Учредитель — Центр независимых социологических исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Founded by the Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg (CISR)
РЕДАКЦИЯ
Главный редактор
Редактор отдела
рецензий
Шеф-редактор
Редактор
Корректор
Верстка
Дизайн
Михаил Габович
Софья Чуйкина
gabowitsch@soclabo.org
tchouikina@soclabo.org
Оксана Парфенова oparfenova@soclabo.org
Марина Ильина
Мария Банкович
Наталья Пашковская
Татьяна Загоскина
Александр Ходот
РЕДАКЦИОННАЯ КОЛЛЕГИЯ
Александр Бикбов
Ольга Бредникова
Виктор Воронков
Михаил Габович
Оксана Запорожец
Елена Здравомыслова
Константин Иванов
Оксана Карпенко
Олеся Кирчик
Олег Паченков
Михаил Рожанский
Ирина Тартаковская
Анна Тёмкина
Илья Утехин
Сергей Ушакин
Софья Чуйкина
Марк Эли
EDITORIAL BOARD
Alexander Bikbov
Olga Brednikova
Marc Elie
Mischa Gabowitsch
Konstantin Ivanov
Oksana Karpenko
Olessia Kirtchik
Serguei Oushakine
Oleg Pachenkov
Mikhail Rozhansky
Irina Tartakovskaya
Anna Temkina
Sofi a Tchouikina
Ilya Utekhin
Viktor Voronkov
Oksana Zaporozhets
Elena Zdravomyslova
EDITORS
Editor-in-chief
Reviews editor
Managing editor
Copy editors
Layout
Design
Mischa Gabowitsch
Sofi a Tchouikina
Oksana Parfenova
Anthony Zannino
Molly Vellacott
Natalya
Paskhovskaya
Tatyana Zagoskina
Alexander Khodot
Центр Мориса Хальбвакса, Париж
Центр независимых социологических исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Центр независимых социологических исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Эйнштейновский форум, Потсдам
Самарский государственный университет
Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге
Тульский государственный педагогический университет имени Л.Н. Толстого
Центр независимых социологических исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Высшая школа экономики, Москва / Центр исследования социальных движений,
Школа высших социальных исследований, Париж
Центр независимых социологических исследований, Санкт-Петербург
Центр независимых социологических исследований и образования, Иркутск
Институт сравнительных исследований трудовых отношений, Москва
Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге
Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге
Принстонский университет
Центр российских, кавказских и центрально-европейских исследований, Париж
Центр российских, кавказских и центрально-европейских исследований, Париж
Centre Maurice Halbwachs, Paris
Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg
Centre d’études des mondes russe, caucasien et centre-européen, Paris
Einstein Forum, Potsdam
Leo Tolstoy Tula State Pedagogical University
Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg
Higher School of Economics (Moscow), Centre d'étude des mouvements sociaux /
Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales (Paris)
Princeton University
Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg
Center for Independent Social Research and Education, Irkutsk
Institute of Comparative Labor Studies, Moscow
European University at Saint Petersburg
Centre d’études des mondes russe, caucasien et centre-européen, Paris
European University at Saint Petersburg
Center for Independent Social Research, Saint Petersburg
Samara State University
European University at Saint Petersburg
© 2010 Laboratorium
Стр.1
РЕДАКЦИОННЫЙ СОВЕТ
Майкл Буравой
Гарольд Гарфинкель
Бруно Латур
Елена Омельченко
Хилари Пилкингтон
Мишель Ривкин-Фиш
Лоран Тевено
Олег Хархордин
Алексей Юрчак
ADVISORY BOARD
Michael Burawoy
Harold Garfi nkel
Oleg Kharkhordin
Bruno Latour
Elena Omelchenko
Hilary Pilkington
Michele Rivkin-Fish
Laurent Thévenot
Alexei Yurchak
КОНТАКТЫ
Россия, Санкт-Петербург, 191040
Лиговский проспект, 87, офис 301
info@soclabo.org
Тел./факс: +7 (812) 718-37-96
Online version www.soclabo.org
Калифорнийский университет в Беркли
Калифорнийский университет в Лос-Анджелесе
Институт политических исследований, Париж
Научно-исследовательски центр «Регион», Ульяновск
Уорвикский университет
Университет Северной Каролины в Чапел-Хилл
Школа высших социальных исследований, Париж
Европейский университет в Санкт-Петербурге
Калифорнийский университет в Беркли
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Los Angeles
European University at Saint Petersburg
Institut d’études politiques, Paris
Region Center, Ulyanovsk
Warwick University
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales, Paris
University of California, Berkeley
CONTACTS
Offi ce 301, 87, Ligovskii prospect
Saint Petersburg, 193040, Russia
info@soclabo.org
Phone/fax: +7 (812) 718-37-96
Online version www.soclabo.org/eng
Журнал выходит три раза в год в печатной и электронной версиях.
