на главную поиск contacts

К вопросу о выборе пути: элиты, масса, институты в России и Восточной Европе 1990-х годов

русская версия

Опубликовано на портале: 09-11-2006
Тематический раздел:
On the Issue of the Way Choosing: Elites, Mass, Institutions in Russia and Eastern Europe of the 90s (by Boris Dubin). In this article the author compares the population attitudes related to the image of the West and to the idea of "a specific way", the elites reference points and the processes of institutional construction in Russia and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Despite the outward similarity of positive attitude of populations of Russia and the CEE countries to EU over half of Russians do not consider themselves to belong to European culture, do not feel themselves Europeans and their country a part of Europe (for CEE population belonging to Europe is not a matter of discussion). The Russians, in contrast to respondents in Poland, Hungary, Czech republic, etc., do not have any ideas about real practice of EU and its institutions, do not relate their interests with them, can't evaluate positive and negative sides of joining the countries of CEE to E U or of Russia's hypothetic joining EU otherwise than in the frames of familiar ideological formulas, isolationistic rhetoric of the Power and official mass-media (one-sided break of communications with "significant Other"). The path of economical, social and political reforms of 1990-s in Russia is described in terms of institutional deficit (vacuum). Candidates to Russia's elite in these conditions actually follow the same tactics of degrading adaptation, of adjustment at any cost, as well as the masses that set the goal of surviving at least at the level of "all the others". At the same time the structure of social and political reality in collective consciousness of the Russians reproduces residual, "weak" forms of self-consciousness of the members of structurally-simplified, closed society crowned with a figure of "a vigorous" leader that can't be evaluated by the criteria of effectiveness and social usefulness as his main function is to embody symbolically the virtual whole of disintegrating nation.
Ключевые слова

См. также:
Владимир Леопольдович Каганский
Общественные науки и современность. 2005.  № 4. С. 100-112. 
Ольга Викторовна Крыштановская
Общественные науки и современность. 1995.  № 1. С. 51-65. 
Михаил Габович
Laboratorium. Журнал социальных исследований. 2011.  № 1. С. 191-194. 
Наталья Михайловна Римашевская, Елена Борисовна Бреева
Социологические исследования. 1996.  № 11. С. 42-46. 
Денис Борисович Тев
Журнал социологии и социальной антропологии. 2005.  Т. 8. № 1. С. 191-197. 
Леонтий Георгиевич Бызов
Социологические исследования. 2001.  № 4. С. 3-15. 
М.Я. Корнилов, С.В. Лобачев
TERRA ECONOMICUS. 2008.  Т. 6. № 1. С. 78-86.