CC BY
0
Научная статья
DOI: 10.15593/2224-9354/2023.3.7 УДК 316.346.36: 316.7
Yu.M. Vasserman
INTERGENERATIONAL DYNAMICS OF CULTURE: A TERRITORIAL CROSS-SECTION
The described study was carried out within the framework of the project aimed at studying the processes occurring during the socio-cultural modernization of Russian society, their interconnection in the temporal and spatial aspect. It has been implemented according to a unified methodology since 1991 and initially surveys were conducted mainly among students of Perm universities. In 2020, a survey of more than 2,000 residents of Perm Krai was conducted. The author's methodology was used to empirically determine the measured level of socio-cultural modernization of respondents (based on the study of their attitudes towards social phenomena genetically descended from the traditional or modern type of society) and to determine the differences of the indicated indicator among different social groups and, in particular, among different generations and residents of different territories. As factors influencing the index of cultural modernization, four cohorts by year of birth (1. before 1960, 2. 1960-1974, 3. 1975-1989, 4. 1990-2002) and three types of territories (1. no urban population, 2. urban population up to 75 %, 3. urban population over 75 %) were identified. By means of analysis of variance the influence of the mentioned predictors on the cultural modernization, indicator as well as their interaction were studied. Statistically significant relations of the analyzed indicators were revealed. In addition, on the basis of the survey of residents of the entire Perm Krai the nature of the relationship between the level of cultural modernization of respondents and their political preferences, identified in the previous stages of the study, conducted since 1991 on the basis of the survey of university students of Perm city, was confirmed.
Keywords: level of socio-cultural modernization, socio-cultural differentiation, intergenerational dynamics of culture, factors of socio-cultural modernization, territorial socio-cultural differentiation.
This article describes the results of the study of modernization of the culture of Russian society, conducted by the author in the Perm region, the work began in 1991 [1, 2, 3]. The aim of the work is to study social relations indicating that some aspects of socio-cultural differentiation of the modern Russian society are the result of its modernization. These aspects reflect social contradictions as a result of the collision of socio-cultural phenomena, which are associated with different stages of the process of modernization of society, assessments of these socio-cultural phenomena by individuals.
The theory of modernization emerges in the middle of the twentieth century in the works of D. Lerner, M. Levy, B. Heslitz and others [4]. This theory is one of the last options for describing the process of social evolution, which has been present in sociology since its inception in the form of O. Comte's three-stage theory of evolu-
© BaccepMaH W.M., 2023 Yury M. Vasserman - Cand. Sc. (Economics), Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Political Study, Perm National Research Polytechnic University, e-mail: yuriyvasserman@gmail.com.
tion and passed through the works of the classics of social evolutionism H. Spencer, K. Marx, M. Weber, E. Durkheim, etc. The theory of modernization was developed in the theories of industrial, post-industrial, information society, the theory of stages of economic growth, etc. (see the works of P. Drucker [5], W. Rostow [6], D. Bell [7], Castells [], etc.). According to this approach, society transitions from a traditional stage of development to a modern one through a series of transformations (urbanization, industrialization, secularization, etc.). In this series of transformations we are interested in the accompanying changes in society's culture. In our study by culture (which has several hundreds of definitions [8]) in a narrow sense we will understand (following L. White [9], P. Bohanan [10], E. Markarian [11], Z. Feinburg [12] and others) the system of non-biologically inherited regulators of human behavior (practices) (norms, attitudes, values), which has the most important function, the function of adaptation of these practices to the environment (E. Montague [13]). Culture changes slowly (by generations), the regulators of behavior learned in the process of socialization are carried by individuals through their lives, and these int-ergenerational differences in culture are studied by sociologists [12,14]. Transformation of the environment generated by the process of modernization requires changes in the norms, attitudes, values (culture) of people making people's behavior more adaptable to the changed environment. These adaptive changes in culture take place with some delay (the phenomenon of cultural inertia according to W.Ogborn [15]) and not simultaneously in the whole society, but starting from some leading groups and diffusively transmitted to others. This leads to differentiation of society's culture, allocation of groups with more and less modernized culture, whose differences can be described as some syndrome of cultural modernization, manifesting, first of all, in intergenerational dynamics (diachronic analysis) and differentiation of indicators of the level of cultural modernization in the population (synchronous analysis). In a modernizing society there is a socio-cultural differentiation, which forms a continuum of the level of cultural modernization from groups with minimally modernized culture to groups with the most modernized culture, and these groups are differently represented in different generations. The groups themselves differ in regulators of behavior (norms, attitudes, values), and, naturally, in behavior itself. Changes in behavior can be described as changes in the set of human practices in all spheres of life of a modernizing society. Therefore, there is a need to use sociological tools for empirical measurement of the level of cultural modernization of different groups of society, which have different sets of regulators of these practices in various spheres of life. This diversity appears, in our opinion, as a modernization sociocultural continuum syndrome [1]. This approach is necessary to answer the question how the levels of modernization of the culture of different social groups influence the types of their practices in different spheres of life in the process of social development of society.
