The genealogy of Eastern European difference: an insider’s view
Mikołaj Szołtysek
INTRODUCTIONOne of the main defects that whole terminology, and basic distinction between lies in impression obviously created all what is geographically alien, or even opposed, to Western-that is, truly European-civilization' (Halecki, 1950, 138)The belief East-Central Europe represents a locus complex family organisation familistic societal values has reached status general dogma social sciences demography, wide currency other intellectual circles as well (e.g., Thornton, 2005; Therborn, 2004; Grandits, 2010; Mitterauer, 2010). The notion Europe's divergent developments was first articulated 19th-century ethnographies. Whereas German Romantic A. v. Haxthausen argued Russian peasantry were invariably organised large, extended patriarchally structured families (Haxthausen, 1972[1 846], 82; also Dennison Cams, 2003); F. Le Play popularised gradient household types running from west, located patriarchal, patrilocal multigenerational households among Eastern nomads, peasants, Slavs Central Europe(Le Play, 1871, § 12, p. 94; 1982[1872],259).This assessment European difference penetrated deep into collective consciousness, later perpetuated modern historical demography history, which further sustained myth existence demographically uniform people marry young live patriarchal households. In 1960s, J. proposed an East-West demographic behaviours with much greater force, nuptiality pattern over west roughly Leningrad (as it now called) Trieste (Hajnal, 1965, 101). He hardened Play's initial distinctions rest continent, keen equate marriage several countries east line characteristics nonEuropean civilizations 104). This how Hajnal conceived, since been often cited discussed, indeed attained iconic status.Whereas himself provided supplementary specification differences familial by distinguishing two kinds formation systems pre-industrial times (neo-local patri-local) (Hajnal 1982), his original hypotheses elaborated, reiterated retold works P. Laslett (Laslett, 1972, 1977, 1978, 1983). Despite limited availability data for continental not discouraged making bold interpretative inferences single case studies, proposing four sets tendencies traditional on basis domestic group organisation. Among factors shed light Western Laslett's conflicted marriage, coresidence patterns observed Far Europe, though he considered parts Eastern-Central regions continent belong hypothesised large intermediary area non-Western systems. perspective representing greatest intra-European departure English standard substantiated Czap's study community Mishino (south-east Moscow) (Czap, 1982; Czap, Due prevailing inclination scholars intheearly 1980s search striking contrasts characteristics, wish brand major areas having particular type system, suffered mixed fortune being regularly representative country, Hajnal's 1982, 468-469; 1983, 529). …