|
Gorny, Eugene (2004): Russian LiveJournal: National
specifics in the development of a virtual community. Version 1.0 of
13 May 2004.
Russian Community in
LiveJournal
RLJ as a deviation
The success of LJ among Russian users is amazing. Not only did it receive
numerous awards from Russian internet professionals [34],
but it has also become a “people’s site.” It was labelled
by media as “the most fashionable address on the web.” It
is used not only for keeping private or semi-private online journals
but also for receiving information and news, acquiring friends, socializing,
discussions and developing collaborative projects. It has become an
independent collective medium influencing traditional media and cultural
production at large and a significant part of Russian Internet culture.
Moreover, if in the West, in the context of the blogging revolution,
LJ is considered as one of many blogging services (and by no means the
central one), in Russia it has been perceived rather as the blog. The
power of its popularity together with the lack of knowledge about other
blogging tools has lead to the bizarre fact that LiveJournal (Zhivoj
Zhurnal or simply ZhZh in Russian) became the generic term for blog
as such so that the word is often applied to blogs that are by no means
related to the original LJ.
The external difference in social value is supplemented by internal
differences between LJ’s Russian and English speaking communities.
These differences were well described by Anatoly Vorobey (LJ username
“avva”), a young programmer of Russian origin living in
Jerusalem, Israel, who became in November 2001 the first LJ full-time
employer. [35]
The Russian segment of LJ differs significantly
from LJ as a whole, although now, three year after it was “established”,
not as strikingly as it was in the beginning. The overwhelming majority
of journals in LiveJournal are very personal and devoted mainly to
the events in the writer’s private life, a description of their
everyday activity and communication with people know in real life
such as relatives, friends and classmates and college fellows. In
Russian LJ, there were few such journals in the beginning; most journals
were used by their authors for discussions on cultural, political
and professional topics with a lot of people, including those whom
they didn’t know. This characteristic aspect has been much obliterated
during these three years; now Russian LJ has a lot of journals, which
are as personal as their American analogues. The main difference,
however, has remained intact; there is a very high level of connectedness
and communicativeness of Russian LJ in comparison with American LJ.
In spite of a great number of personal journals, not involved into
any “crowds” or conglomeration of journals, there remains
a communicative core in RLJ consisting of a several thousands of journals,
which are tightly interwoven with each other. There remains the common
communication environment in which the news spread quickly and discussion
about a certain political, literary or social issue can involve dozens
of journals and hundreds of interested users. LiveJournal in general
has never had such a high degree of fellowship and entwinement. [36]
The differences in demography and in typical uses of
the service can be added to this description. The resulting picture
is the following. Russian LiveJournal (RLJ) community shows a considerable
deviation from average blogging patterns both on the level of individual
blogs and on the level of the blogging community. These differences
are as follows: (1) an older average age of users; (2) the predominance
of adult professionals; (3) the content of personal journals often consists
of serious topics of discussion; (4) a greater degree of interconnection
between individual journals expressed in a larger number of “friends”
of the average user as well as in the phenomenon of RLJ celebrities
with the audience of hundreds and even thousands “friends of”
(readers); (5) the higher significance of reading other posts, which
sometimes exceeds the desire to keep one’s own journal; (6) an
influence upon online and offline media. To summarize, RLJ seems to
be older, more serious and more communal than LJ on average.
Explanation of the deviation
I argue that these deviations are determined by a complex of interrelated
factors such as (1) the multi-language environment of LJ; (2) the architecture
of the service; (3) the historical circumstances of the building of
the community; (4) the socioeconomic conditions in Russia; and, finally,
(5) the peculiarities of the Russian national character. Let us consider
all these factors in succession and then discuss their interconnection.
(1) Multi-language environment
From the very beginning, LJ was devised as a multi-language environment.
The introduction of Unicode in April 2002 [37]
as a universal encoding facilitated the use of various languages and
greatly contributed to LJ popularity among non-English users. There
is not an official account of how many languages are used in LJ. However,
the statistics found in LJ Translation Area [38]
shows that LJ interface and auxiliary pages have been translated (or
are being translated) into more than 30 languages . It seems logical
to assume that, if these languages [39]
were not used for writing journals, it is unlikely that the voluntary
translation teams would work at them.
