Russian Institute for Cultural Research
abstract: This article is about the creation, resuscitation and activity of the Russian Sociological Association in the context of the transformation of sociology brought about by the changes in its societal setting from 1916 till the end of the 20th century. The periodization used (‘thaw’, ‘stagnation’, ‘perestroika’ and ‘transition period’), is the one recognized in the newest reading of Russian history, and is primarily based upon the degree of liberalism of government and freedom of speech. It shows that in the autocratic (Tsarist and later socialist) state there was no place for civil society organizations. The intelligentsia played the role of opposition, expressing its social and political concerns primarily in literary fiction and the arts. The sociological profession was a very ideological one, and the professional association had to control the presentations made by Soviet sociologists. After the collapse of the Communist regime, the imposed unity of the sociological community disintegrated. The gradual transition to civil society provides new opportunities for sociologists, and first of all opportunities for the conscious and scientifically grounded shaping of social processes.
keywords: civil society ✦ Communist Party ✦ social activity ✦ social actors ✦ social participation ✦ social transition ✦ sociology
Prior to the unfolding of this drama it is necessary to make some introductory remarks on the nature of Russian society, the theatre where the spectacle is played. For decades any public discussion of major social
International Sociology ✦ June 2002 ✦ Vol 17(2): 233–251 SAGE (London, Thousand Oaks, CAand New Delhi) [0268-5809(200206)17:2;233–251;023765]
233
problems was limited by the Tsarist regime (and later the authority of the Communist Party), the most important political actor on the stage. The state remained excessively centralized for several centuries, which was reflected in the public consciousness, including that of scholars, as well as in the purpose and the degree of independence of public organizations.
Here are the most important features. In the autocratic state there is no place for civil society organizations. Discussion on social and political themes took place almost exclusively in literary reviews. Authors seized the occasion to indulge in social criticism. Hence, the role of the political opposition was taken by belles lettres, which became the quintessence of political commentary; thus Russian literature acquired a special status which distinguished it from the literature of other countries. For a very long time, a poet in Russia was more than a poet. This public role of literary fiction and criticism was recognized by the authorities, who in 1804 introduced censorship of all publications; the state decided what its citizens could publish and read. The import of some books was forbidden even earlier under Catherine the Great; later thousands of books were burnt, or under Soviet power hidden from the readers in ‘special sections’ of libraries. The secret police added their own censorship in 1807. Most publishing houses were state owned. The writing and reading public responded by wide use of Aesopian language. Authors learned to write, and readers learned to read, between the lines. (The words ‘progress’ and ‘evolution’ were officially forbidden up to the reforms of 1861 [Koukoushkina, 1993], and it was necessary to use synonyms for ‘sociology’ up to the third quarter of the 20th century.) For 150 years the opposition between ‘Slavophiles’ who stressed the national peculiarities of Russia, and ‘Westernizers’ aspiring to greater integration with the West, was reflected in the political positions of these reviews.
The disputes between Slavophiles and Westernizers served to bring out different evaluations of the traditional type of community, and later influenced socialist thought. The notion of ‘the people’ was hence introduced into intense discussions on the fate of the rural community and the peculiarities of the Russian soul. By the 1870s Narodnichestvo – an intelligentsia movement for the sake of the common people – became a form of ideology (Koukoushkina, 1993). The approach to ‘the people’ in Russia with its Orthodox traditions was also rather specific: many members of the intelligentsia embarked on a mission of upholding the interests ‘of the simple people’. It was supposed that writers and artists would not only enlighten, but would lead the untutored people, and bring them to a better life. This self-appointed role led many of the intelligentsia to see themselves as leaders of the people, which, though it reflected a noble impulse, was a manifestation of the anti-democratic bent of this intelligentsia even up to the 1990s (Boutenko and Caldwell, 2000b).
The rigid censorship was circumvented by, and gave a special importance to, the oral dissemination of ideas. At the turn of the 20th century the university lecture became literally a public performance. In the 1960s and 1970s this magisterial tradition still continued in sociological seminars, and also – more widely – by the circulation of jokes, often political ones; under Stalin such jokes would have been told at the risk of one’s life, and during the stagnation period of the loss of one’s freedom or reputation as a reliable citizen. Within Russia, it should be noted that some public organizations were founded not as grassroots initiatives, but as a result of the concern of the higher aristocracy, even of the monarchs themselves (Mersianova, 2000).
Because of this situation, the development of Russian thought abroad often appeared more intensive than in the country itself. So, in France, from the late 1860s Russian scholars edited La Philosophie positive, in which Russian social thinkers could publish; importation of this magazine into Russia was forbidden until 1881 (Koukoushkina, 1993). Many Russian sociologists lived and worked abroad for long periods. It was not in St Petersburg, but in Paris, that the Russian École Supérieure des Sciences Sociales was opened.
