CC BY
42
Е.В. Лисеенко
СОЦИАЛЬНЫЕ ФАКТОРЫ
ИНСТИТУЦИОНАЛЬНЫХ
ИЗМЕНЕНИЙ
В СОВРЕМЕННЫХ
ПОСТСОВЕТСКИХ
ОБЩЕСТВАХ
Аннотация
Статья посвящена анализу социального включения/отчуждения и неопатримониальных практик как социальных факторов институциональных изменений в современных постсоветских обществах. Уточняются понятия социального включения и неопатримониальных практик на основе неоинституционального подхода и концепции неопатримониализма. Фокусируется внимание на том, что в трансформирующихся посткоммунистических обществах ослабление институциональных систем приводит к формированию неопатримониальных практик. Отмечается, что существенным фактором модернизационного потенциала является включенность населения в общественные институты, а также ценностные устремления основных акторов и общественных лидеров.
Ключевые слова:
институциональные изменения, социальное включение, социальное отчуждение, неопатримониальные практики.
E. Liseyenko
SOCIAL FACTORS OF INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES IN MODERN POST-SOVIET SOCIETY
Abstract
The article is devoted the analysis of the social activation/alienation and neo-patrimonial practices as social factors of institutional changes in modern societies. The concepts of the social activation and neo-patrimonial practices are specified on the basis of neo-institutional approach and conception of neo-patrimonializm. The attention is focused on the transformed Ukrainian society where the weakening of the institutional systems results in forming of neo-patrimonial practices. It is noted that a significant factor modernization potential of society, is its involvement in public institutions. Value aspirations of the main actors and community leaders are important composes progressive change.
Key words:
institutional changes, social activation, social alienation, neo-patrimonial practices.
In modern sociology the comprehension of the processes of institutional change in contemporary societies is the subject of considerable scientific attention. In his theory of "social formation" P. Shtompka turns his attention to the role of tradition ("constant existence of the past in the present") in the nature of institutional change. This statement explains why the old institutions change and these changes do not form new institutions but the synthetic type of social institutions (i.e. the past is not only preserved in the present but it is also closely connected with the present) [1, c. 7]. D. North accounts the orientation of institutional change for the dif-
ferences between institutions and organizations and their interaction. He believes that institutional changes occur due to the fact that the leaders of political or economic organizations provide the institutional framework with some changes [2]. Based on D. Nort's description of the internal structure of the Institute that is the rules of the game, one may identify characteristics that indicate the process of institutional change:
1. The emergence of new rules of the game, their legitimacy and feasibility;
2. Provision of new rights and freedoms;
3. Modernization orientation socio-cultural norms;
4. Public monitoring of the implementation of the new rules and regulations.
P. Berger and T. Lukman considered habitualization (getting used to something) of human activity and interaction to be the source of any institutionalization [3, c. 87]. They pointed out that any action which is often repeated becomes a model [3, c. 89-90]. These processes precede any in-stitutionalization and can be applied both to a set of interacting individuals and to hypothetically secluded individual who is remoted from any of social interaction" [3, c. 91]. S. Huntington in his paper "Political order in changing societies" notes that institutionalization is the process whereby organizations and procedures acquire value and stability" [4, c. 32].
According to S. Huntington, if there aren't strong social institutions in a society then and there it lacks the means to define and implement the public interest. Indeed a government with a low level of institutionalization is not only a weak government but a bad one. A weak government that does not have the authority is unable to execute its functions successfully.
Among Ukrainian sociologists the papers that excite interest are written by E. Golovakha, S. Makeeva, O. Kutsenko, N. Panina, I. Popova, which examine the nature, character and trends of institutional change in contemporary Ukrainian society. In addition, it should be noted that a significant contribution to the study of the specificity of the post-Soviet institutional process was suggested by E. Golovakha and N. Panina as a theory of "double institutionalization" [5].
The most important result of the transformational process and reformist policy in Ukrainian society during the latest twenty-three years became the creation of the institutional infrastructure of a democratic state.
