Un-Ideological Citizens? Discovering Patterns of Ideological Thinking in Post-Communist Society

Transcription

1 Un-Ideological Citizens? Discovering Patterns of Ideological Thinking in Post-Communist Society Ieva Petronytė Institute of International Relations and Political Science Vilnius University Paper prepared for the IPSA 24th World Congress of Political Science, July 23-28, 2016 Poznan, Poland Abstract Although the family of traditional ideologies and such instruments as ideological left-right continuum organize and explain citizens ideological attitudes in Western democracies quite well, it does not always shed a lot of light on ideological thinking in other regions. E.g., in a typical post-communist country like Lithuania, researches based on a traditional approach find that sets of attitudes of most Lithuanians do not fit neatly into neither economic nor moral ideological dimensions of traditional ideologies. However, does this mean that ideological thinking is overall uncharacteristic to post-communist countries like Lithuania and their citizens do not think about world of politics in any coherent and consistent manner? Research, presented in this paper, changes the traditional answer to this question by changing the methodological approach. Instead of searching for sets of attitudes of traditional ideologies among the public, the bottom-up approach is applied: by using Q-sort method, which allows discovering individual, yet shared, patterns of thinking, five alternative ideological patterns or citizen ideologies, i.e. shared specific coherent worldviews among citizens, are found. The instrument tested in Lithuania not only sheds new light on citizen ideological thinking in this post-communist country, but also may be used and yield meaningful results in other countries as well. 1 Keywords: organization of political attitudes, citizens ideologies, ideological thinking, post-communist society, Q-sort method. Introduction: Absence of ideological coherence in post-communist societies? Ideology is widely acknowledged as a useful cognitive shortcut helping to orient oneself in political world and as such an important mean of communication between citizens and politicians in democracy. However, although the family of traditional ideologies and such instruments as ideological left-right continuum organize and explain citizens ideological attitudes in Western democracies quite well (or satisfactorily at least), it does not always shed a lot of light on ideological thinking in other regions. E.g., in a typical post-communist country like Lithuania both general public discourse and 1 It relates to the Congress Main Theme by targeting unclear structure of citizen ideology. This obscurity mean that adequate political representation of certain society groups may turn into a problematic issue and cause political inequality. 1

2 academic researches affirms that ideological thinking, ideology-based organization of political attitudes is almost absent. Although researches find some ideology-based differences between the positions of various political parties 2, at the same time it is noticed that in a long term Lithuanian political parties are not so prone to ground their decisions on ideological values 3, and only few of them do overall hold clear and ideologically coherent ideological attitudes 4. Even more coherent ideological thinking is found to be missing among the citizens researches show, that more than half of the society is unaccustomed to ideological thinking, which would led to forecast their political attitudes on the scales of economic leftright and social conservatism-liberalism 5. Such obscurity in society s ideological thinking not only hinders the envision of citizens political views, thereby political behavior as well, but overall this obscurity, lack of clear and functioning acknowledged ideological heuristics can be seen as serious obstacle for the effective and meaningful communication between citizens and their representatives, so essential in the democratic process. However, does this obscurity of ideological thinking, diagnosed first of all as a discrepancy from attitudinal sets presumed by traditional ideologies, really means that citizens do not have other meaningful and coherent belief systems, encompassing various political attitudes in unexpected yet clear structure and so enabling the foresight of political views? The search for such alternative structures, performing the role of traditional ideologies in the citizens outlook to the preferred way of societal and state s life and order, is especially relevant in the Lithuania, where characteristics of postcommunist society shape a context especially unfavorable for ideological thinking in traditional left-right dimension terms (e.g., lack of stability in both party system and ideological preferences, reflected in high electoral volatility, weak partisan identification and affiliation with parties on both the general and individual level) 6. Research presented in this paper seeks to contribute in solving this puzzle and reveals main logics of ideological thinking in Lithuanian society by applying bottom-up approach: the broad mosaic-like pictures of traditional ideologies are split into their constituent parts political attitudes on important issues in societal and state s life - and then, relying on the shared logics of the interviewees (uncovered 2 Ainė Ramonaitė, Vertybių kova Lietuvos politikoje: dėl ko ir su kuo kovojama?, Jankauskas A. (ed.), Lietuva po Seimo rinkimų 2008, Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, 2009, p , Ainė Ramonaitė, Lietuvos partijų vertybinis žemėlapis: partijų elito nuostatų analizė, Ramonaitė A. (ed.), Partinės demokratijos pabaiga? Politinis atstovavimas ir ideologijos, Vilnius: Versus aureus, 2009, p , Vaidas Morkevičius, Neideologinis Seimas? Statistinė svarbių m. kadencijos Lietuvos Seimo balsavimų analizė, Ramonaitė A. (ed.), Partinės demokratijos pabaiga?, Op.cit., p Eglė Butkevičienė, Eglė Vaidelytė, Giedrius Žvaliauskas, Ideologija ir partinė veikla: Lietuvos partijų lyderių požiūris, Politologija, 2 (54), 2009, p Ramonaitė A., Žiliukaitė R., Politinio atstovavimo kokybė Lietuvoje: partijų ir rinkėjų politinių nuostatų atitikimo analizė, Ramonaitė A. (ed.), Partinės demokratijos pabaiga? Op.cit., p. 117, Ramonaitė, 2009, Lietuvos partijų vertybinis žemėlapis, p Rūta Žiliukaitė, Ainė Ramonaitė, Vertybinės nuostatos ir rinkėjų balsavimas, Ramonaitė A. (ed.), Partinės demokratijos pabaiga?, Op.cit., p. 138, Search for such alternative structures of political thinking could be traced back to the work of Robert E. Lane (1962) and others as an opposition to early works of Converse (1964) and others declaring the ideological innocence of the general public. Robert Lane, Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does. New York: Free Press, 1962; Philip Converse, The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In David Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press,