The opportunity of writing in their native language and using the localized
interface has been important for many Russian users. Unlike European
users who often write their journals in English, Russians tend to write
in their own language - not necessary because they cannot do it in English,
but probably also “because the large Russian community makes it
more acceptable to write in something non-English”. [40]
(2) The architecture of the service [41]
As it has been noted before, in LJ individual blogs are interweaved
and integrated into a dynamic interactive system and this is one thing
that makes it different. Such popular blogging software and its related
web-services as Blogger (blogspot.com) and Movable Type (typepad.com)
are intended for work with an individual blog. The individual blog can
be written by a single author or a group, can provide an opportunity
for the author to create list of favourite blogs (“blogroll”)
and for readers an opportunity to comment on entries. Still, ideologically
and technically it remains the individual blog - an autonomous and separated
website consisting of entries and other files pertaining exclusively
to that website. There is not any close connection between different
blogs hosted by the same service provider, they are different websites,
different places. Blogger, for example, is then the only common software
used to run these blogs and blogspot.com is the place where they are
hosted. Generally, the individual blogs are independent from one another.
LiveJournal from the very beginning has been designed and built in a
different way. It has a much higher degree of interweaving of individual
blogs. All journals are kept on the same server in a single database.
Both technically and conceptually, all of them are collected in the
same place. It is also emphasized by the uniform style of all auxiliary
and service pages. Owing to this close integration of individual journals,
LJ could include numerous tools for amalgamation and communication between
journals which is ideologically and technically unfeasible in services
like Blogger. These include friends and friends-off lists, the friends
page, the comment tree, the unified identification of users within the
web site, the possibility (for paid users) to search users by location,
interests, age, etc. Moreover, the open source code of LJ allowed the
development of numerous external services for LJ by independent programmers
as well as creation other blogging sites based on LJ’s technology.
All these unification tools, being an advantage, at the same time make
LJ very dissimilar to the “regular” blogs. Therefore, many
bloggers and onlookers often regards LJ blogs as something insignificant,
designed for teenagers with their tendency towards party and idle talk
rather than for mature authors with their serious thoughts and individual
self-expression. This attitude certainly has some grounds: it is exactly
because it is so easy to get united that LJ has become a communication
paradise for schoolmates and students. For example, in the US, it is
not unusual for entire classes to use LJ to keep in touch - thus realising
the initial function for which it was created by Fitzpatrick. This opinion
is also supported by the statistics saying that the average age of LJ
users is 17-21 years old. This is rather approximate because many older
users often do not indicate their year of birth, however, this certainly
agrees with recent research data showing that 91% of 4.12 million registered
bloggers are under 30 years of age, and 51.5% are between the ages of
13 and 19 [42]. Gender distribution
of LJ users (34.5% males, 65.5% females; 20% unspecified) also correlate
with the general statistic on blogs stating the predominance of women.
As it was summarised in Perseus research, the typical blog seems to
be maintained by the young, mostly made up of young girls. [43]
To summarize, the main advantage of LiveJournal in comparison with other
blogging systems is its community-building architecture. Although LJ
might be less customizable than Blogger and other similar services,
it has the strongest “community feel”.
(3) The historical circumstances of the community building
Historically, the RLJ community was first populated not by the teenage
girls who form the majority of bloggers in the West but by mature professionals,
predominantly male, including internet workers, journalists, writers,
philosophers and artists. This intellectual and creative core contributed
to RLJ popularity by their example, word of mouth and numerous publications
in the media. The newly recruited users had to participate in the ongoing
creative process or at least to imitate creativity. Thus, LJ conceived
by its creator as a tool for keeping in touch between schoolmates unexpectedly
acquired in Russia the aura of a playground for intellectuals. This
aura has persisted on the later stages of RLJ development, although
now it is gradually fading. The use of RLJ as a source of the firsthand
information (for example, the users accounts on the acts of terrorism
they had witnessed) by the traditional media also strengthened its reputation
and popularity. The historical aspect of RLJ will be discussed more
detail in the section on the dynamics.
(4) The socioeconomic conditions in Russia
The age and demographic differences between RLJ and LJ as a whole can
be explained by the relatively poor socioeconomic conditions in Russia
reflected in limited Internet access for the younger generation. The
number of Internet users in Russia is estimated at between 10.2 million
(the total audience, including those who have ever used Internet regardless
of the frequency of use) to 4.2 million (the core audience, those using
the Internet at least three hours a week) which makes up 3.9 - 9.1%
of population - a meagre figure in comparison with 50-80% for the US
and Western Europe. The fact that the majority of Russians (up to 58%)
connect to the Internet from work and the low level of connectivity
in schools and universities may account for the demographic structure
of the RLJ population, the majority of which consists of adults, mostly
office workers. It may also explain perceptible oscillations in users’s
activity, which declines on weekends in RLJ as well as generally on
the Russian Internet.
