As a possible answer to the question about what is happening in the social structure in Ukraine, consider the obvious political, economic, and cultural reality. It is not really diverse; the main general tendency is towards degradation of the social structure, the acknowledged fact of general destruction. According to the most radical view (which is becoming quite popular now), Ukrainian society is an amorphous structure without clearly defined social groups where individuals have lost the criteria of social self-identification (1). This is considered to be a situation accompanied by either polarisation (2) or marginalisation of most of the population and rapid formation of a rich social class in the midst of the deep economic crisis which is widely discussed in mass media. The polarisation model is accepted by public consciousness and clearly divides the society into "new" and "old" members.

However, sociologists in whatever school cannot consider society as something without any structure. Such a conclusion is something "prohibited" for a professional sociologist if not accompanied by an explanation about what actually is "amorphous." A society without structure is something impossible for a social scientist; social structure is actually the most distinctive quality of society. Otherwise a group of individuals cannot be considered to be a society. Such a group would be extremely inactive. However, if we regularly observe the same object in different conditions (in our case, the object is society), the professional duty of the social scientist is to reveal and describe social subjects that cooperate with the purpose to achieve certain goals. In other words, whatever happens with the object of observation, the sociologist must consider a certain structure; he or she assumes a certain structure and tries to identify it.

At the same time a simplified structure that may give the illusion that it has disappeared is not an impossibility. It is the consequence of social crisis. In such situations social scientists often lose trust in their main instrument -- the concept of social structure. Concerning Ukrainian society, the crisis has been repeated so many times that it is bad taste to state it now. The attempts to overcome the crisis in scientific circles are referred to new approaches to define social structure and to describe the possible aspects of institutional interrelations.

We focus here on the current tendencies of social structure transformation. However, we should note that this process is most interesting for us in the context of institutional, status, or professional identity of institutions, groups, and individuals in a given socio-historical reality. We do not consider social structure as something completely separate from actions provided by the social agents through which they confirm or renew membership of the social status or group; that is, confirm their own identity or produce new samples and logics of identification. One-sided determination (mostly a structural one) does not seem to be a means to describe and understand the present-day processes. Moreover, we are going to show that its cognitive possibilities are rather problematic in the context of new historical approaches. In other words, we consider structure as the product of historical process, on the one hand, and as the product of activities provided by institutions, individuals, and social groups that are subject to external rules, on the other hand. We define such action as identification practices; that is, the process of referring oneself (or others) to a certain position in the social hierarchy.

We are basing this on the fact that changes in the social structure are accompanied by changes in identification practices. Individuals and groups find themselves in a situation where they have to classify themselves in a certain point of social space and social time. At the same time, the borders of such space and time are often quite uncertain, while the resources for self-identification are limited. The transformation of social structure causes an "identity crisis," cancels some identification practices, and replaces them with other ones. We understand social identification as the process that refers to attempts by individuals to find other people with the same characteristics and to "join the group." This implies a certain distance from those with considerably different characteristics. Identity is the final result of this activity. One refers his or her personality to the group of other individuals with the same characteristics.

The problem of self-identification and finding one's own identity is an acute one practically for everyone. We consider the interdisciplinary approach as the most relevant one to explain the possible ways of solution. Such an approach would allow us to explore philosophical, particularly social, and psychological levels. Productive adaptation in the social space implies the straight distinction between "myself -- not myself," regardless if the individual acknowledges his or her own identity or fixes his or her position automatically based on existing traditions, cultural norms, and personal experience.

At the same time it is obvious that the problem of identification is more acute in highly dynamic modern societies and in crisis situations. In the both cases, says V.A. Yadov referring to A.E. Giddens, the temporal dimension of identification is most important. This means the attempts to compare the situation "then," "now," and "in the future"(3). However, as has been noted, the instability of present-day life is not the only factor. Here we deal with fundamental needs for self-organization of private and collective life which initiate the tendency to separate oneself in the context of collective identity. Here are the roots of the impossibility of avoiding ambivalence in one's thoughts and actions while choosing one's own position or trying to accept some group's values (or the society's values). Both sociologists and social psychologists understand the interrelations of individual and society. Too much attention concentrated on one part may cause serious mistakes.

To the beginning.

The Gender Context of Identity

The term "gender" is widely used in the West. The term itself refers to femininity and masculinity; that is, the socio-cultural formations that appear based on sex and reflect the existence of two socially and culturally different groups.

