SYNOPSIS: The period of transition of the modern Russian society is defined in a very different way by Russian sociologists. The article talks about these approaches, their pros and cons. The notion of the modern Russian social culture is also analyzed.

Let us start with the attempt to define the term “a period of transition of the modern Russian society.” Neither theorists, not practitioners have a common opinion about it. For example, according to Egor Gaidar, it is “a period of social recession, a fall of gross domestic product, disorganization of economic links, financial crisis, financial stabilization, the start of the reconstruction period, launching of the capacities created during socialism…» [1, p.1].

It is difficult to accept this position. We believe that such an analysis of the modern conditions of the Russian society and prospects of its development are extremely primitive. In the Soviet times there was a constant struggle to put an end to what came before and what was considered to be the obstacles on the way to communism. Modern Russian liberals practically do the same, fighting against the remains of socialism, without thinking whether these remains are necessary and inevitable elements of a post-soviet capitalism.

The famous American sociologist I. Wallerstein is right when he states that orthodox Marxism has been replaced by orthodox liberalism [2, p.13].

There is another definition of this period of transition. Its supporters consider that this period is not yet over.

It is clear, that the transition from one social model to another is a difficult and contradictory process. It cannot be interpreted only in economic terms regardless of the fact that economy is very important for the society. In our opinion, the primary essence of ‘the transition period’ is a systematic crisis of the society.

This situation is typical in the modern world, for both developed and underdeveloped countries. Our current crisis proves this point. I. Wallerstein admits that the world-systems analysis clearly shows the beginning of the huge economic crisis which capitalism has never experienced before. In his opinion, capitalism as a historical system is far from being successful and victorious, it has a number of difficult structural problems [2, p.13]. Let us add that this conclusion was made 8 years before the beginning of the world financial crisis, and the USA being in the middle of it. This same observation came from a number of other prominent researchers and businessmen. For example, a famous Russian analyst and a chairman of the Board of Trustees from the Institute of the Problems of Globalization, Mikhail Delyagin predicted in 2004 that “we would manage for the next few years, but by 2008 a ‘qualitative transition’ will come to its end: the country will finish “eating up” its Soviet heritage, and all of a sudden natural restrictions of development will show up and become more critical than financial ones” [3, p.4].

The majority of researchers today, including the authors of this article believe that the period of transition in our society is not over yet. There are more than enough arguments to prove it. The reforms that were started earlier have not been completed in any sphere of our society. The reforming process is constantly chaotic and nonsystematic. The most alarming sign is that measures to reform basic spheres of the society, its systems, structures, and institutes are taken separately, without interaction with each other and without thinking about social consequences of the decisions taken.

What is the reason of such a situation? There are plenty of them. Without naming all, we will identify one which is the most important to know – that is the overestimation of the role of economics and financial components together with the underestimation of the sociocultural factors in the process of reforming our society.

Social culture is a complicated and complex notion. It can be scrutinized in both the broad and narrow senses of the word. In the broad sense of the word it penetrates into the culture of economics, politics, and the social sphere. In the narrow sense it is a synthesis of social relations and culture, a demonstration of the social essence of culture. Any social culture indicates the degree of possession of social cultural wealth, of its production and reproduction, and use within the frame of an individual social activity, or the activities of a certain social group, or the society in general. Hence, any social culture is not only the state of culture; it also includes different types of activities that allow individuals to realize their potentials. Due to culture and via culture the process of “depicting” social in economics, politics, ideology, etc. Naturally, feedback exists. An important indicator of the maturity of the social culture is the ability of authorities, businessmen and common people to cooperate between themselves. A very important condition is personal and mutual responsibility together with the high level of professionalism of all the subjects of civil society which is being created.

The Russian social culture is in many ways a unique phenomenon. As we do need a more complete account of the process of forming a new social development model, we also need a new quality for its development. We mean the quality which consists of positive native and foreign experiences.

Many Western managers remark that the Western experience is easily adapted to the Russian experience in theory. But in practice this experience and knowledge are used very poorly. At the same time our own experience has been seriously underestimated. As a result, there is a serious risk of returning to the authoritarian-totalitarian management >

This situation becomes even more complicated because we lack a serious theoretical basis for the concept of socio-cultural development of our country although the necessity is so urgent and clear. Difficulties emerge in creating appropriate mechanisms and technologies, which could translate theory into the language of social activities.

A number of difficult questions arise. For instance, why don’t many people accept the idea of liberalism? Why are the professional qualities of the majority of our officials and executives still very low? What is the reason of a high level of estrangement of the population from the authority? Why is the role of social culture in the development of the society underestimated? Does the society need any ideology? If it does, then what kind of ideology? We can go on asking such questions. The answers only seem simple only at first glance. We will comment on this statement with one example.

In the new model of the Russian social development, maximum attention is paid to the development of individualism and personal emancipation. Collectivism is highly criticized, more so it is considered one of the main obstacles in making our society modern. References are usually made about the West, and mostly the USA. However, the reality is different there.

It is not by accident that the USA has been developing and using a number of special theories and strategies to develop the community consciousness of their citizens. Today there is no ‘pure’ conservatism, liberalism, or socialism. The concept of ‘a stable development’ is a very good proof of strengthening links between classic ideologies.

The primary lesson which we need to learn from clearly indicated failures in social reforming is that it is impossible to produce such reforms on the abstract theoretical basis which is not fully grounded in our realities and which does not connect economics and politics with socio-cultural, national, and historical peculiarities and traditions. Our society is still attached to collectivism in defining the system of people’s life goals and attitudes. This means that instead of destroying collectivism, we better use it for the overall benefits of the people and individuals.

All we have previously mentioned proves the importance and the necessity to widely use a socio-cultural factor. Today we can appreciate more the statement made by the outstanding German sociologist M. Weber who kept saying that “an economic person” is too narrow as a term. A human being is a social creature with his or her concrete interests and needs. The more they are taken into account together with the individual responsibility for his or her social actions, the stronger the success in the development of the society and a person in particular becomes.

The reasons for today’s world financial crisis lie mostly in social and cultural spheres. It looks like that the Russian authorities do not realize this fact. They are busy with the redistribution of money received in ‘good’ times, and they ignore the development of physical capacities and production that deepens the crisis even further. In this way the authorities are a serious obstacle in the development of Russian society and the successful completion of the period of transition and the start of a more dynamic way of development.

References