Although there were many earlier publications, we may only properly speak of the establishment of sociology as a discipline, and even more so of a sociological association, in the 20th century. Its emergence coincided with major social and political events: the First Russian Revolution (1905) and reaction to it, which resulted in the strengthening of ideological constraints, and the proliferation of political parties. Let us briefly review the events, which are essential to an understanding of the context in which sociology emerged.
1908 – The first department of sociology is founded at the private Psychoneurological Institute; elsewhere sociology is taught under the title of ‘Scientific Studies’ or ‘Legal Studies’: this teaching appears to have been limited to devotees and enthusiasts.
1912 – A Sociological Section of the Historical Society is established – but at the reception party for this the Minister of Education announced that sociology compromises the educational institution (Koukoushkina, 1993).
1916 – Kovalevsky and his pupil Sorokin establish the Russian Sociological Society, with over 70 members; this Society was named in honour of Kovalevsky after his death the same year.
1917 – The October Socialist Revolution; sociology, various public organizations, educational institutions proliferate.
1918 – The first sociological department opens, Sorokin becomes its dean;
a large number of voluntary societies of various kinds appear, and new
printed mass media are set up. 1922 – Limitations imposed on political freedoms, sparking a mass
emigration of intelligentsia. 1932 – The Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) passes a reso
lution monopolizing writers and artistic associations, resulting in their
complete control by the state.
Ruptures in social organization seem always to have resulted in a spurt of intense activism in the population (we see it again in the 1990s too). During the first years of Soviet power there came into existence very diverse associations. Major sociological, economic, psychological and ethnographic research projects were carried out. However, the limitation of such public initiatives was soon to come. The Communist Party proceeded to monopolize the management of public life. In the mid-1920s voluntary associations were abolished or merged into larger bodies making up one uniform political organization, state dominated and under complete party control. There was a quasi-democratic form of public self-government, but subject to rigidly centralized public organizations; passive membership was obligatory for all working people, as well as students. Sociological teaching was discouraged, departments were closed, outstanding sociologists were exiled or arrested, and the very term ‘sociology’ was purged from academic discourse. The Stalinist regime was buttressed by a dogmatic version of Marxism based on the thought of Bukharin, in which historical materialism supplanted sociology.
Thus, by the end of the 1920s, the Grand Overture is followed immediately by an Entr’acte. Empirical studies are forbidden, sociology is displaced by historical materialism. The sole actor left on the stage is the executive director, acting also as the composer and the projectionist: the CPSU. The public stage is narrowed to a small platform, where CPSU resolutions resound before a frightened public reduced to silence.
Act 1: The Thaw
After the change in CPSU leadership following the 1956 condemnation of Stalin’s personality cult, a new act began, with significant liberalization. This was readily embraced by the intelligentsia, many of whom anticipated the coming changes. Literature again assumed an important role in the public consciousness. A readership boom started. Enormous importance was again ascribed to the publications of literary reviews, courageous ideas were expressed by poets writing on social themes, authors formerly forbidden or censored were published, literary reviews regained their political importance and political division. The prospect of partial transfer of some state functions to public organizations was openly discussed.
Herein a chronicle of major developments:1
1953 – A Centre for Criticism of Modern Bourgeois Philosophy and Sociology is established in the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR; the Division of Economy and Law, to which this belongs, is reorganized into the Branch of Economic, Philosophical and Legal Sciences (DEPLS).
1954 – The DEPLS prepares papers for the XVI Congress of the International Institute of Sociology.
1956 – The UNESCO bulletin on the teaching of social sciences in the USSR is issued. A resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU introduces obligatory courses ‘The History of the CPSU’, ‘Political Economy’ and ‘Dialectical and Historical Materialism’ in all higher education institutions. For the first time a Soviet delegation participates in the International Sociological Association’s World Congress (Amsterdam).
1957 – The Centre for Criticism of Modern Bourgeois Philosophy and Sociology is replaced by Study Groups for: Criticism of Modern Bourgeois Philosophy; Criticism of Modern Bourgeois Sociology; the History of Bourgeois Philosophy and Sociology. Soviet scholars participate in the XVII Congress of the International Institute of Sociology (Beirut).
1958 – Preparation for the IV ISA World Congress begins. The CPSU and the Academy of Sciences create the Soviet Sociological Association (SSA).
