Review
[1] Currently, Republic of Belarus is known in the international arena primarily because of its president Alexander Lukashenko. Belarusian sociology is much less known to the western audience because it is poorly presented on the international level and forums (in the best case, some dissidents or young foreign scholars preparing their PhD present papers on Belarus). For this reason any objective overview of the state of the art of Belarusian sociology is practically useful as it can shed light on this part of social sciences in one of the former soviet republics. The additional interest to this particular observation can be caused by the fact that the author is a citizen of Belarus with enormous personal experience in sociology – both during the soviet period and after. That is why the paper prepared by Galina Sokolova presents well-researched and up-to-date insights into Belarusian sociology.
[2] First of all, professor Galina Sokolova explains in detail the history of sociology in Belarus, so that the reader receives a sketch of how sociology began there, and what the major periods of its history were. As the author grew up matured as a sociologist during the soviet period, she knows all the pluses and minuses of sociological development in Belarus from the first hand experience. That is why a picture of Belarusian sociology during the soviet days looks rather attractive in Sokolova’s paper: she proves that Belarusian sociologists had performed a lot. For example, the process of institutionalization of sociology had been completed in the 1980s; major theoretical schools of thinking had been established and Belarusian sociologists were well known among the soviet scholars. Thus, the soviet legacy was an important factor influencing the development of sociology in Belarus after 1991.
[3] In the next step, Galina Sokolova presents a panorama of the process of post-soviet redefinition of sociology in the 1990s. This part of her paper also looks very impressive. The author explains what was new in the field of academic sociology, sociological education and in the sphere of private research which appeared only after 1991. Furthermore, Sokolova gives an overview of new sociological theories and paradigms, sources of financing research etc.
[4] The author gives a full and realistic picture of Belarusian sociology before and after 1991. If we compare the major features of the development of sociology in Belarus and, for example, in Russia, we can clearly define some differences (the author described them in a latent way, however, a meticulous reader easily understands the matter). First, it seems that the “golden age” of Belarusian sociology “stayed behind”, as in Belarus the sociological scientific results during the 1970-1980s were much more impressive and visible in the public than during the 1990s and the 2000s. Let me give few examples. Although Belarusian sociology completed its institutionalization in the 1980s (within the framework of the Soviet sociology), it had to repeat this process once again after 1991: to reorganize its sociological association (before 1991 Belarusian sociologists were a part of the SSA and actively participated in world congresses, currently they are almost unknown, and Belarusian sociological society is not a part of any international sociological structure; before 1991 Belarusian sociologists published intensively in the well-known soviet journal Social Studies, now they primarily publish in Belarusian journals that are not distributed beyond the borders of Belarus), to reorganize international involvement (before 1991 they participated in the international academic projects, now they primarily participate in the marketing commercial projects), to reform sociological education (before 1991 sociology was included in the university curricula as an introductory course, after 1991 nothing has changed, however, because of shortage of professionals having PhD in sociology any social scholar teaches this course as it was 20 years ago). Galina Sokolova did not evaluate the current state of sociology (especially its organizational structure) as unsatisfactory; however, she probably has it in mind when describing pre-soviet and post-soviet developments.
[5] Second difference between pre-soviet and post-soviet sociological development in Belarus is more theoretical. As it is shown in the paper, during the soviet period all the sociologists were called “Marxists”. Currently, they have difficulties to define within which theoretical paradigms they work. It is quite possible to assume that a lot of Belarusian sociologists still follow the Marxist traditions. Even if it is not correct regarding the whole scholarly community, many scholars cannot clearly define their own paradigm. Instead, they prefer to talk about the “spheres of their interests”. For this very reason, as Galina Sokolova showed, it is common to talk about thematic directions of sociological research, and not about paradigms. There are several explanations of this fact: maybe Belarusian sociologists are afraid of proclaiming in an open way that they follow some western paradigms (rational choice or symbolic interactionism, for example). Otherwise, they probably cannot even define their own theoretical basis and do not recognize any as their common basis. This is a feature of sociological crisis. 1 (Note1: Romanovski, N. (2005): “Three approaches to the future of sociology”, in: Social Studies, no. 3. p. 4.) If so, they have nothing to do but function as practically oriented professionals without a chance to discuss the data within the particular theoretical model. Although this situation can be partly generalized for the post-soviet region, it is more applicable to Belarus than to Russia, as Galina Sokolova insists.
[6] The third issue characterizing sociology in Belarus, which is latently presented in Galina Sokolova’s paper, addresses the public role sociologists play in a contemporary society. As it is evident from the paper, Belarusian sociologists are not very successful to create public space for their research results. If during the 1990s and even at the very beginning of the 2000s it was common to find sociological data in several republican media on almost all important issues of social, economic and political life, by the mid-2000s it happened quite rarely. Currently, in the second part of the 2000s, only the data of a particular (Soviet-like) type are presented in the state-owned media. The major reason is that non-state media are either closed or are not distributed on a mass level. This fact influences the mass consciousness in such a way that the majority of the population truly believe that there are no social problems in Belarus similar to Russian or Ukrainian ones, i.e.: unemployment, poverty, crime, economic crises, inappropriate functioning of any Ministry, etc. The official picture of society constructed with the help of some scholars through the national media is very positive. If sociologists ever mention any unsolved problems, they always seem to be depicted as “small” and “local”. Even in the international comparative surveys where Belarus is a part of international network (Eurobarometer, INTAS projects, etc.), sociological data on Belarus is relatively “better” (i.e. gives a more positive picture of society) than data on other post-soviet states. As Stephen White et al. (2002) mentioned 2 (Note2: White, Stephen, Ian McAllister, Margot Light and John Löwenhardt (2002): “A European or a Slavic choice? Foreign policy and public attitudes in post-Soviet Europe”, in: Europe-Asia Studies, no. 54:2 (March 2002), pp. 181-202.) in the research paper prepared on the basis of comparative surveys in three post-soviet countries, it is difficult to explain the positive sociological results from Belarus, as they correspond neither with the image of Belarus in the western media nor with common sense. For Galina Sokolova the reasons derive from the latent social processes taking place in Belarus and simply reflected by sociology. This non-partisan conclusion of an academic scholar can be of a particular interest for western audience.
[7] The last feature of Belarusian sociology, as described by Galina Sokolova, is also very practical: there is no research periphery in Belarus, as almost all the scholars live in the capital city, therefore sociological development in Belarus is rather limited in space. Sociology is underdeveloped in the periphery and this fact proves once again that the process of sociological development in Belarus is centralized to a much higher degree than in Russia or the Ukraine.
[8] Summing up, Galina Sokolova’s paper will serve as a good scholarly source of information on sociology in Belarus. It reflects both on history and current state of sociology. The paper is full of important details and it is generally relevant within the context of current development.
Minsk, 2006