The fundamental scientific problem, the solution of which was aimed at the project, is the lack of study of the connection between the dynamics of cultural development generated by the process of modernization of Russian society and the cultural differentiation observed in society in the first place in the territorial context [see, for example, 16]. Social differentiation, caused by cultural differences, leads to differences in the behavior of individuals in different spheres of life. Various approaches can be used to measure the level of cultural modernization [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, etc.], usually based on the study of the structure of values and their dynamics. In the present study we used the author's methodology based on the study of the level of modernization of norms and attitudes of individuals [27]. Our method of measuring the level of cultural modernization was validated according to R. Inglehart's method of measuring the transition from materialistic values to post-materialistic values in the process of society modernization [28]. In our methodology, the scale of total assessments was used to determine the level of modernization of the respondents' culture. Our proposed scale contained five subscales. It used five groups of statements to determine the attitudes to the phenomena in the norm related to modern and traditional societies, viz: 1) group of statements concerning norms in the sphere of family relations; 2) group of statements concerning norms related to the sphere of economy; 3) group of statements concerning norms measuring attitudes to social equality; 4) group of statements concerning norms related to political problems; 5) group of statements concerning norms related to the measurement of openness (tolerance to other cultures, innovations, technooptimism, etc.). Respondents' score (level) of cultural modernization was normalized as follows:
Respondent's total score is - 1, 60
(60 is the number of value statements in the summary score scale used).
The range of measurements on this scale could vary from 0 ("ideal" type, a bearer of fully traditional culture, having the most negative attitude to any social phenomena suggested for evaluation, which are descended from the modern society and, simultaneously, having the most positive attitude to any social phenomena suggested for evaluation, which are descended from the traditional society. society) to 5 ("ideal" type, a bearer of a completely modern culture, who has a negative attitude towards any social phenomena suggested for evaluation, which go back to the traditional society and, at the same time, who has the most positive attitude towards any social phenomena suggested for evaluation, which go back to the modern society).
The survey of respondents for our project was started at the end of 2019 and finished in January 2020. There were interviewed 2292 residents of Perm Krai, living in 52 municipalities of the Krai and the distribution of the described index, (with the allocation of polar by the level of cultural modernization of quartile groups of respondents) in this sample is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Distribution of the indicator "The level (score) of personal culture modernization" and the selection of polar quartile groups
As can be seen from Fig. 1, the above variable has a distribution close to normal and has a swing of 2.85 (from a minimum of 1.4 to a maximum of 4.25). The mean value of this variable is 2.7427 (95 % confidence interval for the mean is 2.7289 to 2.7565), asymmetry is positive, and the median is 2.7. The distribution included 2016 observation units out of 2,292 respondents due to missing responses. The upper bound of the first quartile is 2.5, the lower bound of the fourth quartile is 2.9. Among the 52 studied municipalities of Perm Krai the average value of the studied index varies from 2.533 (Bolsheshosnovsky municipal district) to 2.926 (Sverdlovsky district of Perm), which does not disprove the studied hypothesis about the presence of territorial differentiation in the process of cultural modernization.
To check the factors of territorial differentiation of Perm Krai, we used one of several typologies of territorial differentiation developed by geographers PSNIU [30]. The process of urbanization, many modern researchers, is considered an integral part of the process of modernization of society [29]. The level of urbanization of Perm Krai regions was determined by the method proposed by L.Y. Chekmeneva [30]. This methodology identifies the following types of regions: 1 - no urban population, 2 - up to 50 % of urban population, 3 - 50-75 % of urban population, 4 - more than 75 % of urban population. In our analysis, we combined point 2 and 3, obtaining the following indicator of differentiation of municipal units of Perm Krai: 1 - no urban population, 2 - up to 75 % urban population, 3 - over 75 % urban population.
