Daria Oreshina, Elena Prutskova, Ivan Zabaev

Social Capital of the Russian Orthodox Christianity in the Early 21st Century: Applying Social Network Analysis

Daria Oreshina - Research Fellow, Institute for Social Development Studies, National Research University - Higher School of Economics; Researcher, "Sociology of Religion" Research Seminar, St. Tikhon's Orthodox University" (Moscow, Russia), daria.oreshina@gmail.com

Elena Prutskova - Researcher, "Sociology of Religion" Research Seminar, St. Tikhon's Orthodox University (Moscow, Russia). evprutskova@gmail.com

Ivan Zabaev - Associate Professor; Scientific Advisor, "Sociology of Religion" Research Seminar, St. Tikhon's Orthodox University (Moscow, Russia), zabaev-iv@yandex.ru

The article examines the influence of religion on social capital formation in Russia. The study suggests that active involvement of the parishes in the organization of social work, based on the principles of delegation of power and authority from priests to the laity increases the parish social networks, attaching more lay people to it, including those who are "unchurched". The data for the article come from the research projects conducted in 2011 - 2013 at the "Sociology of Religion" Research Seminar, St. Tikhon's Orthodox University: a mass survey of parishioners of 12 Russian Orthodox Church parishes, located in different types of settlement and in different regions of Russia (the total sample size is

The article was prepared in the framework of the study "Social Network of the Orthodox Community", implemented with the support of the Council for Grants of the President of the Russian Federation to support young Russian scientists and leading scientific schools. Grant MK-4450.2012.6. Research data are also used: "Organization of social activities in the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church at the beginning of the XXI century. Sociological Analysis", RGNF grant 12 - 03 - 00565, and the first wave of the All-Russian OrthodoxMonitor study. Detailed information about the research is available on the website of the Research Seminar "Sociology of Religion" of the Orthodox St. Tikhon University for the Humanities (http://socrel.pstgu.ru).

page 40
985 respondents); in-depth interviews with parishioners and priests at 15 Russian Orthodox Church parishes (153 interviews altogether); and the first wave of a nationwide survey "OrthodoxMonitor" (national representative sample of 1500 respondents).

Keywords: sociology of religion, social capital, social network analysis, Russian Orthodox Church, parish community.

Introduction: research concept and method

Recently, there has been an active discussion that social capital and social support networks are important for improving the quality of life of people and for the development of certain countries. For example, in the reporting materials of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) project "Better Life Index", which aims to measure the quality of life and well-being of the population by a number of different factors, it is stated: "A person is a social being, therefore, the frequency of communication with other people, as well as the quality of personal relationships, are the most important factors well-being. Research shows that spending time with friends leads to an increase in the average level of positive emotions and a decrease in the average level of negative emotions compared to other pastime options. Helping other people can make us happier. People who volunteer to help others tend to be more satisfied with their lives than those who don't. Helping others also contributes to the development of a healthy civil society." And further: "A weak system of social connections can lead to limited economic opportunities, lack of communication with other people and, ultimately, cause a sense of isolation. Social isolation can also occur as a result of a family breakdown, job loss, illness, or financial problems. When a person is socially isolated, it may be difficult not only to restore himself as a full member of society, but also to realize his personal ambitions in relation to work, family and friends."1
1. Society //Better Life Index [http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ru/topics/community.ru, date of request: 12.11.2013]. The question of the significance of social capital-

page 41
Comparative ratings of countries on the corresponding indicators put Russia in last place. Thus, according to the aforementioned OECD index, Russia ranks 28th out of 36 countries in terms of "Quality of Support Network". Such a description of the situation allows us to formulate the question of what are the factors that would improve the situation in this area.

The concept of social capital, in terms of which this issue is discussed, was developed by P. Bourdieu, J. Coleman, R. Putnam and a number of other authors. Bourdieu defines social capital through group membership: the concept of social capital "was formed as a result of the need to identify the principle of social influences that are irreducible to a set of properties belonging to a given agent at the individual level... These impacts... they are especially noticeable in cases where different individuals receive too unequal profits with almost equal capital (economic or cultural), depending on the degree to which they are able to mobilize capital through their proximity to the group... "2. For Coleman, social capital is the characteristics of a social structure:" Social organization makes up social capital, contributing to the achievement of goals that could not have been achieved in its absence, or could only have been achieved at a higher cost"3. Putnam describes the sources of social capital formation and its consequences, problematizes the ratio of "open" (bridging) and" closed " (bonding) social capital 4.

pitala for individuals and societies is discussed in many works. The most famous study was R. Putnam's Bowling Alone. Having worked through a large amount of empirical material, in part four of the book Putnam shows that social capital is an important factor contributing to a higher standard of living, both in terms of economic prosperity and subjective well-being, happiness, health, security, etc. Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: Collapse and Revival of the American Community, pp. 287-363. New York: Simon and Shuster Paperbacks.

