Upload
brett-hampton
View
213
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Class Dimensions of Social Networks in Russia
Anna-Maria SalmiAleksanteri InstituteUniversity of Helsinki
Who benefits from networks?
• is a question that will be addressed in the last part of my presentation
• First some other questions need to be asked:
• 1. What is the connection between inequality and networks?
• 2. Why is there so little research on the subject?
Networks and inequality
• The Soviet Union/Russia characterised as “society of networks”
• Inequality, though dramatically increased, was always existent
• How are networks and inequality connected?
Social networks and inequality
• Inequality Networks– unequal access to networks
• Networks Inequality– networks may further reproduce
inequalities
Paradox: important, but…
• Yet we have very little information about networks and inequality
• My presentation has three parts:• One: How were networks and inequality
connected in the Soviet Union?• Two: Why has there been so little attention to
networks & inequality in contemporary Russia?
• Three: What dimensions of class inequalities can
qualitative network analysis reveal?
Part One
looks at how inequality and networks were connected in
the Soviet Union
A general consensus exists that
• Socialist societies were “societies of networks”– Wedel (1986), Sampson (1986), Srubar
(1991), Ledeneva (1998) and the “second economy” literature (e.g. Grossman 1977, Millar 1985)
• Money not sufficient as means of exchange, networks the capital that mattered
• economy of shortages, lack of (good-quality) goods, services, information
• A range of consequences: – consumption & problem-solving
personalised– strict divisions (one’s own & them)– particularistic (not general) reciprocity
& trust– functional and dysfunctional, etc.
What we do not know that well
• is how networks and inequality (in terms of class) were connected in socialism
• Several claims have been made:
Inequality networks
• First claim:– traditional hierarchy (working class
disfavoured)
• Example: medicine
Inequality networks
• Second claim:– reversed hierarchy (working class favoured)– Steven Sampson: Redistribution networks had
the effect that “status hierarchies are turned upside down” (1986: 58)
• Example: Berdahl on the East German village of Kella (1999):– some working-class people became “elite”,
“patrons” or “notables” in the village
Inequality networks
• Third claim: – class in a sense irrelevant, the question
is: who is useful? – one needs to think of the utility of
occupations (Ledeneva 1998)– utility does not follow class lines
Inequality networks
• Fourth claim:– everybody is useful – “Everybody who has received a favor
somewhere is able to return it somewhere else” (Kornai 1980:77)
– “Every adult member of society is in a position to do some kind of favour for someone else” (Millar 1985: 702-703)
– queueing, if nothing else
To sum up: Unequal access to networks
• is a question that remains unclear• context-bound• other relevant categories too
(related to gender, place/locality, ethnicity)
• the question has been seriously understudied
Networks inequality
• Is it or is it not a zero-sum game?• Not always: allocation of resources
from (military) production to (civil) consumption (Ledeneva 1998)
• But usually yes: redistribution or reallocation of goods/services
Scarcity
• Luhmann (1993): scarcity means that access for one is at the cost of access for others
• then networks as a solution to scarcity change the relation between the haves and the have-nots
• but do not solve the problem of scarcity
Housing a good example
• No matter how intensive networking, the amount of flats did not increase
• Networks simply mean distribution according to other criteria than those officially proclaimed (one sort of inequality supplanted by another)
Little attention to inequality- why?
• Focus on/ interest in something else: showing that the Soviet/socialist society worked in a different manner than formally/officially proclaimed
• Wedel: The Private Poland• Grossman: The Second Economy of
the USSR• Sampson: The Informal Sector
in Eastern Europe
• Also: a tendency to argue that there was a “need” that “forced” “everyone” “all the time” to use networks
• emphasising the necessity of networks implicitly suggests their ubiquity and availability
• at least does not sensitise to look at unequal access
Part Two
Why has inequality been overlooked now (when it is perfectly possible to study
it)?
Inequality has not been much addressed – why?
• Networks often by-products of interest in something else and seldom a focus per se
• Another focus has been dominant: the past/present –dichotomy
• Disputes: do networks still matter or have they become obsolete?
