The social and economic transformation which is currently taking place in the Soviet Union will inevitably mean that children and young people today are going to experience a world very different from that of their parents. This creates an urgent need for research to examine notions of youth and childhood socialisation in a changing context. A study of this kind has three related purposes: the first is to look at the ways in which the attitudes and identities of Soviet youth today differ from that of their parents. The second is to develop our understanding of the institutional processes through which social identities are formed during childhood and youth. Thirdly, the answers to these two questions should help to inform social policies concerning young people in the Soviet Union. Prior to outlining my research programme I want to present the conceptual framework I am going to employ.
The study of youth has attracted a great deal of attention from social scientists. There are several reasons for this, including a tendency to assume that youth is a traumatic time of biological and social changes; that youth is often rebellious and poses a threat to the existing social structure; and that youth is a metaphor for social change. An immediate difficulty for anyone interested in youth studies is the fact that the experience of youth can vary between different societies, and also within the same society. It also varies historically as studies of student revolutionary movements in 19th century Russia and the counter cultures found in late 20th century Western Europe and the United States of America, testify. The reason for these difficulties results from the fact that youth as a category is socially constructed and historically determined.
Three conceptual frameworks are generally employed to account for youth matters. In terms of life course, youth is seen as a particular phase, a period in an individual's life history, the main biographical task being `transition to adulthood'. Much of youth unrest is seen to stem from the complexities of the period when new, adult, full-member status is obtained and an individual learns to cope with adult roles and come to terms with society at large. Psychological strains closely related to the social transition to adulthood, partly originating from physiological processes, add to the biographical pressure of the period. Thus, the life course perspective provides one frame of reference with which to analyse the whole range of processes which constitute `youth', and to locate it within a system of categories.
Another way to conceptualise youth is to apply a framework of age stratification. Youth as a distinct age group occupies a definite position in relation to other age groups which means that it is involved in clear-cut patterns of interaction with the former. The status of youth in society is usually low compared with that of older age groups. It is true that, in part, youth-related problems can be traced to young people's position in the social structure and to inequality of status. Striving for adulthood also means striving for better positions in society.
Finally, youth can be grasped through its relation to the historical context. The life course (biography) constitutes the first, nearest frame of reference around an individual, and is itself enclosed within a wider framework of social structure and age stratification. There is still another, still wider framework left - that of historical context, which contains both life histories and social structure. Therefore, both the life course and age stratification perspectives should be seen within a historical frame of reference. From a historical perspective youth should be referred to as a generation. Two types of generations are commonly mentioned in literature: biological and social (or sociological) ones.
Biological generation is defined according to the phase in a life course a person is in at the moment. Two age groups placed differently in the life course belong to dissimilar biological generations. Unlike biological generation, age cohort is defined in reference to social history. Although the definition is a quantitative one, it emphasises similarity versus dissimilarity of location in social history. Sociological generations are created out of age cohorts, that is of individuals belonging to one of several subsequent age cohorts, which are often divided with reference to a particular historical event. The rhythm of the generations succeeding each other concides with the page of social change and the calendar of history. Boundaries between generations are not clear-cut: there is a smooth and gradual transition from one generation to another. History leaves its imprint on the flow of successive age cohorts, thus creating distinctive differences between members of different cohorts.
The great surge in youth movements and cultures that the post-war world of the 50s and 60s had witnessed led to the universal recognition of youth as an object of social enquiry as well as a subject for academic scrutiny. As Erikson put it: "The study of youth movements, together with the societal reaction has become a major industry in the social science" (1968). Let me give a brief and sketchy account of the outcome of that protracted debate.
Erikson should be mentioned as among the most influential contributors to the discussion. His explanation is organised within the framework of developmental psychology. Youth as a certain stage in a life course is specified as a period of `time out', a `psychosocial moratorium', during entry into the society of adults. This also is a time of acute identity confusion, when identities obtained in childhood are questioned in the face of new, adult roles ahead, and new identities searched for to maintain the sense of integrity and continuity. Negative identities as well as `overidentification with heroes of cliques and crowds' (sometimes to the point even of a loss of identity) are interpreted as temporary defensive reactions against a sense of identity confusion. This pure life course approach was further improved and amplified in the author's later work Identity: Youth and Crisis (1968). The observation that the identity problem changes with the historical period forced the author to transform what was initially a psychosocial perspective into a psychohistorical one. Identity formation in the period of youth has started to be seen as a generational issue. With the introduction of an intergenerational and socio-historical framework youth was placed in a wider context, and the whole debate became more complex. The main task of youth was reinterpreted as not merely to enter society, but to enter history as well. Simultaneously, the role of ideology during the phase of identity formation was emphasised, with ideology being interpreted as a social institution geared to serve the guardian of identity. It was society at large and the older generations in particular that were viewed as the providers of `forceful ideals' for youth to follow. The societal outcome of the process of identity formation is that societies are `regenerated in their life styles', and thus adolescents operate as a `vital regenerator' in the process of social evolution.
