Changes in the Social Status of Women in Societies in Transition: Russia and Armenia

The project studied the way the post-communist transition has affected the position of women in society and two post-Soviet states, Armenia and Russia, were chosen for a comparative study. Although in many respects the two countries show rather similar tendencies, there are important differences. The most dramatic of these lie in the field of the women's movement and state support, in family lifestyles and public thinking, and in the perception of female roles in society by both women and men in both countries. Whereas in Russia, at least in large cities, it is possible to speak of a movement concerned with equality and women's rights, in Armenia there are few women's organisations and those that exist are most focused on support for children and poor families. In Russia, many post-Soviet changes can be described as a shift towards 'Western' rather than 'Eastern' values, while in Armenia this tendency is much weaker and exists alongside a relapse into traditional attitudes. Iskandarian suggests possible explanations for this, both intrinsic (tradition. motivation) and external (influences, neighbouring countries, involvement in wars, the economic situation, migrations, political regimes). Nevertheless, for both societies it is possible to speak of a growing awareness of women's needs and of the birth of a new tradition in family and public life brought by the post-Soviet winds of change.

The Role of Gender in Ethnic Perception

A group of 406 Polish university students (210 women and 196 men) were asked to describe typical representatives of selected ethnic groups and their typical female and male members. The descriptions were based on a list of 24 traits and a list of 18 values, accompanied by scales for measuring trait-typicality and value-importance. The participants' level of confidence about the accuracy of the descriptions, their ethnic attitudes and their perception of the relative social status of men and women in ethnic groups were also measured. The results indicate an effect of masculinisation of ethnic images for both traits and values. Descriptions of typical representatives of ethnic groups resemble the images of typical men significantly more than those of typical women of these nationalities, even for the most modern nations. Differences registered between images of typical representatives of ethnic groups and their male and female members concerned primarily the traits and values basic to gender stereotypes. The images of women were significantly more favourable than those of men. The bias in ethnic perception towards the gender of the stereotype-holder was also indicated. Several differences were found between women's and men's perception of typical representatives of ethnic groups and especially of ethnic gender subgroups, without however the predicted effect of gender in-group favouritism. There was also a degree of ethnic in-group favouritism of Poles related to the gender both of participants and of the ethnic target groups.

A Sociological Study of the Political Subsystem in Yugoslavia

In this critical analysis of sociological studies of the political subsystem in Yugoslavia since the fall of communism Mr. Ilic examined the work of the majority of leading researchers of politics in the country between 1990 and 1996. Where the question of continuity was important, he also looked at previous research by the writers in question. His aim was to demonstrate the overall extent of existing research and at the same time to identify its limits and the social conditions which defined it. Particular areas examined included the problems of defining basic concepts and selecting the theoretically most relevant indicators; the sources of data including the types of authentic materials exploited; problems of research work (contacts, field control, etc.); problems of analysisl and finally the problems arising from different relations with the people who commission the research. In the first stage of the research, looking at methods of defining key terms, special attention was paid to the analysis of the most frequently used terms such as democracy, totalitarianism, the political left and right, and populism. Numerous weaknesses were noted in the analytic application of these terms. In studies of the possibilities of creating a democratic political system in Serbia and its possible forms (democracy of the majority or consensual democracy), the profound social division of Serbian society was neglected. The left-right distinction tends to be identified with the government-opposition relation, in the way of practical politics. The idea of populism was used to pass responsibility for the policy of war from the manipulator to the manipulated, while the concept of totalitarianism is used in a rather old-fashioned way, with echoes of the cold war. In general, the terminology used in the majority of recent research on the political subsystem in Yugoslavia is characterised by a special ideological style and by practical political material, rather than by developed theoretical effort. The second section of analysis considered the wider theoretical background of the research and focused on studies of the processes of transformation and transition in Yugoslav society, particularly the work of Mladen Lazic and Silvano Bolcic, who he sees as representing the most important and influential contemporary Yugoslav sociologists. Here Mr. Ilic showed that the meaning of empirical data is closely connected with the stratification schemes towards which they are oriented, so that the same data can have different meanings in shown through different schemes. He went on to show the observed theoretical frames in the context of wider ideological understanding of the authors' ideas and research. Here the emphasis was on the formalistic character of such notions as command economy and command work which were used in analysing the functioning and the collapse of communist society, although Mr. Ilic passed favourable judgement on the Lazic's critique of political over-determination in its various attempts to explain the disintegration of the communist political (sub)system. The next stage of the analysis was devoted to the problem of empirical identification of the observed phenomena. Here again the notions of the political left and right were of key importance. He sees two specific problems in using these notion in talking about Yugoslavia, the first being that the process of transition in the FR Yugoslavia has hardly begun. The communist government has in effect remained in power continuously since 1945, despite the introduction of a multi-party system in 1990. The process of privatisation of public property was interrupted at a very early stage and the results of this are evident on the structural level in the continuous weakening of the social status of the middle class and on the political level because the social structure and dominant form of property direct the majority of votes towards to communists in power. This has been combined with strong chauvinist confusion associated with the wars in Croatia and Bosnia, and these ideas were incorporated by all the relevant Yugoslav political parties, making it more difficult to differentiate between them empirically. In this context he quotes the situation of the stream of political scientists who emerged in the Faculty of Political Science in Belgrade. During the time of the one-party regime, this faculty functioned as ideological support for official communist policy and its teachers were unable to develop views which differed from the official line, but rather treated all contrasting ideas in the same way, neglecting their differences. Following the introduction of a multi-party system, these authors changed their idea of a public enemy, but still retained an undifferentiated and theoretically undeveloped approach to the issue of the identification of political ideas. The fourth section of the work looked at problems of explanation in studying the political subsystem and the attempts at an adequate causal explanation of the triumph of Slobodan Milosevic's communists at four subsequent elections was identified as the key methodological problem. The main problem Mr. Ilic isolated here was the neglect of structural factors in explaining the voters' choice. He then went on to look at the way empirical evidence is collected and studied, pointing out many mistakes in planning and determining the samples used in surveys as well as in the scientifically incorrect use of results. He found these weaknesses particularly noticeable in the works of representatives of the so-called nationalistic orientation in Yugoslav sociology of politics, and he pointed out the practical political abuses which these methodological weaknesses made possible. He also identified similar types of mistakes in research by Serbian political parties made on the basis of party documentation and using methods of content analysis. He found various none-sided applications of survey data and looked at attempts to apply other sources of data (statistics, official party documents, various research results). Mr. Ilic concluded that there are two main sets of characteristics in modern Yugoslav sociological studies of political subsystems. There are a considerable number of surveys with ambitious aspirations to explain political phenomena, but at the same time there is a clear lack of a developed sociological theory of political (sub)systems. He feels that, in the absence of such theory, most researcher are over-ready to accept the theoretical solutions found for interpretation of political phenomena in other countries. He sees a need for a stronger methodological bases for future research, either 1) in complementary usage of different sources and ways of collecting data, or 2) in including more of a historical dimension in different attempts to explain the political subsystem in Yugoslavia.