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.

A Comparative Chronology of the History of Eastern Europe and the Climate

Two main areas were examined in this project: * The detailed climatic history of the second part of the Holocene (approximately the last 5500 calendar years) for the Zapadnodvinskaya lowland, making it possible to reconstruct general climatic changes in eastern Europe (taking other palynological, dendrochronological, historical and instrumental data into account). * The most important historical events for the period of the 9th-17th centuries that had an impact on Russian history. The comparative chronology of the main climatic changes and events of Russian social history showed that as local climatic conditions became worse (i.e. falling average annual temperature or precipitation rate) the density of significant events in society rose. This suggests that climatic deterioration is both a stimulus and an outstanding factor in social development.

Marginal Man in Modern Russian Literature

This research was focused around the intersection of two discourses: that of marginality and that of ideology. Ponomarev analysed works by Alexander Zinoviev, Vladimir Maximov and Eduard Limonov - three writers representing different groups of Soviet dissidence - from the viewpoint of the concept, drawn from anthropological theory, of marginal man. Using a methodology he describes as ideological analysis, Ponomarev showed that the ideologies of both the writers and their characters are marginal, lying as they do between official Soviet and western democratic ideologies. He showed that the works and the 'creative behaviour' of the three writers did not change after 1991, when their ideas seemed victorious. Marginality is shown to be a permanent characteristic and is linked with the main ideas of the dissident movement in the USSR. On the basis of this marginality, Ponomarev identified some common traits in dissident ideas and drew up a model of dissident ideology. This general model of dissident ideology seems to be one of the special Russian variants of the marginal ideologies of intelligentsia and could be compared to the ideology of Rodon Raskolnikov, the central character in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. The discourse of ideology in the USSR in the 1970s-1980s and in 1990s Russia thus appeared as a process in which the elements of the official Soviet ideology were gradually superseded by those of the dissident ideology linked with the ideology of the underground, the Russian version of the post-modern. Marginal ideologies won and became mainstream but did not lose their basic marginal traits. Ponomarev concludes that the gap between the 'state ideology' and the dissident ideology, taken together with the special Russian version of postmodernity has shaped the current literary process in Russia, making the figure of the marginal man into the main writer type.

Decreasing gut wall glucose as an early marker of impaired intestinal perfusion

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the microcirculatory and metabolic consequences of reduced mesenteric blood flow. DESIGN: Prospective, controlled animal study. SETTING: The surgical research unit of a university hospital. SUBJECTS: A total of 13 anesthetized and mechanically ventilated pigs. INTERVENTIONS: Pigs were subjected to stepwise mesenteric blood flow reduction (15% in each step, n = 8) or served as controls (n = 5). Superior mesenteric arterial blood flow was measured with ultrasonic transit time flowmetry, and mucosal and muscularis microcirculatory perfusion in the small bowel were each measured with three laser Doppler flow probes. Small-bowel intramucosal Pco2 was measured by tonometry, and glucose, lactate (L), and pyruvate (P) were measured by microdialysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In control animals, superior mesenteric arterial blood flow, mucosal microcirculatory blood flow, intramucosal Pco2, and the lactate/pyruvate ratio remained unchanged. In both groups, mucosal blood flow was better preserved than muscularis blood flow. During stepwise mesenteric blood flow reduction, heterogeneous microcirculatory blood flow remained a prominent feature (coefficient of variation, approximately 45%). A 30% flow reduction from baseline was associated with a decrease in microdialysis glucose concentration from 2.37 (2.10-2.70) mmol/L to 0.57 (0.22-1.60) mmol/L (p < .05). After 75% flow reduction, the microdialysis lactate/pyruvate ratio increased from 8.6 (8.0-14.1) to 27.6 (15.5-37.4, p < .05), and arterial-intramucosal Pco2 gradients increased from 1.3 (0.4-3.5) kPa to 10.8 (8.0-16.0) kPa (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Blood flow redistribution and heterogeneous microcirculatory perfusion can explain apparently maintained regional oxidative metabolism during mesenteric hypoperfusion, despite local signs of anaerobic metabolism. Early decreasing glucose concentrations suggest that substrate supply may become crucial before oxygen consumption decreases.

Effects of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and phenylephrine on microcirculatory blood flow in the gastrointestinal tract in sepsis

OBJECTIVE: The use of vasopressors for treatment of hypotension in sepsis may have adverse effects on microcirculatory blood flow in the gastrointestinal tract. The aim of this study was to measure the effects of three vasopressors, commonly used in clinical practice, on microcirculatory blood flow in multiple abdominal organs in sepsis. DESIGN: Random order, cross-over design. SETTING: University laboratory. SUBJECTS: Eight sedated and mechanically ventilated pigs. INTERVENTIONS: Pigs were exposed to fecal peritonitis-induced septic shock. Mesenteric artery flow was measured using ultrasound transit time flowmetry. Microcirculatory flow was measured in gastric, jejunal, and colon mucosa; jejunal muscularis; and pancreas, liver, and kidney using multiple-channel laser Doppler flowmetry. Each animal received a continuous intravenous infusion of epinephrine, norepinephrine, and phenylephrine in a dose increasing mean arterial pressure by 20%. The animals were allowed to recover for 60 mins after each drug before the next was started. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During infusion of epinephrine (0.8 +/- 0.2 mug/kg/hr), mean arterial pressure increased from 66 +/- 5 to 83 +/- 5 mm Hg and cardiac index increased by 43 +/- 9%. Norepinephrine (0.7 +/- 0.3 mug/kg/hr) increased mean arterial pressure from 70 +/- 4 to 87 +/- 5 mm Hg and cardiac index by 41 +/- 8%. Both agents caused a significant reduction in superior mesenteric artery flow (11 +/- 4%, p < .05, and 26 +/- 6%, p < .01, respectively) and in microcirculatory blood flow in the jejunal mucosa (21 +/- 5%, p < .01, and 23 +/- 3%, p < .01, respectively) and in the pancreas (16 +/- 3%, p < .05, and 8 +/- 3%, not significant, respectively). Infusion of phenylephrine (3.1 +/- 1.0 mug/kg/min) increased mean arterial pressure from 69 +/- 5 to 85 +/- 6 mm Hg but had no effects on systemic, regional, or microcirculatory flow except for a 30% increase in jejunal muscularis flow (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of the vasopressors phenylephrine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine failed to increase microcirculatory blood flow in most abdominal organs despite increased perfusion pressure and-in the case of epinephrine and norepinephrine-increased systemic blood flow. In fact, norepinephrine and epinephrine appeared to divert blood flow away from the mesenteric circulation and decrease microcirculatory blood flow in the jejunal mucosa and pancreas. Phenylephrine, on the other hand, appeared to increase blood pressure without affecting quantitative blood flow or distribution of blood flow.