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 a.s.signs 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 a.s.sist 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 cla.s.s distinctions, which were just beginning to emerge. The Bulgarian n.o.bility of the Middle Ages had been destroyed under Turkish rule and was not restored with the return to monarchy; the small middle cla.s.s of merchants, industrialists, bureaucrats, and professionals had come into existence since independence in 1878 and lacked tradition; an urban working cla.s.s 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 inst.i.tutions. 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 emanc.i.p.ated 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 b.u.mpkins, 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 ma.s.s 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 a.s.sociated 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 a.s.sociated 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-cla.s.s or upper cla.s.s 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 cla.s.s or middle-cla.s.s 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 debas.e.m.e.nt 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, encompa.s.sing 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 inst.i.tuted 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 cla.s.s, has been the object of much glorification by the regime and has benefited most by the social measures pa.s.sed 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 cla.s.s as a result of the crash industrialization program and const.i.tute between 40 and 50 percent of the population, as compared to about 29 percent in the mid-1950s. Most members of the working cla.s.s 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 cla.s.ses who have been demoted by the new social order. Many members of the small prewar working cla.s.s were propelled upward out of the working cla.s.s into managerial and administrative positions of industry.
Within the working cla.s.s 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 a.s.signed to these industries in the overall economic plan.
The middle level of contemporary society encompa.s.ses 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 cla.s.s, 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 cla.s.s 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 const.i.tutes 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, ma.s.s 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 ma.s.s organizations such as the youth union are also important factors in determining his admission to an inst.i.tution 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 const.i.tuted 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, pa.s.sed 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 ent.i.ty.
In keeping with communist practice, the government and the Bulgarian Communist Party have introduced a network of ma.s.s 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 inst.i.tutions, much as the family did in traditional Bulgarian society. The political purpose of the ma.s.s 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.
CHAPTER 5
LIVING CONDITIONS
After a period of austerity during which the population"s needs were neglected in favor of rapid industrialization, the standard of living of Bulgarians began to improve in the early 1960s as more goods and services became available. The physical well-being of most of the population has been improving steadily since the end of World War II.
Morbidity has declined noticeably, and declines in the overall death rate and in the infant mortality rate have resulted in increased life expectancy. Electricity and water supplies have become available even in remote rural areas. In comparison with other Eastern European countries, however, and particularly in comparison with Western Europe, the standard of living in Bulgaria in 1973 was low.
Increasing exposure to living conditions in the rest of Europe and growing incomes of most Bulgarians created pressures to improve their own quality of life. In December 1972 the country"s leadership proposed an extensive program for improving the standard of living and satisfying the rising expectations of the population over the next ten years (see ch. 12). An important element of the program is the elimination of the continuing disparity in living conditions of the rural and urban populations.
In keeping with the socialist ideology of the state, the population is ent.i.tled to free health care and an extensive system of social benefits.
Although these have greatly benefited the population in terms of their physical and material well-being, their bureaucratic and inefficient administration has been a source of considerable frustration and dissatisfaction.
HEALTH
Death and Morbidity
Life expectancy at birth in the late 1960s was about sixty-nine years for males and seventy-three for females. This was a 35-percent increase over pre-World War II figures. Although Bulgarians have had a reputation for longevity, which has been attributed to their diet, a high infant mortality rate and a high incidence of morbidity had combined until the mid-1950s to keep the life expectancy relatively low. Those who survived to middle age tended to become octogenarians or older; but they were in a minority. Proportionately, however, there were more older people in Bulgaria than in most other countries in the world.
The increase in life expectancy since World War II has been brought about by a drop in the death rate from 12.2 per 1,000 in 1939 to seven per 1,000 in 1970 for the urban population and from 13.7 per 1,000 in 1939 to 11.4 per 1,000 in 1970 for the rural population. During the same period, infant mortality dropped from 139 per 1,000 live births to twenty-seven per 1,000 live births. In the late 1960s the incidence of infant mortality was 39 percent higher among rural infants than among urban ones. More than one-half of the deaths of children under one year of age were the result of pneumonia. The second major cause of infant mortality was birth trauma, despite the fact that 98 percent of the births took place in a public health facility under medical supervision.
The three major causes of death in 1970 were diseases of the heart and circulatory system, which accounted for 252 per 1,000 deaths; cerebrovascular diseases, which accounted for 206 per 1,000 deaths; and cancer, which accounted for 146 per 1,000 deaths. A program of systematic treatment and prevention of infectious diseases, which were once widespread, has either brought them under control or eradicated them completely. The law requires that all cases of contagious diseases be registered with the public health service. In 1971 the greatest incidence was reported for influenza, mumps, chicken pox, dysentery, infectious hepat.i.tis, and measles.
The Public Health Service
The public health service, modeled after that of the Soviet Union, is based on the premise that the state has the responsibility to provide free health care for the population and that such care should be uniform and readily available. The health service is financed by the state, supervised by the Ministry of Public Health, and administered by the public health departments of the district people"s councils. Free health care is available to all citizens; medicine required for outpatient treatment, however, must be paid for by the patient.