SEER, 99, 2, APRIL 2021 390 down by the sort of obfuscating jargon so beloved of social scientists. This, it should be stressed, has nothing to do with the quality of the contributors’ English, which is uniformly excellent; it has more to do with the baffling terminology and impenetrable style that too many of them choose to employ. There are exceptions: the articles by Müller, Holmes and Enyedi stand out for their clarity. Given the importance of the subject-matter, and the urgency of making it a matter of general concern, the collection as a whole has to be reckoned a missed opportunity. University of Exeter Ian D. Armour Kalmus, Veronika; Lauristin, Marju; Opermann, Signe and Vihalemm, Triin (eds). Researching Estonian Transformation: Morphogenetic Reflections. University of Tartu Press, Tartu, 2020. xxi + 358 pp. Figures. Tables. Notes. References. Appendices. Index. €20.00. Can a whole country comprise a single case study of ‘planned’ social change over three decades? This is the challenge set by the present volume, which aims to trace the pathway followed by Estonia from the fall of the Soviet empire to the present day. The enterprise stands on two pillars. First, the authors deploy a massive corpus of survey data, coming from various waves of research conducted since 2002, whose focus is on both structural change and its perception by the Estonian population. This involved reconstructing the demographic landscape and the emergent forms of social stratification in the country, as well as drawing a profile of changing life-worlds and lifestyles, political participation, culture and media consumption, and more. The second key point is the attempt to provide a unifying interpretation of this huge data set — and of the related ‘large processes’ — through an overarching conceptual framework, namely Margaret Archer’s ‘morphogenetic approach’, thereby revealing the transformative patterns of Estonian society. The project seems particularly timely, and the chosen theoretical approach especially suitable. Transitions from authoritarian rule to democracy as a theme for social science has come in various historical waves, and the guiding idea of most studies has been to model ideal pathways from closure to openness, often from chaos to stability. As regards Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet empire, the story has been told in two opposing ways. Heroic narratives describe the epochal success of countries making their way from beingSovietsatellitestobecomingmembersoftheEuropeanUnionandAtlantic Alliance. Therefore, their developmental path is characterized as a process of liberation, emancipation, modernization, Europeanization, Westernization. Counter-narratives see the same process as a sequence of failures, emphasizing REVIEWS 391 the excessive social hardships, growing inequalities and undaunted corruption that here are seen as the true hallmarks of that historical play. According to this gloomy view, the social and cultural trauma of transition was never overcome, which also explains the current ‘populist’ surge in some countries. Failure is alternatively attributed to the legacy of the Soviet past, in the form of a persistent ‘civilizational incompetence’ (recalling Piotr Sztompka’s wellknown verdict), or to the backlash of brute Westernization. In either case, most studies fail to account for the specificity of the inner socio-cultural dynamics in each country, beyond the alternative between Westernization and nostalgia. Moreover, social science still has to account for the processes leading various East European countries from shared beginnings to divergent ‘post-colonial’ paths, avoiding the deceitful linearity of ‘master trends’. The present book addresses these research gaps, offering an original way to examinetheEstonian‘successstory’.Thechoiceofthemorphogeneticapproach as the methodological key to interpretation is profoundly consequential. The challenge lies in the fact that the authors throw this conceptual framework like a net over their data sets, in order to capture the underlying patterns, while the data collection was originally inspired by other theories. However, such a decision is not merely ad hoc, but results from the authors’ journey through social theory, which led to an appreciation of a conceptual framework that is particularly sensitive to transformations and diachronic transitions. In this sense, such a démarche amounts to what Niklas Luhmann called the method of ‘theoretical variation’ as hermeneutics of social facts. From this vantage point, four main internal mechanisms of change are identified: neoliberal reforms, digitalization, ethnic divide and generational dynamics. These are coupled...
Read full abstract