|
In the first case the community mainly values laws, in the second – tradition. Of course, the above-mentioned scheme is extremely simplified, though sufficient in this respect.
***
The history of the Tbilisi ubani (residential neighborhood, district) in general bears the imprint of Georgian culture. When active migration from village to town began (XIX century), migrants from the same village tried to settle together in order to remain in a relatively familiar environment (it should be pointed out that historically Georgians have no inclination to migrate; a possible reason for this is their fear of unfamiliar environments). The names of the streets –Vashlidjvari street, Khiliani street, etc., illustrate this manner of forming districts. In fact, districts became relatively isolated settlements where the same standards and lifestyle prevailed as in the village, ranging from the style of country estate and farm animals kept to the type of relationship people had with each other. Subsequently, in the period of “Khrushchev-style block-building” these “urban villages” were moved into concrete apartment blocks. However, this did not cause any great changes in the mode of living, which continued to be on a rural basis. Thus, Tbilisi districts went all the way from one-storey villages to one-storey settlements, which subsequently turned into multi-storey apartment blocks.
It should be pointed out that the period of so-called “generalized block-building” mainly concerned Tbilisi, though it was not completed even there. It is because of this that some districts in the capital have the appearance of a Georgian village: closely built and fenced-in low houses with poultry and even vegetable-gardens, attributes which are not usual features of modern towns. Other Georgian cities have an even more pronounced rural appearance (The town of Rustavi is an exception in this respect, since it was originally built from concrete).
Everyday life within a district is in many ways similar to that in villages. Neighborhood is a living institute; mutual assistance, exchange of news, informal “courts” (where informal ubani leaders would attempt to resolve conflicts) and small parties (in Georgian, “pur-marili”) are a part of the routine of life within a district. The attributes specific to a town perform a second-rate role: time constraints are not really regarded, money is not capital but the means to spend, road traffic does not obey any rules, etc.
***
The following tradition also comes from the village: when children in a family grow up and get married, preference is not given to building or buying new homes but rather to the enlargement of the so-called “mother-apartment” by building an extension or adding a neighboring apartment. When this is done, neither aesthetic concerns nor the interests of the district or town as a whole are taken into account – the built up walls are left without external facing with no regard to the original architecture. While such actions may be admissible in villages (due to the non-existence of a general architectural concept), they are a cause of “aesthetic catastrophe” in towns. Against this background only those illegal constructions spread around Tbilisi which do not take into consideration the “town’s aesthetic sentiments” are a cause of social protest. The tendency described above may be explained by the specifics of Georgian culture; nothing like this exists in other former Soviet towns built up with similar concrete blocks.
***
In his time Alexis de Tocqueville saw the guarantee of the strength of the American nation in its capability to establish purposeful and efficient business groups, no matter what the purpose would be, ranging from defense against enemies to the setting-up of amateur orchestras. It is precisely this capability which Georgian culture lacks.
However, what does not take place is the unification of district residents with an aim to attaining some type of positive goal for the community; moreover, while it may be more or less possible, though difficult and not really efficient, in a village, it is practically impossible in towns.
The village, the district … this means, first and foremost, the people – good and bad, close and distant, etc. In Georgia, the most valuable relationships are those with the members of one’s own village or district. The idea of changing and improving the public environment within the yard, street, village, town or country by common efforts is unusual to our mentality. This is exactly what makes a Georgian ubani different from an American community and determines the weakness of civil society in our country.
***
The circle of acquaintances and close friends certainly exceeds the bounds of the district as a place of residence. However, a “rural” mode of life prevails in relationships within circles of relatives and friends. It could be said that Georgia represents a unity of real and “virtual” villages and districts. The entire structure of a “virtual village” may be practically observed in the funeral rites of its members. I mention this in order to make sure that it is clear what I mean by the “virtual village”. As a ritual Georgian funeral rites serve, first and foremost, the purpose of socializing and of demonstrating the “village’s” wealth, strength and influence.
It remains for me to explain why I refer to the above-mentioned group as a “village”. In general, a village may be considered as a closed self-maintained social system within which the main social requirements (contacts, prestige, power, etc.) can be fulfilled.
Its life is regulated by more or less constant standards and traditions. This set-up is similar to the lifestyle of the small social groups in which the majority of Georgians exist. The place of every member of society is determined by the small group (i.e. “virtual village”) in which he or she exists (his or her acquaintances, neighbors, the residents of the district, etc.); The person’s social, i.e. public position, (police chief, university professor, etc.) comes second to this. As regards the urban basics (law, public activity, etc.), they are not completely utilized, playing a secondary role with respect to the rural lifestyle.
Of course, life is not limited to the definition of “my village”; there are “other villages” as well. However, a “neighbor villager”, who left the “village” for another place and became well-known there, or one of the “villagers” famous outside the “village” is considered to be the “face” of the “village” and gives it prestige with respect to other “villages”. Besides, the maintenance of contacts with other “villages” is highly desirable and valuable to the “village”. A person maintaining such contacts takes the part of a leader.
Every “virtual village” has a doctor, lawyer, “big boss”, etc., to whom “villagers” turn if necessary. These professionals either directly provide the “villagers” with the appropriate services (in accordance with established standards, ie. free of charge, out of turn and more qualified than when the same service is provided to members of other “villages”) or ask qualified colleagues to help. The greater the influence of its members, the higher is the prestige of the “village” as a social group. It is not only our society’s mentality, but also its structure which regulates daily processes one way or another. However, a society organized in this way is incapable of solving not only state problems but also any other problem which exceeds the bounds of the village.
This phenomenon is precisely explained by the following inner features of the village: narrow horizons in both space and time (space is mainly limited to the “village”, time – to the present, sometimes – the past; the future is ignored), lack of motivation, lack of skills in public behavior, verbal but not actual fulfillment of social obligations (for example, Georgian toasts, various patriotic poems and songs), the fact that all privileges are immediately awarded to “ours”.
***
If orientation towards the future and business and motivation are not brought to the foreground, if civil society and urban lifestyle are not reinforced, we will be condemned to continue living in the stagnation in which we currently exist.
This structure of Georgian society should not be evaluated unequivocally as either positive or negative. Its ability to survive has been proven during the country’s life as a democratic state by the maintenance of the nation’s originality, strong system of values, language and religion. However, this traditional lifestyle is not compatible with the reality of Georgian independence.
It is of no use simply to hope for a “good government”, since even in the highest echelons of the leadership (at least up to this point) the same “rural” code dominates as in Georgian society as a whole.
|
