The intelligentsia consists of those professionals, managers, technicians, and middle-level party functionaries whose skill and talent are needed to run the society. Education and competence are usual criteria for membership in the group as is ideological orthodoxy. In 1970 the intelligentsia numbered somewhat over 1 million persons, approximately 22 percent of the working population. The size of the group has been growing rapidly in line with the manpower demands of the expanding economy. Most members were relatively young, had advanced educations, and were loyal to communist principles. Their social origins represented the entire spectrum of precommunist society, but a high percentage were of peasant or worker background reflecting the educational advantages afforded to the former lower classes.

The life-style and aspirations of the intelligentsia are those of an industrial middle class. Because of their key position in the economy, they command incomes and special benefits that afford them a standard of living considerably higher than that of the lower levels of the social scale. Among the benefits that individual members of the intelligentsia may enjoy are high-quality housing; the use of official cars; access to special facilities, such as clubs, restaurants, shops, and vacation resorts; and travel opportunities at home and abroad. The growing identification of the intelligentsia with the Romanian Communist Party has also enhanced its privileged status as a group. On an individual basis, party membership provides access to a network of informal contacts within the power and control structure, which can open many doors and win many favors.

Skilled manual workers constitute the top level of the lower social strata. A considerable gap exists in the income, prestige, and commensurate standard of living between the skilled worker and the intelligentsia. The gap can be breached only by acquiring higher education. The skilled worker, however, enjoys considerable material advantages over the lowest levels of society by virtue of his important position in the economy. His prestige, although higher than that of unskilled workers, differs little from that of the lower level white-collar personnel because of the low esteem in which manual work continues to be held.

The level of gradation in material rewards of peasants, unskilled workers, and lower level white-collar personnel is very slight. The difference among these groups is mainly one of prestige and opportunity for advancement. The first step up the social ladder is to leave agriculture and join the industrial labor force. Then, through education and training, one can advance to the various levels of skill and their respective income levels and benefits. Despite their lack of skill, lower level white-collar personnel hold a higher position on the social scale than other unskilled persons, principally because of the prestige attached to nonmanual work.

The main avenue for upward mobility is education. Political considerations, however, influence both accessibility to education and accessibility to jobs that confer higher social status. Admission to educational facilities beyond the required minimum is strictly controlled and manipulated to achieve desired political, social, and economic goals (see ch. 6). The emphasis on educational credentials for upper level jobs limits the possibility of upward mobility through skill or competence alone. On-the-job training, however, does provide a means for mobility within the industrial labor force.

Partly as a result of conscious government effort and partly as a natural consequence of rapid economic expansion, upward mobility has been considerable since the end of World War II. In the early years of communist rule, this upward mobility was accompanied by a significant downward mobility of members of the former middle and upper classes who lost their property and their jobs and were forced to take up occupations at the lower end of the social scale. By the end of the 1960s the social structure seemed to be stabilizing. The restructuring desired by the communist rulers had been accomplished, and the intelligentsia had grown to the point where it could satisfy from its own ranks most of the demand for professional and managerial personnel. This reduction of openings in the upper strata of society for recruits from the lower levels was beginning to solidify the social structure into self-perpetuating groups whose status and privileges, or their lack, are passed down from one generation to the next. The avenues of education and skill, however, remained open and, together with political loyalty, provided the means for social advancement.

SOCIAL VALUES

The differing life-styles of the rural and urban populations are reflected in somewhat differing values. Rural values are rooted in the land and in deep religious faith. Individualism, self-reliance, strength of character, and love of land and God are admired attributes of the rural population. For the mountain shepherd and the small farmer, self-reliance and resourcefulness are essential for survival. These qualities are praised in song and legend and are widely held responsible for the survival of the Romanian people and their culture during centuries of foreign domination. Loyalty is also a highly admired peasant quality—loyalty to the land, to the family, to God, to country, and even to one's animals.

The strong religious convictions that pervade the life of most peasants in the form of carefully observed rules of conduct and rituals are viewed by some sophisticated urbanites and peasant youths as superstition and as a sign of backwardness (see ch. 5).

The values of urban Romanians are more complex than those of peasants. They have been influenced by ideas and values from abroad, particularly by those emanating from France. Educated Romanians have long felt a kinship with the French emotionally and intellectually and have looked to French culture as a model to emulate. As a result, Bucharest was often referred to as the "Paris of the Balkans."