Znaki Vnimaniya (Russia and FSU)

Znaki Vnimaniya 🇷🇺
Location: Russia and FSU
Definition: Gifts to teachers and physicians, intended to show respect and appreciation
Keywords: Russia – FSU – Gift – Favour – Moral ambivalence – Affection – Care – Education – Doctor – Healthcare – Hospitality – Public service
Clusters: Economies of favours
Author: Conor Murray
Affiliation: Alumnus, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, UK
Website: Profile on LinkedIn

By Conor Murray, Alumnus, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, UK

Translated as “signs of appreciation”, znaki vnimaniya are gifts given in post-Soviet countries to facilitate good relations and show sentimentality. There is an expectation to show vnimaniye (appreciation or attention), through favours and gifts, particularly in the context of a romantic relationship (Kozlov, 2017). Ethnographic studies have shown that the practice extends to the use of gifts to “thank” [poblagodarit] schoolteachers, academics (Komu Podarok, 2017), medical staff, as well as policemen in order to show that their work is “valued” [trud tsenyat] (Novikova, 2019; Patico, 2002; Polese, 2008; Wanner, 2005). Znaki vnimaniya are given by both children and adults, as it is common practice to give them during one’s primary and higher education. Znaki vnimaniya are almost always given to someone of higher authority, as the opposite is often interpreted as sign of harassment (Agapov, 2018), or misuse of office (PHDRU, 2014). They are very frequently given on national holidays (such as Teacher’s Day), but also may be given whenever feels appropriate.

Znaki vnimaniya, like many types of informality, display high levels of ‘predictability and standardisation’ (Steenberg, 2016, p.296). In Russia, formal rules state that a gift to a civil servant must not be worth more than 3000 roubles or be used in furtherance of the giver’s interests (Bikiyev, 2013). Even within these regulations it may still be unclear how noble the intentions of the giver are. The most common znaki vnimaniya take forms of chocolate, flowers, cognac, or other expensive alcoholic beverages (Patico, 2002; Wanner, 2005; Polese, 2008). Although some studies have found that recipients of these gifts have used them for personal gain by selling them back to the shops they came from (Wanner, 2005), to avoid being ascribed to bribery, znaki vnimaniya' typically take the form of frivolous, perishable things that one ‘would not normally buy for oneself’ (Patico, 2002: 357).

Advice online often focuses on what should be given to a male or female professor (Komu Podarok, 2017; Novikova, 2019) and ethnographic studies confirm that flowers are the most acceptable gifts for women, while alcoholic drinks for men (Patico, 2002). Other sources claim that the gift should have some actual use (whether social or practical) (Moyo Online, 2013) and so can take the form of equipment (Komu Podarok, 2017). Money, on the other hand, is seen as unacceptable because it signifies bribery (Patico, 2002: 353), and so do very expensive gifts which the recipient may interpret the wrong way (ponyat nepravilno) (Novikova, 2019). When giving znaki vnimaniya, the only case when cash can be acceptable if it is given to doctors, albeit in very small amounts (Polese, 2008: 52).

Behavioural standards and types of acceptable gifts also make znaki vnimaniya identifiable based on their context and form. Both givers and recipients are aware of these “standards” to avoid accusations of corruption. In one study, a respondent professor claimed that ‘if I receive it, it is a gift. If I demand it, then it is a bribe’ (Polese, 2008:53).

The practice can appear suspicious, as it occurs in countries where corruption in academic and medical institutions is widespread (Osipian, 2008a; Polese 2008; Shaw, 2015; Denisova-Schmidt, 2019). However, znaki vnimaniya differ from other forms of corruption as it is based on moral and social values, rather than personal enrichment and preferential treatment (Smith & Steyning, 2006; Polese, 2008; Patico, 2002). The practice actually serves a much broader function. It can allow those essential to society such as doctors and teachers to feel valued and part of a wider network, making up for shortcomings of the state structure. In post-Soviet states gift giving facilitates arrangements that predates the state infrastructure, and therefore is unlikely to ever be considered immoral behaviour (Werner, 2005).