По вопросам подписки и распространения обращаться в редакцию.
Издается при финансовом содействии Центра независимых социологических исследований (ЦНСИ)
и Фонда Джона Д. и Кэтрин Т. Макартуров.
Laboratorium is published three times a year in print and electronic versions.
Please contact the editors regarding subscriptions and sales.
Published with the fi nancial support of the Center for Independent Social Research (CISR) and the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
На обложке использована фотография компании «Fotobank»
© 2010 Laboratorium
Стр.2
INTRODUCTION
5
ВВЕДЕНИЕ
Mariana Heredia, Olessia Kirtchik. Comparing
Post-Soviet and Latin American Societies: From
“Transition” to “Transformation”
ARTICLES
I. Institutional Shifts and Responses
22 Mariana Heredia, Olessia Kirtchik. The Russian
and Argentinian Experiences of Radical Reform:
Between Economy and Politics
65 Enrique Peruzzotti. Accountability Struggles in
Democratic Argentina: Civic Engagement from the
Human Rights Movement to the Néstor Kirchner
аdministration
86 Françoise Daucé. Activists in the Trap of AntiPolitics:
An Exploration of the Powerlessness
of Human Rights NGOs in Russia
103 Françoise Daucé, Enrique Peruzzotti. Civil Society,
Human Rights Struggles and Democratization in
Argentina and Russia: Some Brief Comparative
Conclusions
107 Marina Farinetti. New Forms of Social Mobilization
in Democratic Argentina
123 Gastón Joaquín Beltrán, Jeffrey K. Hass. Illusions
of Market Paradise: State, Business, and Economic
Reform in Postsocialist Russia and Post-1980s
Crisis Argentina
155 Roxana Eleta de Filippis, Elena Mascova.
Pension Reforms in Argentina and Moldova:
Searching for New Meanings
II. Reforms and the Challenge to Social Ties
179 Iván Arenas, Dace Dzenovska. Making “the
People”: Political Imaginaries and the Materiality
of Barricades in Mexico and Latvia
200 Gabriel Kessler, María Mercedes Di Virgilio.
Impoverishment of the Middle Class in Argentina:
The “New Poor” in Latin America
408 Svetlana Yaroshenko. “New” Poverty in Russia
after Socialism. Summary
252 Gabriel Kessler, María Mercedes Di Virgilio,
Svetlana Yaroshenko. New Poverty in Argentina
and Russia: Some Brief Comparative Conclusions
257 Karina Bidaseca. The Peasants of El Ceibal
and Access to Justice. Land Rights and Precarious
Land Tenure in Santiago del Estero, Argentina
13 Олеся Кирчик, Мариана Эредиа. Как сравнивать
постсоветские и латиноамериканские общества?
ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ
I. Институциональные сдвиги и ответные реакции
366 Олеся Кирчик, Мариана Эредиа. Опыт «радикальной
реформы» в Аргентине и России: между
экономикой и политикой. Резюме
373 Энрике Перуццотти. Борьба за подотчетность
в демократической Аргентине: участие граждан
в политике от эпохи движения за права человека
до администрации Нестора Киршнера. Резюме
378 Франсуаза Досэ. Активисты в ловушке
антиполитики. О бессилии право защитных
неправительственных организаций
в России. Резюме
382 Франсуаза Досэ , Энрике Перуццотти.