(5) The peculiarities of the
Russian national character
The issue of interrelation between the national mentality and online
behaviour is probably one of the most obscure in the field of Internet
studies. Many people treat the notion of national character with suspicion,
as something non-scientific and relating rather to popular prejudices
than to positive knowledge. However, that is not true. We are aware
from our experience of perceptible differences in overt behaviour of
people that belong to different national cultures. By inference, we
can assume that these differences are derived from ones in covert mentality.
On the psychological level, the national character can be defined as
a totality of psychological characteristics peculiar to the members
of a given national culture that makes them different from members of
other cultures. Although national characteristics are subject to historical
change, the rate of this change is generally slow in comparison with
other aspects of social life because these characteristics are constantly
reproduced and consolidated by culture as a reservoir of shared values
and stereotypes of behaviour.
The internet as a global communication system has often been perceived
as a means of effacing differences between local cultures and, sometimes,
even as a tool of coercive unification of the world in accordance with
the values of liberalism and the American way of life. [44]
Apart from these political and ethical dimensions, the uniformity of
technical standards of Internet protocols, software and interfaces can
apparently influence the process of cultural unification, which can
be further intensified by the online interaction between members of
different cultures. However, it has been found that national cultures
are highly resistant to the unification impacts of the internet and
preserve their individuality. Linguistic differences are one of the
most visible factors in this process. As Olia Lialina put it, “It's
said that the Internet has no borders, but one is obvious. The border
of language. Languages trace new maps across the Internet...”
[45] However, language is not
an indifferent means of communication; it is connected with cultural
values and, through it, with the national character.
My hypothesis is that the deviations of RLJ from LJ as a whole (or,
to be more specific, from the English-language LJ) may be explained
to a certain degree by the influence of the Russian culture and national
character upon the users’ online behaviour. To substantiate this
hypothesis, a brief review of discussions on the Russian national character
may be useful.
A concept of the Russian national character was first clearly formulated
by Slavophiles and Westernizers, two opposing groups of Russian intellectuals
in 1840-1860s. The first held the uniqueness of Russian civilization
and promoted traditional values and institutions such as the Orthodox
Church with its collegiality (sobornost’) and the practice
of collective confession, a village community (mir), and the
traditional people’s assembly for resolving problems (zemski
sobor). The second believed that Russia could benefit from the
adoption of Western technology, liberal government and rationalism.
However, both groups have much in common in their vision of the Russian
character. Slavophile Ivan Kireyevsky argued that if the West represented
a triumph of the form and law, then Russia was governed by the spirit
and conscience. He was echoed by Konstantin Aksakov who maintained,
“In the West, they kill souls perfecting the forms of government
and police; conscience is substituted by the law, the inward impulses
by regulations; even charity is turned into mechanical work; in the
West, all is about the forms of the state”. The Westerners, such
as Chaadayev, Herzen, and Belinsky could not accept “the conservative
utopia” of Slavophiles’, but joined them in asserting the
specificity of the Russian national character and Russia’s unique
historical mission. [46]
Nikolai Berdyaev, a religious Russian philosopher (1874 - 1948), having
summarized and developed the preceding conceptualizations, listed the
following traits of Russian national character: ambivalence, i.e. convergence
of oppositions; catastrophic and eschatological consciousness; totalitarian
or holistic thinking; discontinuous behaviour, i.e. abrupt transitions
between passivity and activity; the readiness to sacrifice oneself for
others and voluntary acceptance of suffering; a tendency to anarchy
and the lack of discipline; amorphism, i.e. the negation of hierarchies
and rigid forms; personalism, i.e. the triumph of the spirit, conscience
and personal relationships over the law; communitarism and as opposed
to both Western individualism and socialization. Elucidating the latter
point Berdyaev noted: “Russians are communitarian but not socialized
in the Western sense, i.e. they do not acknowledge the primacy of a
society over the individual”. [47]
Although the historiosophical approach to the national character represented
by Berdyaev has often been criticized as speculative and producing stereotypes
rather than positive knowledge, most of its generalizations have been
later confirmed by anthropologists who relied on direct observation
as well as by social psychologists who used surveys and other experimental
methods.