Single-factor analysis of variance was conducted to determine the impact of the level of urbanization of the territories on the level of cultural modernization of the respondents, see Tables 1, 2, 3, 4.
Table 1
One-Factor Analysis of Variance
Dependent variable - Level (score) of personality culture modernization
Sum of squares df Middle square F Sig.
Between groups 4,782 2 2,391 24,630 ,000
Within groups 195,418 2013 ,097
Total 200,200 2015
The data in Table 1 indicate that there is a statistically significant relationship between the analyzed variables.
Table 2
Descriptive statistics
Dependent variable - Level (score) of personal culture modernization
The level of urbanization of territories N Arithmetic mean
1.there is no urban population 421 2,6609
2. the urban population up to 75 % 429 2,7186
3. over 75 % of the urban population 1166 2,7811
Total 2016 2,7427
The data in Table 2 show a positive relationship between the variables increase in the level of urbanization of the population in the analyzed territories and the growth of the level of cultural modernization. The increase in the level of urbanization of the territory is accompanied by the growth of the cultural modernization indicator.
Table 3
Homogeneity criterion of variances
Зависимая переменная - Уровень (балл) модернизации культуры личности
Livin's statistics degree of freedom 1 degree of freedom2 Significance
30,647 2 2013 ,000
The data in Table 3 show that the hypothesis of homogeneity of variance of the dependent variable in the groups distinguished by the predictor (groups of municipal units of Perm Krai depending on the level of urbanization) should be rejected. This fact makes us use a posteriori criteria to test the hypothesis of statistical significance of the model variables for the case when equality of variance is not assumed, we used the Gaims-Howell criterion, see Table 4.
Table 4
Multiple comparisons Dependent variable: Level (score) of personal culture modernization
(I) groups of territories by J) groups of territories by level Sig.
level of urbanization of urbanization
2,00 the urban population up to ,003
1,00 there is no urban pop- 75 %
ulation 3,00 over 75 % of the urban population ,000
Games-Howell 2,00 the urban population up to 75 % 1,00 there is no urban population 3,00 over 75 % of the urban pop- ,003 ,001
ulation
3,00 over 75 % of the urban population 1,00 there is no urban population 2,00 the urban population up to 75 % ,000 ,001
\ The difference between the averages is significant at the 0.05 level.
The data in Table 4 show that the differences in the level of cultural modernization between all three groups, highlighted by the factor trait, are statistically significant. This fact is illustrated by Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Bar chart of errors of the variable "Level (score) of personal culture modernization" on the variable "Groups of territories by level of urbanization"
The data of the previous studies, conducted since 1991 with the help of the above described tools based on the results of the survey of students of Perm universities, allowed, as a result of diachronic analysis to diagnose the presence of cohort (intergenerational) dynamics of the indicator of the level of cultural modernization, clarified by the Lexis grid (see Fig. 3).
Fig. 3. Cohort differences in the level of cultural modernization
The data in Fig. 3 demonstrates statistically significant differences found in the process of longitudinal study between two generations of students socializing in different conditions. The generations are conventionally named "last Soviet" and "first post-Soviet". The research question arose whether such cohort differences in the level of cultural modernization are characteristic only for students or they can be found in the general population as well?
In order to test this hypothesis 4 cohorts were distinguished in the massif of the surveyed population of Perm Krai (see Table 5).
Table 5
The four generations highlighted in the survey
Cohorts by Year of Birth Frequency Percent
1. before 1960 393 17,1
2.1960-1974. 528 23,0
3.1975-1989. 812 35,4
4.1990-2002. 559 24,4
Total 2292 100,0
The selected cohorts were used as a predictor in univariate analysis of variance, which was conducted to test the hypothesis of the presence of interdependent dynamics of the indicator of the level of personal culture modernization (see Tables 6, 7, 8, 9).
Table 6
One-factor analysis of variance
Dependent variable - Level (score) of personal culture modernization
Sum of squares degree of freedom Middle square F Sig.
Between groups 7,668 3 2,556 26,711 ,000
Within groups 192,532 2012 ,096
Total 200,200 2015
The data in Table 6 show that there is a statistically significant relationship between the variables Level (score) of personal culture modernization and Cohort by year of birth.