However the following institutionalization of market economy elements and democratic political relations was not a product of national culture and the evolution of civil society (free participation of citizens in the society, the full realization of their "social self"). This has resulted that in the Ukrainian society new institutions were created, they received the legality, but they didn't become legal in the mass consciousness. As the process of functioning of public institutions is implemented in social practices, the concept of social activation characterizes the possibility of full individual participation in all institutional structures that accumulate different and significant resources and rules that exist in the society. Whereas the basis for social activation (participation) is the consciousness of freedom and freedom of action, the concept of social detachment defines structural and socio-cultural limitation of freedom. There can be distinguished objective and subjective aspects in the phenomenon of social detachment. Objective manifestations of detachment are associated with lack of opportunities for social participation and awareness of the individual's inability to have an influence on the decisions in reference to the purpose, nature and organization of activities. The process of detachment is also evident in the subjective characteristics as socio-psychological state of a person, that affects his or her social health, social consciousness and nature of action. American sociologist M. Seaman suggested to consider detachment as a specific psychological state of a person, where in its development and manifestation can be distinguished four types of social detachment:
1. "powerlessness" is associated with a sense of impossibility impact on their social environment;
2. "atrophy of sense" is the feeling that it is impossible to achieve important goals legally;
3. "isolation" is associated with a sense of detachment from the norms and values of society;
4. "an out-of-body experience" as the inability to engage in activities that could bring psychological satisfaction [6].
Subjective expression of social detachment that is extended in Ukrainian society feelings of social powerlessness, isolation, person's detachment from society. The existence of social detachment is the ground for the beginning of specific social practices, which ultimately contribute to the transformation of social institutions. In fact as noted by N. Luhmann
problem of social detachment develops into socially dangerous problem of the cleavage of society into "persons", "citizens" and "individuals" who are not able to engage in the institutional structure of society [7]. As a result the quality and focus of social institutions are determined primarily by the interests of certain management team and the structure of that region (not legislative, but administrative and bureaucratic region) in which it is implemented. The same trends are evident in political departments as the authorities are secret in relation to society, the monopolization of the media, the use of technology to manipulate the public opinion. In the economic domain these trends are evident in the emergence of non-legal mechanisms of interaction between officials and the businessmen, the illegal nature of the business, a hidden secondary job placement of economically active population. In the legislative department they appear at the total juridical dependency on the Executive, unpunishability of major economic and criminal crime, disrespect for a law.
At the same time the efficiency of public institutions mostly depends on mutual correspondence of: foremost, the formal, legal and administrative standards that are set and controlled by the state structures, and socio-cultural norms, that appear in the process of historical development of society and are controlled by civil structures; and secondly, mutual correspondence of informal norms, rules and actual practices. D. North in "Institutions, institutional change and economic performance" notes that informal rules used to emerge spontaneously, in the course of interactions between agents, and formal rules are written by the consolidation of already existing informal rules [2].
Thus, according to D. Nort, formal rules appear as fixation of the stable core social institution, and informal rules appear as its changeable periphery. In societies that are transforming, which do not have democratic traditions or developed civil structures, it often manifests illegal rules, norms and practices, that express the interests of the elites (officials, managers, etc.), which ultimately affect the way public institutions function. A. Fisun notes that the post-Soviet transformation in the 1990s has led to building of neopatrimonialism in the Ukrainian society instead of democracy, that involves, first of all, not traditional and/or ideological motives of the actors, but rather incentives of rent-seeking type. He distinguishes three main principles of the way neopatrimonial system acts:
1. The political center is separate and independent from the periphery, he concentrates on political, economic and symbolic resources of power, while blocking access to all other groups and sections of society to these resources and positions of control over them;
2. The state is managed as private ownership (patrimonium) ruling groups - holders of state power that privatizing various public functions and institutions, making them a source of private income;
3. Ethnic, clan, regional, and family and kinship ties do not disappear, but are reproduced in contemporary political and economic relations, defining the methods and principles of the way to function [8].
The concept of neopatrimonialism comes from the fact that modern social institutions in post-Soviet countries perform the only legitimate role of a facade of a patrimonial regime. The key role in the functioning of the basic social institutions at neopatrimonialism are not rational-legal relations within the formal systems of interaction but client and social case relationships that control the access of neopatrimonialism players to various resources on the basis of relations of personal dependence. So the neopatri-monial practices are the actual forms and ways of functioning of basic social institutions in neopatrimonial system of the state.
At neopatrimonialism public institutions are used to achieve economic and political goals of private persons. For example, power and fiscal functions of the state in fact become an effective tool to suppress any political resistance and to eliminate economic competitors - according to the following expression "it is everything for friends, but low for enemies". The multiparty institute is not the most important characteristic of a democratic society, because the relationship of the parties and the Executive is directly opposed to the canons of Western democracies. First, there is no opposition party at neopatrimonialism both in the Parliament, and in all public policy; secondly not state-administrative institutions depend on parties but party depends from them. In such a situation even real freedom of speech is not so significant. There is freedom of the word, but there isn't political influence no or it is too little.
