Poleva N.S., Ayanyan A.N. Transitivity as a factor in the precarization of everyday life
Natalia S. Poleva, Ph. D (Psychology), Psychological Institute of Russian Academy of Education, Moscow, Russia; bld. 9–4, Mokhovaya str., Russia, Moscow, 125009; email@example.com
Anna N. Ayanyan, Master (Psychology), Psychological Institute of Russian Academy of Education, Moscow, Russia; bld. 9–4, Mokhovaya str., Russia, Moscow, 125009; Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia; bld. 6, Miusskaya Square, Moscow, Russia, 125993; firstname.lastname@example.org
The results of theoretical and empirical research of precarity and precarization are presented. Various discussions and principal approaches to the interpretation of terms “precarity” and “precarization” are analyzed. Precarity is considered not only in the context of work and socio-economic relations, but also in an extended existential sense as a personal experience/state of uncertainty and unpredictability of the future. Everyday life of a modern person in a transitive world is associated not only with social and economic instability, physical and mental vulnerability, but also with collective and individual experiences of precarity as a chronic generalized anxiety. The article presents the results of an empirical study of students’ precarity, meant to identify the main factors of precarization in social and work relations and in various spheres of students’ daily life. To conduct an empirical study of students’ precarity, the authors developed special methods, aimed at identifying various aspects of work experience, features of professional identification, professional ambition, and students’ satisfaction/dissatisfaction with various spheres of their lives. Youth and students are traditionally regarded as a potentially precarized social group or as a group at risk for precarity. The study revealed the predominant factors of precarization in social and work relations among students: the discrepancy between work and education, the inability to influence important decisions in their organization, and the lack of employment contract with the employer. The obtained data allow us to speak about the representation and significance of professional affiliation in the structure of students’ socio-cultural identity. In ranking the degree of satisfaction with various areas of daily life, students rank culture the highest. Students are concerned and experience precarity about the environmental sphere. It is shown that individual experiences of precarity form the basis for the individualization of everyday life: construction of everyday life as an individual lifestyle, as well as the formation of subjectivity as the authorship of individual strategies of life-construction and life-creation.
Key words: precarity, precarization, students, youth, everyday life, transitivity.
For citation: Poleva, N.S., Ayanyan, A.N. (2021), “Transitivity as a factor in the precarization of everyday life”, New Psychological Research, no 1, pp. 29–53, DOI: 10.51217/npsyresearch_2021_01_01_02
Research grant №20-013-00075\20 «Person in everyday life: psychological phenomenology and determinates» of Russian Foundation of Basic Research.
Butler, J. (2018). Notes on the performative theory of Assembly. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press.
Bauman, Z. (2005). Individualized society. Moscow: Logos.
Bek, U. (2000). Risk society. On the way to another modern. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya.
Bek, U. (2001). What is globalization? Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya.
Bourdieu, P. (2003). Counterfire: Against the Tyranny of the Market. London: VersoBooks.
Butler, J. (2004). Precarious Life. The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London; New York: Verso.
Castel, R. (2009). Metamorphoses of the social question. Chronicle of hired labor. St. Petersburg: Aleteiya.
Druzhilov, S. A. (2015). Precariat and informal employment in Russia: socio-psychological aspects. Gumanitarnye nauchnye issledovaniya, 1, 2. Retrieved from http://human.snauka.ru/2015/01/9491
Fedorova, A. E., Parsyukevich, A. M. (2013). Precarization of employment and its impact on the socio-economic well-being of employees. Izvestiya UrGEU, 5(49), 76–81.
Golenkova, Z., Goliusova, Yu. V. (2013). New social groups in modern stratification systems of global society. Sotsiologicheskaya nauka i sotsial’naya praktika, 3, 5−15.
Goliusova, Yu. V., Ivashchenkova, N. V. (2014). Excessive education in Russia: socio-economic consequences. Teoriya i praktika obshchestvennogo razvitiya, 18, 25−31.
Grishina, N. V. (2017). Behavior in everyday life: lifestyle, everyday creativity and “life creation». Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya, 10(56), 2. Retrieved from http://psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2017v10n56/1505-grishina56.html
Grishina, N. V. (2019). Personality psychology: Staying in change. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo S.-Peterb. un-ta.
Guseltsev, N. S. (2020). The employment of the individual in contemporary transforming society. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya «Psikhologiya. Pedagogika. Obrazovanie», 2, 133–150.
Guseltseva, M. S. (2019). Psychology of everyday life in the light of the methodology of latent changes. Moscow: Akropol’.
Keynes, J. (1998). The General theory of employment. Istoki, 3, 280–292.
Kharchenko, V. S. (2013a). The combination of work and study in universities: new practices or new meanings? Voprosy obrazovaniya, 3, 92–104.
Kharchenko, V. S. (2013b). Freelancing as a lifestyle in modern Russian society (Doctoral dissertation). Ural’skii federal’nyi universitet imeni pervogo Prezidenta Rossii B.N. El’tsina.
Khoroshilov, D. A. (2018). Collective experiences of precarity in modern culture (in memory of T. G. Stefanenko). Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya, 11(58), 1. Retrieved from http://psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2018v11n58/1548-khoroshilov58.html
Khoroshilov, D. A., Il’zher, E. A. (2019). Collective experiences precarity and civil movements. Natsional’nyi psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 2(34), 48–54.
Kuchenkova, A. V. (2019). Secondary employment in the context of precarization processes in the Russian labor market. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 9(45), 73–83.
Martsinkovskaya, T. D. (2016). Culture and subculture in the space of the psychological chronotope. Moscow: Smysl.
Martsinkovskaya, T. D. (2017). Psychology of everyday life: oxymoron or a new trend in psychology. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya, 10(56), 1. Retrieved from http://psystudy.ru/index.php/num/2017v10n56/1497-martsinkovskaya56.html
Nort, D. (2010). Understanding the process of economic change. Moscow: Izdatel’skii dom GU-VShE.
Rozmainskii, I. V. (2016). Post-Keynesians and Douglas North on uncertainty and institutions: the missing link. Zhurnal institutsional’nykh issledovanii, 3(8), 35– 45.
Sennet, R. (2004). The corrosion of character. Moscow–Novosibirsk: Fond sotsio-prognosticheskikh issledovanii «Trendy».
Shevchenko, I. O., Shevchenko, P. V. (2019). Gender characteristics of precarity. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya, 9, 84–95.
Simakova, M. A. (2018). Alliances of fragile bodies, or the politics of vulnerable lives. Book review: Butler J. notes on the performative theory of Assembly. Translated By D. Kralechkina, ed. by A. Kondakov, Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, 2017. Sotsiologiya vlasti, 1 (30), 215–226.
Stending, G. (2014). The precariat: the new dangerous class. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press.
The level of anxiety and fears of Russians. (2020). Results of the expert online panel on the all-Russian survey Russian Publlic Opinion Research Centere. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://club-rf.ru/images/files/5eb3e657197b2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwie3YyTyPvsAhVhsYsKHXstCwMQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3A7SVwsx8KBSotkiu1UATR
received 14 March 2021
published 14 March 2021