Граждан ское общество, борьба за права
человека и демократизация в Аргентине
и России: несколько кратких выводов. Резюме
384 Марина Фаринетти. Новые формы коллективных
действий в демократической Аргентине. Резюме
389 Гастон Белтран, Джеффри Хасс. Иллюзии рыночного
рая: государство, бизнес и экономическая
реформа в постсоциалистической России
и Аргентине после кризиса 1980-х годов. Резюме
395 Роксана Элета де Филиппис, Елена Машкова.
Пенсионные реформы в Аргентине и Молдове:
в поисках нового смысла. Резюме
II. Реформы и вызов социальной связи
399 Иван Аренас, Даце Дзеновска. Делать «народ»:
политическое воображаемое и материальность
баррикад в Мексике и Латвии. Резюме
403 Габриэль Кесслер, Мария Мерседес ди Вирхилио.
Обнищание среднего класса в Аргентине: «новые
бедные» в Латинской Америке. Резюме
221 Светлана Ярошенко. «Новая» бедность в России
после социализма
414 Габриэль Кесслер, Мария Мерседес де Вирхилио,
Светлана Ярошенко. «Новая бедность» в Аргентине
и России: краткие выводы. Резюме
415 Карина Бидасека. Крестьяне Эль-Сейбала
и доступ к справедливости. Право на землю
и ненадежность землевладения в аргентинской
провинции Сантьяго-дель-Эстеро. Резюме
Стр.3
275 Oane Visser. Insecure Land Rights, Obstacles
to Family Farming, and the Weakness of Protest
in Rural Russia
296 Karina Bidaseca, Oane Visser. Agrarian
Modernization, Land Confl icts, and Peasant
Mobilization in Russia and Argentina
305 Ludmila da Silva Catela. The Stigma of Memory
in Tumbaya-Jujuy.
431 Veronika Dorman. From the Solovki to Butovo: The
Appropriation of the Memory of the Repressions by
the Russian Orthodox Church. Summary
348 Marc Brightman, Vanessa Elisa Grotti, Olga
Ulturgasheva. Personhood and “Frontier”
in Contemporary Amazonia and Siberia
420 Оане Виссер. Ненадежность земельных прав,
трудности семейных ферм и слабость крестьянского
протеста в России. Резюме
425 Оане Виссер, Карина Бидасека. Сельская модернизация,
земельные конфликты и мобилизация
крестьян в России и Аргентине. Резюме
426 Людмила да Сильва Катела. Стигма памяти
в Тумбайе. Резюме
327 Вероника Дорман. От Соловков до Бутово:
Русская Православная Церковь и память о советских
репрессиях в постсоветской России
437 Марк Брайтман, Ванесса Элиза Гротти, Ольга
Ултургашева. Личность и «приграничная территория»
в современных Амазонии и Сибири.
Резюме
BOOK REVIEWS
РЕЦЕНЗИИ
439 Rachel May and Andrew K. Milton, eds. (Un)civil Societies. Human Rights and Democratic Transitions in Eastern
Europe and Latin America. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2006. Андрей Щербак
442 Stephan Haggard and Robert R. Kaufman. Development, Democracy, and Welfare States: Latin America, East
Asia, and Eastern Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Елена Павлова
445 Латинская Америка XX века: социальная антропология бедности. М.: Наука, 2006. Миляуша Закирова
BOOK TALK
АНОНС КНИГИ
448 Elena Belokurova, ed. European Politics and Society: Studies by Young Russian Scholars. Saint Petersburg:
Intersocis. Vol. 1 (2009), Vol. 2 (2010)
450 Анонс на русском языке
453 ABSTRACTS
462 Guidelines for authors and reviewers
472 Authors
465 Информация для авторов и рецензентов
478 Авторы
Стр.4
5
C
OMPARING POST-SOVIET
AND LATIN AMERICAN
SOCIETIES: FROM “TRANSITION”
TO “TRANSFORMATION”
Mariana Heredia, Olessia Kirtchik
Mariana Heredia is a senior researcher at the Argentine National Scientifi c and
Technical Research Council (CONICET) and teaches sociology at the Universities of
Buenos Aires and San Martín. She is an associated researcher at the Institut de
recherche interdisciplinaire sur les enjeux sociaux (IRIS) in Paris. Address for
correspondence: Mariana Heredia, Instituto de Altos Estudios Sociales (IDEASUNSAM),
Paraná 145 5to.piso A (C1017AAC), Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
heredia.mar@gmail.com, mariana.heredia@conicet.gov.ar.
