Area Handbook for Bulgaria

by Eugene K. Keefe; Violeta D. Baluyut; William Giloane; Anne K. Long; James M. Moore; Neda A. Walpole

The city social structure resembled that of the towns but had additional strata reflecting the wider range of economic activity found in the city. The most economically and socially disadvantaged were the workers, including industrial and domestic workers. Just above them were petty government employees, such as janitors, messengers, and railroad men, whose standard of living was extremely low but who could look forward to a secure old age with a government pension and who took pride in being civil servants. Above these lowest groups were the artisans, shopkeepers and merchants, and the intelligentsia, as in the social structure of towns. A few industrialists ranked among the highest because of their economic power, but even they paid respect to university professors for their intellect and to higher government officials for the status and power connected with their offices.

When the Communists took power in 1944 they set out to destroy the old social system and replace it with one based on Marxist-Leninist ideology. The period of so-called socialist reconstruction that followed resulted in a general leveling of social strata through the demotion of formerly privileged groups and the promotion of formerly underprivileged groups. Persons of peasant or worker origin received preferential treatment in the allocation of housing and of other necessities of life that were in short supply, in the appointment to jobs, and in access to higher education. At the same time persons of middle-class or upper class background were deprived of their housing, removed from key jobs, and denied educational opportunities for their children through a discriminatory quota system at secondary and higher schools. A policy of equalization of incomes made little distinction between different levels of education or skill, thus eliminating material rewards as a basis for social stratification. The small political and economic elite that had developed from the peasant society before 1944 was decimated and replaced by a group of party stalwarts, most of them from lower class or middle-class background, who rose rapidly to the top positions of administrative and political power and became the new ruling elite. Membership in the Bulgarian Communist Party and complete loyalty to the leadership were the main criteria for occupying any position of responsibility.

The peasants appreciated some of the material benefits granted by the new government, such as educational opportunities for their children and expanded industrial employment that offered new outlets for underemployed rural youth. As a whole, however, the peasantry bitterly resented being grouped with workers in the ideological frame of reference of the new leaders. To the peasant, landless workers who lacked tradition and security occupied a lower social position than he, and he saw this grouping together as a debasement of his own status. The blow to his pride and to his traditional position in society was complete when collectivization deprived him of his precious land. Were it not for the private farm plot, which allows the peasant to continue on a very small scale his cherished way of life and thereby perpetuate his values, the cooperative peasant would be little more than an agricultural worker.

In the restructured Bulgarian society the peasantry, encompassing roughly 30 percent of the population, forms the bottom of the social pyramid. Although it derives some benefits from the educational, health, and welfare services instituted by the government, the peasantry is the forgotten and most disadvantaged segment of the population. Peasants continue to work hard and long for very meager rewards, and they no longer have the pride and satisfaction of owning their own land and of being independent.

The next social stratum, the industrial working class, has been the object of much glorification by the regime and has benefited most by the social measures passed since 1944. In terms of their standard of living and their social status, workers occupy the lowest level of urban society; however, the educational benefits available to them and the growing job market offer prospects for betterment and advancement. The group has grown more rapidly than any other social class as a result of the crash industrialization program and constitute between 40 and 50 percent of the population, as compared to about 29 percent in the mid-1950s. Most members of the working class are peasants who have left the village to find a better life in the growing cities and towns. Some workers are members of the former middle or upper classes who have been demoted by the new social order. Many members of the small prewar working class were propelled upward out of the working class into managerial and administrative positions of industry.

Within the working class differentiation is made according to education and skill, which is reflected in income and prestige. Skilled workers are still in relatively short supply; therefore, they command considerably higher wages and are likely to receive special housing and other privileges and inducements from employers. The higher standard of living that these material advantages can provide and the higher level of education required to be skilled workers enhance their prestige in relation to the semiskilled and unskilled workers. Workers in certain industries, such as mining and heavy industry, are favored regardless of their level of skill. They benefit from the special status assigned to these industries in the overall economic plan.

The middle level of contemporary society encompasses all persons in nonmanual occupations who are not members of the ruling elite. It includes administrators, managers, professionals, technicians, and all categories of white-collar personnel. Next to the working class, this has been the fastest growing social group. As a result, most of its members are relatively young, and their social origins represent the entire spectrum of precommunist society. Within the middle class further differentiation is made in terms of income and prestige between persons in the upper levels of management and the professions, who have a higher education and those in the lower levels of technical and white-collar employment, who have only a secondary education. The group as a whole probably constitutes almost 20 percent of the population. The relative size of the upper and lower levels was not known, although the lower level was probably larger.

At the top of the social pyramid is the small ruling elite composed of the top leadership of the party, government, security forces, mass organizations, and the various branches of the economy. The ruling elite also includes members of the cultural and intellectual elite who, by virtue of their political loyalty and willingness to serve the regime, share in the privileges usually reserved to the top leadership. By lending their talents to the party cause, however, these individuals often lose some of the prestige and deference traditionally enjoyed by the intellectual elite. The main criterion for membership in the ruling elite is power derived from approved ideological orientation and political manipulation. Most members come from peasant or worker families and are veterans of the communist movement of the interwar period. Membership in the ruling elite is accompanied by considerable insecurity because it is highly dependent on political loyalty and correct interpretation of ideology. A change in official policy can deprive a member of his status and of all his privileges.

Since the end of World War II, Bulgarian society has been extremely mobile. Industrialization and socialization of the economy have created thousands of new blue- and white-collar jobs. The attendant increase in educational opportunities has made it possible for individuals to gain the skill and background required to fill these jobs and, thereby, move up the social ladder. This mobility has been aided by the government's determined effort to reshuffle society by improving the social status and opportunities of the formerly underprivileged groups and by denying them to the formerly privileged ones. Because education has traditionally been the main determinant of status, social mobility has been directed by the state through strict control over educational opportunities. Preference in admission to higher education has been given to children of peasants and workers, children of long-standing party members and children of persons killed in the resistance against the Germans in World War II (see ch. 6). The political orientation of the student himself and his membership in mass organizations such as the youth union are also important factors in determining his admission to an institution of higher learning.

In the late 1960s there was some evidence that social mobility was slowing down and that the society was beginning to stabilize into self-perpetuating social groups. With the slowing of economic growth the number of job openings in the higher levels has been reduced, and the intelligentsia can satisfy from its own ranks most of the demand for professional and managerial personnel. The social mix of students in higher education in the late 1960s was far from representative of the population as a whole—only about 39 percent of the students were from peasant or worker families, although these groups constituted about 78 percent of the population. In spite of all their admission advantages, children of lower income families have not been able to compete effectively with those of higher income background. Given education as a main channel of mobility, disadvantage in educational opportunities means lower possibility for social advancement. Political loyalty, however, can still override all other considerations and propel a person up the social ladder. Membership in the party, therefore, continues to afford considerable advantage.