Похоронная индустрия в сравнительной перспективе: роль инфраструктуры в создании национальных моделей
Russian death care industry is quite different from the European and American model. There are no any big national funeral corporations in Russia, no any private funeral homes or private mortuaries and cemeteries. All of the death care industry infrastructure is owned by the government. The infrastructure is the source for illegal and criminal practices. Why illegal and criminal practices and bad technical conditions do not meet the government counter? May we say that it is the status quo? One possible way to answer on this question may be the analysis of the infrastructure. In this paper I am going to present: how the funeral infrastructure creates social and power relations between local government and funeral homes; the role of technical condition of infrastructure in the process of power control. I argue that the status quo, which is understood as the controlled infrastructure breakdown, intentionally supported by different actors. Repairs and maintenance of infrastructure is a form of political control between local government and business. The principal feature of the death care industry in Russia is a specific mechanism of controlling the powerful infrastructure environment. The impact on her condition is a special form of flexible political control when breaking infrastructure and its repair is a compromise between government and private funeral agencies.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.