• Opposite claims (Ledeneva vs. Sik & Wellman)
Something in the nature of the concept that causes neglect?
• Popular accounts: “the small world phenomenon” (“anyone can reach nearly anyone else”)
• The idea of reaching misses many points:– people’s networks may differ– knowing someone does not mean ability
or willingness to help
More explanations…
• Important discussions detailing networks:– literature on social capital– literature on survival or livelihood strategies
• Problematic if too ready-made answers are given in advance without empirical evidence:– why networks are used or why they work (as a
legacy of the past, for survival) or – that they work (as social capital)
• danger if networks cease to be an object of research and become an explanation instead
Neglected questions
• limits of networks (where they do not work, cannot be used, are not used)?
• unequal access to networks• the consequences of networks to
actors themselves, outsiders (those without networks), society at large?
• though such studies have begun to emerge
Part Three
How can a qualitative network approach illuminate the question
of inequality and class? Examples from my own research
Two sets of data, two data collection methods
• Secondary school teachers– Networks
constructed through actual interaction
– diary data during a two-week study period
– people with whom they had exchanged important information + other important people
• Factory workers
– Networks constructed through soliciting names
– 10 name-generators or questions on social support, exchange and interaction
Differentiated access to networks:
health care as an example• middle-class people (exemplified by
teachers) have far more medical professionals in their networks than e.g. factory workers (see also Brown & Rusinova)
• quantitative and qualitative difference• a generational perspective (“inherited
connections”, “dynasty of doctors”)• closer look on the formation of networks
(how are connections formed?)• the importance of place and migration
Formation of networks
• most relationships are formed somewhere or through someone
• opportunities to form connections are not equal
• education gives:– more skills in communication– more situations and settings in which to form
these connections
• the role of the Soviet state has been crucial
The role of the state in network formation
• how the state – provided – encouraged– approved of– was indifferent to– constrained
– or prohibited • certain occasions, places or
practices to initiate relationships
Examples
• Provided: relatively unsegregated neighbourhoods which offered an opportunity for classes to mix (incentive to mix existed)
• Constrained: certain forms of associations and public settings
• Was indifferent to: many private forms of sociability
• Restricted: free movement• Implications for class
Private celebrations imporant meeting places
• Birthdays, new year celebrations etc. functioned as important places in which to initiate new relationships
• Not likely to cross class boundaries?
Place and migration
• Networks affect migration, but how does migration affect networks?
• If Russia is a society of networks, then whether you are a migrant or not makes an immense difference
• Migration makes a rupture in networks, natives have better networks
• Migrant workers unprivileged in two ways
• Reluctance to move?
Comparative study of workers at the Kirov tractor factory
• Migrants in particular had very many workplace-related ties
• Explained by the Soviet context:• The crucial importance of the
factory (providing housing, spouse, neighbours, free-time activities)
• The lack of many public places available in the west (bars, pubs)
Consequences of migration to networks
• Social networks are closely connected to one single milieu: the workplace
• Socially and even occupationally homogenous
• Implications since there are few middle-class members in the networks (almost no medical professionals)
To conclude
• Who benefits from networks? – is a question that has been studied
relatively little – is a question that can be answered only
on a contextualised basis• Health care: second-generation
“intelligentsia” or “middle-class” respondents favoured, migrant workers least favoured
– is a complex and slightly dangerous question
Thank you for your attention!
• Please do not quote without contacting the author: [email protected]
• The presentation draws on – Salmi, Anna-Maria (2006): Social Networks and Everyday Practices in
Russia, Kikimora Publications, Helsinki.• See also:
– Markku Lonkila & Anna-Maria Salmi: The Russian Work Collective and Migration. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.57, No. 5, pp. 681-703
– Salmi, Anna-Maria (2003): Health in Exchange: Teachers, Doctors, and the Strength of Informal Practices in Russia. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 109-130.
– Salmi, Anna-Maria (2000): Bonds, Bottles, Blat and Banquets. Birthdays and Networks in Russia. Ethnologia Europaea, Vol. 30, No. 1, ss. 31-44