Olessia Kirtchik is a senior researcher at the Higher School of Economics. She is also an
associated researcher at the Centre d’étude des mouvements sociaux, EHESS (Paris).
Address for correspondence: GU-VShE, 10100 Moscow, ul. Miasnitskaia 18, Russia.
okirchik@hse.ru.
This issue of Laboratorium offers a comparative look at the experience of postauthoritarian
transformations in Latin America and the former Soviet Union that
began over twenty years ago. There is no shortage of works on the subject. Since the
1970s, there has been an impressive fl ow of literature dealing with processes of
democratization which took place primarily in Southern Europe and in Latin America,
and more recently in Central and Eastern Europe.1
Yet most research on each of these
regions is virtually unknown to specialists from the other area, especially if it is
published in the local languages. The main reason for this lack of mutual knowledge
is the near-total absence of institutionalized ties between Latin American and postSoviet
researchers. The two regions are as intrigued by as they are ignorant of each
other. Not accidentally, the idea for this special issue was born not in Moscow or
Buenos Aires, but in Paris—a traditional center of intellectual exchange for each of
the two regions. Working together in the French capital over the course of several
years, the two editors had a unique opportunity to discuss their experience of doing
research in Russia and Argentina.
This thematic issue starts with two basic theses which arose from our prolonged
exchanges. Firstly, while the two regions are thousands of miles apart, there are
1 Among this extensive literature, it is worth mentioning O’Donnell, Schmitter, and Whitehead
1986; Diamond, Linz, and Lipset 1988; and Przeworski 1991.
© Laboratorium. 2010. Vol. 2, no. 3:5–12
Стр.5
6
INTRODUCTION
striking similarities in the social and political transformations they have been going
through. Secondly, comparative refl ection on the most diverse aspects of these
transformations might enable us to highlight the blind spots of standard democratization
and free-market modernization theory, which tends to universalize scenarios of
economic development without paying suffi cient attention to case studies.
FROM “TRANS TION” TO “TRANSFORMATION”
FROM “TRANSITION”I
“TRANSFORMATION”
Since Dankwart Rustow published his seminal article on the subject in 1970, the
dominant framework for conceptualizing the move toward “market democracy” in
different regions of the world has been centered on the idea of transition. Though it
seemed relatively new at that time (Rist 2001), the general idea was in fact far from
original. It refl ected the age-old motif of “peripheral” countries’ elites “catching up
with” the model established by Western European nations. This theory has been shown
to be highly normative and prescriptive (Schmitter 1995). It purports to “explain” the
ground to be covered while at the same time guiding countries on the right path to
transformation. The ambition of transitology—a vast fi eld that included scholars and
politicians and blurred the boundary between the two groups—was to propose a set of
axioms and prescriptions applicable anywhere in the “developing” world.
The wave of reforms that was generated by this technocratic optimism engulfed
several continents. Nevertheless, from very early on, the notion of “transition” was
subjected to a range of critiques, which may be summarized under two headings. On
the one hand, change operates in extremely diverse political and cultural contexts,
and thus starts from very different points: it is path-dependent. On the other hand,
the concept is premised upon an overly linear and positivist conception of change,
which assumes that both the start and the end point are known in advance.2
The real
experiences of “transition” demonstrated the limits and biased nature of projects of
social engineering. Rather than conforming to a single model, the economic and
political systems of the developing and post-communist worlds followed extremely
different paths.
