Marginality and Integrity: Constructing of Gender Identities in the Post-Communist Bulgaria

Ms. Kotzeva's team aimed to reveal the formation of the new gender identities in the transitional society of Bulgaria since 1989. Their main conclusions (presented in a series of manuscripts written in Bulgarian and German, and also on disc) were reached on the basis of data obtained from a field survey involving a group of 190 women, and interviews conducted with a group of Bulgarian women politicians. Although approving of gender equality and the ideology of emancipation on an abstract level, women predominantly identify themselves with mothering and caring for the family. At the same time they do not fully surrender to their family obligations and support a strategy of balancing between family and extra-family activities. Bulgarian women are highly frustrated by the new requirements of the labour market, insecurity, and lack of safety in their personal life. Ms. Kotzeva and her team observed a high degree of convergence of self-identification strategies amongst Bulgarian women from different generations and educational backgrounds. On the other hand, women from the ethnic minorities, especially Gypsy women, demonstrate radically divergent styles of orientation and behaviour. Women's marginalisation due to the altering economic and political circumstances in Bulgaria, and the decline of female participation in Parliament, have clearly shown that the end of socialist women's politics must lead to critical reflection and the development of new strategies in order to enable women to take part in the process of a new elite in Bulgaria.

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.

The Institutional Framework around Successful Art Forms in Communist Czechoslovakia

Mr. Michl posed the question of how the institutional framework that the former communist regime set up around art production contributed to the success of Czech applied arts. In his theoretical review of the question he discussed the reasons for the lack of success of socialist industrial design as opposed to what he terms pre-industrial arts (such as art glass), and also for the current lack of interest into art institutions of the past regime. His findings in the second, historical section of his work were based largely on interviews with artists and other insiders, as an initial attempt to use questionnaires was unsuccessful. His original assumption that the institutional framework was imposed on artists against their will in fact proved mistaken, as it turned out to have been proposed by the artists themselves. The basic blueprint for communist art institutions was the Memorandum document published on behalf of Czechoslovak visual artists in March 1947, i.e. before the communist coup of February 1948. Thus, while the communist state provided a beneficial institutional framework for artists' work, it was the artists themselves who designed this framework. Mr. Michl concludes that the text of the memorandum appealed to the general left-wing and anti-market sentiments of the immediate post-war period and by this and by later working through the administrative channels of the new state, the artists succeeded in gaining all of their demands over the next 15 years. The one exception was artistic freedom, although this they came to enjoy, if only by default and for a short time, during the ideological thaw of the 1960s. Mr. Michl also examined the art-related legislative framework in detail and looked at the main features of key art institutions in the field, such as the Czech Fund for Visual Arts and the 1960s art export enterprise Art Centrum, which opened the doors into foreign markets for artists.

The Hungarian Economic Elite After the Political Transition

Erzsebet Szalai (Hungary). The Hungarian Economic Elite after the Political Transition. Ms. Szalai is a research fellow in the Institute of Political Sciences in Budapest and worked on this project from July 1996 to June 1998. In the period following the political changes of 1989, the leading forces of the economic elite have gained increasing superiority over the political and cultural elites, with the clear ambition of putting the latter to their service. The power relations within the economic elite were characterised by "a war of all against all". The desire to gain precedence over others became an openly declared value. The formation of estates and the intensification of competition became embodied in a multitude of lobbies which cropped up to assert short-term interests. After the state socialist period, possession of at least two of the social, economic and cultural forms of capital is necessary to join one of the three segments of the elite: political, cultural or economic. What defines the ability of the members of the three elite groups to assert their interests is their ability to convert any of the three types of capital into another. That is to say, the basis on which they can retain and extend their position is "symbolic capital" as interpreted by Bourdieu. The concept of symbolic capital is useful for describing the power relations following the collapse of state socialist systems and societies. In the state-socialist system, the political, economic and cultural spheres are tightly interwoven, and this interpenetration slackens only slowly after the system's disintegration. A close institutional relationship between the three spheres continues to make it easier for power actors to convert social, economic and cultural capital from one type to another. Symbolic capital, or the easy transfer between the three spheres, in turn reproduces the institutional relationship, or more precisely, complicates the separation of the three spheres after the fall of state socialism.