Despite the fact that women have become an integral part of the rapidly-increasing labour force, most previous sociological studies neglected women's experience in the labour market or considered it as something "different" from men's labour experience. In the well-known sociological work by William Foote White, Organization Man, the author practically identified "person" and "man." Such practice was one of the reasons for criticism of traditional approaches to studying people's consciousness and behavior. The idea is that no research in the field of human behaviour can be regarded as complete if it ignores women's roles and positions in the social sphere along with those of men who are traditionally represented in all fundamental studies.

When studying career paths, gender studies provide a good approach to see how women feel in the labour market and to trace their professional development in the labour space. On the other hand, such studies provide grounds for an important question: is it time to re-consider the traditional concepts of career and identity and to replace or at least to add to them dimensions that would consider peculiar qualities of women in the labour market?

Highly developed countries, of course, have their own stereotypes and practices for women entering the labour market. Mothers who work, not to mention women without children, are usual in the labour market. Career is important for themselves, their families, and the national economy in general. However, as the English sociologist A.E. Giddens claims, women's situation in the labour market has not changed much from long ago, as most of them "perform work that does not require creative approach and are at the low level of labour hierarchy in offices and enterprises; their working perspectives are limited if compared with ones of men."

Ukrainian women in our focus groups confirm this point.

Anya: I can say that sometimes I do boring work, but I have to do it. Because somehow I have to feed my family, even though they only pay our salaries once every six months. I am worried about the uncertainty of tomorrow. It is the most painful point. I have worked for 26 years and I know my job. Now I am occupied with petty work that nobody needs. My dissatisfaction with my job reveals itself at home, in how I relate towards my husband and daughter. My work has always meant a lot to me. There are women who only think about their families. I, unfortunately, was raised by the Soviet system, and I gave a lot of time to my job. I thought first about the Motherland [Rodina], and then about myself. Because of this, now sometimes I am overwhelmed by a feeling of not being needed, not being in demand. It's horrible.

Tatyana: I would like to support Anya. I also wrote down "lack of certainty about tomorrow." I think that those words could be written by any woman, even one who has a good job, because tomorrow her firm could go out of business. It used to be that we would receive an education, then go work, and then a pension would await us. That is, there was a plan for your whole life. You were the same as everyone else...you got a paycheck....Now nobody asks how much you earn. Maybe that's normal. I also don't ask my friends how much they make. It seems better to me that way. But there is no certainty about the future. I worked in the employment system, with the unemployed, and I know their problems. It's a stressful situation when a person has to suddenly change his profession, even worse at pension age [approaching 55]. Women, 40-45, thrown out on the street by their enterprises, part of downswing. Of course there are big problems. You see, even if the person becomes re-educated, the stress remains. She takes it out on her family. It is very difficult.

Valentina: I worked for fifteen years in metallurgy. It is such laborious work, but there was no one to pass one's experience onto. Young people aren't interested. You have to get new qualifications and another job, and you yourself forget bit by bit. But, you see, someday that skill will be needed and it will be necessary to gather it a grain at a time.

Lidiya: I have a somewhat similar problem. My daughter graduated from college, and the college's employment agency sent her to a position where they said, "But we asked for a man." That is to say, there is no demand for women... "You can work for us as a secretary," they say. She says, "I don't want to be a secretary. I want to work at my profession." Of course, it may be revealing that my daughter's profession is a woman's specialty. But, all the same, that's the attitude: "We asked for a man." I think that this is a problem that has appeared recently.

Analysis of available statistical and sociological data shows a somewhat specific situation for women in the labour market. Many sociologists claim that gender segregation in the labour market (which is revealed in the male-female job division) is one of the most stable attributes of the modern world. This shows that gender is one of the most powerful factors that influence one's working prospects. Moreover the existing stereotypes of identification and self-identification of professional and labour possibilities are quite stable and deeply rooted.

Few specialisations and industries that require high qualifications contain high number of women; the proportion of women is much larger at lower levels of the labour market. The possibility to become unemployed is much higher for women at all levels of the labour market. Women are usually paid much less than men. For example, in the USA, the average wage for women in the main industries was 65% of that for men; this fluctuated from 51 to 78 percent for different industries.

A.E. Giddens believes that such a situation is typical for all industrial capitalist countries. However, he notes that data for countries with a large proportion of women in the labour force do not differ much from the USA. He considers women "twice discriminated"; namely, many women still bear the "double burden" of work at home and in the labour market.

