The idea of placing the study of the Russian nation in the broader context of civilization studies, which is implemented in Leksin’s book, is both original and successful. The depth of Leksin’s analysis is remarkable: nearly 1000 relevant publications were reviewed in addition to the authors’ personal research contributions in this field. Leksin’s approach is based on the following three provisions: (1) civilizations must be understood as real historical phenomena with distinct characteristics and unique life cycles, (2) Russia is a multicivilizational structure (the author himself applies the notions of ‘a confederacy of civilizations’ and ‘a civilization conglomerate’): even though Russian civilization forms the core and plays the role of a binding entity in this conglomerate, other civilizational components are recognized not as subordinates, but as complementary civilizations, regardless of their size and passionarity; (3) Russian civilization is characterised as currently undergoing a major crisis and, perhaps, the most powerful transformation in its history. The book presents the results of a systemic analysis of multiple aspects of Russian civilization, including the national mentality, the demographic and spatial characteristics of the ‘Russian world’, the state of the Russian language, Russian culture and religiosity. Leksin masterfully examines the possible causes and effects of the currently extremely weak national identity of the Russian people, the paradoxes of their addiction to disparaging self-assessments, and the puzzlingly painful attitudes toward the ‘grim’ pages of the past (which the author characterizes as ‘ethno-masochism’). One of the key sections of the book discusses the conditions which maintain the existence of civilizations and cause their demise. By analysing an impressive set of historical facts Leksin argues that civilizations do not cease simply because they fall prey to stronger opponents. Rather civilizations become victims of their own weaknesses, they retreat from the founding civilizational values and the distinctive features which distinguish them from other civilizations. The current weakness of Russian civilization is the disdain and scepticism of many Russians towards their core civilizational values which took centuries to shape, i.e. their neglect of the Russian language, their indifference to the expansionist attitudes of other civilizations, and the strange sense of shame towards their own national mentality.
The ecovillage movement in Russia began to emerge shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, 25 to 30 years after the global ecovillage trend began. The Russian movement is far from homogenous and varies by many parameters, e.g. ideology, governance, lifestyle. Ecovillage communities and settlements began to form as а way of isolating their inhabitants in one way or another from modern society. The process accelerated in the 2000s spurred by the publication of Vladimir Megre’s book Anastasia (1996), the first book in the Ringing Cedars of Russia series (of which ten volumes have been published so far with more than 11 million copies sold). ‘Anastasian’ settlements, the so-called kin’s domain settlements (consisting of family-owned homesteads), rapidly became the prevailing type of ecovillages in Russia. However, until recently this phenomenon has remained relatively underresearched, and this article attempts to fill in this gap by exploring these communities in the context of Russia’s ecovillage movement. The work is based on field research carried out by the author in 2012–2015 in nine ecovillages located in Western Russia and the Urals. It is based on 32 in-depth interviews with 54 respondents and overt observations. Additional interviews were conducted with the inhabitants of neighbouring non-ecovillage communities, and people possessing expert knowledge on the subject in question (V. Hiltunen, expert on ecovillages, and the functionaries of the municipalities where the surveyed communities are located). The author reveals the social structure of ecovillage communities, their subsistence models, sources of income, self-organization and governance, as well as relations with local and government authorities, and the inhabitants of neighboring villages. Fundamental differences between ecovillage communities and traditional rural communities are identified with regard to the origin of the inhabitants, their education, demographic characteristics, subsitence and farming practices.
“Locals” and “alien” in Russian provincial town
The article is based on empirical social research of the local communities in Russia. Their centers are situated in provincial towns, but the territory occupied by the local community, is located in the wider boundaries in the limes of former county and modern administrative district. We have studied only one component of the provincial social structure: the differentiation in categorical opposition "locals" and "aliens" (or “insiders – outsiders”).
The basic concept is the introduction and determination of necessary and sufficient criteria for the recognition of an individual or group as "us", or “insiders”. These criteria are: (1) duration of communal life, or cohabitation, (2) co-residence – the neighborhood, (3) the relationship and the interaction between "insiders", “locals”, (4) reciprocal altruism – the reciprocity relations, (5) the local privileges and their control, (6) regulatory identification with "we" - communal local mentality.
Not all criteria are symmetrical and the oppositional for the categories of "locals" and "alien". The category of "alien" characterized by following significant criteria: (1) the duration of cohabitation and (2) neighborhood. However, in modern terms is irrelevant criterion (3) relationship. On the contrary, the criterion (4) reciprocal altruism is more important for the differentiation of "aliens" than "locals" Criteria (5) the local privilege and (6) the regulatory identification with "we" no longer significant segregation signs for "aliens"; the reason is a widespread system of public benefits and the availability of mass-media. Local privileges and community mentality shifted to the periphery of public consciousness as a criteria of “we”.
The materials are obtained from the field sociological researches of provincial communities during 1992-2012 years. There are also materials of two all-Russian surveys in 1999 and 2009, used for the statistical analysis. Special emphasis on the study of the social structure of the provincial society was implemented as a result of my research project "Social Structure of Provincial Russian Society" supported in 2011-2012 by the Fund "Khamovniki."