3 by using Q-sort method), re-composed again into comprehensive and coherent worldviews prevailing among citizens - alternative ideological patterns or citizen ideologies. Methodology and data: using Q-sort method In search for the shared alternative patterns of citizens ideological thinking the method of Q-sort is applied. This method performs the task of uncovering genuine of the citizens remarkably well because of its ability to detect and systematically reveal worldviews which are not imposed by the researcher s logic, but as individual yet shared social perspectives are extracted from the in-depth immersion into the logics of separate individuals. In applying Q-sort method all possible perspectives (or the general concourse) on the topic of interest are subtracted into the representative set of statements (also called a Q sample). This miniature is then presented to the Q participants (or Q sorters) who during the specific procedure have to sort these statements along a continuum from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Latter factor analysis (note: inverted one) is used to extract the shared social perspectives out of these Individual sorts. In succeeding analysis, core concepts and ideas are examined, defining, distinguishing and other specific characteristics of these social perspectives are dismantled, interconnections defined and comprehensive narratives of these shared social perspectives reconstructed. Thus, Q-sort method successfully encompasses and combines both qualitative and quantitative approaches firstly, by extensively exploring individual logics and then by objectively generalizing them into shared perspectives 7. All these qualities suggests Q-sort method as one of the most appropriate instrument when searching for more extensively revealed shared alternative citizens patterns of thinking in the field of traditional ideologies. When constructing specific research instrument for the search of citizens ideologies in Lithuanian case, one of the most important decisions is composing Q-sample - a miniature representative for the whole ideological concourse. This challenge has to be met by taking into account both important distinctions of classical political ideologies and contemporary relevant issues as well as post-communist societal context. In constructing such Q sample for a starting-point most of these requirements satisfying framework was borrowed and adapted from Comparative Manifestos Project (CMP) research 8. The extensive, different policy domain encompassing coding structure developed for the comparative evaluation of the party programs in this project offers good structure for the ideological Q sample as well: hence the structure of CMP seven main policy domains plus the areas of the issues relevant for the contemporary Lithuanian situation (from the subcategories designed for CEE countries) compose the framework for the statements selection of the ideological Q-sample in this research. The exact wording of the statements themselves in many cases directly or with minor modifications are taken from the 7 More on Q-sort method see, for example: Steven R. Brown, A Primer on Q Methodology, Operant Subjectivity, 3/4 (16), 1993; Thomas Webler, Stentor Danielson, Seth Tuler, Using Q method to reveal social perspectives in environmental research, Greenfield MA: Social and Environmental Research Institute, 2009 < 8 Andrea Volkens et al., The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR), Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB), 2011 < 3

4 State of American Political Ideology research 9, European Values Study survey s questionnaire 10, voting advice applications manobalsas.lt 11 and laboussolepresidentielle.fr 12, and newly created only in cases when appropriate equivalents were not found. Final Q sample of 50 statements with references to original sources of statements wordings and assignment to specific policy domain can be found in the appendix. During the data collection stage this Q sample was given to sort to 29 informants. The specific number of interviewees is selected as a compromise considering the recommendations for the Q - sort study: on the one hand, the nature of the method where cases are statements (not people, as in standard factor analysis), and the variables are people (not questions, as in standard factor analysis), it is advised always to have less interviewees than statements in sorting Q set (normally it is advised for the number of Q participants not to exceed one-third or even half of statements 13 ). On the other hand, at the same time conditions must be created for each of the potential perspectives - systems of thinking - to be sufficiently represented (and searching for general structures of ideological thinking, one can expect a fair amount of them). Interviewees themselves were selected considering the principle of maximum variation of the worldviews held by them 14 (the purpose of sampling was not the representative reflection of society, but representative reflection of main worldviews, however, in the ideological field one can expect that individuals from different socio-economic background will have different perspectives). During in-person interviews with Q sorting procedure the reactions of