Review
[1] Nikolai Genov’s report entitled “Facing Rapid Social Development: Bulgarian Sociology in the Nineties” presents the profound reflection of a sociologist on the development of Bulgarian sociology in the period after 1989 to the present. The author’s analysis of the changing profiles of sociological knowledge and of the new forms of presence of social science in Bulgarian society has been carried out in a way that perfectly corresponds to the general framework of the Collegium Budapest project. Moreover, the text is based on a clear and well-argued conception of the nature and character of the specific political, economic, and social transformations of post-totalitarian society in Bulgaria. The two fundamental processes characterizing the last decade of the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century, i.e. the radical transformation of the political and economic pattern of the communist totalitarian societies, and the growing globalization, are presented in their connection with the specific social and intellectual history of Bulgarian society. Thus the context common to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe is shown to assume specific local characteristics and serves as a reliable prism in analyzing the cognitive and social evolution of Bulgarian sociology. On the other hand, social science is not viewed here as a merely passive product of the changing social environment. Highlighting the new thematic, conceptual and methodological changes in orientation whereby sociology seeks meaning in, interprets, and explains the development of contemporary Bulgarian society, the author convincingly demonstrates that this science is an agent of change. In other words, the new social reality is presented in the report as being both a touchstone for estimating the cognitive potential of Bulgarian sociology and as a field of new opportunities for its growth as a science.
[2] This extensive panorama of Bulgarian sociology, drawn with high professional competence and an unquestionably successful analysis/synthesis approach, facilitates to a considerable degree my task of commenting the report. Hence my commentary will rather serve to supplement the presented facts, theses and interpretations so as to present in a more differentiated and varied way the trends, problems and prospects of development of Bulgarian sociology in a period of restructuring of the economic and political model of society, and transformation of value systems and mental orientations.
[3] The state of sociology in Bulgaria prior to 1989 is accurately described through the presentation of the conceptual, institutional, organizational and socio-practical innovations in the discipline. In order to appreciate the “originality” of these novelties in and for the Bulgarian context, one would have to focus attention on the scientific and social environment in which sociology developed during the period from the Second World War to 1989. On the one hand, this environment was comparatively similar to that of the other countries in Central and Eastern Europe and retained its structure-determining characteristics to the very end of the communist regime. The mainstay of this society, founded on the merging of state governance with the monopoly of domination of a single political party, were the political-administrative power and the functioning of Marxism, represented as the only objectively valid, true and socially accepted model for describing, interpreting, explaining and changing the world (Arendt, 1972; Djilas, 1957; Merton, 1973: 254 - 278; Polin, 1994; Voslensky, 1980). Hence the way of being, the cognitive horizon, the models of reasoning and the social intervention of sociology consisted in a constant conquest and defense of territories from the politically modeled and structured society at large and from the area of politically sanctioned and controlled knowledge. On the other hand, the practical implementation of the communist project common to all these countries passed through various stages and was marked by specific national features in each country. Bulgaria proved to be the only country in the former socialist camp in which the ambivalence of sociology, most strongly displayed in the symbiosis of personal power positions held simultaneously in science and government, is a distinctive feature in our discipline, a feature that had a decisive impact on its contents and social role before 1989, and a lasting influence on the development of sociology in post-totalitarian society as well. Throughout the various periods, from the initial efforts for scientific and institutional legitimization of sociology (in the late 1950s and early 1960s), through the large research projects (of the 60s and 80s), and to the growing presence of sociology in various spheres of society (the second half of the 70s and early 80s), Bulgarian sociology did not simply pass through the interaction, inevitable in this type of society, with the State-Party; it incorporated itself in the power structures of the state through a number of leading sociologists (Niko Yahiel, Stoyan Mihailov, Lyuben Nikolov, Mincho Draganov, Mincho Semov, and others), people who used their positions to raise a protective shield against this scientific institution, but also placed a restrictive ideological boundary on its intellectual freedom. Along with this, precisely because of their ambivalent position, these leading figures made sociology a tool for reforming the system from the inside, so that the role of social science, whether constructive and legitimizing or destructive, followed the fluctuation of tolerance and receptivity of the political regime toward the conclusions of sociological analysis.
