Aggressive Behaviour of Different Social and Demographic Groups in Post-Totalitarian Society

The project looked at aggressiveness in different age and social groups of modern post-totalitarian society, beginning with the hypotheses that the greatest risk groups are teenagers and the unemployed, and that there is a link between aggression and the level of meaningfulness of life. The groups studied comprised about 200 persons from urban areas of eastern Ukraine, including schoolchildren, students, white collar workers, self-employed persons, the unemployed and pensioners. Workers in industry were not included as this group has virtually disappeared in Ukraine at present since most enterprises have ceased to work and most workers have moved into the groups of the unemployed or self-employed. Participants were divided into age groups of 13-14, 16-17, 18-22, 24-45, 46-60 and over 60, with each group including approximately equal number of men and women. Research methods included Buss-Darky techniques, the "hand test" (E. Wagner), the "non-existent animal" technique, a Rozenzweig picture frustration study, purpose-in-life tests and an interview. The Buss-Darky test showed that schoolchildren have the highest level of aggression, followed by students. These groups have high indexes in virtually all types of aggression, including its open form. The self-employed have relatively lower indexes, although they are more likely to manifest it openly, while such open manifestations are less likely among white-collar workers, pensioners and the unemployed. The least aggressive were the unemployed and pensioners, although the latter had a relatively high level of hostility. In terms of age, aggression was shown to decrease with age, which Ms. Ivanova attributes to the still imperfect control mechanisms of teenagers and their less mature personalities. Among the younger groups girls showed a slightly higher level of aggression, although this situation was reversed among older people. The risk groups inclined to manifest open forms of aggressiveness can therefore be seen to be teenagers and students. Other tests used show aggressiveness as a feature of the current state, rather than as an inherent feature and the results obtained were somewhat different. In the interviews, all adults referred to the increased aggressiveness in society and most stated that they themselves had become more aggressive and bad-tempered. The ability of individuals to adapt to their social environment was also investigated and schoolchildren turned out to have the lowest adaptation index and the unemployed the highest. MS. Ivanova attributes that latter, rather surprising, result to the fact that the constant frustrations facing the unemployed force them to actively seek ways and means of adapting in order to survive. The final aspect considered was the possible connection between human aggressiveness and the meaningfulness of life. Here the groups with the most meaningful lives were the self-employed and pensioners. The latter result, again rather surprising, was attributed to the desire of people who have already lived the greater part of their lives to place more weight on what they have already done, in order to prove to themselves that they have not lived in vain. The hypothesis that aggressiveness is conversely related to the meaningfulness of life was only partially confirmed. In the two extreme cases (schoolchildren and pensioners) this was indeed the case, but the remaining groups did not show any such connection. From the data obtained, Ms. Ivanova concluded that life in modern post-totalitarian society does indeed foster a rise in people's aggressiveness, and this was supported by the fact that indexes of aggressiveness proved to be higher than the norm. Her original hypothesis as to the groups in society most at risk from open aggression confirmed in the case of teenagers but not of the unemployed, who had relatively low aggressiveness indexes and the highest degree of adaptation.

The Man-Made Environment in Post-Stalinist Europe 1953-1968

This project looked at the various responses, both political and aesthetic, to the end of socialist realism and the return of pre-war modernism as a desirable ideal. It considered both the built environment and objects of daily use (furniture, radios, TV sets, etc.) in several countries of the region, including Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Russia and Romania, also comparing developments there with corresponding ones in the west. Among particular aspects considered were the effects of Kruschev's speech in December 1954 to workers in construction, machine-building and design industries, in which he argued against monumentalism and criticised both "classical architecture" and socialist realism. The team see the real issue in interpreting Eastern European architecture as its lack of a critical edge, since official discourses took the place of any form of criticism and architects sought to implement the "official line". Megastructures became increasingly popular from the 1960s onwards and in Romania, for instance, came to dominate the city in the late 1980s. Such structures proved an efficient way to control the environment in countries plagued by prefabrication and social housing, and the group see the exhibition of inflated concrete grids as perhaps the most important feature of Eastern European architecture in the 1960s and 1970s. They also point out the rarity of glass and steel architecture in the east, where the preferred material was concrete, a material seen as "revolutionary" as it was the product of heavy industry and was grey, i.e. the workers' colour. Tactile elements were more important here than the visual elements favoured in the west, and a solidity more in line with the dominant ideology than the ephemeral qualities of glass.

Post-War Writers' Memoirs in Romania and France: A Study of Mentalities

Ms. Net wanted to find out if there was what she terms a "collective identity of the intelligentsia" of Romania and France between 1945 and 1989. She conducted her research on a corpus of memoirs from both cultures, and in the process, uncovered some fundamental differences, which she presented in the form of a 178 page manuscript in English, and also on disc. One of the most basic appears to be that French memorialists rarely deal with social, historical and political changes and events. Ms. Net regards these writers as shutting their eyes to reality, and attempting to preserve the past. They are interested in their personal history, and in the genesis of their own works. According to Ms. Net, this tendency is so marked that she doubts whether 20th century French writers share the dominant mentalities of their times. In her opinion all this points to the fact that the French intelligentsia are "trying hard to preserve their cultural hegemony" a task which she maintains has always been an essential aspect of the identity of the French intellectual. In Romania, of course, the situation was very different. To take an example: many Romanian memoirs speak about the campaigns to improve the lot of women, while at the same time recognising and analysing the way that this was simply a "cover" for promoting the most incompetent people, men and women alike. They also express frustration at the way access to information was blocked due to the media being government controlled. Ms. Net concludes, eventually, that, in general, intellectuals, more than any other group in society, ensure the continuity of the dominant mentalities in a given cultural space. Consequently, she feels, we must revise the idea - or myth as she calls it - that intellectuals represent the avant-garde in a given society. Specifically, she concludes that petty bourgeois, patriarchal and elitist mentalities are still prevalent in France. The truth is, she reflects, that intellectuals are always true to their nature, no mater when and where they are living.