2. Bourdieu P. Formy kapitala [Forms of capital]. 2002. Vol. 3. N 5. P. 66.

3. Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

4. Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: Collapse and Revival of American Community.

page 42
Existing foreign studies show that religion is one of the most important factors5 that improves the indicators of social capital accumulation by communities. Thus, Putnam, summarizing a detailed description of the influence of the religious factor on indicators of social capital and civic engagement in the United States, writes:"...Religion is traditionally the main source of community life and health in America today. Faith-based organizations serve civic life both directly by providing social support to their members and social services to the wider community, and indirectly by fostering civic skills, instilling moral values, encouraging altruism, and encouraging civic engagement among church members."6. H. Unruh and R. Saider note in this regard: "Congregations transform their social capital into social well-being by taking collective action, supporting the civic engagement of their members, encouraging people and including them in the caring community"7 J. Schneider concludes that "faith-based communities become the main source of community, social and cultural capital, and support." 8 R. Wootenow emphasizes that " in addition to supporting social programs and reminding parishioners of the importance of helping those in need... congregations can serve an important social function simply by fostering friendships and other personal relationships. These relationships, or "social capital" as they are more commonly referred to, can become a means by which people in need can receive support informally from other members of their congregation."9
5. In this article, we consider only one of the possible sources of social capital accumulation, without rejecting the existence and importance of other sources. For a description of other factors affecting the accumulation of social capital, see, for example: Putnam R. Bowling Alone: Collapse and Revival of the American Community, pp. 31-183; Coleman J. Social and human capital//Social Sciences and modernity. 2001. N3. pp. 122-139, et al.

6. Putnam, R. Bowling Alone: Collapse and Revival of American Community.

7. Unruh, H. R. and Sider, R.J. (2005) Saving Souls, Serving Society: Understanding the Faith Factor in Church-Based Social Ministry, p. 236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

8. Schneider, J. A. (2006) Social Capital and Wellfare Reform: Organizations, Congregations, and Communities, p. 293. New York: Columbia University Press.

9. Wuthnow, R. (2004) Saving America? Faith-Based Services and the Future of Civil Society, pp.79 - 80. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

page 43
To date, no special studies have been conducted to analyze this problem in Russia, but a number of publications dealing with related issues suggest that the dominant denomination in Russia - Orthodoxy-most likely does not contribute to improving the quality of social life and the development of civil society. 10
In this article, we would like to describe the results of projects designed to answer the above question: does religion (Orthodoxy) in Russia affect the indicators of an individual's involvement in social support networks? At the same time, it is the concept of social capital that will be central to our research 11.

There are two main levels of studying social networks, each of which allows you to ask different research questions. The first level is the ego networks of parishioners - a circle of people (which can include both church-bound and non-church-bound people, as well as representatives of other faiths) with whom each person directly interacts. The second level of analysis is the complete social network of the parish community. Here the question is raised about the general structure of social ties in the parish, and what effects this or that configuration of social ties can have.

The main indicators that we use to assess the development of social networks of parishioners and parishes are presented in Table 1.

10. Mitrokhin N. Is the church parish a cell of civil society/ / Civitas. 2003. N2. pp. 18-24; Filatov S. Christian religious communities of Russia as a subject of civil society//Domestic notes. 2005. N6 (27). [http://www.strana-oz.ru/2005/6/hristianskie-religioznye-soobshchestva-rossii-kak-subekt-gra zhdanskogo-obshchestva, доступ от 12.11.2013].

11. The problem of operationalization of the concept of social capital is very complex. So, researchers suggest distinguishing between the resources themselves and the possibilities of accessing these resources, while highlighting many separate components. Among the most detailed and detailed ways of using the concept, one can, for example, single out the "Resource-generator" method by M. Hague and T. Snyders. Gaag, M. V-D. and Snijders, Т. А. В. (2005) "The Resource Generator: Social Capital Quantification with Concrete Items", Social Networks 27 (1): 1 - 29. In this article, we primarily define social capital as involvement in social support networks, identify several types of resources, and distinguish between two key positions - "donor"and " recipient".

page 44
Table 1. Operationalization of basic concepts

Concept

Indicator

Method

1 Ego-networks of parishioners

1a Social capital from the "recipient"perspective

The perceived size of the social support network that the respondent has access to (can refer to if necessary). Question: "If you find yourself in a crisis situation (such as job loss, family problems, or illness), who can you contact for help? How many people do you think there are who you could turn to for help in a crisis situation?"

Survey of parishioners at the exit from the liturgy. (Self-completion of the questionnaire).

1b Social capital from the"donor" perspective

Involvement in mutual assistance practices in three areas: labor assistance, material assistance, and moral support. Question: "Over the past 12 months, how often have you done anything on the following list for a relative, friend, neighbor, or acquaintance: helping someone out with household chores or shopping; lending some money; taking time to talk to a frustrated / depressed person?"?

Survey of parishioners at the exit from the liturgy. (Self-completion of the questionnaire.)

page 45
Concept

Indicator

Method

2 Complete parish networks

2a Community rootedness 12

Density of contacts with people of varying degrees of ecclesiasticism

Semi-formal interviews with parishioners, priests and contractors of the parish 13

2b Delegation of responsibility for parish social work

Position of the rector in the structure of parish relations

Semi-formal interviews with parishioners, priests, and contractors of the parish

To analyze the ego networks of Russian Orthodox Church parishioners, this paper examines the results of the study "Social Network of the Orthodox Community" conducted in 2012-2013. The questionnaire survey of parishioners and church employees (a total of 12 Orthodox parishes, 985 people) was conducted using the main array method on a Sunday afternoon at the exit after the liturgy of 14 parishes located in different types of localities: megapolis-center (1 parish), megapolis-sleeping area (1 parish), city-million inhabitants (2 parishes), a city of more than 500 thousand inhabitants (2 parishes), a city of more than 200 thousand inhabitants (2 parishes), a city of more than 100 thousand inhabitants.