Women's access to the possibilities of the labour market is still limited. Women's careers are usually shorter. It is interesting that such a situation exists in western countries, where the educational system supports gender equality. In modern states, men and women enjoy more or less equal education opportunities. At the same time, the opportunities to use this education or work experience are much lower for women. Thus, in Japan, for example, many companies do not even take applications from women with university degrees. This means that education is a good thing for women to a certain extent only. In fact, it may become an obstacle for getting a better job. Many women with high qualification confess that the work they do requires much lower qualification and experience than they could offer.

Thus, gender is a biological attribute with important social meaning. It is an important factor in identification and self-identification. Career inequality, i.e., unequal positions in initial labour status and wage level, has been added to the traditional ones that existed for centuries. This problem is a complicated one and the possible ways to solve it are different and sometimes contradictory.

The claims that the labour market is controlled by men who have possibilities to manipulate it for own purposes are quite grounded. Women have fewer possibilities for professional growth with the most frequent explanation that their future family and children may be a serious obstacle for successful career. If a woman already has a family and children, they say that family responsibilities do not allow the woman to concentrate on work. Thus women often can not enjoy career mobility simply because they are women. This is a simplified interpretation of the situation, but in many cases it reflects the reality.

Gender segregation and wage inequality reflect different investments in human capital. Women accumulate much less of it as they have to spend much more time in the family. It is a widespread view that women need to invest more time in the family and therefore to interrupt their careers. Here are the reasons for lower productivity and wage rates and fewer possibilities for professional growth.

These issues are illustrated by our focus group respondents.

Valentina: Perhaps men are less affected by age qualifications. For a thirty-year-old woman, it's all over, but for a thirty-year-old man...he can get a job. The same at 40, and at 50....

Lidiya: Because for women there is always the problem of choosing between her family and her work. She is restricted because she must decide whether she is going to give herself more to her family or to her job.

Anna: It used to be that there weren't any restrictions for hiring women over thirty. As a rule, they no longer had small children, which meant that they wouldn't take sick days [bol'nichnie] to look after ill children. But now in the new enterprises no one understands such a thing as a sick day for a child. That is, you can still be ill, but no one understands what a sick day for a child is. That women under 30 are in demand is a new social phenomenon... Before, you see, when they saw that you had a small child, they could refuse you for that reason. I myself had such an experience. They said, "You have a small child. That means you'll be taking sick days." That is to say, they could refuse you. Now it's the other way around.

Lidiya: I think that women with children have received a painful moral blow. For example, I prepared myself: my children will grow up and my sick days will already be spent. For that reason I never took sick days for myself, only for the children. I can progress; I can work. For example, the boss calls me to him and says, "Your children are grown... Everything's all right..." That is, I was made to progress. Suddenly I understood that I was already over 40, and that I wouldn't always be needed.

Anna: Although it seems that there is professional growth, for some reason no attention is paid to it. I don't understand it. One becomes more qualified with age... That is, the most important thing is disregarded...

Advocates of the concept of labour segmentation explain women's limited possibilities in the labour market by the fact that companies provide more opportunities for and invest in those who are expected to become long-term workers. Women, especially young women, are less attractive objects for investments. They have fewer chances to get positions which may be starting points for long-term, successful careers. Inequality in the labour market is accumulated throughout a person's career.

The concept of the individual model is becoming more popular now. This model focusses on differences between men and women: their initial background, life choices, education, and life roles that they were prepared to perform in the process of education as well as purely biological differences. This concept has become the standard explanation for statistical and sociological data showing different positions of men and women in the labour market as well as numerous facts of segregation and discrimination. No matter which aspects, social or biological, are taken as the basis, such concepts consider reasons for discrimination as something in women themselves. This is why all kinds of literature "for women" are so popular now; such books give advice about how to make a successful career, how to make decisions, etc. Certainly the model here is men; women are simply advised to borrow the models typical for men.

Those who support the view that structural determinants influence personal behavior and feelings believe that the previous approaches do not consider important differences among women themselves and numerous similar features of men and women. Things that are considered as gender differentiation of labour behavior are conditioned in fact by structural factors. Claims that men are more ambitious, purposeful, and have higher work motivation have already become stereotypes. R. Kanter says that if women show lower motivation for work, the reason is that their work gives them much fewer opportunities. Data available from sociological studies show that work is not the main life value and source of identity for many men. Men with limited opportunities moreover meet stereotypes established for women. It is also a well-known fact that in a multiracial society like the USA, labour careers of white women and Afro-American men are quite similar. Thus the structural approach to studying people in the labour market shifts the focus from personal differences to structural limitations that are faced by both men and women. This means that changes are needed in institutions rather than personalities.

