Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- A short story of enrichment -- Becoming bourgeois -- Quests for legitimacy and superiority -- Family history -- Rich Russians' philanthropy -- A man's world -- The inheritors' coming of age -- Rich Russians and the West -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index

This article explores the dominant morality to which wealthy Russians adhered in their vision of how society should be organized and the role they see for themselves. The interviews with, and observations of, eighty Russian multi-millionaires and billionaires, their spouses, and their children, on which the article is based, were conducted from 2008 to 2017, a time when Russia's rich were most settled in their positions. The interview analysis highlights the role of Soviet history and shows how it is integrated into, and harmonizes with, contemporary upper-class Russians' notions of meritocracy. The author argues that drawing on international sociological research considerably advances our understanding of how Russian elites ideologically construe and morally legitimize the concentration of money and power in their own hands and how they model themselves as "good" in their actions and "deserving" of their fortunes. Conversely, the article suggests that these new findings on Russian elites (in particular, their references to their superior genes and their unwavering preference for private capital as a means to develop society—if necessary, to the detriment of democracy) offer great insights into, and have the potential to complement, established scholarship on Western elites (who emphasize hard work but tend to gloss over biology).

This article investigates philanthropic practices among Russia's hyper-rich. It ponders whether and to what extent philanthrocapitalist concepts are compatible with traditional Russian approaches to elite philanthropy, which have been shaped and controlled by the country's domineering state. Some of the multimillionaires and billionaires interviewed for this research have married philanthrocapitalist ideas with beliefs molded by their Soviet past and their self-perception as belonging to the intelligentsia. Such distinct and seemingly morally superior identities, together with active engagement in philanthropy, act as a lever with which to foster trust in the new social hierarchies and legitimize them across generations.

This article argues that today in Central and Eastern Europe self-censorship, journalistic freedom and autonomy are just as severely affected by economic constraints, oligarchic influences and new authoritarianism as they are by their Communist pasts. Either way, journalists know exactly what to report, what to omit and how to advance their careers. This is reminiscent of adekvatnost'; a distinct strategy employed by Russian journalists, who regard this skill as an expression of professionalism. It implies having a 'feel for the game' and the 'right instinct', which allows them to enjoy a certain level of freedom in their work and express their creativity. The authors' interviews with Latvian and Hungarian journalists, editors and producers examined the extent to which adekvatnost' might be a feature of journalism beyond Russia, in particular when a media system faces rising populism and authoritarianism, paired with oligarch-dominated ownership. As such, knowledge gained about journalistic practices in the countries under investigation might also be useful in understanding media development beyond the post-Communist space, including Western Europe.

This collection of articles deals with the history and the current state of Russia's media elite. It defines three groups of media elites; owners of media outlets, media managers and prominent journalists. All those groups are under pressure of being agreeable to the Kremlin and pleasing their audiences with their products and output. The Kremlin's tightened control over the media forced some media professionals out, losing their jobs or emigrating. The majority, however, have kept their positions. They are reasonably well networked and integrated into the political system and successfully employ strategies partly inherited from Soviet times. The collection of articles provides insights into the inner working of Russian media, delivering a nuanced understanding of media control, censorship and self-censorship.

Media managers are key in the relations between, on the one side the authorities, to whom they enjoy privileged access, and, on the other side the newsroom, the functioning of which they define. Contrary to the popular view, held both in Russia and abroad, that the Kremlin controls the majority of the country's media, we argue that media managers have a fair bit of agency and are players in their own rights, able to shape their audiences' attitudes and modify individual as well as collective behavior. To be able to exert this power they must, however, tread a very fine line: they have to demonstrate adekvatnost' (literally adequacy, but better translated as appropriateness, or 'the right feel for the game') and demand adekvatnost' from their journalists and editors. Focusing on two dimensions – elite theory and the concept of adekvatnost' – this article analyses the data gleaned from interviews with a range of media managers.

In 1989 the Berlin Wall came down. Two years later the Soviet Union disintegrated. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union discredited the idea of socialism for generations to come. It was seen as representing the final and irreversible victory of capitalism. This triumphal dominance was barely challenged until the 2008 financial crisis threw the Western world into a state of turmoil.