12. Rootedness refers to the stable interaction of the parish represented by priests, church employees, and parishioners with organizations, institutions, and residents in the parish's presence; such relationships are formed, as a rule, during the parish's implementation of social projects outside the church fence.

13. Contractors of the parish are organizations, institutions, as well as local residents and recipients of social assistance, with whom the parish interacts in the person of priests, church employees and parishioners.

14. In the morning on the day of the survey, announcements about the survey were placed on the doors and /or information boards at the entrance to the temple. At the end of the Liturgy, the rector or clerics of the churches announced the survey to the parishioners. Questionnaires were distributed to parishioners at the exit of the church by 2 to 5 interviewers. The questionnaire was filled out by the respondent and, if possible, submitted immediately. If the respondent was in a hurry to leave, the questionnaire was issued at home with a request to bring it within a week, but the main part of the questionnaires was collected on the day of the survey. Respondents who complained of poor eyesight were interviewed by interviewers using a questionnaire, but the number of such questionnaires in the general array is small (about 15).

page 46
population (1 parish), small town up to 50 thousand inhabitants (1 parish), small town up to 20 thousand inhabitants (1 parish), village (1 parish). The survey's geography includes 8 Russian regions: Moscow, Yaroslavl, Kaluga, Rostov, Samara and Irkutsk regions, Altai and Krasnoyarsk Territories. In order to compare the data of our study with the results for Russia, we also refer to the data of the All-Russian study OrthodoxMonitor (December 2011) 15.

The analysis of the complete network of parishes was carried out on the basis of data from the study " Organization of social activities in the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the early XXI century . Sociological Analysis", in which a series of in-depth interviews were conducted in 15 parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Moscow, Kaluga, Yaroslavl, Samara, Irkutsk regions, as well as in the Altai, Krasnoyarsk and Khabarovsk Territories (the total number of interviews is 153). During the interview, a series of questions were asked about participants in various areas of social activity of the parish (number of participants, frequency of participation, whether or not the participants are parishioners, how these people joined the activity, etc.), and with whom the parish contacts during the implementation of a particular activity (partner organizations, sponsors, people, institutions, etc.). The complete parish network was created by encoding interview data in the GEPHI program designed for network analysis.

Social Support Networks - the ego Network level

The first level of analysis is represented by the ego networks of parishioners - their friends and relatives, a circle of people (which can include both church-bound and non-church-bound people, as well as representatives of other faiths) with whom each person directly interacts, communicates, and can ask for help if such a need arises.

15. The first wave of OrthodoxMonitor research [http://socrel.pstgu.ru/orthodoxmonitor (accessed: 30.06.2013)]. The All-Russian survey was conducted by the Institute of the Public Opinion Foundation in the period from December 14 to 21, 2011. The research methodology was developed within the framework of the research seminar "Sociology of Religion" of the Orthodox St. Tikhon University for the Humanities. The sample represents the urban and rural population of Russia aged 18 years and older. The sample size is 1500 people.

page 47
Here we can question the size and composition of these ego networks, and the social capital embedded in these connections.

To assess the impact of parish inclusion on social capital, we will look at two aspects of this phenomenon. In social media support exchanges, each participant can act as a" donor " or "recipient" 16. We will look at how much the representatives of the parishes surveyed differ in their self-assessment of the possibilities of receiving help in difficult life situations from others, as well as how much the respondents themselves are included in helping relationships.

First, we will look at the involvement in mutual aid practices in three areas: the cost of effort and time spent on providing services in the form of household assistance, material assistance and moral support (Table 2) and try to assess the strength of these links through their regularity (intensity).

Respondents were asked: "Over the past 12 months, how often have you done any of the following things for a relative, friend, neighbor, or acquaintance: helping someone out with household chores or shopping; lending some money; taking time out to talk to someone who is upset/depressed a person"? This question was asked by-

16. In particular, it is necessary to distinguish between these two positions - recipients ("owners" of social capital who have access to it, can access this resource if necessary) and donors ("sources" of social capital - "owners" of other resources that recipients can access using their social connections A. Portes emphasizes (drawing attention to the lack of a clear distinction on this basis in Coleman), since the motives of donors and recipients in exchanges mediated by social capital may differ significantly. Portes, A. (1998) "Social Capital: It's Origins and Application in Modern Sociology", Annual Review of Sociology 24: 6. In Russian studies of social networks and the informal economy, this distinction is used, in particular, by S. Barsukova and G. Gradoselskaya. Thus, Barsukova conducts an analysis based on the distinction between four types of participants in the exchange of various resources (products, money, labor): radical donor, moderate donor, moderate recipient and radical recipient, distinguished by the intensity and degree of reciprocity (reciprocity). Barsukova S. Yu. Network exchanges of Russian households: empirical research experience//Sociological research. 2005. N8. pp. 34-45. Gradoselskaya introduces a typology of network actors, based on the distinction between four main resources: money, products, connections (information) and labor, as well as four types of participation in exchange: donors (providing transfers), consumers (receiving transfers), "exchange" (both providing and receiving transfers) and independent (not participating in the exchange relationship). Gradoselskaya G. V. Social networks: exchange of private transfers //Sociological Journal. 1999. N1 / 2. pp. 156-163.

page 48
In the questionnaire of the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), dedicated to the topic of social networks (2001). In comparison with this study, we have slightly expanded the list of possible answers. These questions were also asked in the All-Russian OrthodoxMonitor survey (December 2011). This allows us to compare the data on parish communities with the results that characterize Russia as a whole.