Table 7
Descriptive statistics
Level (Score) of Personal Culture Modernization
Cohorts N Arithmetic mean
1,00 before 1960 330 2,6498
2,00 1960-1974 473 2,7013
3,00 1975-1989 734 2,7518
4,00 1990-2002 479 2,8335
Total 2016 2,7427
The data in Table 7 show a positive relationship between the variables Cohorts by Year of Birth and Level (Score) of Personal Culture Modernization, with younger cohorts showing higher levels of cultural modernization.
Table 8
Homogeneity criterion of variances
Level (Score) of Personal Culture Modernization
Livin's statistics degree of freedom 1 degree of freedom2 Significance
23,436 3 2012 ,000
The data in Table 8 show that the hypothesis of homogeneity of variance of the dependent variable in the groups singled out by predictor (cohorts by year of birth) should be rejected. This fact forces us to use a posteriori criteria to test the hypothesis of statistical significance of model variables, and for the case when equality of variance is not assumed, the Gaims-Howell test was used, see Table 9.
Table 9
Multiple comparisons
Level (Score) of Personal Culture Modernization
(I) groups (I) groups of territories (I) groups of territories
of territories by level of urbanization by level of urbanization
by level of urbanization
1,00 before 1960 1960 2,00 1960-1974 3,00 1975-1989 ,023 ,000
4,00 1990-2002 1,00 go 1960 ,000 ,023
2,00 1960-1974 3,00 1975-1989 ,025
Games- 4,00 1990-2002 ,000
Howell 1,00 go 1960 ,000
3,00 1975-1989 2,00 1960-1974 4,00 1990-2002 1,00 go 1960 ,025 ,000 ,000
4,00 1990-2002 2,00 1960-1974 3,00 1975-1989 ,000 ,000
*. The difference between the averages is significant at the 0.05 level.
The data in Table 9 show that the differences in the level of cultural modernization between all four cohorts, separated by year of birth, are statistically significant. This fact is illustrated by Figure 2.
The results of the dispersion analysis of the impact of the two predictors on the level of cultural modernization raises the research question: what is the interaction of these two predictors, what is the intergenerational dynamics of culture in the territorial context. To answer this question, a two-factor analysis of variance was performed on the variable of the level of cultural modernization under the influence of the two mentioned predictors (see Tables 10, 11, 12).
.1 2-90"
Ë ai
I 2.85E ai
11
>
ai
-1-1-I-I-
befoie 19S0 1930-1974 1975-1989 1990-2082
Generation
Fig. 4. Bar chart of errors in the variable "Level (score) of personal culture modernization" by the variable "Generation»
Table 10
Descriptive statistics
Level (Score) of Personal Culture Modernization
Cohorts The level of urbanization Arithmetic Std. Deviation N
of territories mean
there is no urban population 2,6001 ,16341 174
before the urban population up to 75 % 2,6570 ,17289 91
1960 over 75 % of the urban population 2,7728 ,33649 65
Total 2,6498 ,22035 330
there is no urban population 2,6970 ,26969 107
1960- 1974 the urban population up to 75 % 2,6987 ,29671 99
over 75 % of the urban population 2,7041 ,29636 267
Total 2,7013 ,29003 473
there is no urban population 2,6964 ,26460 83
1975- 1989 the urban population up to 75 % 2,7380 ,29471 147
over 75 % of the urban population 2,7650 ,33844 504
Total 2,7518 ,32286 734
there is no urban population 2,7272 ,25405 57
1990- 2002 the urban population up to 75 % 2,7699 ,32426 92
over 75 % of the urban population 2,8696 ,37318 330
Total 2,8335 ,35561 479
there is no urban population 2,6609 ,23311 421
Total the urban population up to 75 % 2,7186 ,28288 429
over 75 % of the urban population 2,7811 ,34460 1166
Total 2,7427 ,31521 2016
The data in Table 10 show a positive relationship between the factor variables Cohorts by Year of Birth (Generations), Territory Groups by Level of Urbanization and the dependent variable Level (Score) of Personal Culture Modernization. Younger cohorts find higher levels of the indicator of cultural modernization, and the level of the variable Level (score) of personal culture modernization with an increase in the level of urbanization of the territory of respondents' residence remains increasing, but the intergenerational dynamics changes depending on the level of urbanization of the territory (see Table 11).