It is known that the economic situation in Ukraine is difficult now. Therefore, most of the focus group participants (both women and men) talked about difficulties. For instance, male focus group participants said:

Vaso: The economy has declined. And it won't be restored in the near future, that's understood. The rise in prices, inflation, the deterioration of discipline. As for me, I work in a building brigade. Our brigade numbered 100 workers. Trust me, it was the biggest brigade. And now there are only a few left. Why is it like that? Numbers only a few workers. Why? The first reason is that they don't pay our wages; the second is that our wages are very low. Everybody has a family and considerable needs and they look where it will be better for them. What option do they have, disappear? Everyone has thrown themselves into commerce. Now in Zhmerinka [the town serving as local political and economic center], you can't walk from the department store to the train station for the people trading. Where do they come from? Not from the state, they are all private traders.

Moderator: So, you consider that kind of trade as a negative factor?

Vaso: Yes, how can that be positive? I earned 120-150 rubles monthly back in the sixties, about 1968 and could afford shoes, a suit, and a bottle of vodka. Now I can't buy that and don't get paid that and I have nothing to show for that change. And then our money disappeared. Where is it? As for me, I sold a cow and a calf to save some money for my funeral. There was money in the bank. I thought, there would be some money to bury me. I didn't touch it and those 800 rubles turned into a few kopecks. Today I can buy nothing for that money, that has been a ridiculous idea for some time. But it was a cow and a calf, imagine that!

However, is it possible that the models of behavior and self-estimation used by men are not used by women? There are grounds to say that differences between men and women are not only biological ones. These are differences in fundamental values and vision of oneself amongst other people. Feminist sociologists are sure that women's experience cannot be described within theories and concepts oriented towards men. Such ideas have become more popular now, and they differ somewhat from the previous feminist views. Previously, the feminist movement struggled for equal access to provisions available for men once legal equality had been achieved. This referred mainly to the sphere of employment. Feminism struggled for the women's right to have the same career possibilities as those available to men.

However, women's abilities and qualities remained underestimated. Their adaptation to present-day work realities is quite illusory, since the labour market is still unfriendly to women's basic qualities and behavior models. What are they? Are they really different from those of men or simply have a different basis? Well-grounded answers to these questions constitute a new approach to understanding women's roles in modern society.

Data available from previous studies served to prove that there were actually no differences between men and women and no reason not to trust women, including those working in big companies. However, new findings became available which show that men and women differ considerably. Women have a number of attributes totally unknown to men. The English sociologist J. Marshall used the terms "men's values" and "women's values" to distinguish these gender differences. The conclusion is that there are two different socio-cultural systems in any society. In the men's system, the world is perceived in the rights-responsibilities-principles context; in the women's system, the world is perceived to be a social relation network with the individual in the centre and where truth and falsehood are something relative and pragmatic.

The new studies show that traditional roles are the central part of a woman's identity, even if her career is successful. For women, access is something more complicated than merely a set of professional achievements. Many women who achieve success in their professional life feel frustrated. Money, public success, and authority are not the most important values in their lives. Many respondents interviewed by J. Marshall, even those in leading positions, evaluated themselves to be marginal in the companies where they worked. They perceived their environment at work as unfriendly and strange.

According to the data collected in Marshall's study, men and women live in different worlds. Men live in a "linear" world, where their job is most important. Young men plan their future mostly in the context of career. They consider education as something continuous until the desired point of a career is reached. Family is desirable and is not considered to be a source of problems. Women, on the contrary, operate in the world of possibilities, where lots of things depend on circumstances. Career is possible and often planned. However, the possibility to interrupt one's career and "return" to the family or to school is quite large. In fact, women plan to participate in the same spheres of life as men (education, work, family), but have different understandings of the extent and sequence of such participation.

Study of the identity of women who worked showed the need to reconsider the established definitions of career as a synonym for growth in the chosen professional field. It is easy to regard women who are trying to combine work and family as professional outsiders if one uses men's career standards. However women have their own motivations for successful careers. At the same time, their motivations reflect their preferred way of life rather than a narrow focus on getting a particular position, something which is typical for men.

Despite attempts to summarize theoretically the results obtained through recent studies, feminist sociologists are not ready to provide a well-grounded and logical concept of social identity and career for modern women. The main attributes of such a model can be defined through negations. Women consider career not as a movement towards a greater opportunity for mobility and success; it is not a mechanical combination of marriage, motherhood, and work. They do not accept the man's model of career, which is synonymous with productivity and public recognition without clear alternatives. They do not accept work as the cornerstone for social identity. Membership even in very prestigious and progressive organizations is often not a source of identity for women. Many new enterprises, for example, in the field of consumer services, were started by women with considerable professional experience. Such women interrupted traditional careers in their companies to get more control over their lives.