Table 2. Over the past 12 months, how often have you done anything on the following list for a relative, friend, neighbor, or acquaintance? (% by column)

Parishes

Russia as a whole

...have you helped anyone outside your home with chores or shopping

several times a week

18

12

approximately 1 time per week

16

11

2-z times a month

12

15

approximately 1 time per month

15

14

at least 2-3 times a year

13

15

1 time per year

6

6

not once in the last year

9

20

I find it difficult to answer

11

8

Base (number of respondents)

753

1500

..they gave me some money to borrow

several times a week

5

2

approximately 1 time per week

6

5

2-z times a month

13

13

approximately 1 time per month

17

18

at least 2-3 times a year

25

24

1 time per year

15

8

not once in the last year

10

22

I find it difficult to answer

10

9

Base (number of respondents)

783

1500

page 49

Parishes

Russia as a whole

...took the time to talk to a frustrated / depressed person

several times a week

24

12

approximately 1 time per week

16

13

2-z times a month

11

17

approximately 1 time per month

15

16

at least 2-3 times a year

3

15

1 time per year

2

6

not once in the last year

2

12

I find it difficult to answer

9

10

Base (number of respondents)

852

1500

The surveyed representatives of parishes significantly differ from the average Russians in terms of their involvement in mutual support practices 17. In general, there was a very high percentage of non-responders in parish communities who did not answer this set of questions.

In terms of spending their own time and effort (helping with household chores), representatives of parish communities differ in the extreme categories of response- "not once in the last year" and "once a week or more". The share of those who did not provide this type of assistance over the past year is 20% in Russia and 9% among representatives of Orthodox communities, while once a week or more often a third of respondents helped someone with household chores or shopping (33%), while in Russia this figure is 10% lower (23%).

In general, material assistance is provided much less frequently than moral support, both in Russia as a whole and by representatives of the parish communities surveyed. However, while 22% of Russians have not provided financial assistance with money in the past 12 months, this group is noticeably smaller among the representatives of parish communities surveyed - 10%.

17. To determine the significance of differences, we used the Mann-Whitney test, a nonparametric analog of the Student's test. For all three questions in this block, differences in the intensity of involvement in mutual support practices are statistically significant, p< 0.0001.

page 50
As for moral support, the differences between average Russians and the Orthodox community were more significant: among the representatives of the communities surveyed, 24% of respondents spent time several times a week to talk to a frustrated/depressed person over the past year, while in Russia as a whole, such people are twice as small - 12%. Among the surveyed representatives of the community, there are practically no (2%) those who have never provided moral support to their relatives over the past year (in Russia - 12%).

Thus, it can be concluded that relations between representatives of parish communities are characterized by a higher regularity and intensity. Among community members, mutual assistance and moral support are more pronounced compared to the average Russian.

In order to determine the composition and size of ego support networks in Orthodox communities, as well as in Russia as a whole, from the point of view of the recipient in social support networks, we asked the question: "If you find yourself in a crisis situation (for example, job loss, family problems, or illness), who can you contact for help?" help? How many people do you think you could turn to for help in a crisis situation? "18.

In terms of the number of people a respondent can turn to in a crisis situation, the networks of representatives of parish communities are noticeably wider than the average in Russia (Table 3). For example, 32% of community representatives have 10 or more people in their support network, while in Russia, on average, this figure is significantly lower - only 18%. 7% of Russians answered that they do not have such people, while only 3% of the surveyed representatives of communities have such answers. The average size of the support network of the parishioners surveyed is 6 people, while the average size in Russia is only 4.6 people.

18. The question about the size of the support network was asked without prompting, and respondents were asked to write down the answer as a number. To calculate the average and in the regression analysis, the initial quantitative estimate was used, if the respondent's answer did not exceed "10". All responses from 11 and above were transcoded to the value "11". We also included the answer option "many" in this category.

19. The differences are statistically significant. Student's test for independent samples was used to test the hypothesis of equality of means. T = - 9,086, p<0,0001.

page 51
Table 3. How many people do you think there are who you could turn to for help in a crisis situation? (% by column)

Support Network size

Parishes

Russia as a whole

0 (no such people)

3

7

1

4

7

2

9

16

3

14

16

4

6

9

5

21

17

6

5

5

7

5

3

8

1

2

9

1

0

10

18

12

11 or more

14

6

Average

6,0

4,6

Number of respondents

713

1239

Despite the fact that at first glance the differences between the parishioners surveyed and average Russians are quite significant, they may only be a consequence of the markedly different socio-demographic composition of the respondents. So, among the parishioners surveyed, there are significantly more women, the average age is slightly higher than in the all-Russian survey, the share of respondents with higher education is higher, and those who assess the financial situation of their family more highly. In order to control the impact of socio-demographic parameters and calculate the "net" impact of belonging to a parish, we used linear regression 20. The results of the analysis are presented in table 4.