[4] I believe that by taking into account these circumstances, the specific features of Bulgarian sociology up to 1989, as pointed out in the report, become clearer and more comprehensible to readers, be they young Bulgarian sociologists or foreign colleagues, who have not been participating in its development. Thus, the disciplinary separation of sociology from historical materialism and its institutional expansion as a discipline during the 1960s (Report 1-3) would be inconceivable without the coinciding interests in that historical period of the holders of political power and the emerging new scientific community. The concept of the sociological structure of society, accurately presented in the report as a conceptual innovation, as a scientific program and educational matrix for generations of Bulgarian sociologist, functioned as such not only because it offered a systemic viewpoint on the nature and mechanisms of society. We must take into account the professional and political-administrative status of the authors of the conception, but also the fact that structural functionalism, influential at that time and incorporated into the conceptual framework in question (Report, p. 6), was the only digestible and acceptable non-Marxist paradigm in the ideological and political context of the times 1 (Note1: The limited length of my commentary does not permit discussing the theoretical and methodological basis of the conceptual affinities between Marxism and structural functionalism.). Moreover, at its beginnings in the 1960s, modern Bulgarian sociology built upon a double epistemological break, both with the tradition of Western sociology as an autonomous science and with Bulgarian sociological thought before the Second World War (desultory and unorganized, as Nikolai Genov accurately describes it). Although prior to the World War Bulgarian translations came out of Comte, Spencer, Durkheim, and although the initiator and “architect” of modern Bulgarian sociology, Zhivko Oshavkov studied at the Sorbonne in Paris during the 1930s, the key figures in the history of world sociology were long passed over in silence or mentioned only to be rejected as bearers of idealistic, reactionary or unscientific views on society. Knowing the features of totalitarian society, we may seek a hidden motive for this display of “ignorance” or radical rejection of the sociological tradition in the specific context of justification where the dominant scientific paradigm of the social world was guaranteed and sanctioned as correct by the subject holding the monopoly of power. Social coercion continued to assume the form of logical coercion (Bourdieu, 1994: 217-232) in the 1970s and 1980s, when various stratagems were devised for adopting (or incorporating) the so-called bourgeois sociology (e.g. introducing a regular series of translations of classical Western “Sociological texts with critical commentary” in the journal Sociologicheski problemi at the initiative of its editor in chief, the late Lyuben Nikolov, translations of publications from other socialist countries, especially Poland and Hungary, that had greater and freer access to Western sociology, the Marx Seminar at Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, a workshop that became a forum for dialogue between various sociological traditions). Given the specific form that totalitarianism assumed in Bulgarian society (relatively tolerant political power, lack of civic pressure on the regime, the intertwining of sociology in power structures), it is easier to understand the lack of active opposition among Bulgarian sociologists (Report, 6-7) the absence of an underground sociological press, unlike the situation in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and the fact that Bulgarian sociology remained unaffected by the Spring of Prague, Charter 77, the Polish Solidarity movement.
[5] In other words, in Bulgaria the relation between sociology and power before 1989 proved, to a much greater degree than in other socialist states at that time, one of the basic determinants of the scientific and social being of sociology. Social science occupied an intermediate position between science and politics, or rather it was both a science and a tool of power at once (Koev, 1992), subordinating its cognitive function to the objectives of social-political action and attempting to soften the pressure exerted by the administration, and to make the system more “human” using its resources as a science. The full complexity and ambiguity in the development of sociology prior to 1989, described by Genov, lies precisely in the “dangerous proximity between sociology and power” (Bundjulov, Yakimova, Nikolova, Kanushev, 2000).
