Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:22:01.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postcommunist ambivalence: becoming of a new formation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2009

Barbara A. Misztal
Barbara A. Misztal
Affiliation:
Griffith University (Brisbane).
Get access

Abstract

The initial optimistic illusions about the future of postcommunist countries have been cut short by not so encouraging developments in these societies. With the growing awareness that the postcommunist transition cannot be understood as a linear passage to a free market and parliamentary democracy, more attention is paid to the social and economic obstacles as well as to the legacy of real socialism. The feelings of increasing uncertainty about the outcome of postcommunist transformation have led some writers to characterise Eastern Europe as being in the stage of liminality (or in an inbetween stage), in which everything may happen yet little can be done (Bauman 1994: 32). Arguing from a Tocquevillian position for the need of both a strong state and a strong civil society and also adopting his insight into the importance of enlightened interest, I shall discuss factors responsible for a lack of government which operates under the rule of law, as well as discussing factors responsible for obstructing the development of civil society and the emergence of enlightened interest in the post-communist societies.

Les premiers rves optimistes sur l'avenir des pays postcommunistes ont t balays par les dveloppements peu encourageants de ces socits. En prenant davantage conscience que la transition postcommuniste ne pouvait pas tre un passage rapide un libre march et une dmocratie parlementaire, on a prt plus attention aux obstacles sociaux et conomiques, ainsi qu' l'hritage du socialisme rel. Le sentiment croissant d'incertitude quant au devenir du postcommunisme a conduit, quelques auteurs considrer l'Europe de l'Est comme tranversant un tat de liminalit (ou transitoire), dans lequcl tout peut arriver mais peu est susceptible d'tre fait (Bauman 1994 : 32). Le propos de cet article est de tracer les contours de cet tat de liminalit dans lequel les socits postcommunistes se sont trouves, afin d'estimer l'importance relative des facteurs. En s'appuyant sur Tocqueville, ncessit d'un tat fort, d'une socit civile forte et l'importance du sens des Lumires , l'auteur tudie les facteurs responsables du manque de gouvernement, capable d'agir selon la loi, aussi bien que du manque de dveloppement de la socit civile et de l'absence du sens des Lumires dans les socits postcommunistes.

Der anfngliche Optimismus ber die Zukunft der postkommunistischen Lnder ist schell durch weniger ermutigende Entwicklungen in jenen Gesellschaften zunichte gemacht worden. Seit der wachsenden Erkenntnis, da die Loslsung vom Postkommunismus nicht als geradliniger Wechsel zur freien Marktwirtschaft und parlamentarischen Demokratie verstanden werden kann, wird vermehrt den sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Hindernissen, sowie dem Erbe des realen Sozialismus Beachtung geschenkt. Die Gefhle wachsender Unsicherheit lber die Entwicklung des Postkommunismus haben einige Autoren dazuverleitet, Osteuropa als im Stadium der Liminalitt (oder im Zwischenstadium) zu bezeichnen, in welchem alles mglich ist, aber nur wenig getan werden kann (Bauman 1994: 32). Hauptaufgabe dieser Untersuchung ist es, das Stadium der Liminalitt aufzuzeigen, indem sich die postkommunistischen Gesellschaften befunden, um die relative Bedeutung dieser Faktoren zu bestimmen. Ausgehend von dem Ruf Tocquevilles nach einem starken Staat und einer starken Zivilgemeinschaft, sowie seiner berzeugung von der Bedeutung der Aufklrung , untersucht der Autor die Aspekte, die sowohl fur das Fehlen einer rechtmig handelnden Regierung, als auch fr die mangelnde Entwicklung der Zivilgesellschaft und den nicht vorhandenen Sinn fr Aufklrung in den postkommunistischen Gesellschaften verantwortlich sind.

