The Life Goals and Strategies of Russians in the Context of Passionarity

Abstract

This article analyzes how Russians’ life values and attitudes have evolved over the past decade. It examines two mental models—activist (passionarist) and “passivist”—and their development over time. The criteria for applying these models are inclinations toward an internal versus external locus of control, self-sufficiency versus dependence on the state, and struggle versus adaptation to external circumstances. These criteria are used to distinguish between passionarists (who maintain activist attitudes), “passivists” (who consistently hold passivist attitudes), and an intermediate group (exhibiting mixed attitudes). The article also examines the way in which the passionarists and “passivists” see the situation in the country and its prospects for development; the place held by these groups in society’s social structure; the traits manifested in the setting and attainment of life goals; and these groups’ adaptive potential in times of crisis. Our research took the form of Russia-wide representative surveys conducted by the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology and the Russian Public Opinion Research Center beginning in 2005. Our evidence shows that having activist/passionarist values is associated with higher social status and financial success, ambition, a rational approach to devising life goals and the strategies for attaining them, and strong life planning abilities. Our conclusion is that passionarists have a firmer footing in social reality than most people and are better able to participate in society’s development, including during crisis periods.

Keywords:

• achievement
• activism
• activity
• attitudes
• dependence
• independence
• life goals
• passionarity
• passivity
• responsibility
• self-sufficiency
• social group
• state
• success
• values

Notes

1. For more about this and other conclusions drawn by N.I. Lapin and L.A. Beliaeva’s group, see Lapin et al. (1996), Lapin (2000), Lapin (2010), and Lapin and Beliaeva (2009).

2. For more about this and other conclusions drawn by N.M. Lebedeva and A.N. Tatarko’s group, see Lebedeva, Kozlova, and Tatarko (2006), Lebedeva and Tatarko (2009), and Lebedeva and Tatarko (2007).

3. For more about this and other conclusions drawn by Magun and Rudnev’s group, see Magun and Rudnev (2010) and Magun (2010).

4. For more about this and other conclusions drawn by Latov and Latova, see Latova and Latov (2001, 2003) and Latova and Tikhonova (2010).

5. For more about this and other conclusions drawn by Gorshkov and Tikhonova’s group, see Gorshkov and Tikhonova (2004, 2005), Institut sotsiologii (2008), and Gorshkov, Krumm, and Tikhonova (2010).

6. Interpreting what Russians expect from the state (expectations that, as comparative international studies have shown, are clearly higher than in many other countries), S. Maraeeva stresses that, rather than reflecting cultural norms, these expectations reflect a reaction to institutional conditions that have taken shape. Can people survive without support from the state? That is not so much a question of their willingness as of opportunities available to them. The data show that many lack such opportunities. See Mareeva (2013, p. 127).

7. For more about the role of self-sufficient Russians in the life of society, see Gorshkov and Sedova (2015).

8. Data from a standard Russia-wide survey (1,600 respondents) by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center. Findings are available on the center’s website: http://wciom.ru/zh/print_q.php?s_id=1020&q_ id=70353&date=12.04.2015.

9. The comparison is based on data for the BRIC countries, Germany (as an example of a corporatist model of social policy and a Rhine model of capitalism), Great Britain (an example of a liberal model of social policy and Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism), and Poland (as a Slavic, post-Soviet country that consistently opts for European development paths) (Mareeva, 2013, p. 127).

10. For classifying the middle class, we use the methodology developed at the Institute of Sociology under the leadership of N.E. Tikhonova based on a set of specific stratification criteria (multidimensional stratification): socio-professional status (criterion of non-physical labor); education (at least a specialized secondary-school education); prosperity (average monthly per capita income of at least the median level for the given geographic entity or number of durable goods at least at the median level for the overall population); self-identification (a cumulative self-assessment by individuals of their place in society no lower than 4 points inclusive on a 10-point scale) (Gorshkov and Tikhonova, 2016, pp. 15–37).

11. See “Predstavleniia rossiian o budushchem,” a July 21, 2010, press release on the Levada Center website: http://www.levada.ru/old/press/2010072101.html.

12. For data from standardized Russia-wide surveys, see the official site of the Public Opinion Research Center: http://wciom.ru/zh/print_q.php?s_id=1008&q_id=69301&date=01.02.2015; http://wciom.ru/zh/print_q.php?s_id=1057&q_ id=73064&date=21.02.2016.

13. Data from the 2008 standardized Russia-wide study are available on the Public Opinion Research Center site: http://wciom.ru/zh/print_q.php?s_id=540&q_d=38715&date=11.05.2008. The 1991 data were gathered from a special representative sample of 2,526 urban and rural respondents over the age of 16 from throughout Russia. The 2016 data had not been published at the time this article was being written.

14. Respondents were grouped according to the number of responses “already achieved” in regard to the tested life goals: 1, no achievements (not a single “already achieved” response); 2, achievement of 1–3 goals; 3, achievement of 4–10 goals; 4, achievement of more than 10 life goals.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

N. N. Sedova

Natalia Nikolaevna Sedova is an assistant to the General Director for Science of the Russian Public Opinion Research Center and a senior researcher at the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology. Email: [email protected].