[6] A starting point for the analysis of Bulgarian sociology after 1990 is the “shared understanding” of a “need for evolutionary differentiation” (Report) in a qualitatively new context after the break-down of the communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe and the ensuing radical changes in the economic, political, and social organization of society. The particular features of the “new round of modernization” of Bulgarian society occurring under the strong pressure of globalizing processes, are putting to a test the theoretical framework of sociology, the forms in which it organizes research activities, and the means by which it tries to exert influence on society. In order to clarify the redefinition of sociology in all its aspects - themes, paradigms, methodology, institutions - Genov has chosen and cogently demonstrated a conceptual perspective referring to processes of transformation, not transition processes, a term that long prevailed in East and West European analyses of post-totalitarian societies. This change of perspective permits encompassing the attempts of Bulgarian sociology to study macro-social changes, but it also restricts the capacity to include the micro-social studies that attempt to reveal the concrete impact of macro-social transformations on separate groups and individuals, their meaning and significance at the everyday level (economic strategies of Bulgarian households, problems of the family and women, of invalids, of lonely and homeless people). In fact the role of these studies in Bulgarian sociology is growing not only in quantity (one reason for their proportion may be found in the limited financial means available for the kind of large representative studies that were typical for the period prior to 1989), but produces more detailed, precise and varied knowledge on the meaning and directions of the current changes.
[7] In the report, four new paradigmatic models have been pointed out as replacing the conception of sociological structure of society that was dominant up to 1989. The validity of these models is substantiated through their potential for generating knowledge both on integration and on innovation, on system and action, on structures and actors (Report). But in the way they are presented in the report, the four models - systematic and action dimensions of transformation, organizational rationalization, individualization, and controversial value changes - are rather of the nature of new problem fields than of definite theoretical approaches to social reality. For there is no doubt that phenomena such as the adjustment of the national economy, of organizational and political culture, and of the normative system to world models, the role of the state, the balance between individual and collective values, ultimate and instrumental values, the capacities for sustainable development (Report) can be studied from different theoretical perspectives. But if these phenomena are not critically re-thought for the purposes of each concrete study, the result would be eclecticism, a feature pointed out in the report as characteristic of contemporary Bulgarian sociology (Report, 3.1. New Approaches).
[8] Referring to the change of elites as a major research field in conditions of societal transformation, I would like to add that this field of issues was intensively studied in the first years of the change 2 (Note2: Cf. the information by Stefan Nikolov on the international conference “New Elites, Social Stratification, and Social mobility”, Blagoevgrad, 29-31, May 1992 (Sociologicheski problemi, 1992, No. 4) and the articles by Momchil Badjakov (1993, No. 1) and Dobrinka Kostova (1994, No. 4).) with the emergence of the new social phenomenon, and it was then left off in the course of transformation processes. It was taken up again in connection with the debates on Bulgarian integration into Europe 3 (Note3: Cf. the regular series of articles on “Bulgarian Political Elites and European Integration” in the journal Sociologicheski problemi (2000, No. 1-2) and the research program “Elites, Networks, and Conversion of Capitals” in the Institute for Critical Social Studies.). A serious attempt at theoretical synthesis of the studies on elites in contemporary Bulgarian sociology was the dissertation of Petya KabakchievaPolitical Power and Elites. The Transition in Bulgaria, 1989-1997, defended in 1999.
[9] Among the new institutional changes in sociology, I should also mention the swift growth of non-governmental organizations 4 (Note4: The publication National Meeting of Non-profit Organizations “Revived Civic Participation” gives a sufficiently comprehensive picture of the condition, priorities and prospects for the development of non-governmental organizations in Bulgaria. In this connection, section C. NGOs and Private Research Institutions of 7. Appendix should be expanded.), whose activity directly or indirectly had a bearing on sociology. Inasmuch as NGOs realize projects addressing serious social problems in various sectors of Bulgarian society, they not only mobilize the efforts of specialists in different social sciences, but produce complex knowledge about the current transformations as well.
