Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half-Title -- Series -- Title -- Contents -- Prologue -- 1 On riding bicycles and human judgement -- 2 Homo sovieticus as Eastern European dissent -- 3 Homo sovieticus as Soviet dissent -- 4 Homo sovieticus as a Perestroika child -- 5 Homo sovieticus as a post-Soviet empathy -- 6 Homo post-sovieticus as a fight for the continent -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index -- Copyright.

What explains Putin's enduring popularity in Russia? In 'The Red Mirror', Gulnaz Sharafutdinova uses social identity theory to explain Putin's leadership. The main source of Putin's political influence, she finds, lies in how he articulates the shared collective perspective that unites many Russian citizens. Under his tenure, the Kremlin's media machine has tapped into powerful group emotions of shame and humiliation - derived from the Soviet transition in the 1990s - and has politicized national identity to transform these emotions into pride and patriotism.

"This book inquires into Vladimir Putin's leadership strategy and relies on social identity theory to explain Putin's success as a leader. The author argues that Russia's second president has been successful in promoting his image as an embodiment of the shared national identity of the Russian citizens. He has articulated the shared collective perspective and has built a social consensus by tapping into powerful group emotions of shame and humiliation derived from the painful experience of the transition in the 1990s. He was able to overturn these emotions into pride and patriotism by activating two central pillars of the Soviet collective identity: a sense of exceptionalism that the Soviet regime promoted to consolidate the Soviet nation, and a sense of a foreign threat to the state and its people that also was foundational for the Soviet Union. Putin's assertive foreign policy decisions, culminating in the annexation of Crimea, appeared to have secured, in the eyes of the Russian citizens, their insecure national identity. The top-down leadership and bottom-up collective identity-driven processes coalesced to produce a newly revanchist Russia, with its current leader perceived by many citizens to be irreplaceable. Politics of national identity in Russia are promoted through a well-coordinated media machine that works to focus citizens' attention on Putin's foreign policy and on Russia's international standing. Public fears are played out against the backdrop of Soviet legacies of national exceptionalism and the politics of victimhood associated with the 1990s to conjure a sense of collective dignity, self-righteousness, and national strength to keep the present political system intact."--

An original, empirically rich, and analytically multilayered and provocative statement by Tomila Lankina, The Estate Origins of Democracy in Russia (2022) is a meticulous work of sociology focused on the exploration and elaboration of social mechanisms of resilience in a transforming polity and society. It is also an attempt to link the past, the 19th-century reform of the estate system in Russia, to the present, Russia's failed democratization, by arguing that the social basis for democracy in postcommunist Russia was associated with the thin stratum of the more privileged, educated, and politically engaged members of the middle class who were able to build on the intergenerational capital and became "the silent custodian of institutions and values that nurtured the democratic promise of post-communism" (391). As such, it is a passionate statement against Soviet historiography that has been influential in shaping the mainstream Western understanding about the socially transformative nature of communism. The book goes against the received wisdom about the degree to which the Soviet society has been modernized and transformed through communist experience: "the narratives of grand revolutionary rupture," as Lankina phrases it (394). Excavating specific family histories, Lankina shines light "on the 'tectonic' layers of skills, values, and occupational complexity" that underlay wealth-supporting strategies along with the pursuit of better education and the acquisition of better-paid jobs in the Soviet Union. The already privileged social groups—the urban and rural meshchane—were better "connected, networked and engaged" and therefore better-equipped "with the skills, tools, and capital" (393). The Soviet regime reincorporated these privileged professional groups into an elite layer (prosloyka) of the Soviet society, commonly known as Soviet intelligentsia.

This article reviews four recent books that inquire into the nature and challenges of institution-building in the post-communist region. The main lessons learned from this scholarship relate to the complexity of establishing effective domestic institutions securing property rights and
the role of various domestic and global factors that shape these processes. Domestic variables include political connections, bargaining power, and the nature of a social equilibrium that shapes norms, expectations, and behavior of economic actors. Global factors include structural constraints
and opportunities associated with the global financial system and institutions.

Intellectual efforts to understand post-Crimean Russian society have brought to prominence explanations that emphasize psychological and attitudinal legacies of Soviet society. The recent revival of the term homo sovieticus (or Soviet man) in the media and intellectual discourse is a good illustration of this trend. Yurii Levada's late-Soviet sociological research project on the "simple Soviet man" serves as a frequent reference point in these discussions. In this article, I explore the ideological and analytical foundations of the Levada project and juxtapose the sociological construct developed by Levada and his team with the interpretative approach developed by Natalya Kozlova, another Soviet scholar who dedicated her life to studying Soviet society. I argue that essentialist and deterministic views of individual personality underpinning the Levada project that guide the current use of the Soviet man category are more politically and ideologically driven rather than being based on the state of the art in social psychology.