Social Structure of  Lithuania

SUMMARY

The establishment of society's structure is significant not only because of satisfying scientific interest. The research into society's social stratification is especially important for social practice too. Clear society's stratification view allows to concretise legislation, differentiate and focus public sphere's work implements for various groups of the population.
Society can be structured in different cuts. Firstly, social demographical structure allows to set citizenry's potential: men/women, youth/aged, family/single people, working/ jobless and other distribution and relationships. Institutional society's system allows to deal with the interaction of different social systems: social institutes (national, municipal institutes, family, community and others functioning).Though the holistic society's stratification view including all levels is necessary for concretising social politics. Especially it became actual, when Lithuania joined the European Union, when our country is more and more influenced by globalisation, European culture and - firstly - migration: emigration and immigration.
Firstly, it is necessary to emphasize that there are two traditions (streams) in constructing society's structure: German and English-French (some US sociologists'works also belong to the latter). As Finnish sociologists R. Blom and M. Kivinen note, the German tradition derives from K. Marx's "Capital" class theory and its further reconstruction. Society is divided by economical principle dichotomically in two classes: those who have implements of work - capitalists - exploiters and workers - work force - the exploited. The contradiction between the exploiters and exploited manifests itself in class struggle, and a revolution is its extreme expression as social relations change in the main. It is maintained that the social conflict paradigm fits to ground society's changes in the best way. Even not going deeper in the peculiarities of this tradition, we need to emphasize that contemporary social conflict paradigm representatives R. Dahrendorf, L. Coser, R. Collins and others recede from dichotomical social conflict origins and revolutionary solution way. For example, R. Collins says that people are linked to control others and if those refuse to obey, the conflict arise. But there is no doubt that German tradition (stream) origins are in market economy and its changes.
The English-French tradition (stream) accentuates cultural view and emphasizes that modern and postmodern society cannot be explained just taking as a background the changes in the mode of production. More and more often the person's activity, his activity motivation, life style and so on are emphasized.

One of the most outstanding sociologists of these days - P. Bourdieu (1930 - 2002) widely used the term "class". But he strictly criticized economical class substantiation. In his opinion, "classes are agencies, which have similar positions and who face similar conditions, are forced to experience similar influence and probably will get similar dispositions and interests and that is why they will behave similar and will have similar views. However this paper class possess theoretical existence that derives from theories... It is not a real class as a group mobilized for struggle. At most it can be called class in a sense of agencies that will experience less obstacles in mobilizing than some other agency". P. Bourdieu uses three main terms: habitus, capital and field. Habitus consists of disposition (links, skills) collection which makes subject to act in some way. Dispositions are people's motivational background. But actions are not determined just by habitus, they appear in the specific habitus and field intersection. Every actor is reaching for power expression in his specific field, seeking to use his specific capital. Capital for P. Bourdieu is not just economical (even if it is the most efficient form of capital), but also symbolic (social and cultural). Social capital means culturally, economically and politically important links that help the actor to keep conformable social status. The active individual conception nowadays is especially often used by French sociologist A.Tourain.
According to this tradition the population is divided into ranking classes - from the highest to lowest one. Some researchers count even 12 of them.They distinguish the highest of the highest, the middle of the highest, the lowest of the highest, and the higher of the lowest, the middle of the lowest, the lowest of the lowest classes. The largest distribution counts three classes: the highest, middle and lowest class. In all cases distribution is grounded on society ranking.
It is to be noted that there are many stratificational models, however they often lack substantiation. Some researches distinguish the upper, middle classes and workers, though, in our opinion, this distribution is not precise methodologically for several reasons. The term "upper crust" is associated with aristocracy which is to be named more precisely - as a separate stratum in the highest class. The term "middle" is not precise as the representatives of this class are not middle. They are active and self-conscious a great deal. There is no doubt that some high skilled and well paid workers belong to the middle class. Therefore they cannot belong to the workers at the same time. The conception of middle class is associated in essence with an active person image. In dichotomic class scheme the inheritable wealth is important- it leads to high social status. In the middle class this social position is more earned, achieved than inherited. So the middle class consists of the most active individuals.

Often the question rises - can the traditional stratification models be applied to contemporary society- knowledge society existing in the world of globalization, unification, vir-tualizaton. Another question is - does the trational model suit post-communist world? In our opinion, without any doubt we need to take them as a ground, but the new models are necessary to reflect new civilization challenges and evaluate the situation in post-communist countries. That is why we will try to offer our stratification concept.
Firstly, we want to sign what demands we rise to ourselves. The stratification model must take into account:
О Post communist country's peculiarities;
Q Necessity to encompass all society as fully as possible;
Q Possibility to match classical and stratificational cuts, taking into consideration individual uniqueness;
Q Application possibilities - how model can be applied for social politics.
Some commentaries.
Up-to-now Lithuanian history, which we create by ourselves, gives a unique possibility to live in transformation from quasi-socialist to postmodern society, which is grounded on the laws of market economy. In post-communist countries political, economical, social, cultural, and other life spheres still are structurally and systematically substantially changing. New social relations based on the market economy are formed. Joining the European Union and NATO allowed Lithuania to avoid "the grey zone", near unpredictable power of Russian Federation. It means as if a boundary is drawn for the period of transition to democratic society. Possibilities of the separate individual have changed in the main. Through 15 independence years new generation has grown up, its interests differ from other generations that have matured in other social system. On the other hand, historically 15 years is too short period for all transforming processes. It is obvious that elder generations meet with difficulties while adapting to new social relations. They often feel their situation is unsafe and unstable. Selfishness is often dominating in society. Its extreme manifestations are crime, corruption, over-indulgence in official position etc. Shadow structure takes a significant place in economical relations. So the changes in thinking are most difficult, they take a long time.Therefore social stratification is difficult and often contradictional.
One of the most important requirements is to establish individual identification, that is belonging to class and concrete stratum as well. The full chain "individual-stratum-class"

