A Social System Oriented Toward the Past, Part II

O. Shkaratan, N. Favorov
{"title":"A Social System Oriented Toward the Past, Part II","authors":"O. Shkaratan, N. Favorov","doi":"10.1080/10610154.2017.1358028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We view the social organization of contemporary Russia as a continuation of the Soviet socioeconomic order, whose roots extend back centuries into the past of a country that has served as the vehicle for Eurasian Orthodox civilization. This article explores the various stages of the country’s development—from the thirteenth century to the present—and argues that the collapse of the communist system in Russia led to a transition from Eurasian civilization to a new stage in Russia’s evolution—a neo-statist socioeconomic order and classical authoritarianism. By 1917, the European type of development had yet to triumph in Russia. A key factor in this was the fact that private property was not a tradition for most Russians. This paved the way for the essential restoration of the soslovie system, the enslavement of social estates by the state, and the emergence of a special category of state servants (the nomenklatura) in the Soviet Union. In other words, path dependence theory came to be realized, reproducing in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries a relationship between power and social estates thought to have died off in medieval Rus. For centuries, within an exceptionally stable statist order and taking a variety of forms, a system has reproduced itself over and over that features a social estate hierarchy and a system of power under which property was conditional for everyone except an all-powerful sovereign (who across the epochs has gone by different names—prince, tsar, emperor, general secretary, and president). The socioeconomic system that has emerged in post-Soviet Russia is, by its nature, statism, but in a new phase of development—neo-statism. The role of the state remains decisive, but it is not the only role being played, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Now, there is a private-ownership market component. In Russia, a dualistic social stratification is in effect that combines a (dominant) soslovie hierarchy and a socio-professional hierarchy.","PeriodicalId":85546,"journal":{"name":"Sociological research","volume":"56 1","pages":"112 - 148"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10610154.2017.1358028","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10610154.2017.1358028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We view the social organization of contemporary Russia as a continuation of the Soviet socioeconomic order, whose roots extend back centuries into the past of a country that has served as the vehicle for Eurasian Orthodox civilization. This article explores the various stages of the country’s development—from the thirteenth century to the present—and argues that the collapse of the communist system in Russia led to a transition from Eurasian civilization to a new stage in Russia’s evolution—a neo-statist socioeconomic order and classical authoritarianism. By 1917, the European type of development had yet to triumph in Russia. A key factor in this was the fact that private property was not a tradition for most Russians. This paved the way for the essential restoration of the soslovie system, the enslavement of social estates by the state, and the emergence of a special category of state servants (the nomenklatura) in the Soviet Union. In other words, path dependence theory came to be realized, reproducing in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries a relationship between power and social estates thought to have died off in medieval Rus. For centuries, within an exceptionally stable statist order and taking a variety of forms, a system has reproduced itself over and over that features a social estate hierarchy and a system of power under which property was conditional for everyone except an all-powerful sovereign (who across the epochs has gone by different names—prince, tsar, emperor, general secretary, and president). The socioeconomic system that has emerged in post-Soviet Russia is, by its nature, statism, but in a new phase of development—neo-statism. The role of the state remains decisive, but it is not the only role being played, as was the case in the Soviet Union. Now, there is a private-ownership market component. In Russia, a dualistic social stratification is in effect that combines a (dominant) soslovie hierarchy and a socio-professional hierarchy.
面向过去的社会制度(第二部分
我们认为当代俄罗斯的社会组织是苏联社会经济秩序的延续,其根源可以追溯到几个世纪前,这个国家一直是欧亚东正教文明的载体。本文探讨了国家发展的各个阶段——从13世纪到现在——并认为俄罗斯共产主义制度的崩溃导致了从欧亚文明向俄罗斯发展的一个新阶段的过渡——一个新国家主义的社会经济秩序和古典威权主义。到1917年,欧洲式的发展尚未在俄国取得胜利。其中一个关键因素是,私有财产对大多数俄罗斯人来说并不是一种传统。这为苏维埃制度的基本恢复,国家对社会阶层的奴役,以及苏联国家公务员(nomenklatura)的特殊类别的出现铺平了道路。换句话说,路径依赖理论得以实现,在20世纪和21世纪再现了权力和社会等级之间的关系,这种关系在中世纪的罗斯已经消失了。几个世纪以来,在一种异常稳定的国家主义秩序下,一种以各种形式出现的制度一遍又一遍地复制自己,这种制度的特点是社会等级制度和权力制度,在这种制度下,除了全能的君主(在各个时代,他有不同的名字——王子、沙皇、皇帝、总书记和总统),每个人的财产都是有条件的。后苏联时代俄罗斯出现的社会经济体系,本质上是国家主义,但处于一个新的发展阶段——新国家主义。国家的作用仍然是决定性的,但它并不是唯一的作用,就像苏联的情况一样。现在,有一个私有市场的组成部分。在俄罗斯,二元化的社会分层实际上结合了(占主导地位的)社会职业等级和社会职业等级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信