Until then, we have tried to give a collective image of the government, now try to imagine her personal slice. Among ordinary citizens, we have chosen two of the respondents, surveyed in the mid – late 90′s. We distinguish the beginning of their perception of power, and then compare it with their experience of primary socialization.
The first case
Let me introduce you. Our first respondent – computing science student, 20 years old. Here are excerpts from his interview, describing the image of power.
“Now I have it [power] was more interested in, as it became more affect. Our country can go somewhere. But it is here (in Russia) will never be. There are too many and they all want. I do not care, I’m afraid.
What is heard, trust until a certain time. Then I realized that not everything you read in the newspaper, for example, may be true.
Do anything to improve the situation of people around? Some do. Very many as dumb sheep go after them. I in particular belong to one of these sheep herds. Yes, I went to the Moscow Soviet in October, but there was also a large herd. I’m terribly disgusted now that talking about it. It’s a shame not for the fact that I went there, and not for the fact that to succumb to the urge to – I just think that the right thing – but shame this show off.
Now I live in parallel political events. I’m not bothering anyone. I want to finish my studies I was given a fine and then I’ll go from here, and I do not will be up to the country’s business.
I would not dare to be president. This country is too large and diverse. To control it, you need a man or too gifted, or just a person who can keep track of all of this. I can not. And so, to begin with I would have stopped to give in to all these allegations of violations of human rights and all these Communists and Zhirinovsky would try not to let the general public. To get started simply would ban what they are promoting. Perhaps even repressive measures. Send them in any area and let them create their own republic Zhirinovsky and see what they come out.
Crucially it is necessary to change people’s minds. We have to make them forget about the Union, which was here – this time, and secondly, it is necessary to make them forget that they can get everything guzzle vodka and live happily without working, and thirdly, it is necessary to give people understand that if they want to, they can get through, say, open a business, get rich, etc. This is – the purpose, but I do not know how to achieve it.
In my opinion, the order can be achieved by … (First reaction. – E.Sh.) to put more police on the street.
I understand that people are angry now, now people are afraid for their lives, people now regret that they previously lived quietly and calmly, like, in abundance. I understand that in the current situation, politicians have only one goal: to help, do not give yourself to shove other politicians. They do not particularly care about the state got out of that garbage, in
which is itself stuffed. ”
This excerpt from the interview gives a pretty rich material for interpretation. First of all, it is striking a sharp discrepancy between the two levels of political consciousness of the respondent. On a rational level, he identifies himself with the democrats and democratic value system. He says that the best for the country would be democratic governance, democracy and identifies with its liberal option, where one of the main values - freedom of the individual. In October 1993 he went to the Moscow Soviet, supported the administration of Boris Yeltsin. But when he speaks about the political opposition, the behavior of the people in general, the person in front of us with a typically authoritarian thinking. He considers it possible to repress the opposition. The people of talks like a herd of stupid sheep (but for himself makes no exception). His method of political influence – obviously forced and reduced to the fact that people need to “make people forget about the former Soviet Union, to make people forget that they can get everything to guzzle vodka and live happily,” and to achieve order “should be put more police on the streets. ” For this man of liberal views, these statements sound a little strange. But our respondents do not feel that contradiction.
His image of the power up of several components. First of all – of the nature of power. The power of it comes down to, first of all, to the functional manifestations of coercion – the suppression of dissent and restore “order” by any means necessary, including violence. But the main task of the government is to establish a public “balance.” However, the ideal state devices it is the freedom of the individual. For her sake, he may rebel, “Rebel – says our interviewee – it’s not so bad.” Himself, he would not see “the herd”, but the role of the leader (the president), by his own estimation – not “pull.” Hence – the inner conflict that causes heightened emotional irritation, and its resolution, our hero finds in the output of the game: just “in the country” does not change (even if “they”, ie the rulers, to make), the better of her just leave.
Second, the government appears to him in the images of politicians. If a child they seemed boring to our interviewee, now they are for him rather unpleasant because “they have – one goal: to help, do not give yourself to shove other politicians”, “too many of them and they all want” to power. But both the government and politicians, he paints a rather pale: no personal characteristics of political leaders – the state “itself pushed into a garbage disposal.” Nor others or himself this young man does not see as actors and factors.
As it turned out in-depth interview, the respondent’s personal characteristics that define his vision of government, formed under the influence of a very peculiar experience of primary socialization. Type of family power was not just hard – it was authoritarian. The boy was brought up not the father and his stepfather, whom he “always afraid” because he was a man of cool and hot-tempered. And it’s not that as a child he was punished. Attitude to his stepfather he considered unfair, biased, stepfather, he was jealous of his younger brother. Another important factor in a relationship with his stepfather was a certain mystique associated with his work in the Ministry of Internal Affairs. And in fact there’s stepfather was engaged in repairing machinery, the boy thought he was admitted to a kind of state secrets, which sometimes “blurts out” of the house than to produce a deep impression on her stepson.
Interview with the man gives a fairly good reason for withdrawal, his perception of the government bears the traces of certain adverse manifestations of familial love with the authorities in the course of primary socialization. This is manifested in an effort to gain recognition, to be free (to the Moscow Soviet experience of walking), and in rebellion against the pressure of circumstances, and aggression towards those whose political views do not match his own.