Thus Wright Miller in his book “Russians as people” [48]
based on his visits to Russia from 1934 to 1960 noted in Russians a
clear contrast between public and “official” relationships,
on the one hand, and private and personal ones, on the other, which
he explained by the urge of direct expression and distrust of authorities
and public values as opposed to personal relationships. He also described
a “strong, largely unconscious sense of community” and a
negative attitude to individualism. Other characteristics mentioned
by Miller, such as an oscillation between melancholy and orgiastic outbursts,
a lack of organization and punctuality, and interest in people rather
than things are also reminiscent of earlier descriptions of the Russian
national character.
Dean Peabody in his seminal work “National Characteristics”
based on analysis of empirical data of surveys, in which members of
various nationalities assessed psychological characteristics of other
nations, as well as a variety of other methods, dedicated a chapter
to the Russians. He found out that in personal relations the central
characteristic of Russians was
a need for affiliation: a need for intensive
face-to-face relationships, and satisfaction from warm and personal
contact with others. Russians were not tensely anxious about others'
opinions of them, and lacked strong needs for approval and
autonomy that were prominent for the American comparison
group. They valued people for what they are, not for what they have
done. Neither group showed strong needs for dominance, securing positions
of superordination, or for controlling or manipulating others and
enforcing authority over them. [49]
He also described dependence on authority and the group
as a prominent trait of the national character:
Though without a strong need for submission, the
Russians showed a need for dependence on others for emotional support,
on the group and authority to provide moral rules for impulse control,
and on authority to provide the initiation, direction, and organization
of performance that are not expected from the average individual…
There is a profound acceptance of group membership and relatedness,
unthreatened by mutual dependence. [50]
Peabody also found out that in expression of emotions
and impulses the Russians showed a high degree of expressiveness and
emotional aliveness and surpassed Americans in freedom and spontaneity
in criticism. Russians tended to accept basis impulses such as “oral
gratification, sex, aggression, and dependence” as normal and
“to give in to these impulses freely and live them
out” rather than suppress them. [51]
He also discussed contradictoriness that has traditionally
been considered the most prominent trait of Russian personality when
neither of conflicting tendencies is suppressed but all appear at the
manifest level. The conflicts between trust and mistrust, activity and
passivity, optimism and pessimism were given as particular manifestations
of the Russian contradictoriness.
A different approach has been presented by Daniel Rancour-Laferriere,
professor in Russian literature of University of California. In his
book “The slave soul of Russia” [52],
he collected a vast amount of material from Russian history and literature
and scrutinized, among other things, such phenomena as the cult of suffering,
infant swaddling, the holy fool, the communal bathhouse, Russian collectivism,
and strong, long-suffering women. He applied the psychoanalytic method
to explain the peculiarities of Russian culture and generalized his
finding in the concept of “moral masochism”. His book gained
a rather notorious publicity and he has been blamed for using an inadequate
code to decode Russian culture. Thus, his interpretations of the readiness
of Russians to sacrifice one’s own interests for collective goals,
given in psychoanalytic terms, may seem debasing, regardless of his
reiterated reservations about the non-sexual character of “moral
masochism” and the assertion that the masochistic attitude contributes
to the beauty of Russian culture. However, despite his eccentric interpretations,
most of his observations are in line with the research tradition.
In the early 1980s Russian sociologist Kseniya Kas’yanova conducted
research on the Russian national character, in which she combined empirical
methods with the interpretative technique of cultural studies. The resulting
book circulated for some time in Samizdat, was first published in 1995
and republished in 2003 [53].
Kas’yanova compared data received by using the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory test (MMPI) [54]
on wide samplings of Americans and Russians. The test, first introduced
by Hathaway and McKinley in 1941, assesses personal characteristics
by asking a person which of a list of traits and characteristics describe
her or him or to indicate which behaviours and hypothetical choices
he or she would make. The version of the test she used included 566
questions. She analyzed the discrepancy between two medians through
all the scales of the test and focused her attention of the generalized
psychological profile of Russians. The underlying idea was that the
profile described a model of behaviour determined by stable psychological
characteristics in a population that, in its turn, was influenced by
a culture. She argued that the discrepancy between the medians showed
stable “social archetypes” and that through their analysis
it was possible to reveal the principles on which particular models
of behaviour were based and thus to describe a national character. The
central qualities she found in Russians were “patience, consistent
abstention, self-limitation, self-abnegation for the sake of another,
the others, the whole world” [55].