Table 11
Assessing the effects of intergroup factors
Level (Score) of Personal Culture Modernization
Source Sum of type III squares Degree of freedom. Average square F Sig.
Скорректированная 10,908a 11 ,992 10,498 ,000
модель
Free member 9935,792 1 9935,792 105188,076 ,000
q3 (Generation) 2,096 3 ,699 7,395 ,000
ur_urban_3 (The level of 2,444 2 1,222 12,937 ,000
urbanization of territories)
q3 * ur_urban_3 1,221 6 ,203 2,154 ,045
Error 189,293 2004 ,094
Total 15365,183 2016
Adjusted total 200,200 2015
a. R squared =.054 (Adjusted R squared =.049)
The data in Table 11 show the statistical significance of the interaction of the factors of the analyzed model. Fig. 5 illustrates this relationship.
The data of Fig. 5 reveals the presence of weak interaction of the analyzed factors. We can see the differentiation of intergenerational dynamics of the indicator of the level of cultural modernization, which has territorial specificity, i.e. it does not proceed equally in regions with different levels of urbanization. The main effect in this model is the variable generation. In the generation born in the period 1960-1974 there is a decrease in the territorial differentiation of the indicator Level (score) of cultural modernization. This phenomenon, found in the process of analysis, requires, in our opinion, additional study.
Figure 5. Estimated marginal averages of the variable Level (score) of personal culture modernization
The study of students' culture modernization in the period from 1991 to 2017 showed that the groups polar by the level of modernization differ in political preferences and electoral behavior [3]. This fact raises a research question - is such differentiation of political preferences characteristic only for the culture of students (representatives of the youth cohort) or similar differences exist in other cohorts? To check this, we used a scale for measuring social activity, which, in particular, included a question about respondents' support for certain political movements (the scale was developed by the project participant, candidate of cultural studies M.A. Manokin). Differences in the readiness to support parliamentary political parties were found in the groups of the Perm Territory population that are polar in their level of cultural modernization (see Table 12).
Table 12
Supporting and not supporting parliamentary political parties in polar groups highlighted by the variable Level (score) of personal culture modernization
Polar quartile groups highlighted by the variable Level (score) of personal culture modernization United Russia political party Communist Party of the Russian Federation Political Party "Just Russia" Liberal Democratic Party of Russia
Supported by I don't support it Supported by I don't support it Supported by I don't support it Supported by I don't support it
First quartile Frequency % 114 52,8 260 45,6 131 68,2 223 40,3 75 63,0 252 43,2 86 57,7 244 43,7
Fourth quartile Frequency % 102 47,2 310 54,4 61 31,8 330 59,7 44 37,0 332 56,8 63 42,3 314 56,3
Total Frequency % 216 100,0 570 100,0 192 100,0 553 100,0 119 100,0 584 100,0 149 100,0 707 100,0
The study empirically confirmed the presence of intergenerational dynamics of culture in the population of a large Russian region and revealed the territorial features of these dynamics. The influence of differentiation of cultural modernization on political preferences of the population of the studied region was revealed. The collected material creates the prerequisites for the construction of the inductive theory of intergenerational dynamics of culture in the space of the region.
Список литературы
1. Вассерман Ю.М. Модернизационный социокультурный континуальный синдром // Социология. - 2007. - № 1. - С. 34-49.
2. Вассерман Ю.М. Модернизация культуры и культура собственности (опыт лонгитюдного исследования) // Вестник Пермского национального исследовательского политехнического университета. Социально-экономические науки. - 2014. - № 4 (25). - С. 36-51.
3. Вассерман Ю.М. Некоторые последствия модернизации культуры (опыт лонгитюдного исследования) // Вестник Пермского национального исследовательского политехнического университета. Социально-экономические науки. - 2018. - № 3. - С. 129-139.
4. Pandey R. Sociology of Development. - Delhi, 1985. - P. 293.
5. Drucker P. Post-Capitalist Society. - New York, 1995. - 232 р.
6. Rostow W.W. The Stages of Economic Growth // The Economic History Review, New Series. - 1959. - Vol. 12, no. 1. - P. 1-16.
7. Bell D. The Third Technological Revolution and Its Possible Consequences // Dissent. - Spring, 1989. - Vol. XXXVI, no. 2. - Р. 96-115.
8. Моль А. Социодинамика культуры: пер. с фр. - Изд. 3-е. - М.: Изд-во ЛКИ, 2008. - 416 с.
