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.