The material was collected in more than 50 towns (local populations). They are located in the European part of Russia and in the Urals and Siberia. The selection of the local communities I have undertaken on the basis of four criteria: (1) a small population of the local community, which involves a broad network of acquaintances, the absence of anomie and anonymity, (2) the duration of the local social life, which means society has long been a "natural" way, and many people are related one another. Society forcibly collected from heterogeneous and alien elements, and (3) the town is not a transportation hub, so there is no high level of migration, (4) in the town absence of urban development enterprise, which employs large numbers of people and such a venture "contracts" for all the life-support local society and distorts the social structure.
Field research methodology was required qualitative methods mainly. There have been direct observational method and expert interviews. Analytical materials obtained as a result of sample representative questionnaires residents.
Results. The significant empirical features of “locals” and “aliens” in the urban provincial society were presented. A number of “locals” traits is analyzed statistically, especially the duration of habitation and resident status (temporal and spatial parameters). Sociological analytical procedures can select only the outward signs of division between "insiders" and "outsiders." The share of "indigenous friends" in a provincial town, at least nine out of ten, on the basis of statistical calculations on materials of mass surveys in 1999 and 2009. This result is consistent with my direct observation and experience with fellow researchers, and an assessment of the respondents. It is clear that not all of these people are recognized for their local community and will be full "friends", or “locals”. But in terms of "neighborhood" they are all neighbors. They are familiar with each other. This acquaintance is pretty close. In a provincial town, almost all the residents - relatives and neighbors. They do not have the passion to migration and prefer to spend all his life in his hometown. "Aliens", or “outsiders” has no more than 5% - 10%, but our other observations are much smaller. Most of the " outsiders" is a "flow-through people", the current flow through the town in its motion in space of the country, has not yet stopped. "Outsiders" live in the city no longer 5-7 years, and then they leave.
The profound differences in the degree of closeness of people in local communities are helped by phenomenological approach. I gave a presentation of case studies of social differentiation in the axis of "insiders – outsiders, alien" in the examples of three long-established provincial societies. Differentiation between “locals" and "alien" is caused mainly by the local social and socio-economic history, including nowadays history. The differentiation caused by ethnic, historical or demographic (migration) factors. A variety of factors are important for the evolution of "locals". This group is a heterogeneous population, and always well differentiated and distanced itself from "aliens".
A few examples show the formation and consolidation processes of "locals": (1) at one time as a homogeneous group of kinship and neighbor with further prolonged stabilization, (2) serial (for 2-3 generations) inclusion and incorporation of new groups of "locals" in the local society, (3) selective inclusion of particular groups of "aliens" in the existing closed local society, and the rejection of other groups. "Locals" in the provincial society is homogeneous group in population-demographic and social traits. The local population has a low level of migration, and the boundaries population extends far beyond the city limits, usually covering most of the population of modern municipal region, or the administrative district.
Provincial Russian town is made in the vast majority of "friendly people. People are very familiar with each other inhabitants, a lot of them are relatives, and they give mutually support each other, and have common attitudes. Outsiders is not existing in a small provincial town, that's true. Aliens forms small and compact groups, that are clearly visible and segregate. This status of aliens reflects the homogenously and low difference of “locals”. But, it is the main factor of local solidarity. In such society is not loneliness. Such society has the real local self-government, but it is not receptive to civil society established by state. The society of “locals” is not a civil society.
In the current article I revisit the evolution of intergenerational social mobility in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. In particular, I look at historical changes in residential, educational and occupational mobility of Russians. The study makes a potentially valuable contribution to the literature by extending the spectrum of institutional and historical contexts, in which (in)equality of opportunity has been considered so far, and a chance to re-examine existing evidence by using alternative datasets and a slightly different methodology.
For empirical part I utilize data from four representative cross-national surveys conducted in Russia in 1994, 2002, 2006 and 2013. Following existing theoretical arguments developed in comparative social mobility research as well as being informed by several earlier studies, I anticipated (1) a trend towards lesser (rather than greater) openness in the late years of the Soviet era, (2) a temporary discontinuity of mobility patterns during the turbulent 1990s and (3) the tightening up of social mobility regime in the more stable years of Russia’s post-Soviet history. However, my findings reveal that no unambiguous trend existed and contradict some of the earlier evidence. In particular, I found 1) a steadily increasing closure of residential communities; 2) a weakening (rather than increasing) link between parents’ and children’s educational attainment in the post-Soviet era; 3) the invariance of social fluidity in terms of occupational attainment both in Soviet and post-Soviet periods. The paper concludes highlighting some of the remaining puzzles and possible directions for future research.
In the first article I draw the substantive distinctions between the notions of relative and absolute social mobility and their relevance for correct interpretation of existing facts about social mobility in Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. It is followed by discussion of theoretical considerations, from which I draw the hypotheses of my study, and the methodological aspects, which underpin further analyses. The empirical part begins with presenting the estimates of changes in absolute mobility.