Social solidarity in modern Russia and Portugal society

Философия / 2. Социальная философия

PhD, Polyushkevich O.A.

Irkutsk State University, Russia

Social solidarity in modern Russia and Portugal society

The relationships between personality and society, society and state, state and personality in today’s world may be characterized as increasingly complex and ambiguous. The traditional rights and obligations associated with these participants of social relations were transformed to a significant degree everywhere, including the “old” democracies. A person is becoming increasingly indifferent regarding the political process and political decisions; a society is evidently losing its possibility and very capacity for social control and regulation. But at the same time, polls show that changes shape and causes of social solidarity in society.

One can observe now the transformation of basic fundamentals of social relationships in today’s democratic world, and a change of the core principles of a new social consensus that either is being negotiated here nowadays, or even has been already adopted. Social solidarity of society manifests itself in the turning points in history and subsequently implemented in the new situation and with regard to those social groups, who, being deprived as of symbolic as of tangible capital, are not the equal subjects of social action, and, consequently, are not the equal participants of social bargaining and final agreements, or vice versa, have power and are the elite of society. Social solidarity in this project involves analysis of the means by which the public consent is being formed.

As instruments of social solidarity various means can be applied. These include the policy of the authorities, the media, the social attitudes of the population, the collective memory of the people, which are affecting the present and the future of the country.

In Russia, after the transition to a democratic model, social solidarity is manifested in the daily political and social practice for new reasons and grounds. The motives for uniting people are new factors, not what they were in Soviet society. They are based on new conditions, goals and objectives, both social and personal development.

In turn, the situation in Portugal in the XX century had developed through the sociologically comparable circumstances. The transition from the Salazar’s Estado Novo to the modern Portugal democracy was accompanied by many conflicts and social disturbances, including the challenges to national unity and consolidation. Nevertheless, this country ultimately managed to form the socially consistent and integrated society. Thus, the comparative research on social solidarity in our two countries promises to be rather fruitful and useful as for academic as for policy purposes.

Ideological discourse of “New State” may be briefly described as an attempt to glorify an awkward combination of nationalistic values, the matrix of which was conservative and catholic-based, and fascist tendencies being en vogue on the entire continent. “God, Motherland, and Family” were unambiguously interpreted as “the triad of body politic formation”.

It is no mere chance that undertaking the analysis of modern state-of-affairs I touch upon earlier developments; it is not the nowadays period where modern transformations, contradictions, and misunderstandings are rooted, but the social and political decisions made in the country in early and mid 20^th century. That was the time to form the so-called “national values” that bear the contemporary fruits. On the one hand, during Salazar’s government, high emphasis was laid on the labour of an ordinary farmer, a poor and honest husbandman, full of submission and satisfaction with his lot. In the Soviet Union, labour was glorified too, but it was labour of a contemporary factory worker associated with advancement and progress. In 1953 the dictator proclaimed: “Every hand shall be given a spade to cultivate land, every family shall be given a simple house to live, and every mouth shall be given bread”. Salazar wanted to build a society based on the concept of timeless and sacred social-economic order. Nationalism was considered to be the source for progress and social recovery. On the other hand, Portugal Empire’s glorious past influenced political thought and determined the dictatorial way of development. Salazar and his aides tried to do everything to encourage people’s pride in their destiny being humble and worth adored, in order not to provoke people for asking the authorities any indiscreet questions.

Those in power in the country today condemn the regime, which was their cradle, actually seeking for reviving, if not literally, but symbolically, the Portugal of the former powerful period in the world arena. Our research results demonstrate that Portuguese mentality is still determined by basic concepts developed and instilled into public consciousness in Salazar’s times. Due to the combination of Salazar’s policy interpretation formed in the earlier times and political changes of the modern times, due to the synthesis and interpenetration of these two fundamental trends, Portugal’s contemporary society is full of contradictions and open issues in economy and politics, culture and demography.

In one of his works, Michel Foucault states that modernity generates spaces of peculiar type, functioning like “nets binding individual points and creating complicated tangles” [2]. He calls such spaces heterotopias, claiming that unlike utopias “they are spaces of otherness, absolutely different from all the spaces they mirror and tell about” [2, p. 196]. Such spaces allow for simultaneously imagining, suspecting, and turning up all the rest real space locations, which can be found in the framework of culture. Three characteristic features of heterotopia may be applied to solidarity processes in Portuguese society. First, heterotopia has a quality of co-locating “in one single space several spaces and locations that are incompatible in themselves” [2, p. 200]. In the case under consideration it is the past and the present of Portugal, its purposes and values proclaimed, along with everything ordinary people really live by – their joys and anxieties, their personal attitudes and world outlook.

Second, such spaces are always incorporated into a certain “system of openness and closeness that at the same time isolates them and makes them permeable”. Invisible laws and norms elaborated in the past rest as the heritage from the ruler of the past century. The laws and rules are not claimed as such, but are complied with, while serving as a basis for public consciousness. They must be taken into account in any investigation of the contemporary state-of-affairs in a society, otherwise, causes and effects will never be determined properly.