20. The analysis is based on the combined data set of two studies - the All-Russian survey OrthodoxMonitor and the survey array of parishioners "Social network of the Orthodox community". The All-Russian survey also contains a certain number of church-bound Russians, but their number is small, and we assume that important differences will only be slightly obscured by such a mix. In addition, we include a question about the frequency of service visits as a control variable in the analysis, which should compensate for this feature.

page 52
When the main socio-demographic variables are included in the model, belonging to a parish continues to be an important factor determining the size of the social support network. However, the coefficient of determination for the described model was not very high, which indicates the presence of other influencing factors that are not included in the model. Socio-demographic characteristics and indicators of the level of religiosity explain 11% of the variation in the size of the social support network. Since the scales used to measure the main independent variables are characterized by different dimensions, we pay more attention to standardized coefficients that allow us to estimate the relative contribution of each factor.

Table 4. Results of linear regression analysis. Dependent variable: size of the social support network

Non-standardized coefficients (b)

Standardized Odds (Beta)

Significance

Constant

2,33

0,000

Parishioners

0,64

0,08

0,025

(1 - yes, 0-no)

Frequency of attending church services (0-never, 6-once a week or more)

0.18

0,12

0,001

Floor (1 - m, 0-W)

0.17

0,03

0,337

Age (15-95 years)

- 0,01

- 0,07

0,010

Education (1-incomplete secondary education, 6-several higher education, scientific degree)

0,11

0,04

0.119

It could be assumed that the differences in the size of the social support network between the respondents surveyed in parishes and in the all-Russian survey are primarily due to the following factors:

page 53

Non-standardized coefficients (b)

Standardized Odds (Beta)

Significance

Having a job (1 - yes, 0-no)

0,38

0,06

0,043

Financial situation (1 - not enough for food, 6-financially secure)

0,34

0.13

0,000

Registered marriage (1 - yes, 0-no)

0,34

0,05

0,047

Having two or more children (0-no, 1-yes)

0,36

0,05

0,040

Helped someone outside your home with household chores or shopping (0-never in the last year, 6-several times a week)

0,08

0,06

0,044

They gave me some money to borrow

0,03

0,02

0,575

Took time to talk to the upset / depressed person

0,08

0,05

0,061

R2

0,11

page 54
They are determined by the degree of their religiosity (which, in particular, can be measured by asking about the frequency of attendance at religious services). The logic here is that the more often a person goes to work, the more often they meet with other members of the parish, and the higher the chances that they will form additional social connections, and accordingly, the perceived size of the social support network will be wider.21 If the frequency of service visits is a factor that is sufficient to explain the religious component of the differences in the size of the support network that we observe, then if this indicator is included in the regression model along with the parish membership, one of them should be insignificant. It is noteworthy that when both parish membership and frequency of attendance at church services were included in the model, both of these factors were significant, which indicates that these indicators represent slightly different phenomena - neither of them completely exhausts the influence of the second. At the same time, both factors have a positive impact: the more often respondents attend services, the greater their social support network, and even with the same frequency of attending services, the social network is wider among the parishioners surveyed. The frequency of service visits is one of the most important factors in the constructed model - its relative contribution is the most noticeable (characterized by the highest standardized coefficient).

An equally significant factor determining the size of the social support network was the financial situation of the family. The more financially secure a person is (he considers his family financially secure), the wider his social support network is. This result deserves attention, since it contradicts the intuitive idea that for a less well-off family, the support of others is more important.

21. It should be noted that the relationship between indicators of the intensity of religious practices and the formation of social ties may be more complex and non-linear. For more information about some phenomena that hinder communication in the Orthodox community, in particular, attitudes that can be described as "sacred individualism", see: Zabaev I. "Sacred individualism" and the community in modern Russian Orthodoxy / / Parish and community in modern Orthodoxy: the root system of Russian religiosity/Edited by A. Aghajanyan and K. Rousselet, Moscow: Vse Mir Publ., 2011, pp. 341-354.

page 55
important-the lack of material resources should lead to greater interdependence and more active inclusion in social networks of exchange. At the same time, we see the opposite effect. On the one hand, this result can be explained by the fact that material security allows you to form broader support networks - having more opportunities to provide support to others, a person accumulates more reciprocal obligations, "trust receipts", in Coleman's terminology. On the other hand, less well-off respondents may be more pessimistic about the size of their support network, because their view is more realistic: all other things being equal, they are more likely to have experience seeking help from others.22
Having a job has a positive impact on the size of the social support network. A working person has the opportunity to turn to colleagues for help in a difficult life situation.

Age, on the contrary, has a negative impact: the older the respondent, the smaller the size of their social support network. A particularly noticeable decrease in the size of the social network is typical for the oldest age group (70+).

Marital status has a significant impact on the size of the social support network. Respondents with a registered marriage have a wider network of social contacts that they can activate in a difficult life situation. The presence of a spouse, on the one hand, makes it possible to ask him (her) for help if necessary, on the other hand, it expands the social network available to the family through the contacts of the second spouse.

The presence of children in the family also contributes to the formation of broader social support networks. This influence can

22. The importance of the material factor in the formation of certain types of social networks, in particular "survival networks" and "development networks", emphasizes I. Steinberg: "Property inequality generates two types of networks. These are "survival networks" aimed at maintaining the subsistence minimum of all participants in network relations by equalizing the redistribution of network resources between them, and "development networks" aimed at the expanded reproduction of material goods, the development and strengthening of the social capital of the entire network and each of its members." Shteinberg I. E. The paradigm of four "K's" in the research of social support networks//Sociological research. 2010. N5. P. 48.

page 56
This may be due to the expansion of the list of social contacts to include the families of the child's friends. It is noteworthy that the best way in the model "worked" is not the number of children, but a dichotomous variable, where "1" means the presence of two or more children in the family, "0" - the presence of one child or no children. This means that differences in the size of support networks due to the presence of children in the family begin to appear most clearly from the moment the second child is born.23
The influence of factors such as gender and level of education was statistically insignificant (however, we left them in the model as controls).