[10] In Bulgaria, unlike other countries of Central and Easter Europe (Slovakia, Russia, Hungary) no stable tendency of a return to the works of pre-World War II social thinkers and their reintegration in the national sociological tradition can be observed. Not counting the interest of sociologists for the works of Ivan Hadjiiski and Dimiter Mihalchev, well-known authors even before 1989, the incidental attempt of the journal Sociologicheski problemi to introduce a regular series of articles under the heading “Rehabilitated names in science” 5 (Note5: The series appeared in issues 1 and 2 of the journal in 1991, but only the second issue contained an article on the rehabilitation of Vasil Handjiev and his book “Towards Sociology of the Bulgarian Village”, published in German in 1931.), and the published anthology of excerpts from works by a few elite Bulgarian intellectuals of the 1930s and 40s (Elenkov and Daskalov, 1994), there was no purposeful exploration and revival of the pre-War scientific legacy on the part of present-day Bulgarian sociologists. The analysis of the combination of causes for this attitude of Bulgarian scholars would require separate research. I shall only point out that it is certainly not due to the lack of brilliant thinkers, such as Krustyo Krustev, Spiridon Kazandjiev, Nayden Sheitanov, Yordan Nedyalkov, Ivan Seliminsi, Dimitar Strashimirov.
[11] Developing for several decades under the theoretical globalism of the Marxist paradigm and lacking a systematic pre-War tradition (Report), after 1990 Bulgarian sociology proved receptive to various theoretical and methodological influences. Apart from their purely scientific preconditions, the entry and incorporation of these orientations in the theoretical framework of Bulgarian sociology was stimulated by the growing diversity of social reality and the appearance of social phenomena that were new to Bulgarian society. But as Nikolai Genov justly emphasizes, this trend has resulted in eclecticism and incoherence of theoretical choices rather than in a constructive pluralism of research approaches or a dialogical richness of sociology (Fotev, 1998). Given the lack of control mechanisms of the professional community (Report, p. 23), this situation indeed has far-reaching negative consequences for the pertinence of sociological reflection. Apart from the methodologically justified use of the theory of the risk society and of the Durkheimian concept of anomie as analytical tools in sociological research (Report), one could also point out the attempts at conceptualizing the new Bulgarian reality through theories of modernity and post-modernity 6 (Note6: Cf. Sociologicheski problemi 1994, No. 4; 1995, No. 3, 4; 1998, No. 1-2 and the entire series of the journal Kritika i humanism.). Here we are not judging how adequate a theoretical model the latter are for describing and explaining contemporary Bulgarian society, or whether they serve as a mere vehicle of the latest trends in Western sociological and philosophical thought.
[12] With respect to the new East-West asymmetries, I believe asymmetries should be sought - not only in the case of Bulgaria but in the other Central and Eastern European countries as well - along the lines of division of tasks in the research process itself. A review of the programs of international funds for development of social sciences will promptly show that through institutional mechanisms of selection, financing and management of joint research projects, through the more subtle mechanisms of intellectual labor division, Central and Eastern Europe is turning into a zone of research appetites not just because the region poses cognitive challenges to the international sociological community, but also because it remains synonymous with a certain profile of research practice which, burdened with the legacy of the past, needs both theoretical-methodological and socio-technical (organizational) support. Hence in the cognitive process the problematizing seems to be assigned in priority to the more developed Western sociology, while the routine work of collecting and primary processing of empirical information is left to Eastern European sociologists.