The change of atmosphere during those years does not, however, imply a diminution of CPSU control. The regained freedom of speech had clear and narrow limits, most explicit for print media. For Soviet ideologues, attempts at raising the Iron Curtain and initiating partial integration into the global community necessitated, first, expansion of the sphere of influence of Marxism-Leninism. This expansion was to be carried out within the framework of associations of capitalist society, and combined with constant criticism of the inadequacy of ‘bourgeois’ theories. That, indeed, was the main motive for the institutionalization of sociology. The resolutions establishing the SSA refer to the participation of Soviet scholars in the World Congress, which has allowed foreign sociologists to become acquainted with the Soviet position on major questions of social development and has prevented the dissemination of slanderous information on the USSR. The SSA was also designed to supervise foreign presentations and contacts of Soviet scholars.
The SSA was situated within the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences, under the control of the DEPLS. It was authorized to publish four issues a year of the journal The Social Sciences in the USSR. As any scholar in the USSR could only function within an institution, to which he or she had to be completely loyal, only collective members (such as the Institutes of Philosophy, Law, Economics and Ethnography), not individuals, could join the SSA. The SSA’s main although latent task included seeing to a correct ideological orientation among those selected to go abroad; this privilege was restricted to the most loyal. Although the criteria of loyalty in this period did not appear too restrictive, their coercive nature depended on the fact that no scholar could act on his or her own: all nominees, papers and topics were coordinated in advance by ideological supervisors, all the way up to the Central Committee of the CPSU. The process of reinstitutionalization proceeded in a context of ongoing discussions about the status of the discipline, in view of the fact that Marxism-Leninism was ‘the only correct doctrine’.
More essential dates in this saga are:
1960 – A Study Group for Sociological Research is founded in the Institute of Philosophy, assigned investigations of ‘work and everyday life’, and is soon upgraded to a Centre.
1961 – The Second General Assembly of the SSA is devoted to the composition of a delegation for the Fifth ISA World Congress. 1964 – A Sociological Study Group is created in the Academy of Social Sciences, the main CPSU research and educational institution.
1965 – Study Groups examining youth problems are created in universities in Moscow, Leningrad and Novosibirsk, to be coordinated by the Institute of Philosophy.
1966 – The Centre for Investigations of ‘Work and Everyday Life’ in the Institute of Philosophy is upgraded to a Department of Concrete Sociological Research. The General Assembly of the SSA decides to create research committees and seven regional branches. The bureau of DEPLS (!) decides to organize a session of the SSA leadership dedicated to the promotion of sociological research ‘in the light of tasks ascribed by the XXIII Congress of the CPSU’.
1968 – The Concrete Social Research Institute of the Academy of Sciences is created out of the Department of Concrete Sociological Research; a Resolution of the CPSU prescribes the main orientations for its activity. From the start this differs from other academic institutes, in that it is a research institute.
This particular status of sociology is maintained for 24 years. The authorities’ disapproval and suspicion of the discipline and its pretensions to document the concrete experiences of society paralleled that of the imperial regime. Sociologists could not express points of view incompatible with those of the CPSU. In libraries there were special sections which contained various foreign periodicals and books, access to which was available to few. Others had to content themselves with second-hand information (digests, abstracts). However, Polish sociologists could express their ideas more openly, many foreign authors were available in Polish, and many Soviet sociologists began to read in Polish.
The sensation of approaching freedom led some sociologists to think that cooperation with the authorities was possible. This optimism was amplified by the prevailing confidence in science as a rational instrument for the improvement of the world. There were courageous attempts to raise delicate questions about the potential of Marxist methodology. However, the period of euphoria related to political changes was short. The ‘Prague Spring’ (1968) put an end to attempts at liberalization of the Soviet regime.
Both the SSA and the Concrete Social Research Institute (although many interesting and independent-minded scholars worked there) were reduced to a simulacrum of the sociological enterprise. The façade was maintained as an appropriate parallel to the western counterpart. The CPSU is still the principal actor, although renovated, in new costume, in the appropriate make-up. Temporary animation of the audience turned into whispers and murmuring, most noticeable in the foyer and lobby of the theatre.
Act 2: Stagnation
Soviet military power having squashed the ‘Prague Spring’, the authorities turned on the ideological pressure and took up struggle with dissidence. There were constant attacks from those who believed that historical materialism makes sociology superfluous, seeing it as a bourgeois quasi science, a fashion or superficial flimsy empiricism.
Nonetheless, sociology continued to be promoted. There were over 40 sociological research centres. The number of sociological study groups in the universities quadrupled to 200 between 1966 and 1972. Departments of all kinds, laboratories and centres of ‘Scientific Organization of Labour’ in enterprises comprised the majority of the collective members of the SSA. Even local newspapers started special columns in which the ‘accomplishments of sociologists’ were recognized and ‘public opinion’ was described. But all this was of an extremely formal and ideological character. This ambivalence about sociology was reflected in the fact that this discipline was still a ‘second rank’ one, a doubtful collection of so-called research results, and in the name itself of the principal institute and its journal (Sociological Studies as opposed to Problems of Philosophy, etc.). Each issue of this journal bore the names of both the Concrete Sociological Research Institute of the Academy of Sciences, and of the SSA.
