During a recent roundtable dedicated to a discourse on sociology Yevhen Holovakha, deputy director of the Institute of Sociology at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NANU), The Day’s editor in chief Larysa Ivshyna, two winners of the Natalia Panina Prize for “Sociologist of the Year,” and several journalists discussed the role of sociology in the development of a democratic state, problems linked to the expansion of Ukraine’s intellectual stratum, the formation of a new elite, Ukrainians’ civic activity and their involvement in various social practices, including shadowy ones. Such discussions of topical subjects (even though few people in Ukraine focus attention on them), their coverage in The Day and the search for powerful, energetic, and resourceful intellectuals in Ukraine are very important in that they facilitate an exchange of opinions. According to Ms. Ivshyna, this is building Ukraine’s social capital.
VALUES
In order to conduct a polemic on the development of society, it is necessary to start by assessing the situation of a given society. Oleh Demkiv, a sociologist at Ivan Franko University in Lviv, who is studying the values of the younger generation, views the future somewhat pessimistically because his findings indicate that young people today, the most socially active individuals, are involved in “shadowy social practices.” Above all, they appear to have nothing against corruption and bribery, whereas the absence of these two elements is the cornerstone in the structure of any civilized democratic society. In Demkiv’s opinion, if this situation does not change, then referring to our young people as “our future” will be rather problematic.
“If we take a young person with a certain social status, a certain level of personal income, the possibility of getting involved in a shadowy social practice is considerably higher than in the case of an older individual who lives in the countryside and has a lower income. Asking a ‘mirror question’ (“How often do you do this and how often is this done to you?”) is a very effective method of receiving an answer to the question of how acceptable this or that practice is in society. In all cases where a respondent is a victim or a passive onlooker, bribery as a means of solving problems is not approved. Otherwise, engaging in bribery is acceptable. This picture shows the vectors of this practice and the possibilities of changes to it. I think that when the system of our government control, known as the ‘predator state, ‘ is changed by way of simplification, when a citizen’s initiative and cooperation with the socially active part of society is accepted, this picture may change. Otherwise — and Ukrainians’ electoral preferences tend to support a stronger role for the state — these trends will deepen,” Demkiv said.
Almost 10 years ago similar conclusions were reached by experts at the NANU’s Institute of Sociology. Holovakha reminded those present that those experts encountered this social phenomenon in the 1990s: the more democratic an individual becomes, the more cynical he tends to be. Communists were the least cynical and democrats, the most cynically minded.
Svitlana Babenko, one of the winners of the competition “Sociologist of the Year” (Karazin National University, Kharkiv) said: “So long as an individual considers himself separate from the state, believing that the state is something you have to fight or resign yourself to, no fundamental changes will occur. An individual must take part in the process of state building and cooperate with the state in various forms. Then we will have fewer and fewer paternalistic expectations on the part of citizens, or cases where the state is regarded as an enemy.”
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND NEW SOCIAL PRACTICES
One way to tell the state “I exist!” is to offer the community something new and constructive, something that would enable the individual to feel that s/he is needed and realized within society, and to help the community.
Larysa Ivshyna, the editor of The Day, said: “Before they set up the BBC, it was necessary to create Great Britain. A social revolution has taken place in Ukrainian society: certain social phenomena (like the ‘kitchen debates’ that were so popular with the shistdesiatnyky) are disappearing, replaced by other social practices that offer sociologists and journalists a vast field of endeavor.
Therefore, we must build capital by using new knowledge, approaches, and ideas on the level of public discussions. This should be demonstrated to our society so that it doesn’t freeze up. How many people do we have who are creating a new social coordinate system? Perhaps the current social watershed is not where they are struggling against their past, but where we have people who are trying to take a step into the future, whether or not they belong to a certain sector. There are people in our society who are using examples of primitive culture, but there are also other strata that need a different kind of culture, a different kind of communication. Therefore, it is necessary to create an atmosphere of critical thinking and free exchange of ideas; a situation in which it will be clear where we should be looking for intellectual products, and where mass culture is being produced.”
This topic had a direct bearing on Babenko’s study, which was aimed at tracing the effectiveness and cultural potential of Ukrainians. In her work she tried to demonstrate that social changes in society, its transformation do not result only from the efforts of the top stratum of the government or local authorities; they also result from society’s efforts.
“I saw that social practices can be categorized by using an activity scale, ranging from innovative to adjustment and survival practices, including rejection of all ongoing changes. Despite the fact that adjustment and survival practices dominated Ukraine in 2007, 12 to 17 percent of our respondents were hereditary adjustment— as well as innovative practice- oriented, according to Babenko.
Holovakha agreed with her, saying that in a society lacking clear-cut norms, there must be some individual initiative as the main principle of life. Unless our society adopts certain norms, we stand a chance of following the path once offered us by an authoritative “interpreter.” He believes that intellectuals should combat a global trend now spreading throughout Ukraine: the Internet banner culture. “Our society is immersing itself ever deeper in the Internet, and this is a school of eclectic and superficial perception of the social world. The only alternative is the creation of conditions in which serious intellectual cultural traditions can evolve (e.g., serious journalism, literature, intellectual films, and so on). Among our public organizations, the media and intellectual and creative communities must select an intellectual elite with a sense of responsibility for our country’s future. These people must work with young and promising people, and understand that their future is not that of an eclectic, ambiguous society. At the same time, while proposing their interesting programs, these people have to rely on someone. This will be the process of building a civil society; this is serious work that will take time; it will last for many years.”
