1

Individualizationand

Social Solidarityin post-Communist Europe

Anna Shirokanova

Belarus State Universityshirokaner@gmailcom

2

Solidarity

Along Durkheim, solidarity is:• Social organization (objective)• Social morality (objective)• Justice (subjective perception)

Based on: Hechter 2001; Merz 2007; Pope 1983; Taylor 2005.

3

Individualization

• shift of authority “from without to within”• relying on one’s own resources more• Individual freedom in identity formation,

lifestyle, etc.

Based on: Knorr-Cetina 1997; Welzel 2007.

4

Focus on

Giving and taking components of solidarity:

• Solidarity with whom?• Where from?• The scope of freedoms and obligations?

Two basic types: bridging and bonding.

5

• That is close to organic and mechanic solidarity, but…

- There are no limitations as to the alternativity of two types. Why?

theory: Durkheim renounced “organic solidarity” (“it is shared values and sentiments that lie at the foundation of solidarity” (Parsons 1937));

practice: the return of “mechanical solidarity” in the form of ethnic, racial, and gender solidarity (Tiryakian 1994) + good to the nearest circle almost universal for the social good (Welzel 2011).

6

• Better:We can use both types to characterize types

of social solidarity across societies.What for?- A characteristic of how social ties are

organized in society;- Good explanation variable as to the social

feelings and civil society research;- Gives a hint as to the processes in politics

and economy (informal economy, political protests, etc.)

7

Bridging• The bridging pattern of social solidarity exists

where:- ties to other people cut across the immediate

circle of personal relations,- including trust to anonymous people and- identities, - respect to the formal laws (~altruism), and - voluntary engagement in the social issues of

global scope, and- Collective political action supporting these goals.

8

Bonding• The bonding pattern of solidarity

dominates in societies where: - personal ties to family members and

friends are most active, - including trust and - identity with this narrow circle, - reluctance to respect formal laws or- participate in civic organizations and- collective social action.

9

“Bridging” and “bonding” principles prompt 4 theoretical types:

High bridging, low bonding solidarity

INTERNATIONALISM

High bridging, high bonding solidarityHIGHLY INTEGRATED

Low bridging, low bonding solidarity

ATOMIZATION

Low bridging, high bonding solidarityFAMILIALISM, CLIQUES

Bridging

Bonding

10

Hypothesis• Countries are different in their dominant types of

social solidarity.• In the ex-Communist countries, civil society and

civil participation are extremely low even 20 years from 1991 (Wallace 2011).

• Materialism and survival values in ex-Communist countries are on the rise (Inglehart & Welzel 2009).

• Thus, we expect that in ex-Communist countries the dominant pattern is high bonding solidarity with a low bridging component.

11

• This type:favors a strong network of relations and

responsibilities to family members and friends, even at the cost of public virtues, formal laws, and organizational structures (Banfield 1958; Papakostas 2004; Volkov).

• Our task is to compare countries by the types of their

dominant solidarity patterns.The motivation: some types of solidarity

pattern may be extremely unfavorable for social welfare.

12

Bridging/bonding solidarity

BONDING

BRIDGING

1 2

Membership in civic organizations

Membership in non-traditional organizations

Identity with the local community

Identity with the world, the nation

Trust to family members and personal contacts

Trust to anonymous people

Reluctance to respect the law

Respect to the law

Political activism Abstaining from political action

13

• Besides:

Bonding solidarity focuses on responsibilities to the nearest circle, and set limits on individualization. It is based on group responsibilities.

Bridging solidarity pushes individualization forward, boosts individual action capacity, and mitigates social cooperation. It is based on individual choice and freedom.

14

Indexes

• Bridging solidarity; Bonding solidarity• Formative :)• 0.0 to 1.0

Looking into the possible patterns:

15

Bridging1. Participation in collective political action (mean)2. Membership in a charity/ humanitarian organization3. Membership in a environment organization4. Membership in an arts/ education organization5. Tolerance (of different origin + of different lifestyle)6. Opposition to bribery7. Opposition to avoiding fares8. Opposition to not paying taxes9. Opposition to forging benefits rights10. Trust to a wide circle of people (mean)11. Confidence in army12. Confidence in labor unions13. Confidence in the police14. Confidence in justice system15. Confidence in government16. Confidence in political parties17. Confidence in parliament18. Confidence in civil service19. Confidence in environmental movement20. Confidence in women’s movement21. Confidence in charities/ humanitarian orgs

KMO=,880 Rsq=62% Kronbach’s alpha=,719

16

Countries T-testTrust to public institutions (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

-39,383***

Respect to law (6,7,8,9) -15,184***Trust to civic institutions (12, 18, 19, 20, 21)

-11,806***

Membership in civic institutions (2,3,4)

-27,297***

Bridging behavior (1,5,10) -15,894***

Ex-Communist countries and not

• Some pics

17

18

BondingIdentity from roots (mean of land, blood, traditions)Important family v4 friendsTrad sources of solid (work + work + religion)Intolerant of immigrants (generally/not in immigrant countries)Intolerant of other languageIntolerant of unmarriedIntolerant of homosIntolerant of aidsIntoler of dif religionTrust narrowTrust wideEthnic homogeny v221Local idNation id (in eastern Europe – new states)Disapproval of divorce and abortion v12, v15Low respect to lawLow political interest v95Memb church orgMemb sportsReluctant to sign petitions, join boycotts, demonstrate (no public action, all private)Condifence in army, church (collective, impersonal~~Freud)Not important democracy v162Live in democracy (=do not care about its quality) v163Blood, soil, customs, laws v218-221Kinship+law(maybe not reasonable)

KMO=,720 Rsq=53% Kronbach’s alpha=,602

19

Countries T-testCare about the narrow circle -48,473***Ethnic monolith 15,343***Territorial identity -2,383*Reluctance to politics 12,076***Interest in the narrow circle -34,259***

Ex-Communist countries and not

A ML-analysis better?

• Very much probable.• Some suggestions:

- Social expenditure (country)

- Region of the world (not only ex-Comm)

- GNI per capita (they are poorer, not ex-Comm)

- Human Empowerment Index? Maybe.

20

• Thank you for your attention.

• Comments, please!• Explanations?• Suggestions?

21