The route to higher education was via internship in ‘enterprise’ (applied) sociology. This route provided for the ideological reliability of those concerned, opening for very few people the door to access to higher degrees and assuring their loyalty. It was three years after the resolution of the Ministry of Education before the sociological specialization ‘applied sociology’ was introduced to major universities, most often in departments of philosophy. The chronicle of the most important events of this period is as follows:
1972 – A resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU criticizes the Concrete Social Research Institute and renames it the Sociological Research Institute; the Third General Assembly of the SSA dutifully notes that ‘the sociological aspects of propaganda, social policy of the CPSU and Communist education’ are being actively pursued.
1974 – The quarterly review Sociological Studies is founded. 1976 – A CPSU resolution criticizing some activities of the Sociological Research Institute is passed.
1977 – The Fourth General Assembly of the SSA decides ‘to accord a priority to active participation in propagation of the achievements of Marxist-Leninist sociology among the population via Communist Party committees and via the society “Znanie” to be a major task of all SSA members’ (Rutkevitch, 1977). Teaching of sociology is introduced in some universities.
1980 – The main ideological vehicle Communist publishes an article ‘Sociological Research: Results, Problems and Tasks’, wherein the SSA is not mentioned.
Through all these years empirical research was treated as creating illicit channels of communication pretending to reveal deficiencies of the system. Newspapers published approved uncritically optimistic sociological findings. Formally sociology existed, but was subject to political control: even field research documents had to be approved by party heads, and access to respondents was only possible with the direct support of party committees. Sociologists were treated first and foremost as ideological workers.
During ‘stagnation’, censorship became more rigorous. Special sections still existed in libraries, and could only be accessed with sanction given for the period and topic of study. The publication of original and translated writings could only be done after the ideas involved had been exposed to detailed criticism, and prefaced with an extensive introduction.
Scholars’ councils were on the watch for ideological deviations. Some sociologists who were activists, or had a strong sense of vocation, began organizing ‘spontaneous’ seminars throughout the country (Pougacheva, 1998). More sensitive issues were discussed in these oral forums; published articles went no further than hints about dissident ideas. All over the country samizdat (the underground circulation of writings) flourished. All employees in research institutions belonged to the Trade Union of Scientific Workers, and those employed in high schools to the Union of Educational Workers. The SSA’s very existence was almost unknown in the scholarly milieu. This may be explained by the fact that it was actually functioning, on the one hand, as a division of the Concrete Sociological Research Institute, and, on the other hand, as a mechanism for additional control over publications.
Both these institutions were no more than stage sets; but whether in the foyer or the lobby, or even on an informal stage, the voices of some who favoured free thinking were audible. Sociologists representing the ideological authorities were players in the same game, pretending not to notice this ‘other’ stage.
Act 3: Perestroika
A new stage had been constructed, with new social and economic arrangements. The functioning of a new stage was supposed to be assured by the dismantling of administrative restrictions, the unleashing of individual initiative and expanded opportunities for citizens to participate in important societal decisions. Mesmerized by the promises offered by this new ‘Enlightenment’, the initial response was enthusiastic. The polarization between official and informal, Soviet and foreign (émigré, dissident) cultures evaporated. Authors and writings formerly forbidden were now freely available. A tremendous readers’ boom developed; numbers and circulation of newspapers and magazines increased sharply; political discussion was reflected on the pages of literary reviews, which regained their importance. Lost was the past richness of the oral tradition and the ability to read between the lines; both had become superfluous. Oral performances now took place only on the mass media. During the Thaw poetry was extremely popular, now it was replaced by social and political commentary. But an atmosphere of uncertainty was evident, although it was clear that a great change for the better was just around the corner.
The essential chronicle of this period is as follows:
1985 – The Central Committee elects M. Gorbachev to lead the CPSU. 1987 – Sociological Studies becomes bimonthly.
1988 – The CPSU proclaims glasnost and recognizes ideological pluralism. The Sociological Research Institute is renamed the Institute of Sociology. Sociology is recognized as a discipline equal to others. The All-Union Centre for the Study of Public Opinion is founded.
1989 – The ‘leading role of the CPSU in the USSR’ comes to an end. The Berlin Wall is demolished, the socialist camp is broken up. Obligatory university courses such as those on the history of the CPSU and historical and dialectical materialism are terminated.