[13] Agreeing with the estimation about the continuing prevalence of quantitative methods in sociological surveys, and that sophisticated statistical and mathematical approaches are less used, I would like to point out that the debate on the methods and techniques employed by the Bulgarian sociological community is gradually expanding in scope and has come to bear on issues such as composing questionnaires for comparative empirical sociological surveys (Dobreva, 1998), the role of expert appraisals in research projects (Georgieva, 1998), innovative thinking in solving empirical problems (Saykova, 1998) and the latest methods of analysis of sociological data and their practical application to research work (Sociologicheski problemi, 2001, No. 3-4). Moreover, the most widely used quantitative methods in public opinion polls are the most frequent object of scientific debate among representatives of the agencies for study of public opinion and sociologists from academic and university circles 7 (Note7: Cf. the discussion in the journal Sociologicheski problemi (1994, No. 2) and the two round table discussions on problems of surveys of electoral attitudes, held in connection with the parliamentary elections in Bulgaria and organized by the Bulgarian Sociological Association on April 6 and July 7 2001.). As for qualitative methods, considering their specific cognitive potential and the more modest financial resources they require, one may expect their application to expand in coming years. A new aspect in Bulgarian sociology after 1990 is the opening to the qualitative methods of anthropology and their integration in the set of tools in strictly sociological projects and interdisciplinary projects with participation of sociologists 8 (Note8: Cf. the work of the Training School “Application of Anthropological Field Methods in Other Social Sciences (Koleva 1994, No. 4; 1996, No. 1) and the series “Urgent Anthropology” of the International Centre for Problems of Minorities and Cultural Interaction, coming out since 2001.).
[14] Here I would like to point out a tendency observable in the thematic orientation of present-day Bulgarian sociology. The theme of transition dominated the theoretical debate in the first years of political, economic, and social changes, combined with the problematic field of the reforms (Sociologicheski problemi, 1993, No.2, 3; 1994, No. 1, 2). Since the second half of the 1990s, topics of modernization, transformation, local development, sustainable development, and continuing reforms in various spheres of Bulgarian society have come to the fore of sociological attention (Sociologicheski problemi, 1995, No. 2; 1998, No. 1-2; 2000, No. 3-4; Report of the Institute of Sociology for the period 01.01.1994-30.10.1999, December 1999; Annual Report of the Institute of Sociology for 2000, January 2001). Sociological practice fully confirms the thesis, formulated in Nikolai Genov’s report, concerning the disappearance of political restrictions on the choice and development of research themes, and the appearance of new themes through international scientific policy and the mechanism of above-national financing of research projects. Regardless of the stronger dependence of thematic orientations on the existing institutional structure, in contemporary Bulgarian sociology we observe also the reverse impact of thematic interests on institutions. Thus the preferences for a given circle of themes leads in some cases to the creation of new research institutes outside the strictly academic and university structures: such is the International Centre on Problems of Minorities and Cultural Interaction, the Ivan Hadjiiski Institute of Values Studies, the Centre for Advanced Study in Sofia, and the Institute of Critical Social Studies, specialized in reflexive sociology and anthropology of modern society, and which has published its journal Kritika i humanism since 1991. This is perhaps the most important proof of the vitality of sociology and of the other social sciences in Bulgaria and their ability to uphold their intellectual identity and develop the project of their disciplines.
[15] The discrepancy between the kind of data (prevalently data from opinion polls) with which sociology presents itself to public attention and the substance of academic debates would not be so alarming were it not for the sustained tendency of producing policy reports rather than critical social analyses, as convincingly shown by Liliana Deyanova in her study of the media discourse of the social sciences in Bulgaria since 1989 (Deynova, 2001). Public space in Bulgarian society is populated with sociologists-experts, the so-called ‘think tanks’ coming from independent research institutes and agencies; these experts, for the sake of a pragmatic policy, write scenarios, offer recipes and ultimately legitimate the interests of powerful social “networks” interacting between themselves (Ibid.). Thus it has proven impossible for a critical public sphere to emerge in Bulgaria, and critically oriented sociological analyses are more or less pushed out of the academic space. Among the rare instances of public sociological debate on topical issues of contemporary Bulgarian society are the congresses of Bulgarian Sociological Association and round table discussions organized in periods between congresses (e.g. the Round Table on Sociological Expertise between Civil Society and the State, October 27-28, 2000, Bankya), the international conference “The Contribution of Social Studies to a Restorative Economic and Social Policy, November 23-24, 1999, Sofia (Vladimirov, 2000).