At the same time, Russians had a high level on such scales as social
introversion, femininity and depression, as well as the lack of inner
adaptation, social imperturbability and a disposition for deviant and
delinquent behaviour. She proposed an interesting explanation for this
apparent contradiction: “Social introversion means a person’s
directedness towards his small, primary group. In this group, a person
is very sensitive to others’ opinions. His sensitivity is, as
it were, selective. A person chooses for himself people whose opinion
is important for him. To others he reveals a strong social imperturbability”.
[56] She also pointed out the informality
of personal relationships among Russians, which are based not so much
on social status as on the non-formal reputation of a person, and found
a partial explanation of this fact in the deep alienation of Russians
from the state, which is governed by ideological systems alien to the
people and their traditional “social archetypes”.
This duality became a central topic for another researcher, economist
and sociologist Alena Ledeneva. Born in Siberia, she obtained her PhD
at Cambridge and now is a reader in the School of Slavonic and East
European Studies at the University of London. Being an expert in informal
economy, corruption, and economic crime in Russia, she focuses her attention
on the social, economic and political implications of social networks
and informal exchange. She points out that “Russia is a country
of unread laws and unwritten rules” and scrutinizes the nature
of these unwritten rules. She argues that “reliance on unwritten
rules is an outcome of the inefficiency of formal rules and the mechanisms
for enforcing them, on one hand; and people’s lack of respect
for the formal rules and their exploitative attitude towards formal
institution, on the other” [57].
She holds that scarcity of life, the weakness of the state and mistrust
in official institutions resulted in the fact that “the ability
to solve a problem hinges not so much on one’s own capacity, as
on the power of the network that one can mobilize” [58].
The informal personal networks pervading Russian life determined the
significance of such phenomena as blat, or non-monetary exchange
of favours at the state’s expense [59]
and the specific forms of Russian economic crime [60].
But at the same time, they account for the exceptional role of friendship
in Russian culture. The unwritten ethical rules analyzed by Ledeneva
are based on the mutual obligation to help among the network members.
Comparing the generalized images of the Western and Russian mentalities,
Ledeneva opposes the Western independence, individualism, reliance on
oneself and unwillingness to help out or accept help from others to
the Russian dependence on others, ‘collectivism’ and an
assumption that people can always ask for help and must help themselves.
She also emphasizes the non-formal and highly personalized nature of
such relationships: “Russian networks are overwhelmingly personalized
and, as such, are distrustful of forms of depersonalized exchange involving
organizations, contracts and distance”. [61]
The characteristics described above can be found
in RLJ, which in this respect is a continuation of the Russian way of
thinking and living. Aleksander Zhitinsky reflects on the construction
of RLJ:
It seems to me that at a certain stage one’s
journal becomes so deeply rooted in the common network, ties itself
by a thousands threads with other journals and LJ in general that
one seems to cease to belong to oneself.
One becomes a slave of one’s own journal; of this monster that
demands from you new positions, thoughts, stories, jokes.
That is, there emerges something like a responsibility - or slightly
higher - a sense of duty. … Because the elimination of one small
chain breaks the solidity of the chain or, more exactly, the breach
of a mesh damages the network.
We deeply penetrated each other, fell in love and ceased to love,
already became accustomed, became indifferent, now we just scan the
lines and blame ourselves for pusillanimity preventing us form cleaning
our friends lists but …it is our world, and we are also a part
of this world. …
We are much more collectivists than we think.
This is why we have to keep our journal, to harp on the same string,
to help ourselves and others to create this fragile world that can
be destroyed so easily. [62]
Summary
The architecture of LJ facilitating community building has fitted well
the Russian mentality that attaches value to friendship and informal
networks. Additional factors have played a role in the evolution of
RLJ. First, the multi-language environment provided by LJ has greatly
contributed to LJ popularity among Russian users many of whom feel themselves
uncomfortable with English. Second, since joining and using LJ has always
been free of charge (for some time, to create an account an invitations
code from another LJ user was required), the users who could not pay
(for example, because they did not have a credit card) could nevertheless
use the service. Third, the location of LJ service outside Russia made
it independent of Russian jurisdiction, giving the Russian users more
freedom of expression and defending them from possible outrage of the
state. Fourth, RLJ was first populated by users who had authority and
could influence others to adopt the innovation. Finally, the greater
than average interconnection between the individual journals, the custom
of having many “friends” and the significance of reading
and commenting in the journals of others found in RLJ correspondence
to such a trait of the Russian national character as ‘collectivism’
as a preference for group as opposed to individual self-identification
or, at least, as an essential aspect of the latter. Regardless of the
deep political, economic and social changes in Russia during the last
decade, the principle of collectivism, revealing itself in a wide spectrum
of phenomena ranging from spiritual sobornost’ (collegiality)
to everyday conviviality, has remained deeply embedded into the national
psyche and resulted in the ‘communal’ use of Internet technologies,
even those designed for personal self-expression.
