Spontanéité contre formalisme en Europe de l'Est.
Authors: Matejko Alexander 
Published: November 2010

Spontaneity versus Formalization in East Europe. Some Problems of Bureaucratization under State Socialism.

Intermixing of organizational structures in the Soviet state socialism, dependence of the bureaucratic structure on the Party policy shifts, the ambiguous role of legality, the important role of laymen, as well as the relative shortage of skilled clerks and of the appropriate equipment, all these factors limit the scope and the depth of bureaucratization (in the Weberian sense) in Eastern European societies. Spontaneity must enter the scene when the formalization is inconsistent or even contradictory. The major characteristics of industrial society: growth of population and rising expectations, diffusion of power, highly developed division of labour, task-concentration, universalism of legal provisions, high authority of the state, standardization and neutralization of human relations based en achievement, and urbanism, are consciously promoted in Eastern Europe and they contribute to the growing tension between the Utopian model of a socio-moral unity, and the internal diversity of a developed society.

A far reaching formalization is usually particularly harmful when dealing with growth. The changes within the social structure of Eastern Europe exemplify the newly arising sources of spontaneity among people that are related to the growth of the system. The mass advancement contributes to the rising expectations. There appears among people, especially among those who are well educated, a vivid interest in confronting dogma with the reality. People look for better opportunities for themselves and create coalitions which exercise some pressures upon the rulers. New social ties become established and they modify the current model of social system. There is a lot of camouflage on the side of the ruling elite, as well as on the side of average citizens. Local elites try to outmaneouver the masses, but on the other hand the rank and file also develop some ability to outmaneouver the system. In such a situation, now very common all around Eastern Europe, with one possible exception of East Germany, it seems very difficult to establish a reliable and effective policy of reconciling formalization with spontaneity. Nobody really knows where the formalization ends, and where the spontaneity starts. Everything is so mixed-up in this respect that even the leaders are misinformed.

The contradictions within the existing system constantly feed various spontaneous behavioral patterns which develop under the cover of formalization. Managers of the enterprises must involve themselves into the extralegal activities just in order to satisfy demands of their own superiors, colleagues, and subordinates. Anxiety is far from being eliminated from the system, and at the same time the religion, which proved itself historically to be the best outlet of catharsis, is condemned or even entirely eliminated (the case of Albania). The system rejects the ideals of a consumer society, but at the same time it claims to challenge the USA exactly on terms of consumer values

The rational basis of the system has several obvious loopholes; for example the selection of leaders is far from being rationally regulated. The abolishment of exploitation has been claimed for years as the highest achievement, but continuity of the current system relies on oppression much more than on anything else. So far state socialism of the Eastern European style has not been able to establish an objectified order in which people would feel safe. Still too much depends on the whimsical and arbitrary decisions of rulers currently in power.