Both transitologists and their critics accumulated useful knowledge about
processes of transformation and discovered different models, trends, and rhythms
underlying them. Yet the only overall conclusion that students of these transformations
were able to reach was that the result of every reform has been much more
contingent and complex than expected. Numerous case studies of democratic
transition in different countries as well as comparative research put an emphasis on
actors’ choices, on indeterminate situations and uncertainty, rather than on general
social, economic, or cultural determinants. This prompted some to speak of “a certain
failure” (Santiso 1996:44) of transitology in its search for “universal lessons” and
“general laws” of transition to market democracy.
The terminological shift from “transition” to “transformation” proposed by
critics of classical transitology (Stark 1992) refl ects an important epistemic turn
2 For a comprehensive review and critique of the academic literature on “transition,” one may
refer to: Bunce 2000; Dobry 2000; Guelman 2001.
Стр.6
MARIANA HEREDIA, OLESSIA KIRTCHIK. COMPARING POST-SOVIET. . .
marking the end of Grand Theory. It implies at least an intention to abandon
teleological explanations and acknowledge a plurality of paths of change and
organizational outcomes which always represent a combination of “modern” and
“traditional” elements. Our deliberate choice to use the term “transformations” in
the title of this issue refl ects this methodological concern.
However, should we conclude that there are no common patterns in
transformations, and that comparison is useless? Critics of generalizing schemes
attach particular importance to singularities and local contexts. Indeed, a certain
measure of relativism appears indicated as an antidote to determinism. But, taken to
an extreme, such research strategies risk preventing any attempt to reveal and
understand similarities and differences in historical change. The heuristic value of
comparative research consists precisely in its potential for identifying phenomena
that transcend particular contexts. Laboratorium’s call for papers was therefore an
invitation to scholars who are trying to overcome the unproductive dichotomy
between the universality suggested by (Western) ethnocentrism and the total
idiosyncrasy proclaimed by local populists.
WHY COMPARE THE “SOUTH AND THE “EAST”?
WHY COMPARE THE “SOUTH” AND THE “EAST”?
The remarkable simultaneity of post-authoritarian transformations lends special
heuristic value to a cross-national perspective. Globalization was a necessary
condition for change since it resulted in the circulation of capital, ideas, and
promoters of “transition,” but it also offer scholars a chance to exchange fi ndings
and data. Yet most comparative exercises focus either on intraregional analysis3
or
on contrasts between idealized models of market democracy (Western Europe and
the United States) and selected countries from the rest of the world. Intellectual
exchange between “South” (Latin America) and “East” (ex-USSR) remains a challenge
which poses specifi c methodological problems.
The fi rst diffi culty, as many scholars engaged in comparative research have
pointed out, has to do with the signifi cant differences between the economic and
political conditions, cultures, and historical legacies of Latin America and the former
Soviet Union (Nelson et al. 1994; Bunce 2000). These oft-mentioned disparities
seem to support advocates of intra-regional analysis who believe that the so-called
“area studies” represent a more fruitful research strategy.4
Unlike inter-regional
comparison, this ensures a “natural” controlling mechanism for some contextual
variables—such as geographic situation and cultural and economic characteristics—
3 Most comparative studies available are based on intra-regional analysis: there is an abundant
scholarly literature on Latin America (Dabène 2006; Santiso 2003), and more recent transitological
studies on the European countries of the former socialist bloc (e.g. Bléjer and Škreb
2001). Among the few recent publications that compare “non-Western” countries with each
other, we would like to note Andreff 2006, Haggard and Kaufman 2008, and May and Milton
2005. The latter two are reviewed in this issue.
4 For a polemical exchange between advocates of “area studies” and “comparativists,” see:
Schmitter and Karl 1994; Bunce 1995; Hall and Tarrow 1998.
7
Стр.7
8
INTRODUCTION
making it easier to assess variation among other variables. However, while this
argument may hold for certain regions, Eastern Europe and Latin America are far from
homogeneous units: the diversity among former Soviet republics is as huge as the
one existing inside Brazil or between Argentina and El Salvador.