the Q-participants were observed, considerations and arguments expressed by interviewees while sorting Q-sample according to their subjective views, (dis)approval and ascribed importance to issues - recorded. Response chart was prepared to represent quasi-normal distribution with 11 categories from -5 to +5 allowing Q participants to highlight most important keystones in their worldviews but also leaving space for expressing neutral positions. In the factor extraction procedure, Principal component analysis and Varimax rotation was used. Number of the final factors defined by the number of factors with eigenvalues > 1. In-depth interviews were carried out in April-March and in November December of It was expected that the coverage of most important ideological dimensions and issues in broad ideological Q sample and the selection of persons with different sociodemographic characteristics and presumably various worldviews, will allow from the set of attitudinal elements of traditional political ideologies to extract functioning shared perspectives in the society citizens political ideologies, corresponding to traditional meanings of ideologies or connected into new systems of coherency John Halpin, Karl Agne, State of American Political Ideology, 2009: A National Study of Political Values and Beliefs, 2009, < 10 European Values Study 2008 Lithuania Field Questionnaire, 2008, < 11 Questionnaire of Manobalsas.lt. Ramonaitė, 2009, Lietuvos partijų vertybinis žemėlapis. 12 Questionnaire of Presidential Compass 2012: Discover your position compared to the manifestos or the candidates, < 13 Webler et al., p Webler et al., p. 6, 10, Selection of Q-sort method does not guarantee strict representativeness (in terms of scope of spread in the society) of specific social perspectives or ideological patterns of thinking discovered. Nevertheless, it allows to attain best results in searching for and discovering alternative ideological structures used by the citizens when thinking about broad questions of societal and state life, structures, on which relies the formation of attitudes to 4

5 Results: Patterns of Ideological Thinking in Lithuania Analysis of collected data revealed seven ideological perspectives (five of them shared) i.e., citizen ideologies or patterns of post-communist society ideological thinking. In this paper, three of them, best represented and most extensively revealed in the research, are presented 16. These three ideological perspectives together explain 48 per cent of the variance (total variance explained by all seven perspectives equals 72 per cent). Here discussed are shared narratives of these citizens ideologies, reconstruction of which was enabled by more detailed results of Q-sort analysis and additional information from in-depth interviews Free self-expression discourse The first shared social perspective or the ideological system of thinking on societal and state s life is defined by the factor A extracted during the Q analysis. 17. It explains 21 percent of variance and is represented by ten Q-sorts in the research. The idealized Q-sort for this factor could be found in table It can be seen that in the social perspective reflected by this Q-set the most important place is occupied by a principle of free self-expression equally affordable to all members of the society: it is strongly opposed to the gender inequality, exclusion of homosexuals, and imposition of particular religious values on all society members. Incomprehension of unequal gender opportunities is denoted by the statement no.4, which is evaluated especially unfavorable: most of the interviewees, holding gender equality for the axiom, even didn t comment on this statement (for example, Here, what kind of nonsense this is? At least [it represents my opinion], interview no. 10), and the ones who made comments, opposed very emotionally referring to the necessity of equal opportunities: And why is that men should have more rights to a job? [Laughs] And so - why not women? (interview no. 13), Well, I think everyone has to have equal rights - both men and women (interview no. 18). Very negatively (and again, at the same time emphasizing the importance of objection) is evaluated statement no. 5, which presumes the exclusion of homosexuals from the society: Well, maybe it is unnatural, but what can you do, it is as it is (interview no. 12), a person who does not harm others, does not make crimes < > specific political issues as well. And by doing so this method simultaneously lays down the grounds for the future researches, which could already incorporate the aspect of representativeness. 16 More comprehensive discussion of the results, presentation of other perspectives revealed as well as more detailed information about the research instrument can be found in the doctoral dissertation of paper s author: Ieva Petronytė, Nuostatų politiniais klausimais formavimasis pokomunistinėje valstybėje: Lietuvos atvejo studija (Formation of the Attitudes Towards Political Issues in Post-Communist Country: Case Study of Lithuania). Doctoral thesis. Vilnius: Vilnius University, Summary of the doctoral dissertation available here < 17 Naming of the factors by letters here are completely random. More precise titles are given for shared social perspectives designated by these factors after reviewing and summarizing the data, considering uncovered narratives and core concepts of theirs. 18 Idealized Q sort can be understood as a generalization of all the individual worldviews ascribed to this factor, a prototype of statements set of particular shared social perspective. 5

6 he [or she] should have the right to be accepted as he [she] is. It is here purely the concern of fundamental human rights (interview no. 15). It can be noticed, that interviewees oppose to the sexual intolerance not so much because of their approval for homosexuality as such, but first of all because they believe this violates the right and freedom to self-expression by the persons, who otherwise follow the same societal norms. In similar manner representatives of this perspective refers to the same right for all of society members to express their beliefs equally when considering statement no. 19, which is held as one of the most important and is most positively evaluated in the idealized Q-sort: [Politics and religion] cannot be interconnected. Like everywhere else, the choice must be left for the person (interview no. 18). Along this line also goes the argumentation lying behind the evaluation of the statements which are considered by the interviewees not so important and the ones, which for the outsider at the first sight can appear to be even hardly related to the general logic of the perspective. For example, interviewee no. 12, while sorting statement no. 10 ( Cultural institutions, the arts, and public broadcasting play an important role in our society and should receive government support ), in her deliberation emphasizes the principle of coexistence and equal representation of various opinions: so they [institutions mentioned in the statement] should ensure the equitable discussion. Well, it could be a bias in this discussion, but then this discussion should be some kind of many-sided (by the way, in a similar manner this statement is considered by the interviewee no. 13, who again, only from a slightly different angle highlights the principle of freedom and the right to have different opinions: [Agree] Because those matters really have to get some kind of support. < > For a person to be free ). Table 1. Ideal Q-sort for Factor A perspective of free self-expression (only characterizing statements, Z-scores >1 or <-1). Factor scores Factor A No. Statement Z-scores 19 Politics and religion should not be interconnected [...] Competition in business is a good thing [...] State should ensure for each resident an adequate protection [...] We have to take care of the ecological balance [...] Country s interests are best ensured by working through diplomacy [...] People should be able to freely express their views in public, even [...] Individuals must take the responsibility for providing for themselves[...] The environment has to be created [...] for ethnic minorities to preserve their cultural roots (middle of the table neutral positions) 18 The institution of President should be awarded more power in Lithuania [...] the number of the civil servants must be increased In general, Soviet period gave benefits to Lithuania [...] Military force is the most effective way to ensure the safety [...] Disintegration of the traditional family has harmed our society In fight against terrorism, all the measures are justified, even [...] One should follow instructions of one s superiors unconditionally It was better to live during the Soviet times than it is now [...] Lithuania needs a strong leader who can take decisions [...] Homosexuality is unnatural and must not be accepted by our society When jobs are scarce, men have more right to a job than women Note: Z-scores indicates, how far (left or right) each Q statement is distant from the neutral middle point of ideal Q sort of this factor. Highest and lowest values denote most characterizing statements for this 6

7 perspective: highest strongest agreement, lowest strongest disagreement with the statements. Full wording of the statements can be found in the appendix. Extending this assertion of the free self-expression principle, the disapproval for any restrictions on individuality and self-expression is especially intense in the social perspective defined by factor A. First, the possibility of strong leadership in the state, rule of strong leader is very negatively qualified: it is strongly disapproved with the statement no. 16 (almost all interviewees refer to the autocratic rule of the state here and intimidate themselves with such possibility, for example, At this point I already do not agree. This is already a step in the authoritarian regime, interview no. 18), the same argument line goes beyond the opposition to the statement no. 18 as well: When one dominates, then < > it threatens to the personal freedom (interview no. 18). Secondly, the unconditional execution of authorities orders is very critically judged (opposition to statement no. 32). Truth, the doubt is here emphasized, interviewees highlight possession of one s own opinion, and subsequent noncompliance with the instructions are justified only with the condition that these instructions of one s superior does not conform to own intrinsic believes: Because, well, actually one needs to ask himself if these instructions are reasonable. But. You can question these instructions all the time, always, but they need to be fulfilled. It doesn t mean, that this should be an unconditional execution. You always have to doubt a little bit. And if you doubting strongly, if it becomes incompatible with your moral interests, than you can not to execute these instructions (interview no. 12). Third, the opposition to any restrictions is expressed also through a critical approach to a justification of wide range of measures in the fight against terrorism (statement no. 8): And in the fight against terrorism, civil liberties in any case cannot be constrained. < > well, this principle doesn t suit me that, how it is said, to murder a thousand for a guarantee that one terrorist will be killed... (interview no. 18). Freedom of expression, freedom of thought is emerging as one of the most important elements even taking into account possible negative consequences: in the idealized Q sort, statement no. 49 is very prized Well, this is my principled attitude that everyone has the right to think independently, to think as one sees it right, and these norms of the thinking should not be imposed on other members of the society (interview no 12); some interviewees sees a justification for that even in a wider context: this is non-negotiable, this right to freely express their views. But if it would harm others, well < > If this opinion is reasoned, then it is not harm, and the criticism can be very necessary to expose some kind of illegal or wrong actions and to encourage the public to rebel against something (interview no. 10). In this narrative, extending the logic presented above, life in the society, which restricts free selfexpression, is also perceived very negatively: statement no. 22 ( It was better to live during the Soviet times than it is now in Lithuania ) emerges as one of the most unpreferred in this perspective. That interviewees representing factor s A perspective judged this statement exactly in this manner (viewing it first of all as the case of restriction of freedoms), well illustrates this quote: At least [statement reflects my views]. < > [because] only one opinion, no freedom of expression, no choice, everyone [were] all alike, like one size fitting all. Queues, things like that. But mostly [no] personal freedom (interview no. 7). It can be even noticed that in individual Q sets, interviewees, who think that Soviet regime didn t constrain freedoms so much, also did not so much opposed to this general statement no. 22: for example (note, still the same framework in evaluating is used), I had to live there for a longer < > I wouldn t say that we really lived then very tragically < > I myself could feel free to speak up during meetings of the Communist Youth League in the opposite spirit then likewise (interview no. 18). In a 7

8 similar way one more (not so strongly opposed) statement (no. 1) pointing to the Soviet regime s benefits is denied either by questioning details, weighting benefits mentioned (this signifies lack of strong value-based attitude related to the issue) or, again, by appealing to the same violation of principle of freedom: The Soviet period - even if it would not have been, does it really mean that [without it] we wouldn t have roads, cities or industries now (interview no. 12), Maybe the roads have been build, but how many un-benefits it gave also. And anyway, it seems to me that more important than the roads is the opportunity to think freely. It is worth to mention, that the picky examination of the statement s wording and weighing the benefits lead to one more aspect: statement no. 22 and (partly) no. 1 enters the factors narrative exactly from this angle of restraint of self-expression. Meanwhile the communist-anticommunist cleavage presupposed by these statements does not emerge as significant one. This is also reasserted by the neutral positioning of the other statements important for communist-anticommunist cleavage in the A factor s social perspective. The interviewees often do not have opinion on these statements (for example, interviewee no. 12 on statement no. 47 The restrictions to work in the public service or education has to be applied for the persons, who in the past cooperated with the Soviet secret services : Ah... I do not know. Really, I don t have opinion on this question ), statements are discarded as obsolete, the pragmatic approach takes place (for example, interviewee no. 13 on statement no. 15 Lithuania has to demand decidedly from Russia to compensate the damage caused by the occupation : Maybe all that energy can already be shifted somewhere else ; interviewee no. 12 on statement no. 14 Lithuania has to maintain good relations with Russia : Because we are the neighbors nonetheless, etc.). Here it is significant and illustrative that the fate of Soviet symbols in Lithuania (statement no. 21) is also assigned to the least relevant issues even if one has clear opinion on that issue: This makes me neither warm nor cold (interview no. 12), This is simply the history attribute. What it means it is just some attributes of the non-existent state (interview no. 18). By the way, in some cases even through this statement, although unimportant, the same value of tolerance for different opinions, lying beneath the factor A, comes to the surface: Really, what [about that symbols] maybe it is not the thing worth to tolerate, but still, to restrain [I don t approve that] (interview no. 6). The theme of affirmation of free self-expression, individual freedom of self-determination if further extended also in the other choices regarded as important by the interviewees. This logic is also revealed in the argumentation behind the depreciation of traditional family as a guarded-worth value (we find strong and significant opposition to statement no. 29 in the idealized Q sort): people should have the opportunity to live as they wish (interview no. 13). Liberalism in the moral sphere, emerging out of the combination of (dis)approved statements in this social perspective defined by factor A, is also paralleled with economic liberalism. Rated high in the idealized Q sort of the perspective, the statement no. 7 presupposes competition preferred in the economy: True, the competition is fair. [It is fairer] Than all do nothing and receive equally. Or rather do something but still receive equally (interview no. 6). And here is even again reverted to the main leitmotiv of self-expression when the appreciation of competition is based on its assumed fostering of the self-expression: And why the competition is important because it allows for the people to stimulate their creativity (interview no. 12). The similarity of the perspective defined by the factor A to the classical liberalism is further fortified by highly appreciated statement no. 48 and its interpretations. The enthusiastic agreement is found for this statement in argumentations of interviewees sharing perspective defined by factor A: Well, it should not be such a thing that, you know, someone has to take care of me. < > there should be 8

9 consciousness, understanding that you yourself have to work, to strive! And of course, if there is some kind of trouble or a problem than the state will help you, but this should not be long-term, permanent allowances (interview no. 10). Nonetheless, the perspective unfolding here is not the one of wild capitalism, the principles of classical libertarianism does not come to the surface. Albeit the free-selfexpression, competitive economy and individual efforts are emphasized, a certain minimum ensured by the state, a shelter from the complete libertarian state is also very important. This could be seen also from the highly appreciated and considered to be important statement no. 36 (true, this statement is evaluated not as high as the one referring to the principle of competitiveness). Interviewee no. 12: So to speak, I imagine that the public is composed of very different people and they all have different capabilities. Thus, for example, each person must be given the possibility, let s say, to get health care, let s say, to get allowances in various difficult life situations. Still in both these quotes of interviewee no. 10 the conditionality reveals itself: the state should aid in some kind of contingencies, when it is really needed and this should not be long-term, permanent allowances. The viewpoint that the state assistance is necessary in certain cases even in preferred competitive environment connects these two above-mentioned important statements (no. 7 and no. 36) and can be illustrated and summarized also by few quotes from deliberation on other (neutral in the narrative) statements: [I would agree with such a decision] Because otherwise people are left in the environment of wild laws (interviewee no. 12 on statement no. 9); I completely disagree with the idea that any [state] intervention is harmful, is useless, but too much of interference is a negative thing as well. But the abandonment of everything for the sake of free market and competition this already shows some crises (interviewee no. 18 on statement no. 41). Hence in this social perspective defined by factor A, when interviewees deliberate the preferred life of the state and society, reveals itself core underlying logic, from which all the political priorities derives and this logic first of all is based on the freedom of and right to individual self-expression, unrestrictionality of theirs. Most important are here individual rights, freedoms, and possibility for all society members to embrace them equally. It can be stated that this social perspective corresponds to the ideas of classical liberalism quite well (for example, because of the emphasis on the priority of individual freedom), however, in the economic sphere, considering revealed views to the functioning of economy, this perspective more fruitfully could be associated with social liberalism. In any case, the attention should be payed to the fact that economic dimension in this social perspective is not as important as the moral one: approval or disapproval to the statements was expressed, but in general picture of the perspective (looking at idealized Q-sort), these statements and accordingly economic dimension are not considered to be the most important, most relevant ones (these statements do not take uppermost or lowermost positions). This also can be discovered in the some of the Q-participants interview quotes: I really do think a lot < > [about those issues] related to the values. And in general I am more concerned, I think, about those < >. By the contrast, that economy, all those [statements related to it] I do not like [them] (interview no. 7). In anticipating the further research a little bit, here it can be already introduced how the factor A, defining the perspective of free self-expression (which functions in the society, is popularly perceived and applied there), is distinguishing from the other factors crystalized after the sorting of ideological Q sample. In the first place and at the best, the distinguishing statements calculated during the Q-analysis procedure indicate this exclusiveness. These statements (no. 19 and no. 29) denote again moral (not economic) dimension and distinguish the factor for specific vision of society s structure: first, strong 9

10 preference is given for the secular society (as the interview analysis showed, this preference is deliberated as the necessity in the context of the expression of various individual beliefs) and second, active indifference for the disintegration of traditional family structure is expressed (this decay is seen not only as natural evolution of the society, but also as a possibility for everyone to choose better life according to his needs, and so to encourage more happy society). Finally describing sociodemographic characteristics of the Q-participants ascribed to factor A free selfexpression discourse, it can be observed, that they do not significantly differ from other factors representatives neither according to gender, place of residence, occupational status, household income, nor according to interest in politics, knowledge in this sphere, social activeness or religiosity. The only similarity found the oldest interviewees are lacking in this group (though other age groups are covered). Surprisingly interviewees of this group even differed from each other over the party preference: the ones voting for liberals, for social-democrats and for conservatives can be found here. This unexpected width of party preferences perhaps can be explained by the fact, that none of main political parties representing abovementioned ideological lines (LRLS, LSDP, TS-LKD respectively) do especially oppose to the individual freedoms and rights as they were perceived in this social perspective (as the freedoms of and rights to individual self-expression, creation, thought, religious, sexual choice etc.) and are not inclined to restrict them (differently than, for example, LLRA, who repeatedly raises the question on abortion ban, or TT and few smaller parties who are known in the public for their unacceptance of homosexuality). TS-LKD can be here the only exception, because some of its members speak up for the ban of abortion 19, but again, the main party line does not advocate this position very actively 20. However, none of these parties do also especially concentrate them on the protection of freedoms prized in this perspective and this could be the reason why such a mixture of party preferences is found here Strong leader discourse The second factor B, which appears in the field of the traditional ideologies, explains 11 per cent of the variance and is represented by five interviewees political logic. The dissatisfaction with the current state management and a clear alternative to the institutional arrangements offered defines factor B (most significant here is the disagreement with statement no. 25 and strong agreement with statements no. 16 and no. 18; see table 2). 19 Manobalsas.lt, data from politicians survey, Ramonaitė, Žiliukaitė, 2009, Politinio atstovavimo kokybė Lietuvoje..., p For example, in the TS-LKD party program for this issue was not mentioned at all. In the election s 2012 program the issue of abortion appeared, but it was not assigned to the most important. 10

11 Table 2. Ideal Q-sort for Factor B perspective of strong leader (only characterizing statements, Z- scores >1 or <-1). Factor scores Factor B No. Statement Z-scores 16 Lithuania needs a strong leader who can take decisions [...] The institution of President should be awarded more power in Lithuania Lithuania has to maintain good relations with Russia Individuals must take the responsibility for providing for themselves[...] State should ensure for each resident an adequate protection [...] Lithuania needs strong professional unions [...] Ethnic minorities in our country abuse the opportunities given [...] Lithuania should seek to retain more independence in the EU [...] (middle of the table neutral positions) 44 Where possible, private ownership of state enterprises should be [...] Military force is the most effective way to ensure the safety [...] Human life begins at conception and must be protected from that [...] One should follow instructions of one s superiors unconditionally Ethnic and cultural minorities [...] lack the opportunities [...] Soviet symbols has to be banned Lithuania has to demand decidedly from Russia to compensate [...] When jobs are scarce, men have more right to a job than women [...] the number of the civil servants must be increased Note: Z-scores indicates, how far (left or right) each Q statement is distant from the neutral middle point of ideal Q sort of this factor. Highest and lowest values denote most characterizing statements for this perspective: highest strongest agreement, lowest strongest disagreement with the statements. Full wording of the statements can be found in the appendix. The need of an alternative institutional arrangement of the state arises from the perceived chaos of parliamentary system: It s a fact that there is no government. Again comes time for voting, again the parties [act] for themselves. < > And again the same mess. (interview no. 2), So there is now some regrettable state, there is no order. < > When something happens then everybody gets involved and politicians, and whoever thinks they know the situation, and everyone just talks. This is chaos. < > The decision anyway should be taken, and because of all these chaoses the decisions are not taken How to say, the time is wasted (interviewee no. 16 on statement no. 18). At the same time, it is perceived that one person could represent the citizens better: It should be as the President says. < > that is why we are electing a good president that is why we trust him and [that is why] we have to pay regard to the opinion of the President (interviewee no. 21 on statement no. 18). The same leitmotiv in the assessment of the situation as in chaos, as riotous one, is further elaborated when considering other spheres of societal and state s life, highlighted even discussing the statements, which were not considered to be especially important. Good illustration for that can be the judgement of statement no. 39, for example: Whoever would it be [in power], all are wasting everything to the left and to the right anyhow. And then they are wondering and searching for the millions [of Litas] (interview no. 21). Turning the look to still other spheres, even the schools as well as the state are considered to be in the same disorder: Well, [more attention to the patriotic education should be paid] for it not to be in such a mess maybe. Because now they [pupils] in the schools all know their rights but not their obligations practically (interviewee no. 20 on statement no. 37). And again, the only solution 11

12 which is seen in all these situations of perceived disorder a strong hand : Like in the Constitution the President should be everything [slams the hand on the table in confirmingthe words]. Like Smetona 21. Because now here is nonsense (interviewee no. 2 on statement no. 16), therefore, there is an need for the hand [firm leadership]. There is no [proper] host in Lithuania. Like in the merest farm if there is no host, no leader, it s just a mess-up. Like that. (interviewee no. 20 on statement no. 16). Leitmotiv of chaos and disorder is extended in the outlook to the civil servants as to the excess, objectless burden (statement no. 25, which takes the position of strongest disagreement in this social perspective): all these servants are just the big minus to the state, because in the reality they do not create any profit and do not give any product. < > So what they [are doing] there they are writing official letters to each other, carrying all kinds of documents, but what out of it < > it would be better if they do nothing at all there is no difference anyhow. Nothing changes. (interview no. 16). Even the professional units come to this narrative through the same angle of need of order their strengthening is approved as the rise of possible bouncer, people s advocates : relatively strong agreement with the statement no. 17 can be illustrated with the interviewee s no. 20 quote: Well, [for someone] to be. For someone to defend the rights of the people. Because now practically no one defends [the people] (here, as well as in all the social perspective under consideration, the strong sense of disenchantment can be felt). The need for the order and effectiveness finally permeates all the narrative so deep, that as the troublemakers bringing polyphonic chaos are perceived (and accordingly negatively evaluated) even ethnic minorities. Statement no. 28 taking high position in idealized Q sort of the factor shows that: That s right. They themselves provoke discord. They themselves mistreat, do not live considering our conditions, they fiddle about screaming, shouting (interview no. 17). In this context, the position of ethnic minorities is commented also very emotionally: Here, nobody needs those. < > Well, I am against those ethnic minorities altogether. < > On the whole, I think that there should not be such minorities [in the country]. (interview no. 21). Accordingly, statement no. 26 is strongly (and significantly) rejected in the perspective: Of course, there is no such a lack. Yet what, they do not need that at all. < > They should adapt to us and not we adjust to them that s not fair (interview no. 20), Of course, we should not allow [to put the signs with the streets names in other languages], because here is Lithuania. It makes sense. < > You know, people of the other nations themselves do not want to root into our country and to belong to Lithuania, to become citizens. < > Well, they do not tolerate us themselves (interview no. 17). As it can be seen, the topic of minorities issues become important and come into the perspective s narrative exactly because it conflicts with core idea underlying this perspective - idea of the order as antithesis to the perceived chaos in the public life. Through the same prism of strong hand also statement no. 44 ( Where possible, private ownership of state enterprises should be increased ) is interestingly denied: here discussed are not the effectiveness or fairness of service provision or the guarantee of it, but in this perspective defined by factor B, the state is supposed not relinquish ownership of its enterprises to the private sector in order not to lose the power, to keep strength of the hand (one more aspect of its). The quote of factor s face (interviewee with the highest factor loading) is very illustrative in this respect: And if it [the 21 Antanas Smetona president of the Lithuania during Interwar years, who turned the regime to autocratic one. 12

13 enterprises] will be transferred to the private ownership, so the state will no longer have anything, so what kind of power the state will hold then? It will no longer have anything (interview no. 16). However, it should be taken into account, that though strong leadership suppressing chaos is preferred and welcomed in this perspective, yet bigger than the minimal care from the state is not demanded, not expected and not wished it is strongly agreed that everyone should take care of himself (statement no. 48): And who will take care, if you yourself won t. The state - so it can only, how to say, to keep some kind of direction, to help [in that] (interview no. 16). Accordingly and the instructions of one s superiors (here firstly understood as instructions from state) are evaluated very critically (disagreement with statement no. 32: So here of course, you have [to decide] everything by yourself. Those directions of the state are here, you know Maybe they also will create their, how to say, laws good for themselves, or good for somebody else. And about the [interests of the] common person, well - zero, interview no. 20) (the leitmotiv of distrust in state institutions is also reoccurring here). This principle of the selfreliance is even extended from the person to the whole state (strong agreement with statement no. 12): Well, Lithuania should be more independent, not to obey to whatever Europoean Union says all the time (interview no. 21). In fact, it could be doubted here if the principle of both individual and state self-reliance is perceived as required only in the current chaotic situation or after the imposition of order as well. However, it should be taken into account, that interviewees themselves didn t mentioned such conditionality of the self-reliance and the broader logic of the previous discussed statements would possibly lead to the conclusion that such self-reliance is preferred in both cases. There is also a second line of the argumentation in this perspective, whose statements share the most important places in the ideal Q-sort and hence characterize the social perspective together with the statements of need of order line. This line of argumentation - pragmatic and even positive outlook to the Russia and Soviet past of Lithuania. First of all it is denoted by the statement no. 15 ( Lithuania has to demand decidedly from Russia to compensate the damage caused by the occupation ), which takes quite strong position in the negative pole of factor B. In-depth interviews allows to see that, first, it is seen as completely unnecessary, unproductive action ( Of course not. Nobody will give [compensations] anyway, you can demand in as much as you want. ), second, in the comment of the interviewee, who has the highest loading in the factor, even certain allusion to the mutual equation takes place: And how much of things are brought here from Russia and metal, and everything, and you cannot take it away. < > And here about those repayments (interview no. 16). The line of pragmatic need for a dialogue with Russia extends through statement no. 14 ( Lithuania has to maintain good relations with Russia ), which also was considered to be significant one (this time in agreement). Here it is emphasized the high importance to deal with Russia friendly Well, we have to [behave with Russia] like that (interview no. 17). Nevertheless, not because of the friendliness or the principle of good neighborhood as such (which took place in similar arguments in A factor s perspective), but because of the pragmatically calculated need maintaining good relations is estimated as a gain: Because Russia is a powerful country, to trade with Russia would be very useful to Lithuania (interview no. 21). However, pragmatic evaluation of the country s relationship with Russia does not disclose the attitudes to the Soviet past of Lithuania thoroughly. This can be done by the statement no. 21 ( Soviet symbols has to be banned ), which takes a significant place in the negative pole of perspective s idealized Q sort. Results of the interview analysis show that the objection to this statement comes, firstly, from not seeing any valid excuse fort the action of banning and second, from not only treating Soviet symbols neutrally as plain part of the history ( Well, in that case let s ban spinning-wheels for wool, which 13