Third, “heterotopias carry out a certain function against the rest of space” [2, p. 203]. In concern with the latter type, Foucault introduces an entangled division line separating heterotopia of illusion defining all real space as more illusory, from heterotopia of compensation contriving another real space as much orderly and perfect, as thoroughly and thoughtfully arranged as our space is disorderly, ill-arranged and complicated (Foucault provides examples for heterotopia of each type: bordello – for heterotopia of illusion, and “some colonies” – for heterotopia of compensation). The case under consideration encompasses relations at all power levels, perception of social changes, the part played by personality, individual and collective force in public participation or non-participation in social process, social control frameworks and types, and social memory of “the former” norms and rules.

Arguments advanced by Foucault for heterotopia are consistent with the history of the 20^th century Portugal, they are targeted at creating and representing settled “instructive spaces” – the implementation of conditions under Salazar’s government or the implementation of conditions under the influence of the European Union and contemporary government.

Portuguese society is like a grand collage including parts varied in quality and number; ranging from the population of the country undergoing a permanent intake of migrants from other states, to political and economic reforms and social transformations.

Since the Carnation Revolution (April 25, 1974), since the overthrow of Salazar’s regime, its discursive and symbolic foundations, which used to support the ideological structure of the country, turned to dust and ashes. Colonies were granted independence, and an ordinary penniless person whose image was proclaimed in Salazar’s period was to become a thing of the past. But the experience accumulated throughout an individual’s life, and, the more so, throughout a whole people’s life cannot be deleted overnight. Mentality may change, but gradually, and certainly not in strict accordance with the rules designed by reformers. Ideas and slogans of the Carnation Revolution did not change people’s mentality; the ideas gained approval, but they did never become a new and rigorous pattern for everybody to live by. And this is true of not exclusively Portugal, but any nation.

“Complacency” ideas became a breeding ground for at least two generations of people in the country, which are now considered to be victims of dictatorship. Today, they are elderly population, but their attitude to life provides a significant impact on the younger generation, determines their outlook, and will invisibly persist in the minds of the following generations.

The fact that the coming generations were given an opportunity to admire the army of the former leader; the army which broke its oath when Marcelo Caetano, Salazar’s infamous successor condemned mostly for initiating no changing transformations and, in so doing, provoking the revolution, was replaced, testifies to there being dueling attitude in evaluating the past and the present of Portugal, the dual attitude in evaluating former and current transformations (Marcelo Caetano was prime minister from 1968, when Salazar suffered from a heart attack, till 1974. At first, Caetano, showing interest in changing the political course of the country, was relied strong hopes upon. The period is known as “Primavera Marcelista” (“Marcelo’s Spring”). The hopes were not to come true, though; there was a military coup resulting in outing the prime minister). The revolution put an end to colonial rule, police repressions; it marked the abolition of censorship and the beginning of transformations resulting in creating a democratic state. The transition was in no way smooth, but cardinal. It is quite obvious today that it is not sufficient to overthrow the ruling government and change the political regime, of higher importance is the revolution to be made in people’s minds, the revolution that was of formal, rather than profound, character. In my view, the reasons for currently faced contradictions should, first and foremost, lie in people’s mentality, rather than in economic and political reforms.

The same processes occur in Russia - in the evaluation of the past Soviet Union, the assessment of Stalin and other Soviet leaders.

We conducted a research of social perceptions of and attitudes to the period of solidarity rate being the highest in the society, in 2009-2010, in Russia and Portugal. The research was conducted in different groups of respondents (managers, workers, non-working retired people, people engaged in educational sphere, students, unemployed people, migrants - 984 people participated in the survey. 502 of them are in the Russian sample, and 482 are in the Portuguese sample. The bias does not exceed 3%).

When asked which period in Russian history was characterized by highest degree of cohesion in the society, the majority of Russian respondents quoted Stalin’s rule (77%). Portuguese citizens, when asked the same question about Portuguese history, referred to Salazar’s government (62%). Different opinions were provided by migrants and people aged younger than 30; probably this young age is the reason for the authoritarian Portuguese ruler winning slightly fewer survey percentage points than the authoritarian Russian ruler. Additionally, the lion’s share of migrants in Portugal came from Ukraine, Moldova, Brazil, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Angola, Mozambique – all of them have superficial knowledge of Portuguese history, and, thus, fail to provide weighty judgment of Portuguese government figures (migrants from the former USSR fail to do it because curriculum in Soviet and, later, Russian schools did not encompass the details of Portuguese history; migrants from other countries fail to do it because they are typically either not educated at all, or have marginal education level – they have primitive numerate and literate skills).