9. White L.A. The science of culture: A study of man and civilization. - 2nd ed. -New York, 1969. - 444 р.
10. Bohannan P. Rethinking Culture. Current Anthropology // A world journal of the sciences of man. - 1974. - Vol. 14, no. 4. - Р. 357-372.
11. Маркарян Э.С. О социально-управленческом значении формирования культурологии // Проблемы планирования, прогнозирования, управления и изучения культуры как целого. - Пермь, 1981. - С. 9-12.
12. Файнбург З.И. Смена исторического типа культуры в условиях современности (некоторые вопросы методологии проблемы) // Изв. Северокавказ. науч. центра высш. школы. Общественные науки. - 1978. - № 1. - С. 28-34.
13. Culture: Man's Adaptive Dimension / ed. by Ashley Montague. - New York, 1968. - 289 р.
14. Инглхарт Рональд Ф. Культурная эволюция. Как изменяются человеческие мотивации и как это меняет мир. - М.: Мысль, 2018. - 334 с.
15. Ogburn W. On culture and social change. - Chicago, 1964. - 347 р.
16. Зубаревич Н.В. Четыре России // Vedomosti.ru. - 2011. - 30 дек. (дата обращения: 19.12.2015).
17. Inkeles A., Smith D. Becoming modern. - Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974. - 437 р.
18. Inglehart R., Welzel C. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. - Cambridge University Press, 2005. - 333 р.
19. Lonner W.J., Berry J.W., Hofstede G.H. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (1980). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496209
20. Schwartz S.H. Are there universal aspects the structure and contents of Human values // Journal of Social Issues. - 1995. - Vol. 50, iss. 4. - P. 19-45.
21. Ментальность россиян. Специфика сознания больших групп населения России / под ред. И.Г. Дубова. - М., 1997. - 476 с.
22. Лапин Н.И. Модернизация базовых ценностей россиян // Социологические исследования. - 1996. - № 5. - С. 3-23.
23. Простой советский человек: Опыт социального портрета на рубеже 90-х. - М.: Мировой океан, 1993. - 229 с.
24. Магун В., Руднев М. Жизненные ценности российского населения: сходства и отличия в сравнении с другими европейскими странами // Вестник общественного мнения. Данные. Анализ. Дискуссии. - 2008. - № 1 (93). - С. 33-58.
25. Базовые ценности россиян: Социальные установки. Жизненные стратегии. Символы. Мифы / под ред. А.В. Рябова, Е.Ш. Курмангалиевой. - М., 2003. - 448 с.
26. Латова Н.В., Тихонова Н.Е. Модернизация и характеристики российской национальной ментальности // Готово ли российское общество к модернизации? / под ред. М.К. Горшкова, Р. Крумма, Н.Е. Тихоновой. - М.: Весь мир, 2010. - С. 273-297.
27. Вассерман Ю.М. Анализ социокультурных последствий модернизации российского общества (некоторые результаты пилотажного исследования) // Ученые записки гуманитарного факультета / Перм. гос. техн. ун-т. - Пермь, 2004. - Вып. 7. -С. 225-239.
28. Ingelhart R. Modernization and Postmodernization. - Princeton University Press, 1997. - 454 p.
29. Уровень развития урбанизации региона как фактор модернизации России / Н.В. Чугунова, Т.А. Полякова, Н.В. Лихневская, Ю.Д. Попова // Проблемы региональной экологии. - 2011. - № 2. - С. 79-85.
30. Чекменева Л.Ю. Территориальный анализ и диагностика геодемографической ситуации Пермского края: автореф. дис. ... канд. геогр. наук. -Пермь, 2010. - 23 с.
References
1. Vasserman Iu.M. Modernizatsionnyi sotsiokul'turnyi kontinual'nyi sindrom [Modernization sociocultural continuum syndrome]. Sotsiologiia, 2007, no. 1, pp.34-49.
2. Vasserman Iu.M. Modernizatsiia kul'tury i kul'tura sobstvennosti (opyt longitiudnogo issledovaniia). PNRPU Sociology and Economics Bulletin, 2014, no. 4 (25), pp. 36-51.
3. Vasserman Iu.M. Nekotorye posledstviia modernizatsii kul'tury (opyt longitiudnogo issledovaniia) [Culture modernization and property culture (experience of longetude research)]. PNRPU Sociology and Economics Bulletin, 2018, no. 3, pp. 129-139.