ensures the integrity of structure. Every resident of the country must have his place in society's structure.
After defining the demands for society structuring we come to model constructing. Firstly, we need to decide what tradition (stream) to use, though, as it is mentioned above, post- communist singularity does not allow use fully the existing postmodern society's stratification models.
As we have mentioned, there are two traditions (streams): German, which emphasize economical view, and English-French, taking as a basis culture view. Economical view dividing classes by income forms and sources is single-sided. For example, what actually can give capitalists', bourgeoisies'officers', labourers', peasants'class division for social politics? The boundaries between these classes according their income are various and vague. It is obvious that the domination of private property puts the head of industrialists'confederation to one pole, and the owner of the hairdressing saloon to another. To what class belong a professor who works at national university and at the same time is a sharer of private university?
Especially problematic is income establishment. In post-communist countries shadow economics takes a significant part in the national money market. Real income is hidden in order to avoid taxes. Even highest officers of the country declare their income vaguely. Often wage is paid in envelopes. So what kind of precision is enough for real society's stratification by income?
The English-French tradition (stream), which emphasize cultural aspect, life style peculiarities is much more perspective for constructing stratification model in post-communist country. If we take this view as a basis we can stratify society in strata concretely, distinguishing those who differ in their characteristics and activity. But it is necessary to find the main stratification principle, to form the system of stratification indicators which would help to avoid simplification and to distinguish different classes and strata in them. In our opinion, the main principle can be identification distinguishing. Globalization, Eu-ropeization, processes and specialities in the post-communistic country make people feel unsafe. In the closed Soviet Union space the future of ordinary citizens was clear and predictive, and nowadays everyone's situation is very dynamic.
The importance of identification is most widely and sharply emphasized because of the growing flows of migration. Identification becomes relevant to emigrants and immigrants as well. When Lithuania became a member of the European Union, a few hundreds of thou-

sands citizens had left Lithuania. The growing deficit of workforce leads to an immigration of Belarussians, Ukrainians and other nationalities (even Chinese) to work in Lithuania. For both, the problem of identification rises: are they planning their life in new country, are they going to come back to their kin and country? The number of mixed families is increasing.The problem of identification is important to their children, particularly when parents are of different races. The issues of identification are widely analysed by Lithuanian sociologists, they maintain theses.
The problems of identification are analysed in many comparative international studies. There is accentuated not so much national as territorial identification: identification with the living place, region, country, Europe and even the world. The comparative studies show that in democratic European countries often priority is given to the living place. In the living place the most important life problems are solved, communication relations are already existing, communities are forming. It is important in the aspect of society's stratification.
All what is said, grounds our opinion, that the main axis of methodological stratification can be the identification. As we have mentioned, one of the ways of society's division is ranging from the highest to lowest classes. So the main indicator of belonging to one or other class is self-identification with this class. On the other hand, the application of the system of various indicators allows us to make identification more precise and - what is the most important - to distinguish strata. Hence the constructing of system of indicators is another important aspect of the stratificational model.
One of the most significant stratification indicators is power. Not without a reason in the Lithuanian language power associates with ability. Power is a background for solution, action, domination. On the other hand, power becomes ability and action only when it is institutionalised, when it becomes authority. Those who have authority - those make solutions and act.
There is no doubt that in modern society power is not so often inherited as achieved due to education, faculties, responsibility and activity. Power and authority are mutually connected with wealth: wealth gives power to an individual and possibility to seek for authority. It also works backwards: authority gives possibilities to get wealth. Especially it is typical for transitional periods and nowadays too. Wealth is growing when income is decent. Income can be wage (declared and not declared), pension, rent and other.

The indicator of social status, which shows citizens' social position in society, organically supplements the stratificational model. Social status more reflects individual's occupation, his professional "weight" in society
Classes and strata differ in life style. It appears in material surroundings: living place (prestigious closed suburbs,"sleeping wagons", garden, steading), home (house/houses, flat/flats, their quality, furniture), transport (mark of car, amount, quality), things (amount, quality), clothes (amount, quality). It appears in different forms of activities: training, political, social, cultural, cognitive, religious, daily. It appears in friends and acquaintanceship. It's obvious, that Rotary club member does not identify himself with the middle or even higher class; and beer drinkers in the market pavilion mostly can pretend to the middle class. So taking as a basis methodological and method principles we construct Lithuanian class- stratificational model.
In the class cut we distinguish: the highest, the higher, the middle, the lower and the lowest class. In our opinion, the model of 5 classes is optimum for post-communist society. The model of 12 classes fits democratic society where the class spectre is wider. It reflects the peculiarities of post-modern society. The model of 3 classes would be too schematic. The model of 5 classes better reflects the specifics of post-communistic society, whose structure is still changing fast at this transitional period.
The class cut is supplemented with the stratification cut. It is necessary for more exact society's stratification and makes possible to form more exact social politics.
In the first scheme there is presented the stratificational model of the Lithuanian population.
As we see, the income indicator was included too: it was analysed how much money one family member receives per month. Hence the subjective evaluation of one's social position was combined with the relatively objective income indicator. 6 income groups were singled out: from the lowest to the largest.
First of all according to the indicator of identification with a group ten identity groups were distinguished. Then 36 strata were formed according to the correlation with income for a family member. The third step: the average index was constructed. According to it the number of strata was 39.
The research centre "Vilmorus" carried out the interrogation. There were interrogated 1500 respondents.