SOCIAL SYSTEM
In 1878 Bulgaria emerged from Turkish rule as a homogeneous, egalitarian
peasant society centered in the family and the community. Through the
introduction of foreign economic and social ideas and institutions, the
society gradually changed during the period between the two world wars.
At the time of World War II Bulgaria actually had two social systems:
the traditional peasant society, changing but still focused on the
family and the community, and a growing urban society that focused on
the economy and the state. When the Communists took power in 1944, they
set out to destroy the old social order and replace it with one that
would reflect communist ideology. The resulting changes have been far
reaching and basic. The traditional economic and value base has been
destroyed by the elimination of private property. Social distinctions
were introduced and magnified where none or few existed. Traditional
institutions, such as the church and the family, were weakened; and new
institutions, such as mass organizations, were introduced to take their
place. Many segments of the population benefited materially from changes
that opened new opportunities for education and social advancement;
however, the price paid for these benefits was the loss of such
important motivating forces as freedom of choice, independence of
action, and the right to own income-producing property.
By the early 1970s the rate of change was slowing down, and the society
was settling into a discernible pattern. Some aspects of the old social
order seem to have survived, providing a continuity between the old and
the new. The changes that continue to affect the society are more the
result of economic growth than of social engineering.
ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS COMPOSITION
The Bulgarian population is homogeneous in both ethnic and religious
composition. Approximately 85 percent is Bulgarian, and some 90 percent
adheres at least nominally to the Eastern Orthodox faith. The most
significant ethnic minorities are the Turks, who number about 700,000,
or 8 percent of the population; the Gypsies, estimated at 200,000, or
2.5 percent of the population; and the Macedonians, who also number
approximately 200,000. The remainder are Greeks, Romanians, Armenians,
and Jews.
The Turkish minority, once considerably more substantial in size, dates
back to the centuries of Turkish rule (see ch. 2). A steady emigration
of Turks from Bulgaria to Turkey after World War I and the expulsion of
some 150,000 in the 1950-51 period reduced their number. Most of the
remaining Turks are tobacco growers or artisans, who live in rural areas
in the eastern third of the country and along the Danube River. Their
traditional peasant conservatism, bolstered by their Islamic faith, has
made them less willing to adapt to the contemporary social order than
the rest of the population. A majority would like to emigrate to Turkey,
but the Bulgarian government has been unwilling to let them go because
the country cannot afford such a population loss.
Turkey, for its part, could not absorb the Bulgarian Turks without
seriously endangering its own economy and therefore has not encouraged
their desires. By agreement between the two governments, about 30,000
close relatives of Turks who left Bulgaria in the 1950-51 period will be
allowed to emigrate during the 1970s. The majority of Bulgarian Turks,
however, have little hope of leaving in the foreseeable future. In spite
of the desire of its members to leave the country, the Turkish minority
has posed no serious problem to the Bulgarian government. The government
has made an effort to integrate the minority into national life, at the
same time preserving its cultural distinctions, which are guaranteed by
the constitution.
Gypsies are not considered a national minority by the state, although
they consider themselves such. Strongly attached to their nomadic way of
life, the Gypsies have been reluctant to settle in a permanent place and
to integrate themselves into the national society. They continue to
follow their traditional occupations as musicians, tinsmiths, and
horsemen.
The existence of a Macedonian minority has been disputed over many
decades by Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. Bulgaria has consistently claimed
that Macedonians are ethnically Bulgarians, that their language is a
dialect of Bulgarian, and that their land is a part of Bulgaria.
Yugoslavia, on the other hand, has given legal recognition to a
Macedonian nationality by establishing the People's Republic of
Macedonia and by designating the Macedonian language one of the official
languages of the federal republic (see ch. 2; ch. 10).
The vast majority of Bulgarians have been born into the Bulgarian
Orthodox Church ever since the ninth century, when Boris I adopted
Christianity for his people. Until World War II a person had no legal
existence without a baptismal certificate from the church. In keeping
with Eastern Orthodox tradition, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is an
independent national church. It is inseparably linked with Bulgarian
nationhood in the minds of most Bulgarians because of the role it played
in preserving a national consciousness during the centuries of Turkish
rule and in spearheading a national revival in the nineteenth century
(see ch. 2).
