Not by Bread Alone: Social Support in the New Russia by Melissa L. s> Caldwell (review)

Abstract

562 SEER, 83, 3, 2005 stories, ritualsand world-views' (p. 32I) which entrepreneursuse 'as a toolkit ' to resolve current problems. Culture is about discourses rather than attitudes or institutions. The objective past is ransackedby current cultural entrepreneurs (including parties and political leaders) for 'usable pasts' (p. 325). The objective past limits the repertoire of usable-pasts but that represents no more than a challenge to the ingenuity of current cultural entrepreneurs.The cultural legacy does not impose itself 'by sheer inertia' (P. 320). Department ofPolitics W. L. MILLER University ofGlasgow Caldwell, Melissa L. Not by BreadAlone:SocialSupport in theNew Russia. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA and London, 2004. XV+ 242 PP. Illustrations.Notes. Bibliography. Index. $21.95: f14.95 (paperback). COPING with economic hardshiphas attractedcomment from scholarsacross the social sciences and this ethnographic account, based around the life of a Moscow soup kitchen, is an important contribution to our understandingof how we should approachsuch issues. Following a somewhat muddled attempt, in chapter one, to draw a distinctionbetween 'survival'per se and 'makingdo' in the Russian context, chapter two details the variety of strategies,from multiplejob holding, to the utilization of workplace materials for informal activities, to the hoarding of food in old containers, employed by Muscovites to facilitate their 'survival'. The underlyingpremiseis thatthesepracticesof 'makingdo' areonlypossible through co-operation and that a 'sense of collectivity is crucial' (p. 37). Russian collectivity reveals itself in various forms:shared shopping trips, the handing of beer bottles to needy pensioners, and the passing of ticketmoney along the bus. Yet, scatteredamong these are suggestionsthatRussiansin, for example, assessingthe futurediscountedbenefitsof the workversuseducation choice, may resemblehomo economicus a littlemore than thistext acknowledges. Caldwell does recognize the economic motive, but her contention that 'through collective efforts to manipulate the system, Muscovites graft social relations onto economic interests'(p. 33) does not convince this reader that Russians are somehow behaviourallydistinct. Certainly the rich vignettes of life in the soup kitchen serve to underminepopular perceptions of the role of a soup kitchenbut do they reallyshed light upon the behaviouralmotivations of Russiansper se?I would contend that one would not have to traveltoo far in 'capitalist'Europeto find similarlyrichtapestriesof social behaviour. Chapter three examines how Muscovites mobilize informal exchange networksto circulatescarceresourcesand ispremisedon the assumptionthat, in the absence of 'the socially disruptive' influence of money, market relationshipsare replaced by those based on mutual assistanceand altruistic gift exchange. In this frameworkthe emergent societal organizationprovides the 'public goods' which the market would normally fail to deliver. Indeed, the role of social capital is captureddelightfullywith referenceto a comment REVIEWS 563 by Irinawho has 'not one hundredRoubles, but one hundredfriends'(p. 76). While compelling and persuasive at times, particularly in the effort to distinguishbetween blat,a more 'rational'realization of homo economicus, and other pervasiveforms of informalexchange rooted in friendship,the chapter leaves the readerwith an airof confusion. The descriptionsof reciprocal'gift' transactions put the economist in mind of a commodity exchange with an expected flow of future value rather than of exchange rooted outside the market. Indeed, 'it is the potential for future exchange that sustains these relationships' (p. 86). In some senses this reflects that social scientists have perhapsnot fullyresolvedthe issue of giftversuscommodity, let alone how to place it in the Russiancontext. Chapter four examines what Caldwell terms the 'organic economy' of the Russian dacha and countryside. Concise and lucidly written, this chapter captures beautifully the essence of the Russian dacha. However, while bringing to life for the reader the complexity of the relationship Russians enjoy with the land, no sense is offeredof whether the 'countryside'is always used to its maximum potential or whether, when faced by economic crisis Russians are able to (or forced to) further exploit their 'dacha' resource in orderto 'makedo'. In chapter five, Caldwell argues persuasively that Russians delineate themselveson a range of themes into nashand nenash('ours'and 'not ours').It is within a given nashthat Russiansengage strategicallyin contributingto and benefitingfrom social capital. Such nashare not defined in terms of race and nationality, rather those 'identifiers' are supplanted by the possibility of reciprocalexchange. This iswhat Caldwellrefersto as 'strategicintimacy'. In chapter six Caldwell turnsto the Russian concept of hunger and argues that, for Muscovites, hunger is...