THE PROBLEM OF ELITES
The roundtable participants broached the painful and oblique subject of today’s Ukrainian elite, its life and activities, and the principles of forming a new one. The social elite was the subject of a study done by one of the roundtable participants, Andrii Zotkin, another winner of the Sociologist of the Year competition and a research associate of the Institute of Sociology (NANU).
Andrii Zotkin: “We can adopt various approaches to the Ukrainian elite; we can call it the establishment or the mafia. We can deny its existence, but it does exist. There are various institutions in Ukrainian society, whose paths cross. There is the institution of civic liberties, which we are holding in increasing esteem, but there are also all those extremely powerful paternalistic institutions. In this sense our elite is no different from the people, first of all, because it is a product of our society; second, because it is influencing our society. In other words, we have a mirror reflection of our elite in our people and vice versa. This is proof that Ukrainians still have contacts with the controlling upper stratum, something we must eliminate.”
The editor of The Day believes that it is precisely these two parts of Ukrainian society, the people and the leadership, that are closely cooperating; the former cannot be imagined without the latter. She reminded those present of the path according to which the current political elite (‘ruling summit’) was formed. This path began to be created under special conditions 70 years ago, when people who were truly members of the elite were exiled, stripped of their property and the right to build their own system of values; when the party nomenklatura, the Soviet elite, was being created in an altogether different system of coordinates.
Holovakha offered a precise definition of the notion of elite: an elite means people who are top-notch professionals in their respective fields: “The same applies to politics, where not everyone who is engaged in politics is part of an elite. Those who become presidents, prime ministers, members of parliament, and heads of the opposition — they are the elite. As for politicians, I think they should be diverse and bad; bad by definition, because it would be terrible if they were all bad in the same way. We can see this scenario unfolding in Russia, where all the politicians are gray, each speaking in Putin’s voice and intonation. For the moment, ours are all different.”
WHAT CAN SOCIOLOGY ACCOMPLISH?
All over the world there are debates about the role and place of sociology in society, its role in forming public opinion and encouraging people to adopt certain world views and embark on certain projects.
Yevhen Holovakha: “Public sociology is quite popular throughout the world (there are also other types of sociology: applied, critical, and theoretical). Just as critical sociology is the conscience of academic sociology, public sociology is the conscience of applied sociology. In our country we have a great many sociologists who do their work unprofessionally. The gist of public sociology is handling target groups being studied. In other words, if you are studying young people, seeing problems in this youth group, you must do more than state facts; you must get close to this group and help build a new society capable of combating this phenomenon in its midst. If you’re studying the elite, you must zero in on certain groups and prove their indifference and irresponsibility. Perhaps we should also establish a club of new political thought and expose the elite. This will be public sociology: what you are engaged in is your work.”
In Holovakha’s opinion, an example of effective public sociology is feminist sociology: the idea that men have created their own chauvinistic sociology that reflects only male world views. Groups of experts have been created in the world, which forced men to review their positions.
Another problem faced by Ukrainian sociology is that it has been partially discredited by nonprofessionals, a phenomenon that is especially evident during election campaigns, when dishonest sociological firms were providing their clients with the kind of findings they wanted. Last year the Institute of Sociology held a roundtable entitled “Sociology: More Than Just Ratings.” Incidentally, it is a shame that so far public demand for sociology in Ukraine has taken shape only in this sphere: political ratings.
Demkiv added this though: “Anyone can take up sociology. After officially registering your organization, you proceed to disseminating information. But this situation can be changed by taking real steps; the sociological community must publicly condemn such ‘sociologists.’”
Holovakha believes that the easiest way to determine who is who within the Ukrainian sociological community is by consulting the Ukrainian Sociological Association, which accredits sociological centers. If a center is accredited, you can trust it. As regards the demands placed on this field on the part of society, government, and media, Zotkin insists that there is a widespread practice in the West, whereby sociologists are assigned tasks not by parties or interested individuals, but by civic organizations and media. This is proof that there is an intellectual stratum within these societies, which is oriented toward constant development.
THE PROBLEM OF SEARCHING FOR MINDS
Demkiv believes that the “cultivation” of an intellectual stratum has to do with the system of education, including training in the field of sociology: “In a certain way sociocultural education must be geared toward raising a critically minded individual. I am in contact with students and see their fresh views on life; I see their eyes shining with enthusiasm. We can be threatened by our political elites, people who will want to cause latent rifts in our state. I think that critical sociology will have to play a role in exposing such attempts.”
Zotkin said that he is not very perturbed by the possibility that Ukraine’s intellectual stratum will vanish, although he realizes that a Latin American scenario has emerged: “...large centers are being formed against the backdrop of fading peripheries.” In other words, intellectuals are being drawn to big cities where their knowledge can be put to good use. “In the past the state took care of this. Now we have free choice and this is a far more difficult path.”
In contrast, Babenko sees problems in the poor social integration of Ukrainians, particularly in the east-west split. She noted that the attitude of Ukrainians to each other has significantly changed in terms of tolerance; relations have become more distanced. (What about foreigners?) In her view, both sociologists and media must maintain high professional standards, because this will be a way to cultivate an intellectual stratum.
In conclusion, the roundtable participants agreed that the quality of public sociology should be improved in Ukraine, and every effort should be made to create a dialog in our society. Ms. Ivshyna said that “...there are many powerful and interesting people in Ukrainian society, whom we are discovering by the “probing” technique. So we must encourage cooperation in all those who do not want to turn in on themselves.”