A purely structuralist account of the issue is represented in Eisenstadt's From Generation to Generation (1956). Youth is described as a period of transition from the world of childhood to that of society at large. Since both worlds are built on the opposite integrative principles - family life is regulated by ascriptive particularistic principle, while society operates according to universalistic achievement criterion - the passage from childhood to adulthood is not a smooth one, implying a serious change in behaviour and emotional attitudes. Consequently, groups of youth homogeneous in age are seen as attempting to retain a particularistic ascriptive identity, at least in a separate narrow sector of society, thus lessening the strain of transition. The main function of youth groups, he argues, is to integrate young people into society. Discontinuity in values with the previous generation is seen as a necessary component in the process.
The startling thing about youth groups is the revolt they often display against the generation of their parents. There are a number of studies dealing with parent-youth conflict. The prime contribution they have made to the debate about youth concerns the role of parents as socialising agencies in times of rapid social change. The parents' attempt to apply to their children the `cultural content' they have been socialised into and which is inappropriate in a new social context puts pressure upon youth and stirs up a generational conflict (Davis 1973: 89).
To specify the matter further, a significant point that should be taken into consideration is the shaping of a the wider historical context in which socialisation of youth takes place. The fact is that "youth movements appear at one particular time in history rather than at another" (Braungart 1975: 259). The most obvious answer is that youth movements are to a large extent shaped by their historical location.
Despite the fact that sociology of youth is a well-developed area of study, there is still place for research. The approach I am proposing is to look at youth in terms of socialiation, and at socialiation in terms of history. At the age of adolescence each next birth cohort is confronted by the tasks which are largely the same: learning adult occupational and marital roles, acquiring full-member status in society. But the process itself is placed within a definite segment of social history. That broader historical context shapes the tasks of socialisation in a particular way, making the process by which this birth cohort is socialised a unique one. Thus, from a historical perspective the youth socialisation process is ever new. Consequently, birth cohorts can be grouped into larger units according to the historical context into which they happened to be socialised. Members of those larger birth cohorts which were socialised in a particular way shaped by historical context I will refer to as generations.
As far as youth is a social construction, the socialisation of youth is a matter for historical analysis. Applying a socio-historical perspective to socialisation of youth, that is treating it historically, against a broader societal background, would include a number of separate aspects.
Firstly, all the forces operating in the process of socialisation are historically variable: patterns of parent-children relations are historically constructed. Secondly, the social structure into which youth is supposed to be socialised is itself subject to historical transformation: social expectations addressed to the young are liable to change. Finally, the wider historical context also influences individuals, thus forming a reality into which they are to be socialised.
This means that by entering society individuals enters history. Therefore, forming identities as members of all kinds of social groups (occupational, ethnic, cultural etc.) they also perceive themselves as involved in a historical process and identify themselves with members of the previous and the future generations. Consequently, socialisation can be seen as a societal process of `generation construction' and generational change. Each next generation appears in certain points different and in others similar to the generation prior to it.
The model of historical analysis of youth-related issues is by no means new. A number of studies have focused on the history of youth, describing how the image and actual content of youth varies with historical period (Gillis 1984), or how a slight temporal lag marked with a major historical event creates an enormous dissimilarity between birth cohorts, turning them into two different sociological generations (Elder 1974/5), or how even the content of youth revolt, and the substance of generational conflict, depends on the historical period (Feuer 1969). Furthermore, history can be viewed as a passage of generations, thus constituting a force in the process of social change (Abrams et al. 1982).
What is meant by generation? Feuer defines generation according to, firstly, commonness of age, secondly, commonness of experience obtained in the formative years and, thirdly, "disillusionment with and opposition to older age groups" (Feuer 1969: 25). Mannheim's definition of generation stresses identity of location in a socio-historical process which may be considered as the source of common experience. It is in Abrams's definition - the most recent one of the three mentioned - that the notion of identity is introduced, apparently under the influence of Erikson's argument. He defines members of the same generation as being characterised by a common identity. In summary, there are five points underlying the concept of generation: the commonness of age and historical location creates the similarity of experience which creates a similarity of identity, which then leads to disillusionment and opposition towards the members of previous generations. However, it is not clear why disillusionment and resistance to older age groups, mainly parents, arise. Reasons for the opposition remain obscure. Thus, there is a gap in the definition of generation.