Type
Postcommunism : Negation of the Negation
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , May 1996 , pp. 104 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Archives Européenes de Sociology 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abrams, P., 1982, Historical Sociology (Open Books).Google Scholar
Afanasyev, Y.N., 1994, Russian reform is dead, Foreign Affairs, 73,2: 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arato, A., 1994, Revolution and restoration: on the origin of right-wing radical ideology in Hungary, in Bryant, C.G.A., Mokrzycki, E. (eds), The New Great Transformation (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Balicka, M., 1995, Powrot do panstwa, Polityka, May 27:5.Google Scholar
Bardham, P., 1993, Symposium on democracy and development, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7,3: 45–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Z., 1994, After the patronage state: a model in search of class interest, in Bardham, P., 1993, Symposium on democracy and development, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7,3: 45–49.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J., 1995, The new kleptocracy, Times Literary Supplement, February 24: 9–10, in Bryant, C.G.A., Mokrzycki, E. (eds), The New Great Transformation (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Blommestein, J. H., 1994, Banks in the East: Paths to Privatisation, The OECD Observer, no. 185. Dec. 1993 /January 1994.Google Scholar
Bryant, C.G.A, 1994, Economic utopianism and sociological realism, in Bryant, C.G.A., Mokrzycki, E. (eds), The New Great Transformation (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Campbell, J.L., 1995, Rebuilding the economies of postcommunist Europe, American Behavioral Scientist, 38,5: 669–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cirtautas, A.M., 1994, In pursuit of the democratic interest: the institutionalization of parties and interests in Eastern Europe, in Bryant, C.G.A., Mokrzycki, E. (eds), The New Great Transformation (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Dobrzynska, T., 1994, Mowiac Przenosnie. Studia o Metaforze (Warszawa, IBL).Google Scholar
Domański, H., Firkowska-Mankiewicz, A., Janicka, K. and Titkow, A., 1993, Spoleczenstwo bez regul, in Rychard, A. and Federowicz, M. (eds), Spoleczenstwo w Transformacji (Warszawa, IFiS).Google Scholar
Ekiert, G., 1995, Protest jako forma zycia spolecznego w Polsce postkomunistycznej 1988–1992, Studia Socjologiczne, 133,2: 5–33.Google Scholar
Frentzel-Zagorska, J., 1990, Civil Society in Poland and Hungary, Soviet Studies, 42: 759–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frydman, R. and Rapaczynski, A., 1994, Privatisation in Eastern Europe: Is the State Withering Away? (Prague, CEU Press).Google Scholar
Gellner, E., 1994, Conditions of Liberty, (London, Hamish Hamilton).Google Scholar
Giddens, A., 1984, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration (Berkeley, University of California Press).Google Scholar
Glinski, P., 1993, Aktywnosc aktorow spolecznych, in Rychard, A. and Federowicz, M. (eds), Spoleczenstwo w Transformacji (Warszawa, IFiS).Google Scholar
Gordon, L., 1995, Russia at the Crossroads, Government and Opposition, 23: 3–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J.A., 1994, Coercion and Consent (Cambridge, Polity Press).Google Scholar
Hall, J.A., 1995, In search of civil society, in Hall, J.A. (ed.), Civil Society. Theory, History, Comparison (Cambridge, Polity Press).Google Scholar
Havel, V., 1992, A dream for Czechoslovakia, The New York Book Review, June 25: 8–17.Google Scholar
Hiatt, F., 1995, Democracy eludes ex-Soviet republics, Guardian Weekly, June 18:14.Google Scholar
Janos, A., 1982, The Politics of Backwardness in Hungary 1825–1945 (Princeton NJ: Princeton UP).Google Scholar
Kamyk, M., 1994, Odcienie szarosci, Polityka, May 5:1 and 11.Google Scholar
Kerr, J., 1995, Powoli ale w dobrym kierunku, Polityka, May 13:3.Google Scholar
Kiss, Y., 1994, Privatization Paradoxes in East Central Europe, East European Politics and Societies, 8, 1: 122–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalik, T., 1994, A Reply to Glasman, New Left Review, 206: 133–44.Google Scholar
Kryshtanovskaya, O., 1994, Rich and poor in post-communist Russia, The Journal of Communist Studies, 10,1: 3–24.Google Scholar