1990 – A law on public organizations is passed; Sociological Studies becomes monthly. 1991 – The USSR disintegrates; the Russian Federation declares independence.
After the crash of the authoritarian regime a large part of the intelligentsia abandoned latent dissidence for direct political activism. Sociologists among others clambered up onto the public stage to show their new vocation as tribunes and prophets. The political activism of Russian sociologists peaked in the late 1980s to early 1990s, when they were politically active in a variety of ways and became important figures in the ruling or oppositional elite. They were applying their professional knowledge in directly shaping their society. This situation arose in all the post-social-ist countries.
Having been released from the recent ideological strait-jacket, the former monolithic associations fractured into many loosely connected ephemeral groups of like-minded individuals. Interestingly enough, while in the first quarter of the century such unions were formed on the basis of creative interests, their basis now was exclusively political. The Russian Sociological Society (RSS), having been registered in 1991 as a legitimate heir of the SSA, continued reporting to the Academy of Sciences, which continued to pay the RSS’s membership dues to international sociological organizations. RSS did little more than organize a limited number of meetings before small audiences, usually held in conjunction with other bodies.
A new day had dawned for sociology. At last it had acquired a status equal to other disciplines and, to boot, had become extremely fashionable: the competition for student places in new sociological faculties and departments had become brisk; sociologists were sought after as advisers; they were popular with the mass media. The popularity of sociology, and the sociological activism in this period, were a consequence of the fact that the evolution of public consciousness outpaced the development of the available official institutes, and that public opinion had partly replaced legislative and executive authority itself. The public stage had been enormously broadened, crowded with independent actors and self-appointed directors doing their own mise-en-scène. All engaged in monologues, to the delight of the audience occupying every seat in the theatre.
But there is an anticlimax. The whole performance was rather short.
Act 4: The Transition Period
The very name of this act is indicative, as the experts question what kind of regime was to be established in Russia and what should be the goal of reforms.
Some important dates are:
1993 – Changes in the rules of the RSS; creation of several associations,
failure of the sociological prediction of the outcome of the elections. 1994 – Establishment of a number of new sociological journals. 1995 – The new law on public organizations is passed. Greater success of
election forecasts, further changes in the RSS rules. 1997 – New elections to the RSS executive, introduction of membership
dues, production of a quarterly RSS bulletin.
This period sees a spectacular growth in the number of public organizations (Liborakina and Yakimetz, 1997). A survey of scholars visible on the public stage revealed that 32 percent of them held executive positions in voluntary associations; when one includes different state commissions the proportion rises to 75 percent (Boutenko and Caldwell, 2000a: 400). During an RSS meeting in 1993 the question arose of the restoration of connections with sociological associations of the former USSR. It was decided to set up the Professional Sociological Association. At almost the same time three more sociological associations came into being: the sociologists and demographers, the Kovalevsky Society (regrouping those employed in the educational sphere); the Petersburg Association of Sociologists (the second largest branch of the RSS) applied for independent status, but later was reintegrated as a regional branch of the RSS. However, in all these organizations there was almost no ordinary membership, the same people were on the executives, and the differentiation of organizations was actually a function of personal ambitions and political divergencies, as well as manoeuvring for research contracts. As before, membership dues were not collected, and meetings were rare and unrepresentative.
Contributing to this increased activism were at least three other circumstances.
First, a significant proportion of the leaders of many voluntary associations and public organizations used them as a platform for their own further political or commercial careers, and did not confine their activity to the long-term interests of their association. Thus as voluntary associations multiplied, membership declined; in some cases associations consisted of headquarters only, financed from sources other than membership dues. Such a process could not go on for long. The new leaders, having risen in other spheres, began overlooking the interests of the organizations to which they owed their prominence. It soon became clear to the spectators who were shouldering the stage that the promotion of their leaders to positions of power was not going to lead to any social change. Many of the associations withered away or simply became phantom ones. The second factor behind the proliferation of such organizations – many of which in sociology were set up to conduct surveys commissioned by state or private bodies – was the tax advantage they brought; this disappeared in the second half of the 1990s. The third factor was the declining role of public opinion in relation to legislative and executive power. In fact, the tables had been turned, and the latter began to impose themselves on the former. The market for sociological information narrowed, and a small number of agencies became more and more ‘influential’, and obtained the major share of a decreasing number of research contracts. It was not long before the wave of the new associations began to recede and the social activism faded. A significant opportunity for sociologists to participate in and contribute to the emerging civil society had been lost.