A tradition of religious freedom and tolerance allowed religious
minorities to exist without friction. Even during World War II the Jews
in Bulgaria suffered little persecution in comparison with those in
other parts of Eastern Europe. No census of religious affiliation has
been taken since the Communists took power; however, according to
various estimates in 1965 there were about 750,000 Muslims; 26,000
Protestants; 32,000 Roman Catholics; and between 3,000 and 7,000 Jews.
The Muslim population included most Turks and some 50,000 Pomaks
(Bulgarians who converted to Islam during Turkish rule) living in the
rugged Rodopi mountain range.
Religious freedom is guaranteed by the constitution, but churches are
subject to strict governmental control. Formal religious education is
restricted to the training of priests. Children, however, continue to be
instructed in the rudiments of faith and ritual by their families.
Despite government efforts to secularize the milestones in the life
cycle, a large percentage of Bulgarians continue to regard the priest as
an essential officiant at baptisms, weddings, and funerals. Churchgoing
and the strict fasts prescribed by the Eastern Orthodox church have not
been carefully observed by most Bulgarians since the 1930s;
nevertheless, the people often exhibit strong religious feelings
tempered by traditional beliefs in the powers of nature, the evil eye,
and other forces. A survey conducted by the Bulgarian Academy of
Sciences in the mid-1960s classified 35.5 percent of those surveyed as
religious and 64.4 percent as nonreligious. The criteria used to
determine whether a person was religious or not was either a verbal
expression of religious conviction or regular attendance at church
services and regular prayer.
THE FAMILY
Until the time of World War I Bulgarian society was frequently
characterized as familistic, that is, personal interests and
prerogatives of an individual were subordinated to the values and
demands of the family. The family was the focal unit in society; it was
the chief training ground for the young and played the leading part in
molding the individual into the accepted pattern. The family was the
center of economic life also, particularly for the peasants, who lived
relatively self-sufficient lives. Relations with other social units and
institutions were carried out through the family rather than by the
individual. An individual had no standing in society apart from that of
his family, and individual behavior and prestige reflected on the family
as a whole. Individualism, therefore, was discouraged by constant
pressure from the family to conform to custom and tradition.
The traditional family was patriarchal and strongly authoritarian. It
reflected many features characteristic of the _zadruga_, the extended
family that formed the basis of social organization of the South Slavs,
including the Bulgarians, until its gradual decline in the late
nineteenth century. A _zadruga_ consisted of the male offspring of the
same parents and perhaps grandparents, with their wives and children,
living together and jointly owning and working the ancestral lands. The
group was ruled by the elected head, usually the oldest and most capable
male, who was responsible for directing the work, for settling disputes,
and generally for providing for the well-being of the _zadruga_ as a
whole and for each of its members.
By law and by custom, even after the passing of the _zadruga_ as a
social institution, authority over all matters concerning the family
rested with the father. In the village married sons with their wives and
children and unmarried children all tended to live under the father's
roof until his death, at which time the oldest son took over the family
homestead, and the others built their own houses nearby. The authority
of the patriarch rested, in no small measure, on his ownership and
control of the means of livelihood of the family. Sons submitted to
their father's will in order to inherit their fair shares of the
patrimony.
Close family relations were maintained not only with blood relatives but
with relatives by marriage and with godparents. The bond between two
families also related by marriage was as close, formally, as the bond
with blood relatives; it included not only the parents of the married
couple but also the brothers and sisters. For that reason parents took
great interest in their children's choice of mates. Similarly, the bond
between godparents and the family of the godchild was considered as
close as that of blood kin. The strong relationship between the two
families was developed partly because the same family usually provided
the godparents for another family for generations. Reciprocity of
godparenthood, however, was not allowed because a family tie was
established with the first christening. Members of families who were
related through godparenthood or through marriage could not marry
because that would have been tantamount to incest.