Opposition towards senior generations is probably linked to the process of identity formation and explained in terms of the latter. The concept of identity is relatively new, hence it is not clearly specified. What binds the concept of identity and socialisation together is that both can be grasped through social interaction and group processes. Social identity is defined as an individual's knowledge of belonging to a certain social group. Accordingly, individuals sharing common social self-identification are referred to as a social group (Hogg and Abrams 1988; Tajfel 1981). Socialisation can be seen as a gradual process of becoming a member of various sorts of groups (peer, community, organisation, society at large etc.). The process of identity construction - personal as well as social identities - is implicated in the concept of socialisation. Therefore, socialisation can be interpreted as an identity formation process.
Abrams treats identity historically as a matter related both to personal and social histories. Identity is interpreted as a self-consciousness of participation of life history in social history and vice-versa. Accordingly, identity formation is viewed as a specifically historical entry into some specific historical configuration (1982: 241).
The link between identity and history is indeed a notable one. Among the groups an individual belongs to there is one with very unclear boundaries, that is society as a major national and cultural entity. As any other social group it serves as an object of identification, although identification with this group to a large extent is not only a psychological state but an ideological creation. Identifcation with this group includes identification with group history (Babad 1983), because this group is not confined to its current state, but extends to the group past and implies future as well. Thus, indeed entering society means also entering history. Not only does one need to define oneself as a member of that major group - society at large , one also perceives one's membership in terms of one's image of the group which is chiefly a personal construction. History for the group is also conceived subjectively. It is true that every generation rewrites history anew. An individual is quite literally socialised into history, namely to his own personal vision of history. To define it sharply, the future creates history and the past.
While social identities are being formed throughout the life course, the phase of youth is marked by the intensity of identity formation. It is caused by the fact that those wider socio-cultural identities are being formed in the period of youth. Erikson notes two factors which require further consideration. Firstly, a common recognition that during the youth phase an individual is closer to history than at any other span of his life course; secondly, ideological susceptibility (sensitivity) of the young is more intense (Erikson 1968). Why do ideologies and history appear so influential in youth?
Both facts seem to be related to each other and associated with the process of identity formation. This arises out of the specific encounter with the future in the age of youth. The notion of the future has a special significance for youth. It is in youth that individuals are confronted with the future, the latter becomes tangible and urgent. In youth they cease to be protected and are no longer guided by the authority of family and parents. They are supposed to act by themselves, independently. Therefore, ideologies attain special importance as they provide guidelines for life strategies to be formed. Ideologies, in fact, come to replace parental authority. Through ideologies, complementarity of past and future is achieved and time-continuity is maintained. In youth, individuals find themselves moving out of the world of family into that of society. Youth is a time when ideologies are not simply assumed, but rather searched for and explored. Ideologies finally chosen are those which provide better guidance and are more relevant to society in its current state. Therefore, youth appears very sensitive to the wider historical context and subject to historical influences. Though it is true that major historical events leave their impact on each age group, history has far greater consequences for the young. This is what the notion of `proximity to history' means.
I would accept that the acquisition of value orientations and the exploration of ideologies typical for the young constitute part of the process of identity formation. By identity I mean an awareness of participation in society at large in its present historical configuration. It is mainly parents as socialising agencies who would provide the young with models of identity. The process of identity formation is shaped by a particular historical configuration of society in which it takes place. Socialisation of youth placed within the wider historical context would be seen as a process of constructing new generations, each of which is characterised by a new type of identity (Abrams 1982). However, a generational shift occurs only in periods of rapid social change.
In the case of small scale societies characterised by a slow pace of social change the historical configuration of society in which individuals are socialised does not differ essentially from that of their parents. Transition to adulthood goes smoothly. The young take on identity patterns of their parents which still fit the situation, providing perfect guidelines for life strategies. Moreover, the shift to adulthood is highly institutionalised. Youth is either integrated into the kin-structure or segregated into an age set, a group created to guide young individuals in their passage to adulthood. Hence, there is no place for opposition towards parents that would lead to various kinds of social tension. On the contrary, there exists a sense of unity and solidarity between the coming generation and the generation of parents (Bettelheim 1963). The word `generation' here is used to denote biological rather than social difference between parents and youth. Since the latter reproduces identities of the former, the type of identity is common: parents and youth belong to one and the same sociological generation. No shift in identity occurs, and therefore no new generation is constructed. A high degree of social continuity is therefore characteristic of small scale societies. No wonder that in periods of stability and continuity, as the succession of biological generations is witnessed with little or no change between them, time is perceived as cyclical.
Compared with small scale societies, contemporary societies undergo rapid social changes. Heterogeneity, typical of modern societies, adds to the complexity of changes. A smooth transition to adulthood is no longer possible. An individual cannot rely on parents' identity patterns, since the latter have become inadequate in a novel historical context. The contradiction arises between models of identity an individual learned from parents and the social contexts in which those models do not fit. Thus, youth finds itself searching for new identities that would be relevant in the present historical context. The situation creates double pressure: from biography and from history. The future is perceived as obscure and dubious, so that one cannot lean on past experience (Babad 1983). Doubt about the future is normal for the situation of rapid social changes. Metaphorically speaking, `time is out of joint': the past seems to be disconnected with present and future. More than that, in order to arrive at the future one needs to reconstruct, at least subjectively, the past.
