Understanding of the Meaning of Life as Envisioned by the Population of the Krasnoyarsk Region: The Structure and Dynamics (1991–2016)

Release:

2018, Vol. 2. №1

Title: 
Understanding of the Meaning of Life as Envisioned by the Population of the Krasnoyarsk Region: The Structure and Dynamics (1991–2016)


For citation: Nemirovskiy V. G. 2018. “Understanding of the Meaning of Life as Envisioned by the Population of the Krasnoyarsk Region: The Structure and Dynamics (1991-2016)”. Siberian Socium, vol. 2, no 1, pp. 20-40. DOI: 10.21684/2587-8484-2018-2-1-20-40

About the author:

Valentin G. Nemirovsky, Dr. Sci. (Soc.), Professor, Editor-in-Chief of Siberian Socium, University of Tyumen (Tyumen, Russian Federation); valnemirov@mail.ru

Abstract:

This article aims to analyse the uncharted changes in the structure of the life attitudes and value orientations of the population in the Krasnoyarsk Region for the 26 years of the country’s socio-economic shift. The author analyses the respondents’ meaning of life in its two roles: 1) the prospects for the desired future and 2) the orientations at finite and pragmatic values. This study relies on five representative studies in the region with the help of formalised interviews with comparable methodologies. The analysis of the data obtained has employed the methods of mathematical statistics (correlation and factor analysis). The author uses the notion of hierarchical level of value orientations on a 7-level scale of needs, in accordance with a modified Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The study covers occurring transformation of life attitudes and orientations of the region’s population as well in the context of E. Fromm’s dichotomy of “being” and “having”. The results show three image types of the desired future, the social values and characteristics of which were analysed then: 1) “Material wealth and prestige”, 2) “Work and family”, and 3) “Spiritual and moral development”. The author establishes that the set of attitudes referring to the desired future’s image type “Material wealth” and the related finite and pragmatic values correspond to the prevailing the type of social order in Russia. He shows that, in the mass consciousness of the Krasnoyarsk Territory’s population, there was a rise in the value orientations involving prestige-consumerism, hedonism, and family-prestige. The regional society requires more social practices based on values of lower levels close to the pole of “having”. Accordingly, it is transitioning from the survival to development stage. During the study period, the respondents’ confidence in fulfilling their image of the desired future nearly doubled. The author concludes that a large part of the regions’ population adapts to the current social situation socially, psychologically, and morally. The spread of the public life views and orientations of lower levels is an important factor that determines the continued social change, which prevent the society from achieving a higher level of development.

References:

  1. Alexander J. С. 2013. Smysly sotsial’noy zhizni: kul’tursotsiologiya [The Meanings of Social Life: A Cultural Sociology]. Moscow: Praksis.
  2. Bauman Z. 2008. Tekuchaya sovremennost’ [Liquid Modernity]. Saint Petersburg: Piter.
  3. Berger P. L., Luckmann T. 1995. Sotsial’noe konstruirovanie real’nosti: traktat po sotsiologii znaniya [The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise on sociology of Knowledge]. Moscow: Medium.
  4. Goffman E. 2004. Analiz freymov: esse ob organizatsii povsednevnogo opyta [Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience]. Moscow: Institut sotsiologii RAN.
  5. Goffman E. 2000. Predstavlenie sebya drugim v povsednevnoy zhizni [The Presentation Self in Every Day Life]. Moscow: KANON-press-Ts.
  6. Durkheim E. 1991. O razdelenii obshchestvennogo truda. Metod sotsiologii [The Division of Labour in Society]. Moscow: Nauka.
  7. Kogan L. N. 1984. Tsel’ i smysl zhizni cheloveka [The Purpose and Meaning of Human Life]. Moscow: Mysl’.
  8. Magun V. S., Rudnev M. G. 2011. “Bazovye tsennosti-2008: skhodstva i razlichiya mezhdu rossiyanami i drugimi evropeytsami” [Core Values-2008: Similarities and Differences between the Russians and Other Europeans]. In: Gorshkov M. K. (ed.). Rossiya reformiruyushchayasya: Ezhegodnik-2011 [Reforming Russia: Yearbook 2011], vol. 10, pp. 244–280. Moscow; Saint Petersburg: Institut sotsiologii RAN, Nestor-Istoriya.
  9. Mastikova N. S. 2013. “Tsennosti rossiyan: chto sleduet iz sopostavleniya statistik mezhdunarodnykh issledovaniy” [Values of Russians: What Follows from the Comparison of Statistics for International Studies]. Sotsiologicheskiy zhurnal, no 3, pp. 36–46.
  10. Nemirovskiy V. G. 2009. Rossiyskiy krizis v zerkale postneklassicheskoy sotsiologii [The Russian Crisis in the Mirror of Post-Non-Classic Sociology]. Moscow: Librokom.
  11. Nemirovskiy V. G., Nevirko D. D. 2008. Sotsiologiya cheloveka. Ot klassicheskikh k postneklassicheskim podkhodam [The Sociology of Man. From Classic to Post-Non-Classic Approaches]. 2nd edition, revised. Moscow: LKI.
  12. Parsons T. 2002. O sotsial’nykh sistemakh [The Social System]. Moscow: Akademicheskiy proekt.
  13. Parsons T. 1998. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestv [The System of Modern Societies]. Moscow: Aspekt Press.
  14. Popkov Yu. A. 2009. “Bazisnye tsennosti narodov evraziyskoy tsivilizatsii v usloviyakh globalizatsii” [The Basic Values of the Peoples of the Eurasian Civilizations in the Context of Globalization]. Elektronniy zhurnal Novye issledovaniya Tuvy, no 1–2. http:// https://www.tuva.asia/journal/issue_1-2/95-basic-values.html
  15. Gorshkov M. K. et al. 2017. Rossiyskoe obshchestvo i vyzovy vremeni [Russian Society and Challenges]. Vol. 5. Edited by M. K. Gorshkov and V. V. Petukhov. Moscow: Ves’ Mir. 
  16. Ryabova M. A. 2016. “Spetsifika tsennostnykh orientatsiy predstaviteley korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa” [The Specificity of the Value Orientations of Indigenous Small-Numbered Peoples of the North]. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, no 1, pp. 115–121.
  17. Toshchenko Zh. T. 2016. “Zhiznenniy mir i ego smysly” [Living World and Its Meanings]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, no 1, pp. 6–17. 
  18. Toshchenko Zh. T. 2011. “Kentavr-problema”. Opyt filosofskogo i sotsiologicheskogo analiza [The “Centaurus” Problem. The Experience of Philosophical and Sociological Analysis]. Moscow: Noviy khronograf.
  19. Toshchenko Zh. T. 2008 Paradoksal’niy chelovek [The Paradox Man]. Moscow: YuNITI-DANA. 
  20. Toshchenko Zh. T. 2016. “Smysl zhizni: opyt analiza s pozitsiy sotsiologii zhizni” [The Meaning of Life: Experience Analysis from the Perspective of Sociology of Life]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, no 11, pp. 3–14.
  21. Fromm E. 1998. Psikhoanaliz i religiya. Iskusstvo lyubit’. Imet’ ili byt’ [To Have or to Be]. Kiev: Nika-Tsentr.
  22. Hofstede G. 1992. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage. 
  23. Inglehart R. 1990. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies, pp. 81–98. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  24. Maslow A. Н. 1954. Motivation and Personality. Harper.
  25. Reker G., Wong P. 1988. “Aging as an Individual Process: Toward a Theory of Personal Meaning”. In: Bitten J. E., Bengston V. L. (eds.). Emergent Theories of Aging, pр. 214–246. New York: Springer.
  26. Rokeach M. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
  27. Rokeach M. 1979. Understanding Human Values: Individual and Societal. New York: Free Press. 
  28. Schwartz S. H., Bilsky W. 1990. “Toward a Theory of the Universal Content and Structure of Values: Extensions and Cross-Cultural Replications”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 58, pp. 878–891.
  29. Schwartz S. H. 1992. “Universals in Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries”. In: Zanna M. P. (ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 1–6. San Diego: Academic Press.
  30. Schwartz S. H. 2004. “Mapping and Interpreting Cultural Differences around the World”. In: Vinken H., Soeters J., Ester P. (eds.). Comparing Cultures: Dimensions of Culture in a Comparative Perspective, pp. 43–73. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. 
  31. Schwartz S. H. 2007. “A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: Explication and Applications”. In: Esmer Y., Pettersson T. (eds.). Measuring and Mapping Cultures: 25 Years of Comparative Value Surveys, pр. 33–79. Leiden, Boston.
  32. Welzel C., Inglehart R., Klingemann H.-D. 2001. “Human Development as a General Theory of Social Change: A Multi-Level and Cross-Cultural Perspective”. WZB Discussion Paper no FS III 01-201. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/49004/1/336629338.pdf 
  33. Welzel C., Inglehart R., Klingemann H.-D. 2003. “The Theory of Human Development: A Cross-Cultural Analysis”. European Journal of Political Research, vol. 42, no 3, pр. 341-379.