3
refers to as “clientelism” (closed/vertical); “pooling” (closed/lateral); “charisma” (open/vertical);
and “self-defense” (open/lateral).
4
Consistent with the logic reflected in this typology, this
paper will compare the typical Japanese and Russian peasant communities, the mura and the mir,
to identify two distinct variants of the economy of affection -- one, the mura, approximating a
localized version of “clientelism,” and one, the mir, approximating a localized version of
“pooling.” In view of a larger question aimed at understanding responses to newer institutions in
the course of industrialization, this paper will focus specifically on those norms and
understandings that guided the organization of cooperative endeavors and the distribution of
obligations, rewards, and authority. While both institutions would be physically dissolved or
dispersed by the middle of the twentieth century (the mura as a result of land reform under the
Allied Occupation, the mir as a result of Stalinist collectivization), such norms and
understandings are sufficiently diffuse as to be portable across functionally similar institutions in
spite of marked differences in technology, social environment, and formal administrative
structures. This suggests that the distinctive legacies of preexisting economies of affection may
be a crucial component of any inquiry into how formally similar institutional practices can
function quite differently and elicit quite different responses in diverse social environments.
5
The following section presents a general discussion of institutions and culture, noting the
value of distinguishing the formal/informal and material/ideal dimensions of institutions for
certain analytic purposes, as well as the necessity of differentiating elements and layers of
“culture” in terms ranging from those that are attached to specific actors and practices within
specific institutional contexts and those that are diffuse enough to be reproduced in different
environments. Next, section III provides a description of Japanese and Russian agrarian
communities, with an eye to highlighting the more vertically oriented norm of benevolent
paternalism in the former to the more inclusive and egalitarian ethos in the latter. The fourth
section briefly considers the potential influence of these distinctive normative orientations on the
expectations and reactions of the category of individuals that was most directly and powerfully
affected by the encounter with new institutions of production in the course of the 20
th
century:
the industrial workforce. The conclusion reviews the salient points of comparison.
4
See Hyden, figure 1, and the accompanying discussion.
5
For the broader argument about of historical legacies reinforce or undermine institution-building efforts in late-
industrializers, see my Managing ‘Modernity’: Work, Community, and Authority in Late-Industrializing Japan and
Russia (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002).
Convention