Age and sex determined the individual's role within the family and his
relations with other members. Men occupied a superior position, and
women were expected to show deference to their husbands and to older
male relatives. A frequently cited image of Bulgaria at that time was
the man riding a horse or donkey empty-handed while his wife walked
behind carrying a heavy load. The position and influence of the wife,
however, was far greater than this image implies. Few husbands made
decisions or took action affecting the family without prior consultation
with their wives.
Age was respected because it represented the accumulation of wisdom and
experience. This greater wisdom and experience also gave the older
members of the family authority over the younger ones. Children were
highly valued as tokens of successful marriages and as economic assets,
but they were not fussed over. Although they were expected to take their
places as active members of the family at a relatively early age by
performing light household tasks, running errands, and tending animals,
they were also given considerable freedom to play. Until they reached
maturity, children were expected to do what they were told by their
parents or by other adults without question.
This traditional family system provided for great stability. Each member
knew his place in society and knew what was expected of him, and he
generally felt secure and satisfied.
The gradual industrialization and urbanization that took place between
the two world wars slowly introduced changes into the traditional family
system--at first among the urban population and eventually among the
peasantry. Most notable among the changes was the shift toward the
nuclear family unit and the disappearance of the extended family
household. This reduced the authority of the father over his adult
children, who now formed an independent economic and social unit. It
also gave greater freedom to young people in choosing their mates and,
thereby, in their relations with each other. Within the nuclear family
the relationship between husband and wife became a more egalitarian one.
Relations between parents and children also became less authoritarian,
although the father's relations to his children continued to be rather
formal.
The changes in family life and in the role of the family in society that
began to take place between the two world wars accelerated during World
War II in keeping with the rapid rate of economic change. The greatest
assault on the traditional system, however, came in the second half of
the 1940s and early 1950s when the new communist government set out to
revamp Bulgarian society. The already dying patriarchal system was dealt
its final blow with the elimination of inheritance through
nationalization of industry and commerce and collectivization of
agriculture. After the patrimony had been eliminated, a major incentive
for submission to the patriarch had disappeared.
Another factor that contributed to the end of the patriarchal family and
to the end of parental authoritarianism was the government's appeal to
youth's desire for independence. Young people are taught to believe that
they are the foundation of the new Bulgaria and that their elders'
traditional ways are outmoded and should be discarded. In this way a
generation gap has been created, and youths wanting to escape parental
influence can count on the state for support. Their escape has been
facilitated through the expansion of educational facilities, the
expansion of employment opportunities resulting from economic and
bureaucratic expansion, and by the many youth organizations and youth
activities--all of which enable young people to spend much time away
from home and act independently of their parents.
The role of women, which had begun to change in the 1930s, was greatly
altered under the influence of ideology and of economic realities. In
social doctrine and law, women are considered equal to men and are
continually urged to demand their rights in the home and in the
community. They have also gained considerable independence of movement
through the expanded employment opportunities available to them in a
developing economy. In 1968, 80 percent of employable women worked
outside the home. A large percentage of them worked because of the
necessity to supplement the family income rather than through choice;
nevertheless, the fact that they do work outside the home has altered
the pattern of family life and the relationships of family members.
Working mothers must leave their young children in state-operated
nurseries or with relatives and thereby relinquish much of their
influence in molding the children into adults. Evidence indicates that
few mothers like to leave young children in nurseries, preferring to
leave them in the care of trusted relatives or friends. Fathers appear
to be playing a greater role in the raising of children than they did in
the traditional family.
Housekeeping is still considered to be entirely or predominantly the
responsibility of women, whether they work or not. The working woman
spends much time every day after work standing in line at food markets
and other stores, buying the daily necessities. Household appliances and
convenience foods are scarce luxuries; therefore, housekeeping is a
time-consuming and tiring activity. Even peasant women must take care of
their households and children after putting in the required hours in
cooperative labor, whereas formerly they could fit their field work in
and around their other responsibilities.