A second major diffi culty is due to contrasts in the rhythm, agendas, and depth
of post-authoritarian transformations in these two regions. Whereas post-communist
countries had to undergo a fundamental reorganization of political and economic
structures, most Latin American countries reoriented and revived existing market
and democratic institutions. It also has been emphasized often that Latin American
nations possessed a longer and better-grounded democratic tradition, and the
authoritarian past in that region had a weaker impact on society than in the postcommunist
countries (e.g. Hermet 2001).
The truth of this argument is beyond dispute, and yet regional boundaries may
lose some of their relevance in systematic comparison. The perspective adopted here
allows us to avoid one of the usual mistakes committed by “comparatism,” which
consists in taking for granted the reality of closed cultural areas, bracketing out the
interferences and “cultural transfers” that underlie the construction and
deconstruction of nations (Espagne 1999:35–37). In this sense, the recent
transformations in the South and in the East are better understood as a “modernization
offensive”, the most recent in a long list, which has strongly involved local and
international elites in the modeling of Western-inspired institutions.
The notion of “modernization offensive” was proposed by Wagner (1994) to
replace Elias’s idea of “civilizing process.” “Offensive” seems a more appropriate
expression insofar as these transformations were generally initiated by rather narrow
and well-identifi ed groups. These groups shared a common vision of transformations
or a specifi c reformist governmentality, which determined the substance as well as
the modes of intervention. Though their action took place in different historical
contexts, similar aims implied similar outcomes such as inertia and counter-reactions
from old groups and practices, increasing social and economic inequalities, revival of
nationalisms and ethnic identity politics, etc., widely examined in case studies.
An analysis of these “historical parallelisms” (Skocpol 1994) allows us to identify
causalities other than those traditionally discussed (cultural or socio-economic
factors, or a common historical legacy), and, for example, identify “logics of situation”
or “modes of transition” (Munck and Leff 1997). As illustrated by the joint
contributions to the present issue, this analytical strategy makes it possible to
rethink older conceptions of “transition,” to test existing theories, and to formulate
new questions.
Another epistemological and theoretical reason justifying a comparison between
different “non-Western” countries is its great potential for overcoming a “selfdenigrating”
type of analysis, or methodological exceptionalism. Both regions seem
unable to defi ne themselves other than through their relationship with the West, and
are forever oscillating between more or less successful attempts to “imitate” and
“surpass” its example, and claims of fundamental otherness. As Hirschman noted, the
general habit of Latin Americans to condemn their reality made them unable to learn
Стр.8
MARIANA HEREDIA, OLESSIA KIRTCHIK. COMPARING POST-SOVIET. . .
from their past experience (Hirschman 1971:311–312). Indeed, any research on
a “peripheral” nation contains an implicit or explicit comparison with an ideal
representation of democracy or markets forged by theorists from the “First World”
(which does not correspond to the actual reality of the “old” market democracies).
The comparison can never be in favor of the former, and always seems to call for
adjectives designating delay or deviance. When studying “Southern” or “Eastern”
institutions, analysts frequently dismissed them as representing “incomplete
democracy,” an “imperfect market,” “weak civil society,” and so on. While it seems
impossible to formulate a unique recipe for “evolution” or “success”, comparison
between peripheral nations and a contrasting study of their respective “failures” and
“deviances” could contribute to a more refl exive stance on their (in)ability to be like
the “First World.”
CHALLENGES AND CONTR BUTIONS TO THIS ISSUE
CHALLENGES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TI
THIS ISSUE
The lack of connections between the two academic worlds, due to the weakness
of Latin American Studies in the post-Soviet countries and vice-versa, as well as the
lack of intellectual networks between the two regions, made it challenging to fi nd
authors, reviewers, and even books to review for this special issue. Additional
challenges were presented by the editors’, and Laboratorium’s, methodological
preferences.
