"Woman plus..."Three Value Scales in Modern World

Three Value Scales in Modern World

A. Mitrofanova

In modern world, values are measured on three coexisting scales: non-materialistic, materialistic, and postmaterialistic. The latter term was introduced by American sociologist R. Engelhart (Silent Revolution, 1997, and Cultural Shift in Developed Indus-trial Society, 1990). His studies are based on worldwide surveys of public opinion. The core ides is that material well-being of postwar period resulted in major shift in large populaces’ perception of values. Engelhart calls former values "materialistic" and the new one — "post-materialistic". Respondents in the surveys were offered a wide range of values and should check those of them they perceived as their own.

"Materialistic" values included: "national-level order", "price regulations", "economic growth", "national defence", "stable national economy", "crime containment". "Post-materialistic" values included: "more public participation in government", "freedom to communicate one’s opinion", more public participation in decision-making at com-munity level", "improve public and environmental health", "make society more friendly and diversified", "make ideas overpower money".

"Post-materialistic" values, in Engelhart’s sense, differ from their "materialistic" counterparts rather in quantitative than quality characteristics. To qualify the new system of values widely adopted today by modern western youths, it would take a combination of two words: "post-materialistic" (which is already in place) and "post-patriarchal" (which is not). In these terms, non-materialistic values are described as "patriarchal" (which is essentially the same). The term "patriarchy" was initially intro-duced by feminists to designate men’s supremacy over women carried out through variety of public institutions. Today this term is widely used by all type of ideologists as reference to societies based on rigid hierarchy. "Post-patriarchal" society produced new values that can be described, according to a German sociologist H. Z. Betz, as "mixture of left-libertary and non-materialistic." It means that post-materialistic values should include all rights and freedoms of today’s democracy — and that is the main feature distinguishing post-materialistic set of values from the non-materialistic set.

Non-materialistic values were placed in almost every culture throughout human history. These values included struggle, victory, unity, mutual support, unselfishness, honor and other concepts of the same row. Past cultures having shifted to materialistic values (Carthego, for instance) were usually renounced and sometimes demolished by their neighbors. Only with industrial revolution, Western Europe and USA made their final choice of materialistic values and eventually overruled non-materialistic values both at home and abroad. Materialism established new values: individual, his rights and liberties, personal benefit. It was materialism that gave start to concepts of equal rights for men and women, women’s "entitlement" to artificial abortion, liberty to choose one’s sexual orientation, etc.

"Post-materialists" plan to keep all these gains of democracy. For this reason, post-materialistic system of values is strikingly different from non-materialistic paradigm of the past. It can be argued that the idea of returning to pre-materialistic values is both attractive and repulsive for "post-materialists". Therefore, they check each value for its compatibility with emancipation trends. There seem to be no other explanation why one would protest against drugs being tested on animals and stand for artificial abortions at the very same time. The same reasoning helps explain why patriarchal ethics is deemed "egotistic" by post-materialists. Whereas an individual feels that he belongs to his kind — be it a nation, a class, a tribe, or a family — he becomes a part of self-sufficient "collective ego", while true unselfishness, to their opinion, means belonging to entire humanity without any discrimination between human groups.

New values — either post-materialistic or post-patriarchal — are publicly promoted by so-called alternative movements (ecologists, ecofeminists, communitarians and some others). Their goal is to help evolve new political culture. Political culture is known to be always "stratified" to some extent. Today politicians operate in terms of traditional culture (based on concepts of authority, hierarchy, law and so on). However, other strata of political culture exist today within the global framework of the prevailing authoritative one. They are, for example, rural and community self-government culture, "guerilla warfare" political culture of left radicals, and others. Western "civic" and Eastern "patriarchal" political cultures cause abundant discussions. For post-materialists, however, these distinctions and deviations seem to not exist at all. They assert that what we have today is solidified "oppressive" political culture.

Therefore, they visualize future political culture to be "soft" and feminine as opposed to "hard" and masculine culture of today. Alternative movements associate crisis of the western civilization with dominance of masculine ethics and thinking. Masculine way of thinking is essentially dualistic in its perception of the world; hence, reality is fragmented into pairs of opposing concept: Nature/culture, body/spirit, manhood/womanhood, I/other, etc. Moreover, horizontally fragmented world is subjected to vertical classification by hierarchy, assigning elements the more importance and power, the higher their standing is. Values prevalent in masculine ethics are freedom, personal autonomy, equality, equity, etc. In addition, for all his life a man has to prove his sexual identity, and for this end he fervently competes with others of his like to confirm his standing.