As a consequence of these changes, the traditional roles of family
members have been altered. The dominance of the head of the family has
given way to a greater distribution of decisionmaking and a greater
independence on the part of other family members. As family members
spend less time together, the emphasis in daily life is shifted from the
family to the outside world. Persons come to be looked at more as
individuals than as members of a certain family. Individuality and
personal achievement become as important as family background in
determining the status of an individual and his nuclear family.
Similarly, individual action or personal status no longer reflects on
the larger family.
In the eyes of the state, marriage is a secular matter governed by civil
law. Religious ceremonies are permitted but must be preceded by a civil
marriage. The minimum age for marriage without parental consent or
special permission from the local authorities is eighteen for both men
and women. The urban marriage rate in the 1960s was considerably higher
than the rural one, reflecting the higher percentage of young people
living in urban centers. Men generally marry between twenty and thirty
years of age, and women, between fifteen and twenty-five. The law
assigns equal rights and obligations to both partners in a marriage.
Divorce is relatively easy to obtain and no longer carries the social
stigma of former times; the divorce rate in the early 1970s was average
for Eastern Europe.
Despite changing patterns of family life, most observers find that the
cohesive force of the extended family continues to be a factor in
contemporary society. In many cases the cohesiveness is perpetuated or
even strengthened by modern phenomena, such as the chronic housing
shortage and the need for grandparents or other relatives to care for
the children of working mothers. The housing shortage has revived the
traditional system of several generations of a family sharing the same
roof. The pressures of change and the burdens of daily life hold
families together, and the traditional sense of family loyalty also
seems to survive. Members of such extended families assist each other in
finding employment, in gaining admission to special schools, or in
obtaining scarce items of food or clothing.
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION
Before World War II Bulgaria had a basically egalitarian peasant society
with a simple social structure. A rural-urban division was more
significant than class distinctions, which were just beginning to
emerge. The Bulgarian nobility of the Middle Ages had been destroyed
under Turkish rule and was not restored with the return to monarchy; the
small middle class of merchants, industrialists, bureaucrats, and
professionals had come into existence since independence in 1878 and
lacked tradition; an urban working class was just emerging. Few
Bulgarians were more than one or two generations removed from their
peasant ancestors, which gave most people a common background.
The rural-urban differentiation was socially significant in that it
formed what amounted to two social systems with differing values,
controls, and institutions. The rural society focused on the family and
the community; its outlook was parochial. The urban society focused on
commerce, industry, and government; its outlook was national and often
international, and it was subject to continuous influences from abroad.
The two systems, however, were closely interrelated because most urban
dwellers had their roots in the village and because both the economy and
the government depended heavily on the peasant as a supporter and as a
client.
The narrower focus of rural society provided few opportunities for
choice, and custom over the years set a pattern that was accepted as a
matter of course. Social standing depended to a large extent on how well
an individual performed within the established pattern, and the
gradations were very slight. The wider focus of urban society, on the
other hand, offered far greater opportunity for choice and freedom of
action. This made for greater differentiation between individuals than
was possible in the village.
The greater freedom and the opportunity for economic and social
advancement offered by the urban society were most noticeable in the
social contrast between the urban worker and his peasant relatives.
Although most workers had a very low standard of living, they considered
themselves emancipated from the restrictions of rural society and,
therefore, better off. When they returned to the village to visit
relatives, they were looked up to as persons who had enlarged their
horizons and bettered their lot in life.
The social contrast between the educated urban
intelligentsia--white-collar workers and professionals with a secondary
or a higher education--and the peasant was even greater. Some members of
the intelligentsia maintained a romanticized attachment to their village
origins, but most of them tried to build up their own status by
disparaging the rural population. Even the village schoolteacher and
rural physician were seen as unsophisticated country bumpkins, although
they had the same education as their city counterparts.
The urban intelligentsia saw itself and was seen by others as the top
group in society, just below the royal family, which occupied the apex
of the social pyramid. The top level of the intelligentsia, that is, the
leaders in the political, economic, and cultural spheres, became a small
entourage surrounding the king and thereby gained additional prestige
and power. The economic position of most of the intelligentsia, however,
was very precarious because there was an oversupply of graduates for
whom government employment was virtually the only outlet. Those who had
an official position held on to it against all odds. Others, who could
not find employment appropriate to their presumed qualifications, sat
around cafes waiting for openings rather than returning to their home
villages to put their education to use there.