Latin American Studies are weakly developed in the post-Soviet countries
(in Russia, they are concentrated at the Latin America Institute of the Academy of
Sciences as well as a number of smaller centers), and Russian Studies in Latin America
are even weaker. Moreover, most existing specialists do not carry out comparative
research. For reasons that are more institutional than intellectual, they confi ne
themselves to a regional studies ghetto that has few contacts with general disciplines
such as sociology, history, or anthropology.
The easiest solution would have been to contact researchers from the United
States or Western Europe who are already involved in international networks and
have suffi cient funding and other resources—most of those who specialize in the
study of both regions are based in the U.S. But this issue was conceived precisely as
an attempt to stimulate dialogue between scholars from Latin America and postSoviet
countries, and primarily those working and residing in their countries of
origin. In practice, this condition could not always be met, and the editors have had
to work with authors and reviewers from four continents, speaking four different
languages (Spanish, Russian, English, and French), and specializing in a diverse array
of fi elds, including sociology, anthropology, and political science.
Statistics and abstract modeling might seem preferable as a universal language
for the kind of cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary communication intended here.
Nevertheless, we conceived this thematic issue primarily as a collection of papers
based on fi eld research. This methodological orientation implies that we abandon
pre-established causal schemes. Instead of going from concepts to data collection,
as in the case of extensive surveys, the exchanges we facilitated encouraged
9
Стр.9
10
INTRODUCTION
researchers to correct and to specify the categories they use. As other projects in
comparative cultural analysis have shown, similar terms may refer to different
phenomena (Lamont 1992), and meanings become clearer in contrast. Yet the
overwhelming majority of works engaging in comparative analysis and theorization
based on the study of Latin American and East European countries5
have focused on
macro-political and economic transformations, bracketing out social change. Indepth
empirical case studies taking a comparative perspective, especially those
based on fi eldwork, are few and far between.
Some of the diffi culties outlined above are due to the fact that none of the
participants of this issue are comparativists: they all have specifi c areas of expertise
and have performed in-depth case studies in individual countries. For all of them,
this is the fi rst attempt at cross-continental comparison. Although we succeeded in
fi nding some scholars whose fi eldwork spans both regions, in most cases we had to
bring together previously unconnected authors who work on similar topics in their
respective countries. In these cases, the original research was not designed as
forming part of a single comparative project, and thus the fi elds, data, and problems
were not always directly comparable. In order to partly compensate for these
limitations, we asked authors to write two parallel articles and then produce a joint
conclusion. These co-authored discussions compare and contrast the main fi ndings
from the main articles and outline a dialogue between the national cases analyzed.
However, this strategy was not always successful. Some topics (popular music,
religion, the military, and trade unions) had to be abandoned, either because we were
unable to fi nd an author in one of the regions or because the authors were unable to
engage in productive dialogue.
This issue does not aspire to perform a systematic comparison between Latin
American and post-Soviet countries, which would have been impossible given all
these diffi culties, as well as the limitations of a journal issue. However, it does
represent an attempt to test the coherence and theoretical relevance of this analytical
strategy using the example of topics as diverse as social movements, the politics of
memory, or agricultural land rights, all of which became crucial in the context of
post-authoritarian transformations (undoubtedly, the list of comparable objects
could be extended or modifi ed). Explicitly or implicitly, one of the core themes of all
the articles is the effect of neo-liberal policies in different spheres of society. Most
of the contributions to this issue deal with different aspects of change in Argentina
and Russia. This choice has much to do with the nationality and institutional
affi liation of the editors. Some papers, however, present an effort at comparative
refl ection on data collected in other Latin American and CIS countries such as Mexico,
Brazil, Moldova, or Latvia.
The fi rst part of the issue explores institutional shifts that occurred in the
framework of reforms aimed at political and economic modernization. The issue
opens with an article by Heredia and Kirtchik contrasting the experiences of economic
5 Przeworski 1991; Nelson et al. 1994; Lijphart and Waisman 1996; Linz and Stepan 1996;
Munck and Leff 1997; Haggard and Kaufman 2008.
Стр.10