The social support network is wider for those people who themselves provide assistance to other people. At the same time, the impact is noticeable when this assistance implies a person's personal involvement - moral/psychological support or help with household chores, while providing material support (borrowing money) does not affect the size of the available social network, according to our results.

Thus, the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church are characterized by a higher level of social capital, and mutual assistance and moral support are more pronounced in parish communities, compared to the average Russian 24.

23. When the model used an indicator measuring the number of children in a family (5-point scale from "0" - no children to "4" - 4 or more children in a family), it turned out to be insignificant (p=0.310), while the results for other variables were very close to the model as described in the article (as well as when using other indicators describing the number of children). Apparently, the relationship is non-linear, because when you include dummy variables responsible for the number of children in the model (for example, "having one child", "having two or more children", the excluded category is "no children"), in a situation where there is only one child in the family, the coefficient becomes negative that is, the perceived size of the social support network at the birth of the first child even becomes smaller, but with the birth of the second child, the social network expands again to approximately the initial level, and with further growth in the number of children, it continues to grow slowly. This interesting effect can also be interpreted in the opposite way: large families appear where people feel supported by others.

24. Unfortunately, our data set does not allow us to conclude whether the described effect characterizes only Orthodox communities, or, more plausibly, it will also be present in communities of other faiths (the number of representatives of other faiths surveyed is insufficient to conduct a similar statistical analysis). To answer this question

page 57
Analysis of the parish community as a complete network

When we talk about the social network of a parish community, it should be noted that it is not closed: along with the parishioners of a particular church, it includes a wide range of actors. The development of social ties (between parishioners and, especially, non-parochial ones) is difficult in the context of liturgical life. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the main way to develop the parish's social network is through extra-liturgical practices and parish social life. In the course of implementing social projects, such as helping various categories of people in need, caring for social facilities, organizing cultural and educational events in the parish and beyond, 25 participants in these projects (parishioners, priests, parish employees) establish contacts with many people and organizations that are not necessarily Orthodox and not necessarily ecclesiastical.

Researchers of the effectiveness of local non-profit organizations in the United States note that the degree of" rootedness " in the local community (neighborhood embeddedness) directly affects the effectiveness of the organization: the more developed the links of a local organization (human rights, social assistance, etc.) with other organizations, the more effective the work of such an organization will be 26. Researchers of religious organizations (congregations, parishes) have demonstrated the relationship between the rootedness of the parish in the community and the effectiveness of social work of the parish 27. Thus, extra-liturgical life (and, in particular, the practice of social assistance) in the parish creates prerequisites for the development of a social network of parishioners, as well as the formation of numerous social networks.

Question: it is necessary to conduct additional research aimed at a deeper study of religious communities of different faiths.

25. For more information about the types of parish social activities, see: Zabaev I., Oreshina D., Prutskova E. Specifics of social work in the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church: the problem of conceptualization//Journal of Social Policy Research. 2013. Vol. 11. N3. pp. 355-368.

26. Mesch, G. S. and Schwirian, K. P. (1996) "The Effectiveness of Neighborhood Collective Action", Social Problems 43 (4): 467 - 483.

27. Unruh, H. R., Sider, R. J. Saving Souls, Serving Society: Understanding the Faith Factor in Church-Based Social Ministry.

page 58
external relations of the parish community. This network, in turn, works as a condition for more effective parish social work.

Our research makes it possible to clearly demonstrate the thesis that extra-liturgical life creates conditions for increasing the social capital of the parish, thus contributing to the expansion of support networks for parishioners by strengthening ties both within the parish (through participation in general activities, regardless of their nature, duration, systematic nature, etc.), and outside it. The analysis of the parish community as a complete social network makes it possible to illustrate the structure of social relations in the parish and the configuration of parish relations with the "outside world". This approach also allows us to raise the question of the conditions for the development of the parish's social network, if development is understood as the density of social ties between the parish and the outside world, and the "rootedness" of the parish in society. Figure 1 shows an example of a complete social network of an Orthodox parish.

Analysis of the complete social network of an Orthodox parish. Figure 1 shows the social network of a parish with a well-developed extra-liturgical social activity. This is a large church in Moscow: the parish has a rector and 4 priests; the number of parishioners in 2012 on major holidays: more than 1000 communicants (2 services), on normal days: more than 300 communicants (2 services). Participants in various areas of extra-liturgical activity are marked with different shades of gray. The node size reflects the number of links (the larger the node , the more links a given unit has).

