Paul
Goble
Staunton, May 30 – Despite the rise
of a Russian middle class and the rapid turnover in that country’s leaders and
regimes, Vladimir Putin draws his support from the fact that Russian society
remains tied to its peasant past, with most people not more than a generation
or so removed from the culture of the village, according to a Moscow
sociologist.
That underlying reality, Natalya
Tikhonova, a researcher at the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of
Sciences, says, is often lost sight of because of interest in the urban middle
class and the ways that Russian scholars define that group, ways very different
from those used elsewhere (gazeta.ru/comments/2014/05/28_a_6051009.shtml).
Tikhonova, one
the co-authors of a new study, “The Middle Class in Contemprary Russia: 10
Years Later,” points out that most investigations of the middle class in the
West define that group in terms of its professional activity and level of
education and view it as a group which receives income on its human capital.
“In Russia,” the sociologist says, “the
situationis different and what is more about what it was ten years ago.
Therefore, we have had to introduce two
additional blocking criteria” for working with the middle class: “One of these
is the level of well-being,and the other is the self-conscious feeling of where
one is in the social system.”
The minimum income level for
inclusion in the middle class is 20,000 rubles (600 US dollars) per person per month, although there are important regional variations, she says. But the problems of definition of the Russian
middle class are not about that but rather about its structure, employment
patterns, and assumptions.
The share of state employees in the
Russian middle class is much higher than in the middle classes of Western
countries but mostly because many functions that in the latter are performed by
the private sector are part of the state in Russia rather than having any
broader meaning that is sometimes extracted from this.
More fundamental, Tikhonova
continues, is that the share of Russians working in the quartenary segment of
the economy – finance, programming, marketing, journalism, and science – is much
lower than is the case of Western countries, a pattern that reflects the
differences in the stage of development in the two.
While Western countries are moving toward
post-industrial societies, she says, Russia is only approaching “the stage of
the transition to post-industrial society.” And that calls attention to
something else: members of the Russian middle class do approximately the same
things members of the middle classes in Western countries, but they do so under
conditions of a very different form of property arrangements.
That helps to explain, she says, why
the Russian middle class made up more heavily of government employees is so “comfortable”
with the regime and why the regime does not feel threatened by it – although Tikhonova
insists as well that no middle class anywhere has been a political force on its
own.
But there is a deeper stratum in
Russian life that matters even more, the sociologist says. “The Putin electorate is above all the
relatively poor strata which form about half of the population of the country.”
They have been relative winners over the last few years, and “a significant
part of them has been able to escape poverty.”
“In Russia,” she says, “political
regimes and leaders change ... but the type of society has been preserved.”
Changing that society from one which is still closely linked to the peasantry
is very hard and will take a long time.
Even though a majority of Russians
now live in cities, very few of them are hereditary city dwelllers with two or
three of the preceding generations having been city residents as well. Today,
the share of people who grew up in cities of at least 200,000 and having at
least one parent with a higher education is only about 10 percent of the
population.
As difficult as it is for many to
accept this, she says, it is the case, and because it is, the regime “”completely
corresponds to this dominant type of the population.” That means that the powers that be won’t be
under pressure from this direction for some time.
Tikhonova pointed to another trend
that may slow this process down even more.
Compared to a decade ago, those in the middle class who are investing in
education are now less numerous than they were because the return on such
investments has fallen dramatically in Russia.
That is “a very poor sign,” the sociologist
says, because “it means that we are losing the opportunity for further
development” and that making a breakthrough will be ever more difficult. At the same time, Tikhonova says she won’t “demonize”
the regime because its leaders understand this, have tried to do the right
thing, but have been “sabotaged” from below.
Until elites recognize that they must
promote development rather than simply line their own pockets, an attitude that
is unlikely to take place until more are “hereditary” members of the middle
class, however, Tikhonova concludes, achieving progress in Russia will remain extremely
difficult.
No comments:
Post a Comment