1. 1 Individualization and Social Solidarity in post-Communist Europe Anna Shirokanova Belarus State University shirokaner@gmailcom

2. 2 Solidarity Along Durkheim, solidarity is: Social organization (objective) Social morality (objective) Justice (subjective perception) Based on: Hechter 2001; Merz 2007; Pope 1983; Taylor 2005.

3. 3 Individualization shift of authority “from without to within” relying on one’s own resources more Individual freedom in identity formation, lifestyle, etc. Based on: Knorr-Cetina 1997; Welzel 2007.

4. 4 Focus on Giving and taking components of solidarity: Solidarity with whom? Where from? The scope of freedoms and obligations? Two basic types: bridging and bonding.

5. 5 That is close to organic and mechanic solidarity, but… - There are no limitations as to the alternativity of two types. Why? theory: Durkheim renounced “organic solidarity” (“it is shared values and sentiments that lie at the foundation of solidarity” (Parsons 1937)); practice: the return of “mechanical solidarity” in the form of ethnic, racial, and gender solidarity (Tiryakian 1994) + good to the nearest circle almost universal for the social good (Welzel 2011).

6. 6 Better: We can use both types to characterize types of social solidarity across societies. What for? -A characteristic of how social ties are organized in society; -Good explanation variable as to the social feelings and civil society research; -Gives a hint as to the processes in politics and economy (informal economy, political protests, etc.)

7. 7 Bridging The bridging pattern of social solidarity exists where: -ties to other people cut across the immediate circle of personal relations, -including trust to anonymous people and - identities, -respect to the formal laws (~altruism), and -voluntary engagement in the social issues of global scope, and -Collective political action supporting these goals.

8. 8 Bonding The bonding pattern of solidarity dominates in societies where: -personal ties to family members and friends are most active, -including trust and -identity with this narrow circle, -reluctance to respect formal laws or - participate in civic organizations and -collective social action.

9. 9 “Bridging” and “bonding” principles prompt 4 theoretical types: High bridging, low bonding solidarity INTERNATIONALISM High bridging, high bonding solidarity HIGHLY INTEGRATED Low bridging, low bonding solidarity ATOMIZATION Low bridging, high bonding solidarity FAMILIALISM, CLIQUES Bridging BondingBonding

10. 10 Hypothesis Countries are different in their dominant types of social solidarity. In the ex-Communist countries, civil society and civil participation are extremely low even 20 years from 1991 (Wallace 2011). Materialism and survival values in ex- Communist countries are on the rise (Inglehart & Welzel 2009). Thus, we expect that in ex-Communist countries the dominant pattern is high bonding solidarity with a low bridging component.

11. 11 This type: favors a strong network of relations and responsibilities to family members and friends, even at the cost of public virtues, formal laws, and organizational structures (Banfield 1958; Papakostas 2004; Volkov). Our task is to compare countries by the types of their dominant solidarity patterns. The motivation: some types of solidarity pattern may be extremely unfavorable for social welfare.

12. 12 Bridging/bonding solidarity BONDINGBONDING BRIDGINGBRIDGING 12 Membership in civic organizations Membership in non- traditional organizations Identity with the local community Identity with the world, the nation Trust to family members and personal contacts Trust to anonymous people Reluctance to respect the law Respect to the law Political activismAbstaining from political action

13. 13 Besides: Bonding solidarity focuses on responsibilities to the nearest circle, and set limits on individualization. It is based on group responsibilities. Bridging solidarity pushes individualization forward, boosts individual action capacity, and mitigates social cooperation. It is based on individual choice and freedom.

14. 14 Indexes Bridging solidarity; Bonding solidarity Formative :) 0.0 to 1.0 Looking into the possible patterns:

15. 15 Bridging 1.Participation in collective political action (mean) 2.Membership in a charity/ humanitarian organization 3.Membership in a environment organization 4.Membership in an arts/ education organization 5.Tolerance (of different origin + of different lifestyle) 6.Opposition to bribery 7.Opposition to avoiding fares 8.Opposition to not paying taxes 9.Opposition to forging benefits rights 10.Trust to a wide circle of people (mean) 11.Confidence in army 12.Confidence in labor unions 13.Confidence in the police 14.Confidence in justice system 15.Confidence in government 16.Confidence in political parties 17.Confidence in parliament 18.Confidence in civil service 19.Confidence in environmental movement 20.Confidence in women’s movement 21.Confidence in charities/ humanitarian orgs KMO=,880 Rsq=62% Kronbach’s alpha=,719

16. 16 CountriesT-test Trust to public institutions (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17) -39,383*** Respect to law (6,7,8,9)-15,184*** Trust to civic institutions (12, 18, 19, 20, 21) -11,806*** Membership in civic institutions (2,3,4) -27,297*** Bridging behavior (1,5,10)-15,894*** Ex-Communist countries and not

17. Some pics 17

18. 18 Bonding Identity from roots (mean of land, blood, traditions) Important family v4 friends Trad sources of solid (work + work + religion) Intolerant of immigrants (generally/not in immigrant countries) Intolerant of other language Intolerant of unmarried Intolerant of homos Intolerant of aids Intoler of dif religion Trust narrow Trust wide Ethnic homogeny v221 Local id Nation id (in eastern Europe – new states) Disapproval of divorce and abortion v12, v15 Low respect to law Low political interest v95 Memb church org Memb sports Reluctant to sign petitions, join boycotts, demonstrate (no public action, all private) Condifence in army, church (collective, impersonal~~Freud) Not important democracy v162 Live in democracy (=do not care about its quality) v163 Blood, soil, customs, laws v218-221 Kinship+law(maybe not reasonable) KMO=,720 Rsq=53% Kronbach’s alpha=,602

19. 19 CountriesT-test Care about the narrow circle-48,473*** Ethnic monolith15,343*** Territorial identity-2,383* Reluctance to politics12,076*** Interest in the narrow circle-34,259*** Ex-Communist countries and not

20. A ML-analysis better? Very much probable. Some suggestions: - Social expenditure (country) - Region of the world (not only ex-Comm) - GNI per capita (they are poorer, not ex- Comm) - Human Empowerment Index? Maybe. 20

21. Thank you for your attention. Comments, please! Explanations? Suggestions? 21