In addition neopatrimonial bureaucracy is formed not only on the basis of the selection of bureaucrats in business qualities, but on the principle of devotion to the patron. Consequently, and its actual practice corresponds not so much to the spirit of the law, but to the interests of the cartridge,
and personal interests of officials, where the devotion is bought by the distribution of profitable positions. In such conditions, corruption is not simply a consequence of the regime, but also its content. Even M. Weber pointed out that the assignment of official position leads to the loss of their bureaucratic functions, and patrimonial official ceases to be a civil servant, because the state and public interests become their personal or corporate.
It should be noted that neopatrimonial system of a society contributes to the strengthening of social detachment of citizens from participation in politics and development of legal nihilism. These are very characteristic features of the political culture of Ukraine's population of [9]. That is why the extension of social activation of citizens in the process of institutional change and the constriction of the area where realization neopatrimonial practices depends on the formation of such social qualities as citizenship, independence, responsibility, development of legal consciousness in the society.
Литература
1. Штомпка П. Социология социальных изменений; [Пер. с англ., под ред. В.А. Ядова]. М.: Аспект-Пресс, 1996.
2. Норт Д. Институты, институциональные изменения и развитие экономики. М., 1996.
3. Бергер П., Лукман Т. Социальное конструирование реальности. М,
1995.
4. Хантингтон С. Политический порядок в меняющихся обществах. М.: Прогресс-Традиция, 2004.
5. Головаха Е.И., Панина Н.В. Постсоветская деинституализация и становление новых социальных институтов в украинском обществе // Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг. 2001. №4.
6. Seeman M. On the Meaning of Allienation // Amarican Sociological Review. 1959. Vol. 24.
7. Луман Н. Глобализация мирового сообщества: как следует системно понимать современное общество // Социология на пороге XXI века: Основные направления исследований / Под ред. С.И. Григорьева, Ж. Коэннен-Хуттера. М., 1999.
8. Фисун А.А. Постсоветские неопатримониальные режимы: генезис, особенности, типология. URL: http://politzone.in.ua/index.php?id=422 (дата обращения 05.08.2014).
9. Головаха Е.И., Панина Н.В. Пол™чна культура украТнського суспiльства (за даними соцюлопчного монiторингу та мiжнародного порiвняльного дослiдження) // УкраТнське суспiльство 1992-2007. Динамка со^альних змiн / За ред. д. ек. н. В. Ворони, д.соц.н. М. Шульги. К.: 1нститут соцюлоги НАН УкраТни, 2007.
References
1. Shtompka P. Sotsiologiya sotsial'nykh izmenenii; [Per. s angl., pod red. V.A. Yadova]. M.: Aspekt-Press, 1996.
2. Nort D. Instituty, institutsional'nye izmeneniya i razvitie ekonomiki. M.,
1996.
3. Berger P., Lukman T. Sotsial'noe konstruirovanie real'nosti. M, 1995.
4. Khantington S. Politicheskii poryadok v menyayushchikhsya obshchest-vakh. M.: Progress-Traditsiya, 2004.
5. Golovakha E.I., Panina N.V. Postsovetskaya deinstitualizatsiya i stanov-lenie novykh sotsial'nykh institutov v ukrainskom obshchestve. Sotsiologiya: teoriya, metody, marketing. 2001. №4.
6. Seeman M. On the Meaning of Allienation. Amarican Sociological Review. 1959. Vol. 24.
7. Luman N. Globalizatsiya mirovogo soobshchestva: kak sleduet sistemno ponimat' sovremennoe obshchestvo. Sotsiologiya na poroge XXI veka: Osnovnye napravleniya issledovanii. Pod red. S.I. Grigor'eva, Zh. Koennen-Khuttera. M., 1999.
8. Fisun A.A. Postsovetskie neopatrimonial'nye rezhimy: genezis, osoben-nosti, tipologiya. URL: http://politzone.in.ua/index.php?id=422 (data obrashcheniya 05.08.2014).
9. Golovakha E.I., Panina N.V. Politichna kul'tura ukraïns'kogo suspil'stva (za danimi sotsiologichnogo monitoringu ta mizhnarodnogo porivnyal'nogo doslidzhennya). Ukraïns'ke suspil'stvo 1992-2007. Dinamika sotsial'nikh zmin. Za red. d. ek. n. V. Voroni, d.sots.n. M. Shul'gi. K.: Institut sotsiologiï NAN Ukraïni, 2007.