The situation creates a strong sense of dissimilarity with the parental generation. Members of the older generation, having failed to provide guidance and authority for the young, constitute a negative reference group, their values, life styles etc. being defied and rejected. The irrelevance of parents' identity models is displayed in the form of negative identities which the young are likely to assume in the search for some definitely positive ones, not based on the identities of their fathers (Erikson 1968). Age homogeneous groups are typically created in youth - to help individuals to pass through the period of uncertainty and identity confusion. They might be viewed as an attempt to institutionalise the opposition to the older generations. The opposition takes various forms: political affiliation, deviant behaviour, counter cultures etc. Identities (not necessarily negative ones but positive as well) that would come as a result of membership in youth groups are temporary. They are neglected and replaced by new ones later when an individual finally arrives at the adult status. It seems likely that `final identities' would differ both from parents' identity patterns or from those transitory identifications with various youth groups.
In the course of transition to adulthood new identities are assumed, and hence a new generation is being constructed. In this case parents and youth belong to different sociological generations. Thus, discontinuity in the historical process arises. The degree of discontinuity (the gap between generations) may be greater or lesser. Generations usually distinguished in the history of the 20th century are: the `roaring twenties', the `silent' generation of the middle 50s, `college youth' of the sixties etc. (Braungart 1975). A new generation that develops out of the process of socialisation is by no means a unified entity. Rather it is a composite body, split into what Mannheim called `generational units', which differ in their ways of arriving at new identities. Members of one and the same generation are divided by social factors - such as social origin or cultural background - which mediate the influence of broader historical context. Members of different units in fact participate in objectively the same but subjectively dissimilar histories. However, at certain moments in histories a sense of integrity and unity in a generation - sometimes referred to as `generational consciousness' - would prevail over segmentation of a generation. A generation becomes explicit and declared: the members identify themselves as constituting one generation as opposed to that of their parents.
The rapid pace of social, economic and political change, which the Soviet Union is currently experiencing, not only affects larger social institutions, but individual life histories and the biographies of generations. This generational shift, occuring in the period of marked historical change would, in my view, be an interesting object for empirical investigation. The key questions around which this research would be built are as follows:
Accordingly, the sample will include young people of different social backgrounds, and different age grades (from 15 to 25). The survey will include participants of various youth groups and organisations (politically militant, culturally defiant etc.). The survey will also involve the parents of the young people.
Babad, E.Y., Birnbaum, M., and Berne, K.D. (1983) The Social Self: Group Influences on Personal Identity. Beverley Hills, California: Sage.
Berger, P.L.and Luckmann, T. (1971) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Bettelheim, B. (1963) The Problem of Generations. In E. Erikson (ed.) Youth: Change and Challenge. New York: Basic Books.
Braungart, R.G. (1975) Youth and Social Movements. In S.E. Dragastin & G.H. Elder (eds) Adolescence in the Life Cycle. Washington: Hemisphere.
Davis, K. (1973) The Sociology of Parent-Youth Conflict. In H. Silverstein (ed.) The Sociology of Youth: Evolution and Revolution. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1956) From Generation to Generation. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Elder, G.H. (1975) Adolescence in the Life Cycle. In S.E. Dragastin & G.H. Elder (eds) Adolescence in the Life Cycle. Washington: Hemisphere.
Elder, G.H. (1974) Children of the Great Depression: Social Change in Life Experience. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Erikson, E. (1959) Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: Norton.
Erikson, E. (1968) Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton.
Feuer, L.S. (1969) The Conflict of Generations. New York: Basic Books.
Gillis, J.R. (1974) Youth and History: Tradition and Change in European Age Relations, 1770-Present. Academic Press.
Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (1988) Social Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London & New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Mannheim, K. (1952) The Problem of Generations. In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Musgrove, F. (1964) Youth and the Social Order. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Neuberg, P. (1972) The Hero's Children: the Postwar Generation in Eastern Europe. Constable.
Parsons, T. (1963) Youth in the Context of American Society. In E. Erikson (ed.) Youth: Change and Challenge. New York: Basic Books.
Parsons, T. (1964) Age and Sex in the Social Structure of the United States. In Essays in Sociological Theory. New York: Free Press.
Poole, U.E. (1989) Adolescent Transitions: A Life Course Perspective. In K. Hurrelmann & U. Engel (eds) The Social World of Adolescents: International Perspectives. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Strauss, A.L. (1977) Mirrors and Masks: the Search for Identity. London: Martin Robertson.
Tajfel, H. (1981) Human Groups & Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: C.U.P.