We continue building up a collective portrait of the average Russian citizen jointly with the leading sociologists from the Levada-Center: Lev Gudkov, the Director of the Center; Boris Dubin, the chair of social-political research department; Alexei Levinson, the chair of social and cultural research department. The previous séances of the building up the image of the average Russian citizen may be found in the issues ## 23, 40, 46 of Novaya Gazeta of 2008.   

Tribal ethics

Lev Gudkov: Discrimination of “friends” from “strangers” is one of the basic and fundamental social discriminations. It is archaic in its origin and it is characteristic in principle of any society. But in different societies it has different roles. In our Russian case it is principal, constitutive and supported with various institutions, above all with the institutions of authority. With us any other types of discrimination, say, based on professional and value grounds, are submitted to this fundamental dichotomy. 

What does “friend” mean? That means other norms of behavior and norms of assessment of behavior applied to “our people”, different from those applied to “them”. That relates above all to the morals. There is “tribal ethics” applied to “our people” allowing and forgiving what can be done by them and is considered to be unacceptable in case it is done by “strangers”. Accordingly, the norms applied to “our people” are not applied to “strangers”. That means, “strangers” may be deceived or applied violence on them. i.e. any restrictions effective when dealing with “our people”, are removed when dealing with “strangers”.    

The significance of the friend-stranger dichotomy indicates of poor differentiality of the society and of faint role by more general modern formal institutions, more complex systems of regulation – law, morals, some esthetic meanings, taste, humanity, and others. 

The preservation itself of such archaic relations is significant. The matter is not only that they preserve, the matter is that the entire society is permeated with it and they are fixed in the state ideology; they legitimate the state power and constitute the basis of its authority. On the whole, that leads to isolationism, sharp distrust to the outer world and to special ways of integrating the society that is integrated on the basis of an attitude to any “strangers”.        

The blocked rationalization of self-understanding is one of the consequences of dividing into “friends” and “strangers”. Everything related to “friends” is an area of non-codified and unclear meanings. Here function the norms or relations based on the “implied” knowledge. Connections and corruption, i.e. the system of informal mechanisms play significant role among “friends”, which regulates relations making them confidential and quasi-personal. In short, this is a life by informal (and often criminal) rules, not by the law. That’s a sign of archaic and very simple relations in terms of their arrangement (though, sometimes it may be a very embarrassing system), meaning that in every single case specific situational rules of conduct may function, not being spread out to the entire society. 

Odnoklassniki.ru* 

Alexei Levinson: It is interesting to see that similar structures appear where they must not. For example, we believe that the government is formed on the basis of some regulating documents and legal norms, which is not disputed by people in power. However, it turns out that the government is made among one’s “friends”. We used to have governments composed of “Dnipropetrovs’k people”, “Sverdlovsk people”, now we are dealing with “St Petersburg people”. That looks like a generalized popular Russian website Odnoklassniki.ru.  However, such a principle of forming the power structures is codified nowhere; that’s an informal principle. That way is good when people are chosen to come to a birthday party. And when this principle is used when inviting people to work in the government or in the Security Council, that looks quite oddly.     

Lev Gudkov: That means that universal rules of competence, competition and formal procedures are out of work, being replaced with the rules of personal fidelity and trust. 

Alexei Levinson: Significantly, all that is done absolutely openly under our today’s conditions; this is not considered to be a shame. There is one point here, making our times different from those at Brezhnev. Today’s authority as if winks with the society hinting that “everything in this life must be done exactly this way”. The authority is looking for legitimization of such actions, that actually must be ashamed of, as they are defined as nepotism and corruption. Both sides know that under other circumstances such things might become subject to judicial inquiry. And with us it turns out that this big “WE” uniting the upper and lower strata is based on the principle “Well, we all understand this”. This is only one of conventions. Another one is xenophobia towards other ethnic groups, like “it’s clear to everyone, that the Georgians are strangers”. And when a signal is given to banish them from Moscow, it is not needed to explain why it should be done. There is no need to ascribe any crimes to them. It is just said that it’s time to banish and the general xenophobic orientation of the Russian people is triggered easily. Today’s consolidation of the upper and low strata of the society on similar platforms enables the Russian authority to be in a state of unexampled unity with people.              

The theme of “friends” is, of course, a very topical question of archaization. With us, archaization has become not only an instrument, but a form of existence of the high politics and of supreme state structures. Forming the President’s team on the basis of his university fellows is also usual of the US, but only where there is a formally fixed sphere of his personal choice. And the Congress cannot be composed that way. In democratic societies there is a concept on which structures may stay legitimate with such a way of staff policy and which cannot be formed that way. Our public opinion legitimates and accepts things unbelievable for the western society. I mean that the authority and society demonstrate same pattern of consciousness.           

Reproduction of civil war

Boris Dubin: Actually, we are getting to talk about the main thing dealing with what “we” are and “others” are, with whom we are joined inevitably. Strictly speaking, this joining makes the social world. This is why it is interesting to see what exactly makes us joined. Here I would like to mention two things. First, the model of discrimination above does not exactly separates something external from something inside. This is rather something built into the middle of the human consciousness and behaviour. This is how soviet and Russian sociality is made – through drawing a separation line right inside, and constant reproduction of a civil war condition between “us” and “them”.          

