Advertisement

Formlessness and Cultural Recreation

Chapter

Abstract

Cultural change is a complex process of gradual and dialectical movement. Thus, Russia’s long-standing authoritarian mode of government seems to ensure the continuity of traditional patterns. With the Soviet decline, however, many Western researchers claimed that these patterns no longer held. Several scholars found that Soviet/Russian attitudinal patterns were closer to those in developed or developing Western democracies.1 Some even argued that Russian political culture would not resist efforts to democratize.2 Essentially denying the continued strength of authority relationships, these scholars focused on changing demographic patterns that indicated a more modern, democratically oriented, political culture.

Keywords

Political Culture Western Democracy Mass Survey Cultural Tool Traditional Tool 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    J. Hahn, ‘Continuity and Change in Russian Political Culture’, British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 21, no. 4 (October 1991), 393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. and D. Bahry, ‘Politics, Generation and Change in the USSR’, in J. Millar, ed., Politics, Work, and Daily Life in the USSR (New York: Cambridge, 1987), 61–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2.
    J. Gibson, R. Duch and K. Tedin, ‘Democratic Values and the Transformation of the Soviet Union’, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 54, no. 2 (May 1992), 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    A. Cohen, The Symbolic Construction of Community (New York: Ellis Horwood, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 4.
    H. Eckstein, ‘A Culturalist Theory of Political Change’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, no. 3 (September 1988), 789–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 5.
    E. Walker, ‘Post-Sovietology, Area Studies, and the Social Science’, The Harriman Institute Forum, Vol. 6, nos. 6–7 (February–March 1993), 24–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. Swidler, ‘Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies’, American Sociological Review, Vol. 51 (April 1996), 278–80.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    G. Almond and S. Verba, The Civic Culture (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1963).Google Scholar
  9. 14.
    W. DiFrancesco and Z. Gitelman, ‘Soviet Political Culture and “Covert Participation” in Policy Implementation’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 78, no. 3 (September 1984), 603–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 15.
    P. Roeder, ‘Modernization and Participation in the Leninist Developmental Strategy’, American Political Science Review, Vol. 83, no. 3 (September 1989), 859–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 16.
    P. Kubiček, ‘Delegative Democracy in Russia and Ukraine’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 27, no. 4 (1994), 423–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. See also G. O’Donnell, ‘Delegative Democracy’, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 5, no. 1 (January 1994), 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 17.
    M. Urban, ‘The Politics of Identity in Russia’s Post Communist Transition: The Nation Against Itself’, Slavic Review, Vol. 53, no. 3 (Fall 1994), 733–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 18.
    N. Petro, The Rebirth of Russian Democracy: An Interpretation of Political Culture (Cambridge: Harvard, 1995).Google Scholar
  15. 23.
    D. Bahry, ‘Politics, Generations, and Change in the USSR’, in J. Millar, ed., Politics, Work, and Daily Life in the USSR: A Survey of Former Soviet Citizens (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1987), 61–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 24.
    R. Putnam, Making Democracy Work (Princeton: Princeton, 1993).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© James Alexander 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Northeastern State UniversityTahlequahUSA

Personalised recommendations