But sociology as a discipline was expanding. In the early 1990s young people were abandoning universities, but more recently the situation reversed. Competition for student places in sociology intensified; it became fashionable among the political elite to obtain doctoral degrees in social science. There were 53 sociological departments and 250 chairs of sociology in the state universities, and 15 more in private institutions. Sociology became a mandatory discipline for university students. Numerous sociological agencies offered their services. International and national funding for research was made available.
However, there are a number of more practical reasons for this expansion. One of them is the growth of unemployment among young people, and another is the desire to postpone or avoid military service, as university students can. Sociology as a mandatory discipline was the tribute to overcentralized university programming; the scholarly level of the discipline declined, in part because former professors of Marxism-Leninism were recycled into sociology teachers, in part because of the proliferation of agencies and services which (employing these same professors) have also in fact discredited the discipline. The funds provided by the national foundations are very poor, and hardly make empirical research practical. The feminization of social disciplines reflected the decline in financial attraction and prestige of careers in sociology.
Why did this extraordinary blooming of sociology last for such a short period? It is well known that expectations that market reforms and democracy would increase the common well-being, and that the population would adapt quickly and gladly to change and begin a new life, were not fulfilled. Political freedom and the free market, combined with legislative changes, have made a significant part of the population poor and miserable. Academics did not escape the effects of these changes: official data show that state salaries in science and education declined dramatically in relation to those in industry.
State paternalism, combined with a certain social infantilism on the part of the population, represents a continuing characteristic carried over from the Soviet regime. The totalitarian attitude of the intelligentsia towards the general public transpires in the ideology behind the reforms of the 1990s. In the eyes of the reformers, the population was only the object of regulation and management rather than a subject capable of self-organiz-ation. Citizens’ initiatives were not considered a meaningful social force capable of influencing the modernization process. Wide participation in the political process was initiated not from below, but from above.
The disappointment of this period has left a bitter taste: disintegration of institutions, ruptured social networks, loss of trust except for relatives and closest friends. Several studies have confirmed the flight of Russians into private life, and a focusing of their interest round a narrow milieu, especially the family. Contemporary Russians rarely identify themselves with the larger society: 61 percent of respondents say they prefer to function ‘independently of society’; younger respondents are even more emphatic about this (Demidov, 1997). The notions of community, or collective efforts, no longer arouse enthusiasm or lead to any noticeable practical achievements (Boutenko, 2000).
All of this creates unstable grounds upon which to build association. Attempts to develop social partnership within such organizations require much effort, and progress slowly. Some connection to the state is considered more desirable than a solid membership base or working relationships with peers. Thus opportunities to volunteer for the sake of the professional community are less evident, and the immediate requirements of survival keep sociologists away from such activity. The result is that many voluntary associations are phantom organizations, part of the stage scenery maintained for the benefit of foreigners. However, on these bare stages there are some individualized actors, rather preoccupied with their own self-images, whispering for their own pleasure, and not expecting to attract attention. The stage itself is shrinking, limited by growing concern over private life and the necessity to see to one’s own economic survival. Many are already in the lobby and on the point of deserting the theatre, some of them forever as they abandon the profession, and in some cases the country.
Two scenarios could be envisaged for this act. Before outlining them, we present data on the situation.
Since 1999, the RSS has been an independent voluntary association. It legitimately bears the title of ‘Russian’: according to a 1999 regulation, to have the right to this title an organization must have regional branches in at least 48 of the 89 units of the Russian Federation. By 2000, there were 51 regional branches and 2020 members. RSS is a member of the ISA and the European Sociological Association, and some members of the RSS act in these organizations as executive members or heads of research committees. By the end of the 1990s it is not ideological constraint, but the shortage of money to cover travel and other expenses, lack of information and poor knowledge of foreign languages that limit the participation of Russian sociologists in international events. The president of the RSS, and one vice-president, have belonged since 1999 to the executive committee of the Union of Scientific Societies of Russia, but that is one more phantom association.
Promotion of good teaching in higher education or secondary schools is one of the responsibilities of the RSS under its constitution. However, there is no regulation to have an RSS representative in any state commission or voluntary association of educators. In 1999, when a general revision of the Educational Standard was made by the Ministry of Education, the RSS made a serious effort to keep sociology among the mandatory social disciplines for all university students, but it failed, and since then sociology is competing for student choices with cultural and political studies in some universities. Executive members are mainly full-time university professors, and belong to the Ministry of Education and/or some other state commissions, many of them related to education or research. However, they join these bodies as activists, outstanding scholars, experienced administrators and so on, not as RSS representatives. Similarly, as all the newly founded universities have to be certified, some sociologists participate in the curricular revision, but as individuals seen as appropriate by the technocrats rather than because they are affiliated to the RSS. The RSS does not have anything to do with the licensing of sociological activity, as that follows from the university diploma or practical research experience.