Various types of activities are being developed in this parish: there are groups of targeted assistance to the needy (feeding the homeless), involvement in inter-parish network projects (helping prisoners), non-profit organizations that grew out of parish initiatives (helping women in crisis situations). Along with social work of various directions, a Sunday school operates, mutual assistance of parishioners and targeted assistance to individual petitioners are developed.

page 59
Figure 1. Social network of an Orthodox parish community

Methodological commentary. The complete parish network was created by encoding data from in-depth interviews with priests, parishioners, and other participants in the parish's extra-liturgical life in the GEPHI program, designed for network analysis. When building a complete social network of a parish, a number of methodological issues arise, and first of all, it is the choice of the basis on which we build the network. There can be many such reasons: personal dating networks (units of the network know each other by sight and name), networks of confessors of priests

page 60
networks of church communicants (who regularly receive communion) and "zahozhans" (those who enter the church on an occasional basis, for example, on major church holidays), exchange networks, and so on. Also, when studying this level using formalized methods, a number of other methodological difficulties arise, in particular, due to the lack of a complete list of parish members, or the fact that many parishioners know each other only by sight, which is a significant obstacle to compiling complete sociometric matrices. In this regard, when we build a social network of a parish community, it is necessary to understand the assumptions based on which we reproduce the network configuration. In our case, these assumptions will be as follows:: 1) the basis for building a network is participation in the extra-liturgical life of the parish - parish social work, parish projects and activities that are not directly related to the services; 2) network units (nodes) are people or organizations that participate in the extra - liturgical activities of the parish. These "units" are divided into parish (parishioners of a given church - those who attend services and receive communion in the church) and non-parish (parishioners of other churches, non-ecclesiastical Orthodox, adherents of other faiths, etc.). This division allows you to record the connection of non-parish "units "to parish projects and activities and draw conclusions about the" rootedness " of the parish in the local community; h) links between nodes are the inclusion of units in the general activity, regardless of whether they know each other only in person or by name.

For the social network of this parish, the following is typical. First, there is delegation in the parish: the coordinators of most areas of activity are lay people, and the rector himself is not the head of any area of social work. Figure 2 shows the rector's social network - it primarily includes the core of parishioners, and external relations of the parish are formed by participants in social projects. The rector (as well as other priests) does not close external relations and is not the sole leader, coordinator, administrator of extra-liturgical activities.

page 61
Figure 2. Social network of an Orthodox parish community: the rector's network

Secondly, the parish has developed a network of external relations by connecting non-parish members to the parish's activities. In the case of a crisis center for women, these are hired specialists-psychologists. In the case of helping prisoners, these are parishioners of other churches. In the case of helping the homeless, these are volunteers from among the friends and acquaintances of parishioners who are members of the group (among them there are non-church members, representatives of other faiths, for example, Protestants, and just helping organizations-sponsors). Figure 3 shows parish and non-parish participants in the parish's social activities. Non-parish participants are connected as part of the systematic or project-based work of individual groups on social activities by activating contacts of participants of activities outside the parish.

page 62
Figure 3. Social network of an Orthodox Parish community: connecting non-parish members to parish members in the course of social activities 28

Summing up, it can be emphasized once again that extra-liturgical practices and social projects provide not only the strengthening of intra-parish relations (between parishioners), but also the multiplication of external relations, which is achieved by connecting sponsor organizations and partner organizations, friends and acquaintances of participating parishioners, and hired professionals (if necessary)to parish initiatives, prikho-

28. In the drawing, parishioners are indicated in black, and participants in parish activities who are not parishioners of this church are indicated in gray (among them there may be both Orthodox and representatives of other faiths, as well as those who do not belong to any religion).

page 63
from other temples and others. The parish becomes rooted in the community (communication with the world "behind the church fence"), which increases the level of social capital of the parish, forms a large number of weak connections 29, which can be used both for parish affairs and for the personal needs of parishioners. An important condition for such a development of the parish network, as we can see, is the delegation of extra-liturgical activities to parishioners, and the absence of closing all contacts (including with external organizations and other parishes) to the rector or priests of the parish. The connections developed in the course of parish activities, in fact, become a complex of those social relations that can be used in the interests of not only the parish as a whole, but also individual parishioners. The given example of a parish network suggests that the extra-liturgical activity of an Orthodox parish creates prerequisites for increasing the social capital of parishioners, as well as for forming support networks, the importance of which for the social well-being of citizens is confirmed by many studies.

Conclusion

The above materials allow us to conclude that religion (in this case, Orthodoxy) can be a factor that increases the social capital of Russians and strengthens their social support networks.

Our research on the analysis of the complete parish network suggests that the active involvement of parishes in the organization of social work, based on the principles of priests delegating responsibility and executive powers to lay people, allows us to increase the social network of the parish, connecting more and more lay people, including non-church members. This specific development of the parish's social network, which creates opportunities for connecting lay people to the church through parish social activities, is especially important in Russia, a country that has experienced forced secularization in an extremely severe form, since there are very few tools for connecting people to the church.-

29. The importance of weak connections is proved, in particular, by M. Granovetter. Granovetter M. The power of weak connections // Economic sociology. 2009. Vol. 10. N 10. pp. 31-50.

page 64
love for religion. In Russia and similar countries, the main mechanisms of conversion and personal conversion, in comparison with other countries, practically do not work, due to the lack of early religious socialization. 30 The lack of individual experience of contacts with representatives of institutionalized religions minimizes the possibility of falsification/verification of reports about religion that are formed in the media and public sphere.

Bibliography/References

Network exchanges of Russian households: empirical research experience //Sociological research. 2005. N8. P. 34_45-

Bourdieu P. Forms of capital//Economic sociology. 2002. Vol. 3. N5. pp. 60-74.

Gradoselskaya G. V. Social networks: exchange of private transfers//Sociological Journal. 1999. N 1/2. pp. 156-163.

Granovetter M. The power of weak connections//Economic sociology. 2009-Vol. 10. N4. pp. 31-50.