[16] At the start of the changes an intensive process of critical self-reflection was evident in Bulgarian sociology (Sociologicheski problemi, 1991, No. 4, 6; 1992, No. 2; Genov, 1994), followed by a period of decreased activity in the second half of the 1990s, and a revival, since 2000, of interest in re-thinking the theoretical and methodological potential of the discipline (Genov, 2001).
[17] It is not necessary to present an exhaustive list of publications in world languages by Bulgarian sociologists, as the requirement of the project is to make a selection of such publications but it should be noted that after 1989 the number of such publications has grown and the volume of Bulgarian projects published abroad in foreign languages has expanded. Even in the framework of a single institution, the Institute of Sociology at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 72 publications came out in foreign journals and collections, in the period between January 1, 1994 and December 31, 2000, of which 54 were in English, 8 were in French, 5 in German, 3 in Italian, and 2 in Serbian; 14 monographs were published abroad, of which 10 were in English, 1 in French, and 3 in Greek (Report of the Institute of Sociology for the period 01.01.1994 - 31.10.1999, December 1999; Annual Report of the Institute of Sociology for 2000, January 2001). A new step in this direction was the growth of joint publication activity with colleagues from Macedonia and other Balkan countries (Jakimovski and Petroski, 2000; Tchalakov and Burton, 2001). For the first time in Bulgarian sociology since the Second World War, a joint publication was realized with sociologists from Quebec (Boucher, Fotev and Koleva, 2001).
[18] On the basis of the analysis presented in the report, the needs, formulated by Nikolai Genov, to extend cross-national and cross-cultural studies, to intensify work on operationalizing and verifying the available theoretical models, and for critical self-refection regarding the overall theoretical, methodological and research arsenal of sociology, outline good perspectives for the development of Bulgarian sociology. The promise of success lies in the intellectual and organizational potential of the national sociological community, but likewise in the already realized international research projects. The professionalism of Bulgarian sociologists can be illustrated by their participation in projects like Tactics (a study on the supply and use of advanced communication technology and telematics in Bulgaria, Romania, and Macedonia, realized in the period 1998-2000 in the framework of INCO-Copernicus IV Programme of the European Commission), headed by Bulgarian researchers, and in the European Values Study. While co-operation between the academies of science of the former socialist countries has waned, mostly for financial causes, and national academic units have reoriented themselves instead to Western research institutions, the collaboration between Balkan countries is expanding not only in the sphere of research, but in education. The chairs of sociology of Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski” and the University of Skopje “St. Kiril and Methodius” are elaborating a joint program for training students in sociology; after its initial period of experimentation, this program will become a lasting unified model for training specialists with a higher sociological education. The project “New Educational Practices in Training Post-graduate Students of Sociology”, financed by the Open Society Foundation, Sofia, has enabled post-graduate students from Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Serbia to take part in the seminar “Theory and the Empirical in Sociological Knowledge”, held in November 2001 in Sofia.
[19] As for the influence of sociology in the public sphere, it could be enhanced by setting a foundation for this. One way for building a sociological culture from an early age would be the study of sociology as a subject in secondary schools. This should perhaps be one of the urgent tasks of the Bulgarian sociological community, a goal demanding the efforts of university teachers and researchers.
[20] The Collegium Budapest project has afforded us the special privilege and responsibility of being historians of the contemporary development of three social sciences. Having been described and analyzed in their own separate terms, henceforward each of these sciences should be viewed in the perspective of the other two. Only thus could we extend the boundaries of the permissible in each discipline, overcome its limitations as a particular science, and open new horizons for research. But before this we must consider whether the task of the first stage has been successfully accomplished. We could hardly give a definite answer to this question; or perhaps we should answer by quoting Jerzy Szacki, who, on a different occasion, cautioned that “the historian who has decided to make his own times the object of study, inevitably takes the risk that reality will constantly be correcting his conclusions, even if they retain their validity in broad outlines” (Szacki, 1996: 9).
Sofia, 2002
