and experiences the feeling that he is one of many links in the imagined larger whole. The subject realizes beliefs about its belonging to a community by caring for it. These concerns encourage such behavior and may indicate moral orientations directed at others. The dimensions of these orientations were embedded in the theories of the gift, linking reflection on them in these extremely abstract contexts. Deriving wealth from gift theory, one must understand the diversity and complexity of the practices of giving or donating.
The first understanding of the gift practice was embedded in anthropological descriptions of communities, referred to as primitive. These communities, untouched by the influence of modern civilization, reveal the peculiarities of the gift act in its natural form. The comprehensive concept of the gift, containing a description and explanation of specific phenomena and issues related to this phenomenon, was presented by Marcel Mauss in his ethnographic essay Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l' échange dans les sociétés archaïques (Form and basis of exchange in archaic societies).
During his studies and field studies, Marcel Mauss captured the model practice of giving. The symbolism of the cultural code contained in the gift's practice was read as the comprehensive social act expressed in the donner-recevoir-rendre 2 commitment. Mauss focused on the anthropological exploration of the gift practice showing in the arena of scientific inquiry the donor and accepting the gift, as well as the obligation imposed on the beneficiary to reciprocate. The Latin phrase «do, ut des» 3 expressing the principle of generalized reciprocity has become a source of inspiration for many scholars. This expressed principle of reciprocity was interpreted as a kind of social contract, integrating communities through bonds created by the circulation of gifts. A similar role of the social contract was played by the institution of marriage, so important for the permanence and continuity of the community. As Mary Douglas claims in the preface to the English translation of Mauss, the gift is proof of human solidarity, because it constitutes social bonds by defining a specific social order. It also states the force that makes return the gift of mana or hau, is equivalent to the idea of the invisible hand of the market by Adam Smith. 4 The gifts have a soul. They are humanized. They express the prestige of the donor or, they derive their uniqueness from the fact that they were given for a special occasion. Dedicating a gift created an opportunity to set or strengthen social bonds, indicating the coherence of related individuals or groups. The social integration of many indigenous communities depended on this cohesion.
It should be noted that the anthropological theory of gifts and the theory of social solidarity Emil Durkheim 5 combines thinking about this specific force that connects people. The source of solidarity is Latin solidare, meaning to strengthen, combine parts into a strong whole. 6 Social solidarity should be understood as a sense of belonging to a community with all its consequences in the form of shared responsibility for the common good. Solidarity remains this specific force that strengthens these inconspicuous individualized characters of social actors to the whole, which is the community. Social solidarity, therefore, expresses the benefit of participating in the community.
Maussian intuitions regarding the reconstruction of the phenomenon of gifts were evaluated by Claude Lévi-Strauss. He accused him of concentrating too much on the principle of reciprocity. He explained this specificity or the spirit of the gift, with too much focus on the cultural mysticism of the peoples studied. However, this was not a complete explanation for this phenomenon. Of course, the gift, per se, shows homology, which combines the natural elements (the gift of nature) with elements assigned to the sphere of culture 7 (the gift for the leader on some occasion or the woman's parents in the event of marriage). The exchange system produced in totemic societies formed the basis of their organization. In the background, C. Lévi-Strauss perceived gifts through the prism of the value or meaning attributed to them. Social integration and organization were implemented through the practice of gifts. To prove this, he based his considerations on the thesis that there was something unconscious that "makes" people reinterpret the meaning of concepts while maintaining the stability of their structures. 8 This type of ideational structure also applies to donation acts, which transforms unusually the social relations underlying the social organization, engaging parties of interaction depending on the meanings assigned to them. Commonly understood phenomena of phenomena included people in the structures of interrelationships, in ʻcoldʼ societies the exchange of gifts confirmed the established social organization, while in ʻwarmʼ societies the gifts shaped the foundations of the economic exchange market. The gift remains both a symbol of social relations established and maintained in this way, as well as confirmation of the interdependence of established relationships in a given social structure.
