Philosophy

Markozova O., PhD (Sociology)

Kharkiv National Automobile and Highway University, Ukraine

THE ACHIEVEMENT OF HUMAN SUCCESS

IN A SOCIETY OF RISKS

The phenomenon of human success is not an entirely new scientific problem. However, in spite of the fact that various aspects of human success have been thoroughly investigated by many scientists [1–8], a significant number of issues are still under discussion. One of such controversial issues is how to achieve success in a modern society of risks.

Since the time when the period of so-called Soviet “perestroika” was declared and during the first decade of Ukraine’s independence, despite the deceitful statement of rapid development, the reforms in Ukraine have been implemented very slowly. The social transformations in the country were the result of the transition from a totalitarian society to a free, democratic society, based on market relations.

People had high expectations for this process and its outcome. These expectations were formed under the influence of an idealistic idea about people’s life in Western countries. Almost everybody was sure, that the transition to the new socio-economic relations would immediately increase people’s independence and activity in all spheres of life and, therefore, would result in the growth of their welfare. Unfortunately, even the first years of independence brought quite contradicting results, massive disappointment and people’s dissatisfaction. The question of unsuitability of the Western model of life arose, and an intense discussion about the specific model of Ukraine’s further development broke out.

In reality, the main reason was the fact that neither the authorities nor ordinary people were not ready for life under new conditions. Politicians and officials of different levels were interested in personal enrichment struggling against criminal organizations that were the first who adapted to the new market relations. Narrow-minded people, who had not been taught to be initiative and take independent decisions under former Soviet regime, were waiting passively for the time when people’s well-being in the country would improve by itself.

Despite some changes in the economic sphere connected with the creation of potential conditions for people’s transition from passive to independent and active stand in life, the demand for immediate individual economic initiative under the lack of government support was perceived by many people as not like gaining new opportunities, but as the loss of former guarantees provided by the society. The point is that most people who had grown up and had been educated in the former Soviet Union in the frames of the Soviet way of life, were not able even to imagine what to do with economic freedom, how to conduct business, and eventually how to leave the job which a person had been dedicated to for many years. Therefore, one of the main reasons for the rejection of the activities aimed at achieving life success under market economy was the risk to make changes or even to lose the previous identity.

The change of identity can be the result of internal motivation and purposeful human actions as well as the objective life conditions. Thus, after Ukraine’s transition to the relations of market economy, many people, for various objective reasons, found themselves in the state of social and status discomfort and under identification pressure. Former economic relations and status positions were lost. New socio-class groups and statuses were formed and the reference groups had changed or become vague.

In this respect, everybody had two options: to remain in the zone of minimal personal and economic comfort, or to come out of this zone, reidentify oneself adapting to the new status and, eventually, achieve success in life under the new socio-economic and political conditions. It is clear that the second way was difficult and risky, so not everybody followed this way. Most of the people stayed in their former job, waiting for the changes and better times.

Analyzing possible risks in the process of lifestyle changing, Y.I. Giller denoted that “The personal risk is dealt not only with the process of struggle with other people for changing the situation, but with possible consequences for this person in the situation that has changed. Thus, if a person decides to become an entrepreneur, it is supposed to assume permanent responsibility for their own actions in a new position of an active subject. They will have to worry constantly about the profit and the security of the company as well as their own safety, the staff welfare, and to defer to regulatory authorities.” [9, p. 55].

In this respect, taking a decision to make some changes in personal life, people realise that they will be “pushed” out of their usual environment into some new and unstable one, and, therefore, have to analyse the costs and possible benefits of such a decision, estimating the ratio between the risk and the benefits caused by the adaptation to the new conditions. It is evident that leaving the comfort zone and making human efforts will not necessarily bring success. Such speculations and concerns can often become a serious obstacle to an activity aimed at achieving success in life. Therefore, many people, even being aware of possible benefits, are afraid of taking a risk, such as changing a job, and choose the adaptive behaviour strategy.

At the same time, in the period of reconstruction there were some people who dared completely change their life and started a business. V.A. Yadov describes the process of how ordinary workers and employees risked to leave their personal comfort zone and became shuttle traders. Не states, “Finding themselves in a difficult life situation, they changed voluntarily or were made to change the trajectory of their life and, consequently, transformed the system of habitual practices, which eventually turned into their everyday life” [10, p. 86].

While changing their usual employment into a risky business, in a state institution these people, naturally, faced with the necessity to adapt to a different system of values, reference groups and social institutions. V.A. Yadov indicates, “At first, almost everybody tried to keep to their identity of a teacher, an engineer, or another professional. Not everyone managed to overcome the identity crisis and adapt to the new living environment. Some of them decided to return to their profession.” [10, p. 90].

It happened for various reasons. Someone could not adapt to a new type of activity and realised that business, particularly trade, was not for them. Others did not cope with the moral aspect of the new lifestyle, as there was not a positive image of a business person in the collective consciousness. The people who were brought up in the Soviet Union considered the frame of a “businessman” as a “huckster” and “speculator”. These notions were associated with not a very respectful job, which was thought to be indecent for a professional with higher education degree.