This is only one tendency among those that need better consideration. Women's values must be integrated into career theory. Otherwise it may remain one-sided, i.e., reflect a society, social institutions, and norms where men's values dominate. Therefore, feminist sociologists call for reconsideration of the contents, structures, and methods of theories that describe social identity and career. Their gender context is contradictory. However, it must be taken into consideration in order to provide authenticity to obtained results.

We did not consider here all possible approaches to analysis of the interrelations of work career and identity formation. We have simply tried to stress that it is reasonable to consider both individual and social organizational characteristics. Work careers depend to a large extent on the given social space. At the same time, people's careers influence social space. The individual's opportunity for a career is structured by its nature. One reaches success and gets identity in a structured space of possibilities.

The transformation experienced by our society have definitely had influence on career mobility and general ideas about work. At the level of public consciousness, having a career is regarded positively. The social space for careers has been radically changed. Numerous interruptions to careers that would have been stable and renewed in the previous system are the effects of the current economical crisis, fall of production, and structural reforms of the national economy. Some socio-professional statuses have simply disappeared. The rate of hidden unemployment is very high, while the prestige of some "intellectual" professions is falling. Sociologists use the term "de-identification," which is characterized by ruined life stories. This happens, first of all, to people strongly oriented towards careers. Contemporary Ukrainian society has lost criteria of identification with profession and place of work not only in terms of wages and privileges but professional careers as well. What is going on now can be described as career identity devaluation; that is, devaluation of identity with intellectual work and higher wages.

Here are some focus group participants' responses to the questions: "What do you think, who has been most affected by the bad economic changes -- men or women? Who are in a more difficult situation?''

Examples of answers by men include:

Andriy: I think that it is men. It is my personal opinion, it is based on what I see. I think, men have a worse time. They have to feed their families. And women, women are doing better. Well, not better, I mean it is easier for them. Because it is in at the core of man's nature to provide food and other things. I am a young man. I try to protect my wife, and that places a lot of responsibility on me, a great deal. I try to do my best to do all those things, so that she does not take the man's duties. I try to protect her from all of these troubles, so that she sees less of them. That is why it is very hard on me.

Vitaliy: I think it is worse for women now, especially if they have children. They have to look after their kids and families and house. All that rests on her shoulders. And what of us? Well we go to work, come home from work, they've cooked dinner and we sit down and eat. And after that what do we do? Well what? I think it is much easier for men.

Here are examples of the women's answers:

Lidiya: I think that men and women have suffered in equal measure. At first, it seems that it is easier for men. And it's easier for them to get good jobs, and so forth. However, it seems to me that everyone has suffered to the same extent. Men, just like women, lose their jobs, or, if they are employed, don't receive their salaries. And maybe they have it harder morally. Of course I am judging from the experience of my own family. My husband used to say to me that he had to earn enough so that, at any moment, I could stay at home with the children. Now he can't say that to me anymore. So it seems to me that men and women have suffered in equal measure.


Tatyana: I think that men and women have suffered differently, in different areas of activity. Now women very frequently lead the family. If she is paid a salary larger than her husband's, that causes all sorts of cataclysms. The woman feels free. Quite often it ends in divorce. You see, a woman who used to be materially dependent [on her husband], cuts loose, as they say. She often behaves as if she were a free woman. Naturally, in this case, the man suffers. Men also have their own problems. For example, when a man loses his job, his inferiority complex is greater because he can't look after his family like a man. Of course, men and women have suffered to the same extent, but in different ways.

Changes in career social space is linked to the process of private property legalization and return to the national economy. This has led to opportunities for entrepreneurial careers and the formation of new social groups. Their representatives differ from most of population in that they have better chances for career mobility and better career understanding. New enterprises and organizations based on private or public property have created a situation in which the same positions in different organizations have very different wage and career possibilities. All these changes have affected people's perception of their current circumstances, as has been shown by empirical studies including our focus group research.

(1) Polokhalo V., Political Process and Political Elite. Politychna Dymka, 1993, Vol. 1, p. 12.

(2) Volovych V., and S. Makeev, Social Stratification and Policy. Politychna Dymka, 1993, pp. 15-16.

(3) Yadov V.A., Social Identification in a Crisis Society. Sotsiologicheskiy Zhurnal, 1994, No. 3, pp. 35-52.