Attitudes expressed by those who take part in the practice show that they believe their behaviour is morally justified, often based on the desire to express gratitude and stressing the absence of cynical motives behind the act (Polese, 2008; Patico 2002). The disdain that citizens of the former Soviet Union bear to bureaucratic state structures (Dmitrova-Grazyl & Simon 2010) means the preferred relationship with jobs such as a teacher, who is trusted with your children’s education or a doctor, with whom you trust your life, is one of sentimentality rather than the natural ‘scepticism’ many post-Soviet citizens feel towards formal state institutions and workers (Grødeland, 2008, p.220). Those in the gift cycle feel the benefits of their place in society, as reciprocity is ‘not only discussed but experienced in terms of friendship and help’ (Pesmen, 2000, p.131).

The act, however, is ethically questionable. Due to the normalisation of the practice, as distinct from corruption, an individual who does not engage in corruption or even opposes it, may accept znaki vnimaniya without these two behaviors seeming contradictory. Moreover, although public workers are expected to fulfill their role impersonally, research shows that medical workers appear to consistently expect znaki vnimaniya in return (Polese, 2008 p.54). The moral notions attached to znaki vnimaniya mean that classifying them as a simple quid-pro-quo exchange would be too simplistic. It would be more accurate to claim that they enable informal exchanges that could develop into more nefarious ones.

References

Agapov, K. 2018. ‘Prizhimal k polovomu organu”. V Moldaviy professora obvinili v domogatel’stvakh’, Life.Ru, 8 August, https://life.ru/p/1141989

Bikiyev, I. 2013. ‘Problemy Otgranicheniya Vzyatki ot Podarka v Rossii i za rubezhom: Praktika I Tendentsii’, Aktualniye Problemy Ekonomiki i Prava, 1: 245-249

Denisova-Schmidt, E.; Prytula, Y. & Rumyantseva, N. 2019. ‘Beg, borrow, or steal: determinants of student academic misconduct in Ukrainian higher education’, Policy Reviews in Higher Education, 3(1): 4-27

Grødeland, Å. 2007. ‘‘Red Mobs’, ‘Yuppies’, ‘Lamb Heads’ and Others: Contacts, Informal Networks and Politics in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania’, Europe-Asia Studies, 59: 217-252

Komu Podarok 2017. ‘Podarki Dlya Professora: Kreativnie Idei’ komu-podarok.ru/podarki-dlya-professora-kreativnye-id/

Kozlov, N.M. 2012. ‘Lyubimim Nuzhni Znaki Vnimaniya’ www.psychologos.ru/articles/view/lyubimym-nuzhny-znaki-vnimaniya

Novikova, A. 2019. ‘Chto Podarit Vrachu V Blagodarnost’’ Ideyi Podarok, 24 April, available here

Osipian, A. 2008. ‘Corruption and Coercion: University Automnomy Versus state control’, European Education, 40(3): 27-48

Patico, J. 2002. ‘Chocolate and Cognac: Gifts and the Recognition of Social Worlds in Post-Soviet Russia’, Ethnos, 67(3): 345-368

Pesmen, D. 2000. Russia and Soul: An Exploration. Cornell University Press

PHDRU 2014. ’Domagatelstvo K Aspirantkam V SSSR’, phdru.com/domogatelstvo/sexualharassment/

Polese, A. 2008. ‘‘If I receive it, it is a gift; if I demand it, it is a bribe’: On the Local meaning of Economic Transactions in Post-Soviet Ukraine’, Anthropology in Action, 15: 47-60

Shaw, P, Katsaiti, M. & Pecorado, B. 2015. ‘On the determinants of educational corruption: The case of Ukraine’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 33(4): 698-713

Smith, A. & Stenning, A. 2006. ‘Beyond household economies: articulations and spaces of economic practice in postsocialism’, Progress in Human Georgraphy, 30: 190-213

Steenberg, R. 2016. ‘The art of not seeing like a state. On the ideology of “informality”’, Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe, 24(3): 293-306

Vkontakte 2010. ‘Podarok Nauchnomy Rukovoditeliu’, 4 February, vk.com/topic-503_22418958

Wanner, C. 2005. ‘Money, morality and new forms of exchange in post-socialist Ukraine’, Ethnos, 70(4): 515-537

Werner, C. 2000. ‘Gifts, Bribes and Development in Kazakhstan’, Human Organisation, 59(1): 11-22