Through analysis of post-socialist Russia and Central and Eastern Europe, as well as of the United Kingdom, China and the United States, Socialism, Capitalism and Alternatives confronts the difficulty we face in articulating alternatives to capitalism, socialism and threatening populist regimes. Beginning with accounts of the impact of capitalism on countries left behind by the planned economies, the volume moves on to consider how China has become a beacon of dynamic economic growth, aggressively expanding its global influence.

The final section of the volume poses alternatives to the ideological dominance of neoliberalism in the West. Since the 2008 financial crisis, demands for social change have erupted across the world. Exposing the failure of neoliberalism in the United Kingdom and examining recent social movements in Europe and the United States, the closing chapters identify how elements of past ideas are re-emerging, among them Keynesianism and radical socialism. As those chapters indicate, these ideas might well have potential to mobilise support and challenge the dominance of neoliberalism.

The end of socialism in the Soviet Union and its satellite states ushered in a new era of choice. Yet the idea that people are really free to live as they choose turns out to be problematic. Personal choice is limited by a range of factors such as a person's economic situation, class, age, government policies and social expectations, especially regarding gender roles. Furthermore, the notion of free choice is a crucial feature of capitalist ideology, and can be manipulated in the interests of the market. This edited collection explores the complexity of choice in Russia and Ukraine. The contributors explore how the new choices available to people after the collapse of the Soviet Union have interacted with and influenced gender identities and gender, and how choice has become one of the driving forces of class-formation in countries which were, in the Soviet era, supposedly classless. The book will of interest to students and scholars across a range of subjects including gender and sexualities studies, history, sociology and political science

Smashing initial hopes for more radical and speedier changes in Russia, elements of the Soviet system of managerial and ideological control proved to be obstinately persistent. Certain practices reminiscent of the informal functioning of the Soviet nomenklatura continue unabated primarily in politics, but also in Russian media. This article argues that nomenklatura practices are still a fixed part in organization management in Russian media today, securing the loyalty of journalists and controlling the output of the news media. The analysis of 30 semi-structured interviews and three case studies, scrutinizing media managers' professional biographies, directs to a non-intuitive development; namely, that it is not necessarily those who have experienced the Soviet nomenklatura closely and in person who were most active in applying and perpetuating nomenklatura practices, but also those who were either remote from these power structures or too young.

Die russische 'Mittelschicht' ist seit dem Ende der Sowjetunion ein wissenschaftlich wie gesellschaftlich viel beachtetes Thema. Im Kontext der postsozialisten Umbrüche galt sie im politischen Diskurs als Indikator für eine erfolgreiche Transformation hin zur Marktwirtschaft. Doch kann es im heutigen Russland, einem Land, in dem die reichsten 10 Prozent der Bevölkerung über 83 Prozent des Haushaltsvermögens verfügen, überhaupt eine 'Mittelschicht' geben? Bernhard Braun löst sich in seinem Buch von eurozentrischen Entwicklungsnarrativen und nähert sich der Moskauer 'Mittelschicht' durch ethnographische Forschung an. Das Buch ermöglicht einen Blick hinter die Fassade eines viel zitierten Begriffs. Es zeigt die Vielfalt der Moskauer Mittelschichten auf und stellt die sie charakterisierenden Prozesse sozialer Abhängigkeiten und die respektiven Adaptionsstrategien in den Mittelpunkt. So ermöglicht Brauns Analyse ein tiefgreifenderes Verständnis der russischen Gesellschaft und ihrer Dynamiken.

Bringing together empirical studies of former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, this Special Issue explores the relationship between censorship and self-censorship. All the cases under consideration share a history of state-led censorship. Importantly, however, the authors argue that journalism in the former Eastern bloc has developed features similar to those observed in many countries which have never experienced state socialism. This introduction presents the theoretical framework and the historical backgound that provide the backdrop for this Special Issue's contributions, all of which take a journalist-focused angle.