Jacques T. Godbout also analyzed the phenomenon of the gift, transferring considerations to modern 9 times. Other than the market, our society is still firmly rooted in the gift exchange system. It is impossible to think about society without offering gifts. Gifts still create and maintain social bonds. Due to this, they constantly contribute to the revitalization of society and strengthen solidarity in communities. These practices are found in the etiquettes of primitive communities. They are also revealed in the customs of modern communities. This specific "duty" of giving, receiving, and repaying remains a significant principle of reciprocity, which creates social bonds of a certain kind, as also indicated by Helmuth Berking. 10 In modern theoretical approaches, the human being is defined by the category of subjectivity. However, this term is not understood equally. 11 No social theory may do without the concept of a human being with a specific potential for action ensuring the continuity of the co-created communities and their transformation. The concept of a human being, or a man or participant in social relations, cannot be limited or simplified to some one-dimensional ʻsomeoneʼ. "The problem is that man is complex and a complex being, and the various aspects and dimensions that can be distinguished in him (and his existence) are equally important for his understanding". 12 Man has many peculiar properties, constituting his essence and transforming him into the form he becomes in the course of his life. To a large extent, these properties ʻweaveʼ his individual into a unique, socially empowered entity.
The self-defining character of man makes him a creature shaped within the existing reference framework. The peculiarity of individual people indicates an innumerable number of variations in its forming properties, significantly differentiating people among themselves. However, these characters can also be the result of our external attribution. Agency remains a dimension of human action directed at reproduction, that is, the manufacturing, the maintenance, and the transformation of social structures. Both the subject and society are composed of independent properties constituting their status. The dialectical concept of critical social realism is developed in these intellectual chains. In the latest translations of Margaret S. Archer's works, editors and translators decided to translate ʻagentsʼ as ʻpodmiot działaniaʼ or ʻpodmiot sprawczy,ʼ and ʻagencyʼ as ʻsprawstwoʼ or ʻpodmiotowe sprawstwoʼ. 13 This sociologist emphasizes the usefulness of the morphogenetic approach. However, Krzysztof Wielicki rightly notes that at the root of the individualʼs agency lies the "most important concerns". 14 These concerns act as harmonizing the contexts in which the subject is involved.
The concepts of gift and concepts of subjectivity remain the common ground for the adopted research perspective. They mark the way of understanding revealed phenomena. The theoretical framework sets out further methodological measures that are adapted to the chosen form of sociological observation. I will try to answer the research questions competently. The presented research results are part of a broader research project, 15 that is why the presented research results are only a small part of the wider research project.

Methodological assumptions for the construction of batteries of factor statements exploring the dimensions of pro-social subjectivity
The axis of search is causal forces that shape the dimensions of pro-social subjectivity for people who are focused on taking action directed at others. The authorial questionnaire has a universal character and may be successfully used to study various social and professional groups.
The study was conducted in 2017 on a sample of 620 members of the Volunteer Fire Department in Poland. This kind of subjective agency may best be described as a temporally rooted process of social involvement, 16 which is expressed by the individual's ability to ʻmake a differenceʼ. 17 For the deliberations made, I assume that the term subjective agency is connected with the volitional (intentional) 18 readiness of the subject to any creation of an action carried out in the past in the event of its repeated realizations. Therefore, the main research problem is: What generative mechanisms construct patterns of pro-social subjectivity of members of the Volunteer Fire Department?
In the course of painstaking operationalization, I selected a set of interrelated factors enabling their identification and further interpretation. The research question was asked as follows: How often did you do the following activities in the last year? On the other hand, the information for the question was formulated as follows: There are no bad or good answers here, I am asking for your honesty. Using the X symbol, determine the frequency of occurring of the listed activities on a scale never-very often or not applicable. I assumed that the empirical data obtained in the course of the research reflect processes