In the Russian sample, even migrants (from China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Georgia - The share of each nationality is approximately equal) pointed at Stalin as a man who succeeded in making the country and its people united, though, his contribution to growing national cohesion was rendered both from positive and negative angles. The fact is due to the Communist party still being in power in China – the party always kept its people informed of the leaders, successes, failures of the neighboring countries and allies. Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Georgia are the former USSR republics where educational curriculum was unified, and despite the fact that not all national policies conducted during Stalin’s rule gained approval and support among citizens of the former USSR republics, it is undisputable that those policies exerted a profound impact on people’s outlook and worldview.

The difference in replies provided by young respondents is due to differences in the ways Russian and Portuguese authorities understand tasks and objectives of education, in socialization peculiarities, and, finally, in resulting differences in collective memory. In Russia, the number of those who view the political history of the country in a different way is increasing, and Stalin is viewed as a unique and skillful manager. The new attitude to Stalin’s figure appeared as a result of changes in educational sphere and reconsideration of curricula (actually, history itself is reconsidered, which results in changing the population’s collective memory of the past).

In Portuguese society the picture is different due to the policy conducted by current authorities trying to strengthen Portugal’s position in the European Union. The attitude and views articulated by the European Union concerning Salazar’s governing period are of negative character; Salazar is portrayed as a tyrant and dictator, thus, any reconsideration of the meaning of his figure and his government is totally out of the question. Yet, there arises conflict between power and people: in public consciousness, Salazar is the defender of Portugal’s interests (especially in the light of growing tension and uncertainty of nowadays), while, in the view of the powerful (inspired by the European Union), Salazar is the enemy of democracy, human rights and freedoms.

Middle-aged and old-aged people have similar attitude to the governing period of rulers indicated in the table (see Table), because they lived in the times characterized by “stability”, “cohesion”, “solidarity”, and “unity” of people. In Portugal, Salazar initiated economic, political, agricultural reforms; he did the same thing as Stalin did in Russia. In his policies, Salazar avoided touching upon the issues of nationality and religion. He avoided the former because Portugal held, and still holds, open borders with its ex-colonies, thus vesting vital interest in the resources of the territories. He avoided the latter because he himself was a deeply religious person.

In the Portuguese sample, there is one exception: it is the opinion provided by people working in educational sphere – they are more highly inclined to follow general European norms and standards, and to evaluate Portugal from the angle imposed by the European Union. Students tend to follow the outlook propagandized by their teachers and to adopt their worldview and attitudes, sometimes too affectionately, thus entering a conflict between their views and the views supported by their parents.

All respondents in their replies project certain experiences, values and emotional evaluations on the period under consideration, forming their views of the period. The corresponding differences are given in the Table.

Table 1

Qualitative evaluation of “cohesion” and “solidarity” of the society during the government of Stalin in Russia and Salazar in Portugal*

Social group	Stalin - Russia	Salazar - Portugal
Managers (middle class)	"stability", "guarantees", "predictability"	" stability", "work", "confidence in the future"
Workers	"social guarantees", "stability"	" stability", "work", "safety in life"
Retired people, not employed	"confidence in the future", "free education and medical treatment", "youth"	"serenity", "reliability", "work"
People working in education	"serenity", "romantic feeling", " stability"	"restrictions", "limits", "strength"
Students	"strength", "safety", "reliability"	"friendship", "restrictions", "oppression"
Unemployed people	" stability ", "well-being", "feeling protected"	"reliability", "dependability", "work"
Migrants	"openness", "strength"	"power", "strength"

* Most frequent answers

Each age and social group – irrespective of a country – attaches its own meanings to the attitudes being formed towards a governing period of a certain ruler. Memories is a product of collective memory, which is to a great extent processed by powerful institutions and which makes people mould a different viewpoint of contemporary historical events and compensate for, as far as symbols are concerned, or complete lacunas; thus, recollection turns into interpretation. Memories are symbols of historical and social identity, they are based on processes reflecting group cohesion, on rituals of collective solidarity (national, religious, etc.), with collective myths and ideologemes legitimizing political decision-making and institutions being expounded and confirmed.

Therefore, following the conclusions drawn by Maurice Halbwachs, we are to ask a question of who, what leader moulds this past, who benefits from it, what it makes population distracted from, and what it is going to result in; what social frameworks of collective memory are activated in a certain historical period, what techniques and symbols may be used to mobilize people for discussing and defending ideals, events, and thoughts of the past.

Social and cultural foundations are manifested unconsciously, on the basis of collective memory. The one who has profound understanding of these mechanisms may rule peoples of the world.

References:

1. Foucault M. The Order of Things. New York: Vintage, 1970. Foucault 1997 - Foucault M. Different Spaces (1967) // Aesthetics, Method, and Epistemology / Ed. J.D. Faubion. New York: New Press, 1997. - р. 175.

2. Фуко М. Интеллектуалы и власть: статьи и интервью, 1970-1984: В 3 ч. Ч. 3 / Пер. с фр. Б.М. Скуратова под общ. ред. В.П. Большакова. М.: Праксис, 2006. - С. 196.; 200; 203.