But the situation had been gradually changing. At first people did not identify themselves with other shuttle traders. They suffered from identity tension, and, therefore, considered their new activity to be temporary. The reference group remained the same: former colleagues, close friends and relatives. However, repetitive new practices and the awareness of new values in further activity led to reidentification of people in their new status. The proof of a new identity was the fact that people began to realise clearly that the new job was not only worse but even better than the previous one. It had a number of advantages: flexible working hours, much higher income and the opportunity to visit other countries.

An important reason why people do not want to take a risk and leave their comfort zone to achieve success can be the objective conditions of life. The fact is that a modern society is initially a society of risks with an unstable economy, social institutions, processes and structures. In this respect, Z. Bauman highlights, “The psychological sense of everything being temporary is quite typical for a modern person of the postmodern period” [11, p. 73]. The scientist believes that in the society of the postmodern period this idea is the result of a society’s attempt to delegate all responsibilities to a person without creating any conditions and providing any resources for self-fulfilment.

In Bauman’s opinion, the transition from a social and legal state to “the concern about unemployment and inflation” and “the state of individual security” has started [12, p. 13]. The reason for such a shift is the dysfunction of a modern state concerning the collective security, which means “the security for everybody or the lack of it, as the local dangers have disappeared and the state is indifferent to them.” [12, p. 15].

The similar ideas are expressed by Ye. Giddens, who believes that today we primarily should take into consideration the risks, especially if we mean “the risky risk”, but not the stability of society itself [13, p. 44]. According to Ye. Giddens, they are purposefully created risks that have separated from their creator and exist independently. Not only the ordinary people, but even the experts are not aware of the consequences of their existence or realise these consequences when it is too late. “When the purposefully created risk is growing, the risk itself is becoming more dangerous. In the situations connected with purposefully created risks, the question whether the risk really exists is often controversial. We cannot know in advance when we are really spreading panic, and when we are not doing that. We cannot just accept the scientists’ conclusions as well, due to the fact that scientists often disagree with each other, particularly in the situations involving a purposefully created risk.” [13, p. 47].

One of the main reasons for risk increasing in today’s society is the social time acceleration. The social changes are coming so fast that a completely new reality, full of risks, is formed. Regarding these changes, the French theorist Paul Virilio has even created a new scientific theory and called it dromology which in English means ‘place of races’ [14]. This theory examines how technological changes caused by transport and telecommunications development, the use of Internet influence the social life.

Ye. Giddens also focuses attention on the rapid social changes in human life and society. In “The Policy of Climate Change,” he justifies the effect of speed on a society and social time. It is supposed that the speed significantly distorts how people realise the consequences and the results of their activity in the context of time and space. On the one hand, the speed of changes, especially the rate of social mobility begins to play the role of new social capital, which determines not only the social status of a person, the nature of society, but also becomes the indicator of modernisation, cultural and scientific achievements [15].

Currently, the quantity of positions where speed is considered to be a meaningful innovation factor has multiplied. However, these trends in Giddens’ opinion do not automatically influence the growth of society functionality and humanization. If some people do not cope with the increasing speed of change, some negative social processes connected with the risk of new marginal groups formation can start. Due to their intellectual abilities, these groups will not be able to adapt to the socio and cultural dynamics and new social and technological innovations [16].

In addition, some disproportion may arise between the dynamics of adaptation to rapid changes and the dynamics of the collective unconsciousness, which is quite inert. Accordingly, there is a risk of increasing number of incidents which Charles Perrow called “normal accidents”, mainly caused by the human factor [17].

S. Kravchenko supposes that such contradictions grow not only because “the social distance and time are reducing for people living in different parts of the world, but due to the fact that humanity has approached to the edge of human capabilities to reflect the fleeting events and to be able to take appropriate, rational, and, what is the most important, humane decisions. Secondly, the proportion of people living for a short time is constantly increasing, while the proportion of social relations existing for a long time is decreasing. It concerns the time of the adequate functioning of the institutional structures including ideals, values, authorities, knowledge considered to be scientific.” [18, p. 19].

Due to these negative consequences, risks and threats, the necessity to “humanise” the speed of changes, that must take into account not only pragmatic but also humanistic goals of social transformation, arises. Otherwise, the risk of social catastrophes as well as the risk of social tension and fears will increase.

But at the same time, new technology, better education with more freedom create for a person the opportunities to find their place in the changing world by themselves and to achieve success in life. Therefore, M. Foucault justified the governmental model of thinking which is meant as “the relationship between the two poles of management: the forms of government by means of which different authorities manage the population, and self-discipline technologies that allow individuals to express their subjectivity” [19, p. 20].

At the same time Foucault emphasizes the role of self-reliance and self-discipline based on the ethics of individualization that, in fact, means the formation of a new type of the reflective rationality, which supposes an active organization of human subjectivity. Obviously, this process will require the corresponding governmental model of thinking that will enable the individual to become an active, and, therefore, an independent personality, especially if it concerns uncertainties and risks typical for the modern globalized society.