Zabaev I., Oreshina D., Prutskova E. Specifics of social work in parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church: the problem of conceptualization//Journal of Social Policy Research. 2013. Vol. 11. N3. pp. 355-368.

Zabaev I. "Sacred individualism" and the community in modern Russian Orthodoxy//Parish and Community in Modern Orthodoxy: The Root System of Russian Religiosity/Edited by A. Aghajanyan and K. Rousselet, Moscow: Vse Mir Publ., 2011, pp. 341-354.

J. Coleman Social and human capital / / Social Sciences and Modernity. 2001. N3. pp. 122-139.

Mitrokhin N. Is the church parish a cell of civil society/ / Civitas. 2003. N 2. pp. 18-24.

Society // Index of a better life. URL: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ru/topics/community-ru/(дата обращения: 12.11.2013)

Prutskova E. Religiosity and its consequences in the value-normative sphere//Sociological Journal. 2013. N2. pp. 72-88.

Filatov S. Christian religious communities of Russia as a subject of civil society // Domestic notes. 2005. N 6 (27). [http://www.strana-oz.ru/2005/6/hristianskie-religioznye-soobshchestva-rossii-kak-subekt-gra zhdanskogo-obshchestva, доступ от 12.11.2013].

Shteinberg I. E. The paradigm of four "K's" in the research of social support networks//Sociological research. 2010. N5. pp. 40-50.

Barsukova, S. Iu. (2005) "Setevye obmeny rossiiskikh domokhoziaistv: opyt empiricheskogo issledovaniia" [Network Exchanges of Russian Homesteads: an Empirical Study], Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia 8: 34 - 45.

30. For more information, see: Prutskova E. Religiosity and its consequences in the value-normative sphere//Sociological Journal. 2013. N2. pp. 72-88.

page 65
Bourdieu, P. (2002) "Formy kapitala" [Forms of Capital, translated from English], Ekonomicheskaia sotsiologiia 3 (5): 60 - 74.

Coleman, J. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coleman, J. (2001) "Kapital sotsial'nyi i chelovecheskii" [Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital, translated from English], Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost 3: 122 - 139.

Filatov, C. (2005) "Khristianskie religioznye soobshchestva Rossii kak sub" ekt grazhdanskogo obshchestva" [Russian Christian Communities as Element of Civil Society], Otechestvennye zapiski 6 (27) [http://www.strana-oz.ru/2005/6/hristianskie-re-ligioznye-soobshchestva-rossii-kak-subekt-gr azhdanskogo-obshchestva, accessed on 12.11.2013].

Gaag, M. V-D. and Snijders, T. A. B. (2005) "The Resource Generator: Social Capital Quantification with Concrete Items", Social Networks 27 (1): 1 - 29.

Gradosel'skaia, G.V. (1999) "Sotsial'nye seti: obmen chastnymi transfertami" [Social Networks: Exchange of Private Transfers], Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal 1/2: 156 - 163.

Granovetter, M. (2009) "Sila slabykh sviazei" [The Strength of Weak Ties, translated from English], Ekonomicheskaia sotsiologiia 10 (4): 31 - 50.

Mesch, G. S. and Schwirian, K. P. (1996) "The Effectiveness of Neighborhood Collective Action", Social Problems 43 (4): 467 - 483.

Mitrokhin, H. (2003) "Iavliaetsia li tserkovnyi prikhod iacheikoi grazhdanskogo obshchestva?" [Is Church Parish a Cell of the Civil Society?], Civitas 2: 18 - 24.

Obshchestvo [Society], Indeks Luchshei Zhizni [http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ru/topics/community.ru/, accessed on 12.11.2013].

Portes, A. (1998) "Social Capital: It's Origins and Application in Modern Sociology", Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1 - 24.

Prutskova, E. (2013) "Religioznost' i ee sledstviia v tsennostno-normativnoi sfere" [Religiosity and its Consequences in the Sphere of Norms and Values], Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal 2: 72 - 88.

Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Shuster Paperbacks.

Schneider, J. A. (2006) Social Capital and Welfare Reform: Organizations, Congregations, and Communities. New York: Columbia University Press.

Shteinberg, I.E. (2010) "Paradigma chetyrekh "K" vissledovaniiakh sotsial'nykh setei podderzhki" [The Paradigm of the Four 'K' in the Studies of Social Support], Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia 5: 40 - 50.

Unruh, H.R. and Sider, R.J. (2005) Saving Souls, Serving Society: Understanding the Faith Factor in Church-Based Social Ministry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wuthnow, R. (2004) Saving America? Faith-Based Services and the Future of Civil Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Zabaev, I. (2011) ""Sakral'nyi individualizm" i obshchina v sovremennom russkom pravoslavii" [The Sacral Individualism and Community in Today's Russian Orthodoxy], in AgadjanianA. and K. Rousselet (eds.) Prikhod i obshchina v sovremennom pravoslavii: kornevaia sistema rossiiskoi religioznosti, pp. 341 - 354. Moscow: Ves' Mir.

Zabaev, I., Oreshina, D. and Prutskova, E. (2013) "Spetsifika sotsial'noi raboty na prikhodakh Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi: problema kontseptualizatsii" [Peculiarities of Social Work at the Russian Orthodox Church Parishes: an Issue of Conceptualization], Zhurnal issledovanii sotsial'noi politiki 11 (3): 355 - 368.

page 66

Permanent link to this publication: