Sociological Analysis of the Representations of Workers of a Large Industrial Enterprise in Siberia on Social Security in the Period of Its Modernization

Release:

2018, Vol. 2. №2

Title: 
Sociological Analysis of the Representations of Workers of a Large Industrial Enterprise in Siberia on Social Security in the Period of Its Modernization

Author: Anna P. Kareeva

For citation: Kareeva A. P. 2018. “Sociological Analysis of the Representations of Workers of a Large Industrial Enterprise in Siberia on Social Security in the Period of Its Modernization”. Siberian Socium, vol. 2, no 2, pp. 54-65. DOI: 10.21684/2587-8484-2018-2-2-54-65

About the author:

Anna P. Kareeva, Expert, Mining and Chemical Complex (Zheleznogorsk); karenina3010@rambler.ru

Abstract:

This article presents the analysis of the Institute of security from the standpoint of the concept of”risk society”. Based on the institutional theory of matrices by S. G. Kirdina, the “internal structure” of the Institute of security and its institutional forms are identified. Social security is defined as one of the institutional forms of this institution. The analysis of social security is carried out at the meso and micro levels of society. The meso level is represented by modern Russian industrial enterprises. The basis of social security at this level was the social reserves of labor, which in the social environment of the enterprise reduce the emerging social risks. At the micro level, the views of employees on social security are considered. The universal sociological paradigm was used to analyze the peculiarities of social security at this level. The methodological principle of the minimum universe, which is the center of the universal paradigm, revealed that the social security of the modern industrial enterprise at the micro level is based on the needs of employees. Their satisfaction through social security reduces the fear of loss of remuneration for labour relations and Vice versa. The practical analysis of social security at the micro level is carried out at the modern Russian industrial enterprise of the nuclear industry. Such enterprise became the Mining and chemical combine located in the city of Zheleznogorsk. The main elements of the questionnaire were “indicators of social security”. Indicators are formulated based on the needs of employees in the categories used to indicate social reserves of labor. Their hierarchy is based on the theory of needs Maslow. The conducted questionnaire survey with the use of factor, correlation and cluster analyses revealed the views of the plant employees on the existing social security of the Mining and chemical combine.

References:

  1. Beck U. 2000. Obshchestvo riska. Na puti k drugomu modernu [Risk Society, Towards a New Modernity].Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya.
  2. Giddens E. 1994. “Sud’ba, risk i bezopasnost’” [Fate, Risk and Safety]. THESIS. Vyp. 5. S. 107-134.
  3. Kareyeva A. P. 2015. “Sotsial’nyye riski i sotsial’naya bezopasnost’ sovremennogo promyshlennogo predpriyatiya” [Social risks and social security of a modern industrial enterprise]. Natsional’naya bezopasnost’ i strategicheskoye planirovaniye. № 3. S. 89-93. 
  4. Kirdina S. G. 2014. Institutsional’nyye matritsy i razvitiye Rossii: vvedeniye v X-Y teoriyu [Institutional matrices and the development of Russia: introduction to the X-Y theory]. 3rd edition, revised, and with new illustrations. Saint Petesburg: Nestor-Istoriya.
  5. Kirdina S. G. 2002. “Sotsiokul’turnyy i institutsional’nyy podkhody kak osnova pozitivnoy sotsiologii v Rossii” [Socio-cultural and institutional approaches as the basis of positive sociology in Russia]. Sotsiologicheskiye issledovaniya. № 12. S. 23-32.
  6. Luhmann N. 1994. “Ponyatiye riska” [Der Begriff Risiko]. THESIS. № 5. S. 135-160.
  7. Maslow A. 1997. Psikhologiya bytiya [Toward a Psychology of Being]. Moscow: Vakler.
  8. Nemirovskiy V. G., Nevirko D. D., Grishayev S. V. 2003. Sotsiologiya. Klassicheskiye i postneklassicheskiye podkhody k analizu sotsial’noy real’nosti [Sociology. Classical and post-non-classical approaches to the analysis of social reality]. Moscow: Izd-vo RGGU.
  9. Nemirovskiy V. G., Kudryavtseva V. I. 2003.Universumnyy podkhod k dinamike sotsial’nykh sistem: analiz i prognozirovaniye [Universum approach to the dynamics of social systems: analysis and Foreseeing]. Krasnoyarsk: RITS KrasGU, Minsk: Izd-vo BGU.
  10. Nemirovskiy V. G. 2004. “Universumnaya paradigma sovremennoy rossiyskoy sotsiologii kak perspektiva razvitiya” [The Universum Paradigm of Modern Russian Sociology as a Development Perspective]. Sotsiologiya. Nauchno-teoreticheskiy zhurnal. № 1. S. 39-49. Minsk.
  11. Lidskog R., Sundqvist G. 2012.  Sociology of Risk. Handbook of Risk Theory, pp. 1001-1027.
  12. Maslow A. 1970.Motivation and Personality. New York.
  13. Zinn J. 2008. “A Comparison of Sociological Theorizing on Risk and Uncertainty”. In: Blackwell Publishing. Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty: An Introduction, pp. 168-210. Oxford; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.