Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables
- Acknowledgments
- List of abbreviations
- Introduction
- PART I SOLIDARITY AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION
- PART II SOLIDARITY AND THE THEORY OF SOVIET-TYPE SOCIETY
- 4 Solidarity, modernization and class
- 5 Solidarity, culture and civil society
- 6 A theory of power relations in Soviet-type society
- PART III PROFESSIONALS AND SOLIDARITY
- PART IV CONCLUSION
- Notes
- References
- Index
- Soviet and East European Studies
6 - A theory of power relations in Soviet-type society
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of tables
- Acknowledgments
- List of abbreviations
- Introduction
- PART I SOLIDARITY AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION
- PART II SOLIDARITY AND THE THEORY OF SOVIET-TYPE SOCIETY
- 4 Solidarity, modernization and class
- 5 Solidarity, culture and civil society
- 6 A theory of power relations in Soviet-type society
- PART III PROFESSIONALS AND SOLIDARITY
- PART IV CONCLUSION
- Notes
- References
- Index
- Soviet and East European Studies
Summary
One of the fundamental concerns of critical sociology is the explanation of power relations as a dialectic of domination and resistance. In particular, what power resources enable domination and what power resources resistance? How are these resources used in the social relations which constitute this domination and resistance? And how are social groups constituted in this system of unequally distributed opportunities of action? In this chapter, I propose a theory of power relations in Soviet-type society that addresses these questions. In part III, I use this theory to explain the position of professionals in Soviet-type society generally, and to explain why Polish professionals participated in the Solidarity movement of 1980–81.
Domination in Soviet-type societies can be approached in generic terms, given that it is this common structure of domination which enables us to speak of different societies being of the same type. This structure of domination generates some common resources which enable resistance, but resistance does not take the same form in each setting. Resistance is also a consequence of agency and strategy, which has various outcomes that are not structurally determined. Thus, although Poland has been a Soviet-type society, Solidarity was not a structural outcome, even if its development was conditioned by the structure of the Soviet-type system.
To understand Solidarity's specificity, one must nevertheless recognize how both the movement and its opponents used generic resources of the Soviet-type system in their conflict with one another.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Professionals, Power and Solidarity in PolandA Critical Sociology of Soviet-Type Society, pp. 196 - 234Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1991