Heinrich Best Book order

The year 1989 marks an upheaval in Central and Eastern Europe and stands for a radical change in such spheres as society, economy, politics and culture in this region. The volume presents a collection of articles and analyses exploring a broad range of aspects of post-1989 developments ranging from historical legacies and politics of history, changing values and mentality, old and new inequalities, elites and European integration, written by recognised social scientists from both Eastern and Western Europe. The chapters included in the volume present not only recent advances and findings, but also state-of-the-art of research and emerging trends and future challenges in the above-mentioned areas.

This book offers a selection of papers from the conference which was held by the Sonderforschungsbereich (Collaborative Research Center) 580 in Dornburg near Jena, Germany. International experts discuss key issues of contemporary sociological research on the late socialist societies, their power and functional elites, and their experiences of transition. In its first section, the recruitment and careers of socialist and post-socialist administrative and economic elites is observed. In its second section, the focus is on elites as creators and creations of social and political change. This book is an excellent analysis showing that elites play the decisive role in the multi-layered process of societal transition, just as they provided the key to understanding the societal dynamics and mechanisms of state socialism before the collapse of the system

The question of who rules in Eastern Europe became crucial for western researchers after the establishment of communist regimes, particularly as state socialism spread into Central Europe post-World War II. This political order, characterized by a highly centralized and repressive power structure according to Leninist and Stalinist theories, directed attention toward the top echelons of party and state officials. The extreme centralization of power led to an elitist analysis, often viewed from a distance. Paradoxically, a system that claimed to represent the pinnacle of historical development and espoused egalitarianism while denying individual significance was largely interpreted through the personal traits, rivalries, and idiosyncrasies of its leaders. Much of society remained shrouded in obscurity, revealing only fragments of social life far removed from the centers of power. While it is debatable whether this focus on elite figures distorted the overall understanding of these regimes, it certainly contributed to an overestimation of their stability, an underappreciation of their diversity, and a misjudgment of the conflicts and divisions that existed within them.