The peasant, for his part, was distrustful of the city and of city ways.
He did not feel inferior--even to the intelligentsia whose education he
greatly admired. The peasant took pride in his land, in his
self-sufficiency, and in his adherence to custom and tradition. He was
conscious of belonging to the large mass of peasantry that shared his
point of view, his way of life, and his strong sense of tradition.
Differences in wealth and economic independence were recognized among
peasant families but did not affect their relationships, which were
basically egalitarian.
The village, town, and city in pre-World War II Bulgaria each had its
somewhat different social structure. Village structure distinguished
between peasants, artisans, and intelligentsia. Innkeepers and
storekeepers were sometimes identified with the artisans but more
frequently with the peasants because they were usually peasants who had
sold their land to engage in commerce. Artisans, on the other hand,
underwent special training to prepare them for their calling. These
special skills and the fact that artisans did not have to toil long
hours in the sun or rain put them in a higher social category than
peasants. The elite group was the village intelligentsia--the teacher,
doctor, priest, mayor, and other officials who had more than an
elementary education. Their prestige derived from their education, and
their power derived from their positions. Through their ties to the
wider world, the village intelligentsia bridged the gap between rural
and urban societies.
The social structure of towns distinguished between artisans, merchants,
and intelligentsia. In the preindustrial Bulgaria of the 1930s, the
artisans and peasants together formed the backbone of the economy. The
guild system of progression from apprentice to masterworkman still
prevailed and fostered social distinctions among the artisan group.
Merchants occupied a higher rung on the social ladder than did artisans,
primarily because they did no manual work to earn a living. The
distinction, however, was not great, and members of the two groups
generally associated with each other. The elite group in town, as in the
village, was the intelligentsia. Because towns were usually government
administrative centers and, often, garrison posts, the intelligentsia
was often quite numerous. It included all the white-collar workers,
professionals, and army officers. The town intelligentsia was a
self-contained group whose members mostly associated only with each
other. Within the group, however, distinction was made on the basis of
education and rank in the government hierarchy.
The city social structure resembled that of the towns but had additional
strata reflecting the wider range of economic activity found in the
city. The most economically and socially disadvantaged were the workers,
including industrial and domestic workers. Just above them were petty
government employees, such as janitors, messengers, and railroad men,
whose standard of living was extremely low but who could look forward to
a secure old age with a government pension and who took pride in being
civil servants. Above these lowest groups were the artisans, shopkeepers
and merchants, and the intelligentsia, as in the social structure of
towns. A few industrialists ranked among the highest because of their
economic power, but even they paid respect to university professors for
their intellect and to higher government officials for the status and
power connected with their offices.
When the Communists took power in 1944 they set out to destroy the old
social system and replace it with one based on Marxist-Leninist
ideology. The period of so-called socialist reconstruction that followed
resulted in a general leveling of social strata through the demotion of
formerly privileged groups and the promotion of formerly underprivileged
groups. Persons of peasant or worker origin received preferential
treatment in the allocation of housing and of other necessities of life
that were in short supply, in the appointment to jobs, and in access to
higher education. At the same time persons of middle-class or upper
class background were deprived of their housing, removed from key jobs,
and denied educational opportunities for their children through a
discriminatory quota system at secondary and higher schools. A policy of
equalization of incomes made little distinction between different levels
of education or skill, thus eliminating material rewards as a basis for
social stratification. The small political and economic elite that had
developed from the peasant society before 1944 was decimated and
replaced by a group of party stalwarts, most of them from lower class or
middle-class background, who rose rapidly to the top positions of
administrative and political power and became the new ruling elite.
Membership in the Bulgarian Communist Party and complete loyalty to the
leadership were the main criteria for occupying any position of
responsibility.