Feminine culture and thinking may be generally characterized by the following features. First, it is integrated perception of the world inherent in women. "Femininity is determined through unity," writes Caroline Gillighan. Second, feminine ethical values are primarily those of mutual dependence, compassion and care. A female does not have to constantly prove her status (it is soundly based on her reproductive function); consequently she is not inclined to construct hierarchical chains and promote herself to higher standing in them. Third, women acquire essentially different socialization experience. Right from the beginning, they are taught how to care for others, make decisions that would incorporate others’ interests, keep her family clear of conflicts, etc.

Many think that with building-up women’s role and representation at all levels of power a "bloodless revolution" may occur through gradual replacement of masculine "terror-based political culture" with feminine culture of universal care, pacifism, ecological thinking, etc.

If males remain prevalent at power any longer, the global catastrophe will follow inevitably, as Elizabeth Gray believes, because for male politicians "steadfastness is a cult." Male politicians are almost incapable of compromise, as their primary concern is to play self-assured winners.

Alternative movements’ adherents largely agree that most women (not to say about men) are yet unready to accept most of "feminine" values. To spread new values, it will take a worldwide effort — "New Enlightenment" as it is often called. Of course, skeptics may say that all attempts to remold human psychology are utopian. The same label used to be attached to the Enlightenment ideas. Nevertheless, so prominent a sociologist as Alexis de Toqueville in his The Old Order and the Revolution acknowledges that it was enlighteners who had prepared the Great French Revolution, as the latter was grounded in abstract concepts, rather than in realities of that time. Apostles of new values openly declare themselves to be new enlighteners, and since the old ones succeeded in their mission, it’s not improbable that their conceived inheritors will be successful too.

Education is the main tool to reengineer human mind and morale. From standpoint of new social values, school education systems that we presently have are "estrangement-producing machinery". Moreover, not only education system requires complete restructuring, basic principles of what and how is taught in school must be revised. That is why new schools are among major concerns of projects implemented by alternative movements. One of them (movement for humanistic education) entirely focuses on this problem. The movement sees its mission in opening schools of new type which would be deeply rooted in local communities. Children are brought up on entirely new principles, often contradictory to those practiced elsewhere. For example, children are taught to play new games that do not imply competition and winners, while unisex-style clothes prevent boys and girls from evolving "sexist templates" of how they should behave. As mentioned above, "non-materialistic" values do not imply "feminine" or "mild" political culture.

With the exclusion of "the golden billion", majority of earth’s population keep on living with non-materialistic values (or rather pre-materialistic from European standpoint). Whereas collectivism, care for neighbors, and — to some extent — "femininity" (harmoniously combined with women’s’ secondary role) are natural attributes of the third world, it is absolutely free of any motives of liberation and emancipation. Moreover, there is no evidence that, on having achieved understanding of solidarity and collectivism as values to be unconditionally preserved in the future, these nations would want to adopt democratic values in their common sense (e. g., equality in face of the Law).

Most humans still live in communities that profoundly disprove materialistic values, including their manifestations in form of human rights and freedom so cherished in the West. Far more doubtful prospect is of political culture feminization, especially if looked upon from the standpoint of ethnic psychology. L. N. Gumilev wrote in his In Trouble of Illusion, that "history evolves not in itself, but in every particular ethnos ... For universal human values to take possession of the entire humankind, multiple na-tions of today should merge into a single hyperethnos. However, as long as levels of passionate tension vary across superethnoses already present, as long as land-scapes and climates vary from country to country and require specific skills to adjust ... chances for such merger are narrow ..."

Though in somewhat peculiar (not in his days) language, Gumilev makes it clear that prevalence of feminine (care, peace, cooperation, security) or masculine (aggression, struggle, quest, self-assertion) qualities depends on age of an evolving entity — be it an individual or a nation. In this sense, Nietzsche was absolutely correct when he wrote that, in certain periods, "manly, belligerent, victorious instincts take over all others, such as ‘happiness’ instinct..." while at other times other instincts dominate, those of "contemptible prosperity of which minor shopkeepers ... women and other democrats dream." Putting aside Nietzsche’s disregard to shopkeepers’ values, he was absolutely right about their feminine origin.

Getting back to Gumilev’s terms, we see that whenever feminine values prevail in political life of "ethnos", it has already entered its "autumn" characterized by declining livelihood and overall sluggishness of the nation. In other words, we witness a nation that has passed its activity peak and is getting prepared for dissolution. At this stage, nations become peaceful; moreover, they seek harmony with the Nature. Iceland and Norway were the two nations Gumilev had chosen as examples of declining ethnoses. Today these two countries are at forefront of "feminine" political culture.