Thus, the research conducted makes it possible to conclude that human success in life is always connected with the risk to lose identity, status, as well as some stability and comfort of life. Taking into consideration the fact that achieving success in life is not a vital necessity, people often come to the conclusion that physical, moral and material risks exceed the desire to satisfy this need. The motivation to achieve success in life is generated only by independent and purposeful people who consider taking a risk and leaving the comfort zone to be a part of their lives.

References:

1. Parker B. Development and validation of a life-success measures scale / B. Parker, Leonard H. Chummier // Psychological Reports. – 1992. – Apr. Vol. 70 (2).

2. Huber R. M. The American idea of success / R. M. Huber – N.Y., 1971. – 328 p.

3. Zdravomyslova, O. M. Ot 80-kh k 90-m: transformatsiya modeley uspekha [From the 80s to 90s: The Transformation of Success Models] / O. M. Zdravomyslova, I.I. Shurygina //Narodonaseleniye [Human Population], 1998, no. 1.,

pp. 17–22. (in Russ.)

4. Malinin, Ye. D. Filosofiya zhiznennogo uspekha. Prakticheskoye rukovodstvo: ucheb. posobiye [The Philosophy of Success. Practical guidelines: tutorial] / Ye. D. Malinin. – [2nd ed.] – М.: Рublishing Нouse of Moscow Psycho-Social Institute; Voronezh: NPO «MОDEK» Publ., 2004. – 304 p. (in Russ.)

5. Suponitskaya, I. M. Uspekh i udacha: otnosheniye k trudu v amerikanskom i rossiyskom obshchestve [Success and Fortune: the Attitude to Labour in American and Russian Societies] / I. M. Suponitskaya // Voprosy filosofii [Philosophy Questions], 2003, no. 5, pp. 44–56 (in Russ.)

6. Bevzenko, L. Zmіst zhittevogo uspіkhu: sotsіalno-kulturologіchnyi kontekst [The Scope of Life Experience] / L. Bevzenko // Sotsіologіia: teorіia, metody, marketing [Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing.], 2000, no 1, pp. 34–51 (in Ukr.)

7. Markozova, O. O. SShA: derzhava, pobudovana na іdeii іndyvіdualnogo uspіkhu [USA: The State Based on the Idea of Individual Success] / O. O. Markozova // Vіsnyk, Yaroslav Mudryi NLU [Herald of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University]: Phіlosophy. – Kh: Law, 2015, no.2(25), pp. 247-254 (in Ukr.)

8. Markozova, O. O. Freymuvannya uyavlen lyudey pro uspіkh іnstrumentami zasobіv masovoyi іnformatsіyi [Framing of People’s Imagination about Success by Media] / O. O. Markozova // Vіsnyk, Yaroslav Mudryi NLU [Herald of Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University]: Phіlosophy, Law Philosophy, Politology, Sociology – Kh: Law, 2014, no.1(20), pp. 279-285 (in Ukr.)

9. Giller, Yu. I. Sotsiologiya samostoyatelnoy lichnosti [Sociology of an Individual] / Yu. I. Giller. – M.: Academic Project, Gaudeamus, 2006. – 224 p.

10. Yadov, V. A. Popytka pereosmyslit kontseptsiyu freymov Irvinga Gofmana [The Attempt to Rethink Irving Gofman’s Theory of Frames] / V. A. Yadov // Journal of Sociology and Social Antropology, 2011, no 2 (Vol. 14), pp. 85–97. (in Russ.)

11. Bauman Z. The Individualized Society / Z. Bauman. – Wiley, Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press, 2001. – 259 p.

12. Bauman Z. Liquid Times. Living in an Age of Uncertainty / Z. Bauman. – Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009. – 115 р.

13. Giddens, E. Uskolzayushchiy mir: kak globalizatsiya menyayet nashu zhizn [Eluding World: How the Globalisation Changes Our World]/ E. Giddens. – M.: «Ves Mir», 2004. – 120 p.

14. Virilio P. The Art of the Motor / P. Virilio. – Minneapolis: University of Minnesots Press, 1995. – 184 р.

15. Giddens A. The Politics of Climate Change / A. Giddens. – Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009. – 272 р.

16. Giddens A. Modernity and self-identity in the late modern age / Giddens A. – Stanford: University Press, 1991. – 112 p.

17. Perrow C. Normal Accidents: Living with High-Risk Technologies / C. Perrow. – N.Y.: Basic Books, 1986. – 464 р.

18. Kravchenko, S. A. Dinamika sovremennykh sotsialnykh realiy: innovatsionnyye podkhody [The Dynamics of Modern Social Realities: Innovative Approaches] / S. A. Kravchenko // Social Survey, 2010, no. 10, pp. 14–25 (in Russ.)

19. Foucault M. On governmentality / M. Foucault // Ideology and Consciousness. – 1979. – № 6. – P. 18–25.