The peasants appreciated some of the material benefits granted by the
new government, such as educational opportunities for their children and
expanded industrial employment that offered new outlets for
underemployed rural youth. As a whole, however, the peasantry bitterly
resented being grouped with workers in the ideological frame of
reference of the new leaders. To the peasant, landless workers who
lacked tradition and security occupied a lower social position than he,
and he saw this grouping together as a debasement of his own status. The
blow to his pride and to his traditional position in society was
complete when collectivization deprived him of his precious land. Were
it not for the private farm plot, which allows the peasant to continue
on a very small scale his cherished way of life and thereby perpetuate
his values, the cooperative peasant would be little more than an
agricultural worker.
In the restructured Bulgarian society the peasantry, encompassing
roughly 30 percent of the population, forms the bottom of the social
pyramid. Although it derives some benefits from the educational, health,
and welfare services instituted by the government, the peasantry is the
forgotten and most disadvantaged segment of the population. Peasants
continue to work hard and long for very meager rewards, and they no
longer have the pride and satisfaction of owning their own land and of
being independent.
The next social stratum, the industrial working class, has been the
object of much glorification by the regime and has benefited most by the
social measures passed since 1944. In terms of their standard of living
and their social status, workers occupy the lowest level of urban
society; however, the educational benefits available to them and the
growing job market offer prospects for betterment and advancement. The
group has grown more rapidly than any other social class as a result of
the crash industrialization program and constitute between 40 and 50
percent of the population, as compared to about 29 percent in the
mid-1950s. Most members of the working class are peasants who have left
the village to find a better life in the growing cities and towns. Some
workers are members of the former middle or upper classes who have been
demoted by the new social order. Many members of the small prewar
working class were propelled upward out of the working class into
managerial and administrative positions of industry.
Within the working class differentiation is made according to education
and skill, which is reflected in income and prestige. Skilled workers
are still in relatively short supply; therefore, they command
considerably higher wages and are likely to receive special housing and
other privileges and inducements from employers. The higher standard of
living that these material advantages can provide and the higher level
of education required to be skilled workers enhance their prestige in
relation to the semiskilled and unskilled workers. Workers in certain
industries, such as mining and heavy industry, are favored regardless of
their level of skill. They benefit from the special status assigned to
these industries in the overall economic plan.
The middle level of contemporary society encompasses all persons in
nonmanual occupations who are not members of the ruling elite. It
includes administrators, managers, professionals, technicians, and all
categories of white-collar personnel. Next to the working class, this
has been the fastest growing social group. As a result, most of its
members are relatively young, and their social origins represent the
entire spectrum of precommunist society. Within the middle class further
differentiation is made in terms of income and prestige between persons
in the upper levels of management and the professions, who have a higher
education and those in the lower levels of technical and white-collar
employment, who have only a secondary education. The group as a whole
probably constitutes almost 20 percent of the population. The relative
size of the upper and lower levels was not known, although the lower
level was probably larger.
At the top of the social pyramid is the small ruling elite composed of
the top leadership of the party, government, security forces, mass
organizations, and the various branches of the economy. The ruling elite
also includes members of the cultural and intellectual elite who, by
virtue of their political loyalty and willingness to serve the regime,
share in the privileges usually reserved to the top leadership. By
lending their talents to the party cause, however, these individuals
often lose some of the prestige and deference traditionally enjoyed by
the intellectual elite. The main criterion for membership in the ruling
elite is power derived from approved ideological orientation and
political manipulation. Most members come from peasant or worker
families and are veterans of the communist movement of the interwar
period. Membership in the ruling elite is accompanied by considerable
insecurity because it is highly dependent on political loyalty and
correct interpretation of ideology. A change in official policy can
deprive a member of his status and of all his privileges.