In this context, feminine domination is associated with rather pessimistic expectations for the future. Therefore, post-patriarchal values and political culture may be expected to spread only over those ethnic systems driven by inertia, while other nations will stick to masculine values at practically any cost.

As for Russia, most recent surveys reveal a bizarre picture: romantic elders oriented towards collectivism and pragmatic youths oriented towards individualism.

In 1995 survey undertaken by Russian Independent Institute of Social and National Problems, 93.4% Russian respondents backed the statement of "clean conscience and inner harmony" as a major human value; 90.7% supported "family and friends"; while only 35.4% mentioned "well-paid job", and 8.1% — "public cognizance and fame". However, of younger respondents (22 — 26 years old) only 89.2% the first statement, while elders (>60) were much more consonant (98.9%). Young vs. elder score in support of the three other values was: 89.8% vs. 91.8%; 38.1% vs. 25.2%; and 6.5%.

Separately stands the assertion that a person should "make his way into power, in order to have influence upon others". Among younger people this statement gained approval of 9.1%, while of older citizens it was supported by 0.0% precisely.

Obvious analogies may be drawed between this survey and "materialistic" and "non-materialistic" values. So far, a certain part of Russian young generation is quite happy with "materialistic" values which have already produced strong repulsion in their western counterparts (e. g., "competition drives development", "the strongest survives", "consumption above all" and other market-oriented values). All others (note, that they are not "elders" in American Medicare sense, for this group included everyone of 35 and above) simply reject these values as if they were non-existent, for experience of all their previous life suggests that these values are not actual val-ues, but rather channels for fraud and corrupt behavior to take place of morality. In addition, middle-aged and elders had lucky opportunity to grow up while enjoying far better social and economic standards (which, in turn, theoretically means more open-ness to "post-materialistic" thinking).

Nevertheless, compatibility of "post-materialistic" values and Russian thinking is a thing that would take much insanity to believe in. Engelhart’s evaluation method was developed for nations with developed market economies only. Having been applied in transition-market Russia, it produced the outstanding score, "Materialists — 9 vs. Post-materialists — 1" (while in Western Europe the average ratio is 4:3). What we observe, however, is rather non-materialism than post-materialism as opposed to "western materialism". Post-materialistic values depend on age of ethnos. Finally, they include libertary values which are understood as formal rights and negative freedoms (not to...). In Russian tradition, however, freedom is understood as positive "freedom of will", and rights are understood as a "gain for being rightful".

Despite of all, alternative movements exist in Russia. They attract persons of diverse (but always non-materialistic) orientation. As for post-materialistic values, they are inherent in a few — mostly representatives of intelligentsia with interests lying in fields of technical engineering, applied and natural sciences (for education in liberal arts always results in excessive self-esteem and lack of appropriate collectivism). Though unmistakable enemies of alternative values and movements include primarily those who constitute the bunch that has recently been designated as "the middle class in process of formation" (corrupt officials and businessmen who had finally attained/hope to attain western living standards). This powerful group is enthralled by gains of materialistic period and shows no sign of being bored of capitalizing.

It was back in 70’s when certain social groups in the former USSR (primarily those who used to go in rounds with communist-future messages) silently adopted western values (while keeping on discrediting them in public) and began to practice excrescent consumption, unlimited (shadow) business development, private and public competition and so on. This phenomenon was then publicly labeled and disrupted as "veschism" .

One point of this article is to assert that "post-materialistic values" are products of unprecedented growth of wealth resulting in incredible formal liberties that have evolved in the West. This unique process cannot be reproduced elsewhere on the earth (at least, in this and following generations). Therefore, standards of living that made western youths (and sometimes elders) to believe in "post-materialistic values" are non-attainable on the global scale. For this simple reason, "post-materialistic" values are doomed (at least, as they are today). Sooner or later, traditional non-material values that prevail in the most of human culture will take over (though with certain western-inspired modifications). Anyway, libertary impetus will never regain equal strength that we witness today in alternative movements. "New" Islam fundamentalism is, probably, one example of what future alternative movements will be like. While claiming to promote "true" Islam values, fundamentalists, in fact, have largely modernized tradition Islam to the extent that it might be as well designated as "post-materialistic religion". (After all, fundamentalism evolved as a substitute for Western values once so popular in the East.) For example, modern fundamentalists do not disclaim freedom and democracy; they just emphasize that they understand them differently. In this sense, new values may come into dominion over the world under any conceivable name.