4. Pandey R. Sociology of development. Delhi, 1985, 293 p.
5. Drucker P. Post-capitalist society. New York, 1995, 232 p.
6. Rostow W.W. The stages of economic growth. The Economic History Review, New Series, 1959, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1-16.
7. Bell D. The third technological revolution and its possible consequences. Dissent, Spring, 1989, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 96-115.
8. Moles A.M. Sociodynamique de la culture (Russ. ed.: Mol' A. Sotsio-dinamika kul'tury. Moscow, LKI, 2008, 3rd ed., 416 p.)
9. White L.A. The science of culture: A study of man and civilization. New York, 1969, 2nd ed., 444 p.
10. Bohannan P. Rethinking culture. Current Anthropology. A world journal of the sciences of man, 1974, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 357-372.
11. Markarian E.S. O sotsial'no-upravlencheskom znachenii formirovaniia kul'turologii [A review of some trends in research of cultural environment]. Problemy planirovaniia, prognozirovaniia, upravleniia i izucheniia kul'tury kak tselogo, Perm, 1981, pp. 9-12.
12. Fainburg Z.I. Smena istoricheskogo tipa kul'tury v usloviiakh sovre-mennosti (nekotorye voprosy metodologii problemy) [Change of culture historical type in modern conditions: Some questions of a problem methodology]. Izvestiia Severokavkazkogo nauchnogo tsentra vysshey shkoly. Obshchestvennye nauki, 1978, no. 1, pp. 28-34.
13. Culture: Man's adaptive dimension. Ed. Montague A. New York, 1968, 289 p.
14. Inglehart R.F. Cultural evolution: People's motivations are changing, and reshaping the world (Russ. ed.: Inglkhart Ronal'd F. Kul'turnaia evoliutsiia. Kak izmeniaiutsia chelovecheskie motivatsii i kak eto meniaet mir. Moscow, Mysl', 2018, 334 p.).
15. Ogburn W. On culture and social change. Chicago, 1964, 347 p.
16. Zubarevich N.V. Chetyre Rossii [Four Russian Federations]. Available at: https://www.vedomosti.ru/opinion/articles/2011/12/30/chetyre_rossii (accessed 19.12.2015).
17. Inkeles A., Smith D. Becoming modern. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1974, 437 p.
18. Inglehart R., Welzel C. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge University Press, 2005, 333 p.
19. Lonner W.J., Berry J.W., Hofstede G.H. Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entre-preneurship, 1980, available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496209 (accessed 19.10.2023).
20. Schwartz S.H. Are there universal aspects the structure and contents of Human values. Journal of Social Issues, 1995, vol. 50, iss. 4, pp. 19-45.
21. Mental'nost' rossiian. Spetsifika soznaniia bol'shikh grupp naseleniia Rossii [Russian mentality. Consciousness specifics of Russian population large groups]. Ed. I.G. Dubova. Moscow, 1997, 476 p.
22. Lapin N.I. Modernizatsiia bazovykh tsennostei rossiian [Modernization of Russians' basic values]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia, 1996, no. 5, pp. 3-23.
23. Prostoi sovetskii chelovek: Opyt sotsial'nogo portreta na rubezhe 90-kh. [A simple Soviet man: The experience of a social portrait at the turn of the 90s]. Moscow, Mirovoi okean, 1993, 229 p.
24. Magun V., Rudnev M. Zhiznennye tsennosti rossiiskogo naseleniia: skhodstva i otlichiia v sravnenii s drugimi evropeiskimi stranami [Life values of the Russian population: Similarities and differences in comparison to other European countries]. Vestnik obshchestvennogo mneniia. Dannye. Analiz. Diskussii, 2008, no. 1 (93), pp. 33-58.
25. Bazovye tsennosti rossiian: Sotsial'nye ustanovki. Zhiznennye strategii. Simvoly. Mify [Basic values of Russians: Social attitudes. Life strategies. Symbols. Myths]. Eds. A.V. Riabov, E.Sh. Kurmangalieva. Moscow, 2003, 448 p.