Second, I believe there are three different “we” in the Russian society. The first one is what we just spoke about. This is a narrow circle of a “relation” type, where included are relatives, people who we studied with together, fellow countrymen, i.e. there is a narrow circle which is trusted by a person. For most people this is, of course, a circle of relatives where it seems to a person that he/she can control the situation and influence it. This is the main person’s resources. 80% of those interrogated are confident about that.    

The second “we” is something intended for internal use. It’s clear who “we” is, and we are opposed by “them”, some “bastards”, who are above us and who decide our destinies. In their respect we just pretend to be inconspicuous, weak and we want not to be “eaten” by “them”. At the same time, we always feel delivered short, taken away something, undervalued, uncared about our case etc. Here “they” relate to authorities first of all.       

The third “we” is something compensatory-proud, intended for external use. This is “we” who are “standing off one’s knees”.  

“We” are good in any aspects, while “they” undervalue and misunderstand us. This may turn to another side – a stranger would never be able to comprehend who we are in reality. Here I have the results of the June’s poll. What are most striking features of “we”? We are hospitable, open and unpretentious, peace-loving, patient, willing to come for help, we have dignity, and we are respectful towards the elders. In one word, we are good in all respects. Such an obvious exaggeration of one’s own virtues indicates of high degree of diffidence.    

And now let’s see who “they” are, according to the poll. They are energetic, rational, hypocritical and sly, reserved, envious, irresponsible, egoistic, cruel, power-loving, and they obtrude their customs on others. How can we eliminate the barriers between us when “we” are so good, while “they” are so bad! Significantly, “they” may be the US, Jews, or my neighbor who is wealthier than I am. Amazingly, when we started our polls in 1989 the answers were same and we were surprised that time. But these are the fresh data from this June’s poll! So very little has changed. The same applies to a question “Can one trust people?” We have been asking it for 15 years and the figure of 72% saying that no, remains. That means we deal not with a reaction to other people, but with something built into the construct of the social world, with a stable framework.      

Social defectiveness

Lev Gudkov: “We” and “they” is a way of organization of consciousness and space. This is how not only relations with other ethnic groups and peoples are described. This is also how the Russian province describes Moscow people. They also will be energetic, cold, perfidious, and so forth. Incidentally, St Petersburg people will be somewhere between Moscow dwellers and the rest of the country.  

Boris Dubin: This is a structure of imaginary sociality – that way people have an idea of the social world. On the other hand, this is a mechanism of making solidarity. In our society, solidarity may only be created that way. It fails to be created on the basis of interests, qualification, values or whatever else.   

Alexei Levinson: Here an idea of the national or ethnic is always on the tip of the tongue. Allegedly, that discrimination is the reason for all troubles happening in Russia. However, we have a proof that this is not so. An example of Moscow people thought of like foreigners by the Russian province is not the only one. I can give two other examples. When we worked in Chuvashian villages with local people who identify themselves as Chuvashians, they ascribe all the positive qualities on themselves, while attributing the negative list of qualities that was given to Jews, British and other “strangers” in the all-Russian poll, on their neighbors Tatars. In that situation Russians got the intermediate position. They were described as a bit sly, and not as pure as Chuvashian themselves, but not as quirky as Tatars.    

The second example is much more serious. A book dedicated to “friends” and “strangers” is getting prepared for publication, and part of materials I have published in the magazine “Otechestvennye Zapiski”. This is interviews with Russians who immigrated to Russia from former soviet republics and were settled in an organized way in different Russian regions. The rejection and humiliation experienced by them among local Russians and Orthodox people has been sometimes even worse than that experienced by them from the local “nationalists” in the former soviet republics, when the process of ousting the Russians from there began. I stress that rejection in the motherland was not caused with taking away any resource (housing, employment) from the locals. At the same time, the rejection was not unmotivated based only on a “strangers” factor. The rejection was somewhat culturally conditioned, if we can say so. The matter is that comers brought with them habits of more civilized life, compared to those characteristic of villages and settlements of the Central Russia. Despite the fact that most part of those migrants came from the East, from Central Asia, they are considered to be “strangers” because of same qualities, ascribed in polls by Russians to the western people. They are industrious and economic, cleanly and obliging; they do not take alcohol and do not swear dirtily. Their “fault” is even in the fact they want to take water from water supply system, and not from artesian wells and that they asphalt the paths from gates to their houses. The end of such a collision is sometimes sad when the comers get the habits of the local population and begin to drink, swear dirtily etc. and then the hostility towards them gets reduced.                    

So, it turns out that xenophobia does not have to be based on ethnicity.  

Boris Dubin: What have we shown really? We have demonstrated that we describe not a mechanism of opposing to something external, but the way of representation of the social world in the consciousness of a person belonging to the civilization considered by us today. This would not be reproduced within the structure of sociality and changes of institutions, if that did not exist in a person oneself. One’s relations with oneself are built same way. In this regard, I believe that so called Russians, not ethnic ones, but those belonging to this civilization, recognize one another on the basis of exactly this quality – combination of too high self-appraisal with a threat of being constantly undervalued by others. When people to such a degree appraise themselves so positively and look at others so negatively, this is a mechanism of social defectiveness that is inserted in the very core.         

* fittingly, Classmates.ru