Membership dues have been collected since 1997. Since then, registration dues, membership dues and funds from various grants2 make up the budget of the RSS. In 1999 this hardly covered the expenses for copying and mailing the Bulletin, and the Institute of Sociology covered part of them. In 1997–9 some sponsorship was available on behalf of collective members (among them the Moscow Savings Bank, the Department of Sociology of the Financial Academy and Kuban State University) – some of which had sociologists working for them, but their own agendas may also have played a role. After the financial crisis of 1998, such support became much more limited; under the regulation of 1999 collective membership is not permitted, and financial support is supposed to be provided not for basic functioning, but for specific activities. In 2000, the office staff are a bookkeeper and two secretaries (one for the RSS and one for the Moscow branch, the largest one); from time to time they have a technician to assist them. They are all employed part-time, and their salaries are partly paid by the Institute of Sociology, where the two secretaries are employed full-time.
In recent years, RSS activities are the same as in many other countries: conferences and seminars are organized by the research committees and the RSS, there are collections of papers, the quarterly Bulletin is issued. A ‘Professional Code of Ethics’ was drafted by the SSA executive in 1986, at the beginning of perestroika, and was published in Sociological Studies. It has many features in common with the codes of other countries; there has been no case and no need felt by the sociological community to discuss it since then. In 1998, RSS won a grant to take nine sociologists to the World Congress in Montreal. In 1998 and 1999, a competition among students and postgraduates for the best writings on sociological topics was organized, with the prizes bringing the winners to a sociological meeting in Moscow. In 1998, the year of the financial crisis, the only financial aid was for production of the independent review Sociology 4 M. RSS members may use the RSS’s bank account if they receive a research grant. All members of the RSS receive a hard copy of the Bulletin (not many of them have Internet access, though this is increasing), which contains information about forthcoming and recent sociological events, and mentions anniversaries and new sociological publications. Sometimes it also includes brief notes on sociologists’ reflections on the discipline, its role in the society, on sociological education. Jobs are not advertised there, because neither a university nor an individual can currently afford to move a professional from one city to another. Many sociologists were dissatisfied with the presentation of sociological data in the mass media, so some meetings with journalists were organized by the RSS and the Institute for Sociology. The first, in 1993, raised some interest from the media people, but by the third (1998) there were only sociologists present.
To join the RSS, two recommendations from members are required, as well as affiliation to the professional milieu. But the criteria of ‘professionalism’ mentioned in the rules turn out to be rather relative, as there was no higher sociological education available before 1988. This professional self-identity is rather ambiguous. There are many ‘self-made’ although quite professional sociologists. The activity of the RSS is not advertised in the mass media, and those aware of its existence and capable of locating the regional branch’s office are likely to be working in sociology already. Currently, there are only ordinary and student members (students pay a half rate); most members are academics. In 1999, there were 605 male and 565 female members. Among those who provided data, the age distribution was: under 25, 9 percent; 25–35, 17 percent; 35–44, 27 percent; 45–54, 27 percent; 55–60, 7 percent; over 60, 13 percent.
RSS has ‘research committees’, but they are not concerned only with research, but also run short courses on fashionable topics such as ‘conflictology’. To establish a new committee, a meeting of at least five to seven interested scholars has to be held; they elect the officers. They do not have their own funds, but the title of the RSS and the fact of some scholars’ affiliation to this organization are supposed to provide members with additional respect, which is important if they start to collect tuition fees for their courses or other training activities or – more rarely – research. The RSS is not responsible for the quality of the courses offered under their auspices. The number of research committees is not clear, as new ones keep starting up and others fall inactive. There is collaboration with the Association of Political Scientists, in the form of one joint Research Committee, but its activity is not visible.
***
Both our scenarios are a function of the extreme misery of the scenery in general, and in academia in particular. (State expenditure on science and education has shrunk as a proportion of GNP, while the GNP itself is shrinking.)
The first scenario would see many voluntary associations dissolving, losing their civil status or simply ceasing to function (as did the sociological associations mentioned earlier, except for the RSS, which was able to meet the new 1999 registration requirements).3 This general disintegration of voluntary organizations was not on ideological grounds, but a result of exclusively economic factors. For those organizations which survived, the shortage of resources results in their focus being dispersed and disregard of their own membership requirements. Many of them consist of just enough members to fill executive positions and chair committees. It begins to resemble a home theatre. The scenery is there, but not the credentials, influence, authority, or peer recognition. When they find themselves on a larger stage, they tend to function as closed corporate units, operating as a clique with a stable hierarchy, taking care of their own (for example, providing and obtaining contract research).