______________________
[34]  Russian Online
Top, an online contest,
(7 January 2004).
[35] Brad Fitzpatrick (bradfitz).
Good news!, 14 November 2001,
(3 April 2004).
[36] Anatoly Vorobey (avva).
russkij ZhZh [The Russian LJ],
(4 February 2004).
[37] Brad Fitzpatrick (bradfitz).
UTF-8, 14 April 2002,
(3 April 2004).
[38] Translation Area
(1 February 2004).
[39] Apart from English, the
list includes the following languages: Belarusian, Brazilian Portuguese,
Chinese (in two versions, Simplified and Traditional), Danish, Dutch,
Esperanto, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi,
Hungarian, Icelandic, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Latin, Latvian, Lithuanian,
Malay, Norwegian (in two versions, Bokmål and Nynorsk), Polish,
Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish, Ukrainian.
[40] Comment of evan (24 March
2004),
(24 March 2004).
[41] The argument in this sub-chapter
is largely based on the interview with Anatoly Vorobiev (avva) conducted
on 12 January 2004 via ICQ.
[42] The Blogging Iceberg - Of
4.12 Million Hosted Weblogs, Most Little Seen, Quickly Abandoned,
(15 January 2004).
[43] Ibid.
[44] Paul Treanor. Internet as
hyper-liberalism, 1996,
(1 April 2004)
[45] Florian Schneider and James
Allan. RUNET: NetCulture in Russia: Interview with Olia Lialina, 21
February 2000,
(17 November 2003)
[46] See for details: Nicholas
V.Riasanovsky. A study of Russia and the West in the Teaching of
the Slavophiles. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952;
Andrzej Walicki. The Slavophile controversy: history of a conservative
utopia in nineteenth-century Russian thought. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1975.
[47] N. A Berdyaev. Russkaya
ideya. Osnovnye problemy russkoj mysli XIX i nachala XX veka [The Russian
Idea. The main issues of the Russian thought in the 19th and the early
20th century] in O Rossii i russkoj kul'ture: Filosofy
russkogo posleoktyabr'skogo zarubezh'ya. Moscow: Nauka, 1990. S.
43- 271. See also an English translation: Nikolai A Berdyaev. The
Russian Idea. (Translated by R. M. French.), Geoffrey Bles, London,
1947.
[48] Wright W. Miller. Russians
as People. Phoenix House, London, 1960.
[49] Dean Peabody. National
Characteristics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, p.150.
[50] Peabody, op.cit.,
p.151.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Daniel Rancour-Laferriere.
The slave soul of Russia: moral masochism and the cult of suffering.
New York University Press, New York; London, 1995.
[53] Kseniya Kas'yanova. O russkom
nacional'nom haraktere [On the Russian national character]. Moskva:
Akademicheskij proekt, 2003
[54] Dahlstrom William, G. &
Welsh George, S. An MMPI Handbook. A guide to use in clinical practice
and research. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1960.
[55] Kas’yanova, op.cit.,
p. 205.
[56] Kas’yanova, op.cit., p.
290.
[57] Alena Ledeneva. Unwritten
rules: how Russia really works. London: Accenture- BP - Centre for European
Reform, 2001, p. 9.
[58] Ledeneva. Unwritten rules,
p.30.
[59] Alena Ledeneva, A. Russia's
economy of favours: blat, networking, and informal exchanges. New York,
Cambridge University Press, 1998.
[60] Alena Ledeneva and Marina
Kurkchiyan. (Eds) Economic crime in Russia. Hague, London, Kluwer Law
International, 2000.
[61] Ledeneva. Unwritten rules,
p.40.
[62] Aleksandr Zhitinskij (maccolit).
Filosoficheskoe (Philosophical), 26 December 2003,
(13 March 2004).
|