Mares, P., MUSIL, L. and Rabusic, L., 1994, Values and the welfare state in Czechoslovakia, in Bryant, C.G.A., Mokrzycki, E. (eds), The New Great Transformation (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Marquand, D., 1990, Political institutions and economic performance, in Graham, A. and Seldon, A. (eds), Governments and Economies in the Postwar World (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Mojkowski, J., 1995, Przeplyw niekontrolowany, Polityka, Feb 11:22.Google Scholar
Mouzelis, N., 1995, Modernity, late development and civil society, in Hall, J.A. (ed.), Civil Society. Theory, History, Comparison (Cambridge, Polity Press).Google Scholar
Mozolowski, A., 1995, Zmowa milczenia, Polityka May 27: 14–15.Google Scholar
Narojek, W., 1993, Tworzenie ladu demokratycznego I rynku, in Rychard, A. and Federowicz, M. (eds), Spoleczenstwo w Transformacji (Warszawa, IFiS).Google Scholar
Nielsen, K., 1995, Industrial policy and the labour market in postcommunist Europe, American Behavioral Scientist, 38,5: 716–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offe, C., 1991, Capitalism by democratic design? Democratic theory facing the triple transition in East Central Europe, Social Research, 58,4: 865–92.Google Scholar
Ost, D., 1990, Solidarity and the Politics of Anti-Politics (Philadelpia, University Press).Google Scholar
Pawlowska, B., Drozdowski, R. and Ziolkowski, M., 1995, Jednostki wobec wladzy (Warszawa, PWN).Google Scholar
Pawlowski, W., 1995, W sercu i w portfelu, Polityka Feb 11: 14.Google Scholar
Roller, E., 1994, Ideological basis of the market economy, European Sociological Review, 10: 105–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rollnick, R., 1995, Freedom flag flies in the face of liberty, The European, 23–29 June: 5.Google Scholar
Rona-Tas, A., 1994, The first shall be last? Entrepreneurship and communist cadres in the transition from socialism, American Journal of Sociology, 100,1: 40–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roth, B.R., 1995, Evaluating democratic progress: a normative theoretical perspective, Ethics and International Affairs, 9: 55–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rychard, A., 1994, Institutionalizing actors of change, conference paper, Brisbane July 13–15.Google Scholar
Sajo, A., 1992, The Arrogance of power, The East European Reporter, 5 (3): 45–57.Google Scholar
Schopflin, G., 1990, The political traditions of Eastern Europe, Daedalus, Special Issue on Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Winter.Google Scholar
Schopflin, G., 1993, Politics in Eastern Europe (Oxford, Blackwell).Google Scholar
Seligman, A., 1992, The Idea of Civil Society (New York, The Free Press).Google Scholar
Sikorska, J., 1992, Sources of income in households, in Beskid, L. (ed.), Living Conditions and Economic Activity of Urban Households (Warsaw, IFiS).Google Scholar
Staniszkis, J., 1994, W poszukiwaniu paradygmatu trasformacji, unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Szacki, J., 1991, Polish democracy: dreams and reality, Social Research, 58,4: 711–22.Google Scholar
Szalai, E., 1994, The power structure in Hungary after the political transition, in Bryant, C.G.A., Mokrzycki, E. (eds), The New Great Transformation (London, Routledge).Google Scholar
Sztompka, P., 1994a, Evolving focus on human agency in contemporary social theory, in Sztompka, P. (ed.), Agency and Structure (Amsterdam, Gordon and Breach).Google Scholar
Sztompka, P., 1994b, Society as social becoming: beyond individualism and collectivism, in Sztompka, P. (ed.), Agency and Structure (Amsterdam, Gordon and Breach).Google Scholar
Tilly, C., 1984, Big Structures, Large Problems, Huge Comparison (New York, Russell Sage Foundation).Google Scholar
Unger, A., 1994, The Economist Survey of Poland, The Economist, April 16: 1–22.Google Scholar
Varese, F., 1994, Is Sicily the future of Russia? Archives Européennes de Sociologie, XXXV: 224–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wank, D.L., 1995, Civil society in communist China? in Hall, J.A. (ed.), Civil Society. Theory, History, Comparison (Cambridge, Polity Press).Google Scholar
Wasilewski, J. and Pochoski, M., 1992, Communist nomenclatura in the postcommunist Poland, conference paper, Vienna August: 26–29.Google Scholar
Wesolowski, W., 1995, The nature of social ties and the future of postcommunist society, in Hall, J.A. (ed.), Civil Society. Theory, History, Comparison (Cambridge, Polity Press).Google Scholar
Wladyka, W., 1995, Nowi My I Nowi Oni, Polityka, May 3:3.Google Scholar
Wladyka, W., and Janicki, M., 1995, Temperature Chodnik, Polityka, June 3: 1 and 12.Google Scholar