26. Latova N.V., Tikhonova N.E. Modernizatsiia i kharakteristiki rossiiskoi natsional'noi mental'nosti [Modernization and characteristics of the Russian national mentality]. Gotovo li rossiiskoe obshchestvo k modernizatsii? Eds. M.K. Gorshkov, R. Krumm, N.E. Tikhonova. Moscow, Ves' mir, 2010, pp. 273-297.
27. Vasserman Iu.M. Analiz sotsiokul'turnykh posledstvii modernizatsii rossiiskogo obshchestva (nekotorye rezul'taty pilotazhnogo issledovaniia) [Some implications of culture modernization (longitude research experience)]. Uchenye zapiski gumanitarnogo fakul'teta, Perm, PSTU, 2004, iss. 7, pp. 225-239.
28. Ingelhart R. Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton University Press, 1997, 454 p.
29. Chugunova N.V., Poliakova T.A., Likhnevskaia N.V., Popova Iu.D. Uroven' razvitiia urbanizatsii regiona kak faktor modernizatsii Rossii [The level of urbanization in the region as a factor in the modernization of Russia]. Problemy regional'noi ekologii, 2011, no. 2, pp. 79-85.
30. Chekmeneva L.Iu. Territorial'nyi analiz i diagnostika geodemograficheskoi situatsii Permskogo kraia [Territorial analysis and diagnostics of the geodemographic situation in the Perm krai]. Abstract of Ph.D. thesis. Perm, 2010, 23 p.
Оригинальность 81 %
Поступила 02.05.2023 Одобрена 28.05.2023 Принята к публикации 02.09.2023
Ю.М. Вассерман
МЕЖПОКОЛЕННАЯ ДИНАМИКА КУЛЬТУРЫ: ТЕРРИТОРИАЛЬНЫЙ РАЗРЕЗ
Описываемое исследование выполнено в рамках проекта, направленного на изучение процессов, протекающих при социокультурной модернизации российского общества, их взаимосвязь во временном и пространственном аспекте. Он реализуется по единой методике с 1991 г. и первоначально опросы проводились в основном среди студентов пермских университетов. В 2020 г. был проведен опрос более 2000 жителей Пермского края. Авторская методика была использована для эмпирического определения измеряемого уровня социокультурной модернизации респондентов (на основе исследования их установок к социальным явлениям, генетически восходящим к традиционному или современному типу общества) и определения различий указанного показателя у различных социальных групп и, в частности, у различных поколений и жителей различных территорий. В качестве факторов, влияющих на показатель модернизации культуры, были выделены четыре когорты по годам рождения: 1) до 1960 г.; 2) 1960-1974 гг.; 3) 1975-1989 гг.; 4) 1990-2002 гг. - и три типа территорий: 1) нет городского населения; 2) городского населения до 75 %; 3) городского населения свыше 75 %. С помощью дисперсионного анализа исследовалось влияние указанных предикторов на упомянутый показатель модернизации культуры, а также их взаимодействие. Были выявлены статистически значимые связи анализируемых показателей. Кроме этого на основе опроса жителей всего Пермского края подтвердился характер связи уровня модернизации культуры респондентов и их политических предпочтений, выявленный на предыдущих этапах исследования, проводившихся с 1991 г. на основе опроса студентов университетов города Перми.
Ключевые слова: уровень социокультурной модернизации, социокультурная дифференциация, межпоколенная динамика культуры, факторы социокультурной модернизации, территориальная социокультурная дифференциация.
Вассерман Юрий Михайлович - канд. экон. наук, доцент кафедры социологии и политологии ФГАОУ ВО «Пермский национальный исследовательский политехнический университет», e-mail: yuriyvasserman@gmail.com.
Received 02.05.2023 Approved 28.05.2023 Accepted for publication 02.09.2023
Финансирование. Статья подготовлена в рамках исследовательского проекта № 18-011-00548А, финансируемого Российским фондом фундаментальных исследований.
Конфликт интересов. Автор заявляет об отсутствии конфликта интересов.
Вклад автора 100 %.
Просьба ссылаться на эту статью в русскоязычных источниках следующим образом:
Вассерман, Ю.М. Межпоколенная динамика культуры: территориальный разрез / Ю.М. Вассерман // Вестник ПНИПУ. Социально-экономические науки. - 2023. - № 3. -С. 97-113.
Please cite this article in English as:
Vasserman Yu.M. Intergenerational dynamics of culture: a territorial cross-section. PNRPU Sociology and Economics Bulletin, 2023, no. 3, pp. 97-113.
