Money, morality and new forms of exchange in postsocialist Ukraine

Abstract

One of the legacies of Soviet socialism is a moralizing lens through which to evaluate wealth and consumption practices. A contrast between the moral underpinnings of generating and consuming wealth under capitalism and those emerging in postsocialist Ukraine shows that socioeconomic differences are emerging as proxies for moral indictments that strain the social fabric. Soviet-era economic practices and exchange networks of favors are giving way to cash-based forms of exchange that are redefining moral commitments to social obligations. When legal codes are mobilized in diverse ways in response to divergent moralities the forging of moral consensus to shape emerging economic practices is rendered elusive.

Keywords:

• Morality
• exchange
• consumption
• law
• Ukraine
• postsocialism

Acknowledgments

This research has received generous funding from a National Endowment for the Humanities Collaborative Research Fellowship, Social Science Research Council International Migration Fellowship, and a grant from the National Research Council Twinning Program, which funded the actual research from 2000—03. I also received a fellowship from the Institute of Arts and Humanistic Studies of Penn State University. This paper was written for an aaapanel on new perspectives on class organized in 2003 by Paul Durrenberger. I would like to thank all who offered comments, especially June Nash and Paul Durrenberger. I would also like to thank the members of the Kennan Institute's Multicultural Legacies Workshop who read and critiqued an earlier draft of this article. The workshop was organized by Blair Ruble and Dominique Arel. Special thanks, as always, go to Kate Dudley and to the two anonymous reviewers for Ethnos. I also have benefited from fruitful discussions and the research assistance of Valentina Pavlenko, Mykola Polyuha, and Svitlana Schlipchenko.

Notes

1. Notable exceptions to this include an edited volume by Howell (1997), entirely devoted to the ethnography of morality, and two volumes edited by Robert Hefner (1998a and 1998b) that analyze the importance of morality during periods of transition. For the postsocialist world, see Mandel and Humphrey (2002).

2. Humphrey offers the following definition of morality: ‘a system within, and less inclusive than, “ethics”, which states commonly held ideas about obligation’ (1992:136). While I also place great emphasis on ‘obligation’ as being at the heart of morality, I think it is important to note that the ‘less inclusive’ aspects of morality separate it from ethics, a cognitive endeavor, by its narrow, yet intense, appeal to a transcendental realm.

3. Sigrid Rausing (2002) describes how collective farmers in Estonia purchased expensive European foodstuffs over local products. She argues that the consumption of basic European products in everyday life concealed the fact that these goods were expensive, exotic and served specific political aims, namely, reintegrating Estonia back into Europe.

4. Moral judgments often pertain to locality, to the rights and obligations conferred because of belonging. Melissa Caldwell (2002) argues that in Russia foreign corporations are indicted as an exploitative force. The formidable competition in food production threatens Russian enterprises and has prompted a ‘Buy Russian’ campaign to buttress the consumption of locally produced Russian products. Caldwell analyzes how nationalist sentiment and morality have become entangled with the consumption of basic food items.

5. The Ukrainian government set the poverty line at 175 hrv (ca. $34) a month in 2003. Nearly half of the population fell below it. The situation was a little better in Russia, where twenty-three percent of the population, or 33 million people, lived below the poverty line. Before the tragedy at Beslan, fifty-five percent of the Russian population considered poverty the single greatest problem their country faced. See ‘Homo Putinicus,’ Transitions on Line, 1 Sept. 2003, http://russia.tol.cz.

6. Just when these networks became essential to economic survival, they also became more difficult to sustain. If one falls into poverty, or even becomes the victim of cycles of impoverishment or illness, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to participate in these networks because they are predicated on reciprocity. See Wanner and Dudwick (2003:270–279).

7. Ries (2002) examines the debate over whether the mafia was actually the most reliable provider of social and moral order in Russia in the 1990s. She contends that the level of cynicism lies so deeply embedded in the Russian social fabric that, at times, attitudes toward the mafia cease to be disapproving and reflect a yearning for generosity and justice.

8. Ledeneva's informants describe a similar phenomenon in Russia (2000:191–93).

9. The full expression in Russian is: Luchshekniazvgriaz,chemgriazvkniaz, meaning ‘Better to go from a prince to dirt, than from dirt to a prince.’

10. When someone gives an object to create debt relations, the standard words for ‘gift’ (Ukr. podarunok, or Rus. podarok) are frequently replaced by the English word ‘present’ to signal the obligations of the recipient.

11. For an analysis of how ‘unwritten rules’ regulate economic practices in the absence of effective laws in Russia, see Ledeneva (2001). Much of her analysis applies to Ukraine.

12. See Ledeneva & Kurkchiyan (2000) for an analysis of economic crime in Russia.

13. Patico (2002) argues that the ‘gifts’ parents give teachers bespeak a certain social commonality rooted in shared gender ideals and consumption practices and therefore, in a certain way, serve to strengthen social solidarity.

14. I once asked a doctor in Kharkiv, eastern Ukraine, what she did with all the bottles of liqueur and boxes of chocolates she received from her patients. She told me that she sold them back to the kiosks where her patients bought them. She converted the ‘gifts’ into cash and thereby avoided, for herself and her patients, the shame and humiliation of accepting or giving ‘bribes’ to obtain services that are ostensibly free.

15. For analyses of socialist forms of exchange on an industrial level, see Verdery (1996:20–30 and 39–57) and Burawoy (1992 and 1985); on a personal level see Ledeneva (1998). Humphrey and Hugh-Jones (1992) examine barter, a form of exchange that is not developed in this article, but which clearly played a significant role in the workings of socialist economies and in the construction of social relationships in socialist societies.

16. In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union George Soros is often held up as an icon of the legendary ‘rags-to-riches’ social mobility that a capitalist system is capable of delivering. Soros’ Open Society initiatives for developing civil society and educational infrastructure in formerly socialist societies have been enormously well received. I have heard numerous Ukrainians interpret the life trajectory of Soros as iconic of the fact that individual enrichment occurs in tandem with the development of moral character and a willingness to make contributions to the greater good of society.

17. Richard Sennett (1974) was among the first to argue this point, followed by Bellah et al. (1985).