Since the end of World War II, Bulgarian society has been extremely
mobile. Industrialization and socialization of the economy have created
thousands of new blue- and white-collar jobs. The attendant increase in
educational opportunities has made it possible for individuals to gain
the skill and background required to fill these jobs and, thereby, move
up the social ladder. This mobility has been aided by the government's
determined effort to reshuffle society by improving the social status
and opportunities of the formerly underprivileged groups and by denying
them to the formerly privileged ones. Because education has
traditionally been the main determinant of status, social mobility has
been directed by the state through strict control over educational
opportunities. Preference in admission to higher education has been
given to children of peasants and workers, children of long-standing
party members and children of persons killed in the resistance against
the Germans in World War II (see ch. 6). The political orientation of
the student himself and his membership in mass organizations such as the
youth union are also important factors in determining his admission to
an institution of higher learning.
In the late 1960s there was some evidence that social mobility was
slowing down and that the society was beginning to stabilize into
self-perpetuating social groups. With the slowing of economic growth the
number of job openings in the higher levels has been reduced, and the
intelligentsia can satisfy from its own ranks most of the demand for
professional and managerial personnel. The social mix of students in
higher education in the late 1960s was far from representative of the
population as a whole--only about 39 percent of the students were from
peasant or worker families, although these groups constituted about 78
percent of the population. In spite of all their admission advantages,
children of lower income families have not been able to compete
effectively with those of higher income background. Given education as a
main channel of mobility, disadvantage in educational opportunities
means lower possibility for social advancement. Political loyalty,
however, can still override all other considerations and propel a person
up the social ladder. Membership in the party, therefore, continues to
afford considerable advantage.
OTHER SOCIAL GROUPS
Bulgarians are not by nature joiners. Formal organizations were of
little significance in national life before the 1940s. Although a wide
variety of groups existed, mostly in the towns and cities, membership
was generally small and was based on strictly utilitarian
considerations. Individuals joined to derive the benefits provided by
the organization, such as easy credit, professional standing, use of
libraries and other cultural facilities, or use of sports facilities.
Few members were actively involved in the operation or the activities of
the organizations to which they belonged.
Banding together for a common purpose, however, was far from alien to
Bulgarian culture; but social organizations and informal groupings that
emerged from such banding together usually were based on kinship or on
close personal ties. The most important formal traditional organization
was the _zadruga_ (see The Family, this ch.). In a less formal vein,
wool-cording and spinning bees were important features of rural social
life before collectivization. In fact, many agricultural activities,
such as hoeing and harvesting, were undertaken by groups of friends and
relatives who joined together to take turns working on each other's
land. This joining together for the accomplishment of necessary tasks
served an important social, as well as economic, function. While working
together in such groups, individuals exchanged ideas, passed on
information and, thereby, either reinforced each other's traditional
values and mores or helped develop new ones.
The cooperative farm of contemporary Bulgaria tries to derive the same
economic advantages from cooperation as did the traditional work groups.
The traditional groups, however, were based on a voluntary joining
together of friends and relatives, whereas the grouping on the
cooperative farm is forced and impersonal. The spirit of reciprocity,
which was so important in the former work groups, has also been lost on
the cooperative farm, where the peasant works land that, in his eyes,
does not belong to him but to an impersonal entity.
In keeping with communist practice, the government and the Bulgarian
Communist Party have introduced a network of mass organizations designed
to serve specific interest groups. Most prominent among them are the
trade unions, the youth organizations, the women's organizations, and
other member organizations of the Fatherland Front (see ch. 9). Some,
such as sports clubs, discussion groups, and cultural clubs of various
kinds, are organized on community or enterprise bases. Intended to cater
to specific interests of individuals, these groups attempt to attract a
large percentage of the population into formal organizations that can be
used to promote desired norms and values or undertake specific
activities. Major emphasis is placed on collectivism, that is, working
together as a group rather than as individuals. Structurally, the
organizations are usually divided into small groups that are intended to
act as focal social units. These units engage the attention and loyalty
of an individual and then act on his behalf in relation to other social
units or larger institutions, much as the family did in traditional
Bulgarian society. The political purpose of the mass organizations,
however, makes them unattractive to most Bulgarians who have never had
much interest in organizational activities. As a result, membership in
most has been far below desired levels. As was the case with earlier
organizations, Bulgarians join them in order to derive the benefits that
they afford. Membership in a youth organization or in a trade union, for
instance, is often required to gain admission to a school or to obtain a
job.