The second scenario would see the late 1990s as the period of renaissance of voluntary associations. They are purged of their superfluous activity and the irrelevant pretensions of their leaders. The few survivors retain some visibility on a narrow professional stage, occasionally defending their members’ professional interests and organizing meetings – in short, making a brave attempt to carry out their formal goals. The RSS might be seen in this light.
In both scenarios scholars have left the public stage. The new freedom of speech did not result in wider dissemination of social ideas or professional social criticism, or create any significant free professional and/or public forum. The new freedom of assemblies is used for purely professional purposes, but there are not many actors, or sufficient integration into civil society to result in significant reorganization of the public space. Sociologists who still care about their intellectual vocation, their social mission, are not likely to be present in either scenario. They stay away. Preoccupied with the practical application of their professional knowledge, they now either own or are employed by sociological agencies and services, have switched to nothing but applied research and thus have become specialists.
Appendix: Facts and Figures
Table 1 Executives and other Constitutional Data
| Number | ||||
| of members | ||||
| Years of | required for a | |||
| Executives | term | new branch | Membership fees | |
| 1991 1993 1997 | President, 2 vice-presidents; 9 representatives of regions and 6 representatives of research committees (those 15 including 2 vice-presidents) 3 co-presidents, 1-year term for eacha 1 president, 5 vice-presidents, 6 other members of the | 3 4 4 | 30 10 3 | No specific information 50% for RSS, 50% for the region No specific information |
| executive committee | ||||
| 1999 | 1 president, 3 vice-presidents | 4 | 3 | No specific information |
a It was against the bylaws, which still prescribed one president and two vice-presidents, and a four-year term for this staff, but that was the situation.
Table 2 RSS: Structure and Types of Membership, According to Constitution (1991–9) and to the Published Data (1958–99)
Structure Membership ——————————————————— ———————————– Research Sections Branches committees Collective Individual
| SSA, 1958 | Yes | No | No | Over 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SSA, 1966 | Yes | 8 | No | Yes | Yes |
| SSA, 1972 | 26 | 15 in republics of | Yes | 300 | 150 |
| the USSR, regional | |||||
| branches in the | |||||
| Russian | |||||
| Federation | |||||
| SSA, 1977 | No data | No data | No data | 450 | 2500 |
| SSA, 1983 | 35 central and 150 | Yes | 976 | 7863 | |
| regional | |||||
| RSS, 1991 | No | Yes | Yes, and | Yes | Yes: |
| sessions | ordinary, | ||||
| (ad hoc | honorary | ||||
| research | and | ||||
| committees) | associate | ||||
| RSS, 1997 | No | 22 | 38 | Yes, | Ordinary, |
| collective | honorary | ||||
| and | and | ||||
| associated | associate | ||||
| RSS, 1999 | No | 48 | Yes | No | 1179, |
| ordinary | |||||
| and | |||||
| students | |||||
Boutenko, I. A., ed. (2000) Perspectives of Self Government and Self Organization in Russia. Moscow: Moscow Public Science Foundation.
Boutenko, I. A. and Caldwell, G. G. (2000a) ‘The Power and the Misery of Social Thinkers in the Emerging Civil Society’, Polish Sociological Review 4(132): 396–410.
Boutenko, I. A. and Caldwell, G. (2000b) ‘Intellectuals in Contemporary Eastern and Central Europe’, in M. Brunet and P. Lanthier (eds). L’inscription sociale de l’intellectuel. Paris: Presse de l’Université Laval, L’Harmattan.
Demidov, I. V. (1997) ‘Sociocultural Styles in Eastern and Central Europe’, Sociological Studies No. 2.
Koukoushkina, E. I. (1993) Russian Sociology X1X – Beginning of the XX Centuries. Moscow: Moscow State University.
Liborakina, M. I. and Yakimetz, V. N., eds (1997) Civil Initiatives and the Future of Russia. Moscow: Moscow School of Cultural Policy.
Mersianova, I. B. (2000) ‘The Emergence of the Third Sector and Self Organization of the Population’, in I. A. Boutenko (ed.) Perspectives of Self Government and Self Organization in Russia. Moscow: Moscow Public Science Foundation.
Pougacheva, M. G. (1998) ‘Sociological Seminars: “Play Beads” or Alternative Science?,’ in I. A. Boutenko (ed.) Means of Population’s Adaptation to Social and Economic Changes in Russia. Moscow: Moscow Public Science Foundation.
Rutkevitch, M. N. (1977) ‘The Results of 5 Year Activities of the Soviet Sociological Association’, Sociological Studies No. 3.
Biographical Note: Irina Butenko is Vice-President Elect of the Russian Sociological Society and professor at the Russian Institute for Cultural Research.
Address: [email: ffortuna@mtu-net.ru]