834707440

tarian anti-intellectualism puts an emphasis on physical labour, industrialism cm-phasizes thc creativc, organizational, supervisory and documentary-informative work. On the basis of this, Żupanoy concludes that there is absolutely no doubt about thc incffcctualncss of thc egalitarian syndromc, which is capable of seriouly hampering furthcr dcvelopment. Bclicving that the egalitarianism vs. ćlitism dilcm-ma of cach communist movcment was rcsolvcd in Yugoslavia aftcr 1948 by a return to *partisan ethics*, i. c. to egalitarianism, Żupanoy says: »A return to 'partisan ethics* was first of all a return to an ideał but not at the same time to such a bc-haviour that would be in fuli conformity with the ideał, as had been the case during the national liberation struggle. The gap betwecn ’sein and 'sollcn bccamc the permanent source of tension and social dynamics: the letter of thc Central Committee of the League of Yugoslav Communists of 1958, Tito's 1962 speech at Split, thc student demonstrations of June 1968 - all thesc events constitutc a kind of social »clectric storms* resulting from the 'potential diffcrences* between ’$ein' and 'sollen*. Basic demands havc always been along the same lines: abolish pri-vilegess and inequalities in society, coordinatc the actual social-economic situation with the central values of the social system. Obviously, this task of altering thc State of affairs’ could only be given to the political structure of social stratification. Howcver, they were not prepared - just as any other social group would not be prepared - to renounce privilegcd treatment, and thus they attempted to channel dissatisfaction in thc dircction of the economic and socio-professional structure: thus in 1962, thc socio-professional as wcll as the economic substructurc were the villains, whcrcas after the student demonstrations it was the economic substructurc that was madę the scapegoat. These, however, were appeasement campaigns which only went as far as it was necessary to maintain the system, but for which, from the developmcnt point of view, a price was neverthcless paid. A tightening is always followed by a ccrtain relaxation. Thus social dynamics in which egalitarianism ('sollcn*) and socio-economic differentiation fscin ) arc the poles is in the shape of circular pulsation in which tensions are resolved, the central valuc is rc-affirmed and thc extent of differentiation is maintained (and perhaps evcn somc-what inereased), In other words, we have a closed system of behaviour: dynamics does not mean a c/iange«, (pp. 27 and 28). Hence 2upanov calls for a reappraisal of thc etatistically conccived egalitarianism as the dominant social value, not with the aim of abolishine it but as a plea for its dynamization.

This viewpoint is also dcvelopcd in Dunja Rihtman-Augustin’s paper, Traditional Culture and Contemporary Dalues. The author defines tradition as those elements of culture which are handed down from one generation to the next. Not-withstanding the yarious racial types encountercd in this country (Alpinc, Panno-nian, Dinaric, Moravian, Macedonian and Adriatic), the pcasant and pastorał ways of life adopted by the majority of our population are characterized by a trend toward »limited goods* as bcing the dominant value. In order not to ovcrstep thc norm of »limited goods«, no one wants to stand out, because man works not in order to enrich himself but in order to enrich himsclf but in order to kecp himsclf and his family alive. In accumulation of Capital in a rural community threatens equilibrium, expressed by folk wisdom as »One man’s downfall is another mans windfalU. Having thus analyzed thc valucs of traditional culture, Dunja Rihtman-AuguStin asks thc following question: »To what extent are traditional values a limiting factor to self- management, and how far have they been responsible for somc humanist traits, some elements which propel social development?« (p. 5). In answer to this auestion the author believes that the economic contcnt of sclf-management, and especially the system of income distribution, havc practically no precedent in Yugoslav cultural history. Ethnological literaturę suggests that thc traditional criterion of distribution was the number of hungry mouths rather than an accurately measured amount of work done, that instead of accurate critcria (as if hungry mouths were not a very accurate criterion! - B. J.) there were arbitrary criteria, and that above everything there was thc idea of equality which did not permit anyone to get out of the groove. The author concludes from this that the values contained in thc pcasant and pastorał ways of life do not function accord-ing to the programmed model of a self-managing society or a self-managing economic organization. Regarded from another angle, traditional values may serye as a critical correction, to introduce into the system »care for man«, humamzation ot

labour and disalienation (!).    ,    ■

Having established how value orientation of traditional culture is related to the yalue orientation of thc revolutionary moyement on the one hand, and to the value

659