T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 928 Tetyana V. YERESKOVA, Oleg V. MAZURYK, Olena S. ALEKSANDROVA, Halyna V. TYMOFIEIEVA, Vitaliy N. ZAVADSKYI* UNCERTAINTY AS A REGULAR FEATURE OF MODERN UKRAINIAN SOCIETY 1 Abstract. The purpose of this article is to substantiate the pattern of societal uncertainty as being a deter- minant of collective social behaviour exemplified by Ukrainians’ developing societal expectations and per- ceptions. The results of the “Social Conflictogenity of Ukrainian Society” research project are interpreted with respect to attitudes to the state of ‘societal uncertainty’. A certain destructuring of modern Ukrainian society is shown to be adding to the consolidation of societal uncertainty among members of society as a particular model of interaction among social subjects. It demon- strates that members of Ukrainian society are unwilling to reduce the state of societal uncertainty. Keywords: uncertainty, social expectations, social strat- egies, destructuring of society, social prospects Introduction Uncertainty is a state of social reality that is associated with the per- ception of once stable social structures now being destroyed or changed. Subjective context forms an integral part of how members of a society view the social reality and is more defined and noticeable at the micro level of a society’s social structure (Deaux and Martin, 2003; Kuz and Sahan, 2016). Yet, in a setting of ever greater social competition, the social roles held by members of society in relation to a given problem, event, phenomenon or process are also increasingly influenced by subjective content due to infor- mation pressures, informal everyday practices, and social risks; namely, 1 The article is written by the results of implementation of project “Complex issues of historical memory of the countries of Central-Eastern Europe in XX–XXI centuries in the paradigm of dialogism of Ukrainian culture” (official registration No: 0116U003294). * Tetyana V. Yereskova, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Personnel Management, Sociology and Psychology, Kyiv National Economic University, Ukraine; Oleg V. Mazuryk, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Social Structures and Social Relations, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine; Olena S. Aleksandrova, PhD, Full Professor, Department of Philosophy, Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Ukraine; Halyna V. Tymofieieva, Junior Scientific Librarian, Master in Business Administration, University Library, Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University, Ukraine; Vitaliy N. Zavadskyi, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of World History, Kyiv University, Ukraine. T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 929 aspects exacerbating the state of social uncertainty (Amiel and Cowell, 2007; Savage et al., 2013; Gaudeul, 2013; Fawcett et al., 2014; Rand et al., 2014; Zborovsky and Ambarova, 2016; van den Berg, 2018; Johnston, 2019). At the same time, today the dominance of the subjective content influencing the social uncertainties arising from social transformations is increasingly mov- ing to a lower level, in turn bringing greater polarisation, conflict and social distrust among various social groups. The above description of the state of society currently prevails in Ukraine, which in the 28 years of its independence has been unable to clearly deter- mine the direction of its external affairs, the processes of reforming its socio-economic system, the ‘national idea’, social values etc. In the last 5 years (2014–2019), the level of social uncertainty has only increased, mean- ing that the state of a ‘social divide’ in society due to certain socio-political, socio-economic and socio-cultural processes has become permanent (habit- ual) in modern Ukrainian society. The ‘state of Ukrainian society’ by periods: 1991 – the country declared its independence, although by 2004 the “Soviet Ukraine” model had in fact returned – the principle of creating an effective counterbalance between the centres of socio-political and socio-economic influence; 2004 – “The Orange Revolution” promised new opportunities for the genuine democra- tisation of Ukrainian society, but by 2013 the system of rigid clan manage- ment had been restored; 2014 – the Revolution of Dignity, although after 6 years the country has returned to an authoritarian majority. The entire period has attributes of societal uncertainty for Ukrainian society. Ukrainian sociologists characterise the state of Ukrainian society as a social transformation, social tension, a crisis society, or “failure of the social matrix” (Shulha, 2018). To support such opinions, they point to its multidimensionality (Saveliev, 2015), class structure (Symonchuk, 2016), the different social interests, ways and lifestyles of members of Ukrainian society (Zlobina, 2011; Zabolotna, 2018), the state of social conscious- ness (Holovakha and Panina, 1994; Popova, 1999; Dodonov and Mofa, 2003; Yereskova, 2016), the loss of cultural and educational competencies by Ukrainians, civic irresponsibility (Horbachyk and Holovakha, 2012; Vdovychenko, 2016) and others. Still, the influence of the above com- ponents on the state of Ukrainian society is analysed by researchers who mainly proceed by giving priority to the entire society, especially the struc- ture of society in relation to both individuals and their social actions. In this study, we aim to explore social uncertainty as a pattern in the development of modern Ukrainian society, defining the individual and col- lective experience of Ukrainian activity in the social space. To accomplish this, we first consider how actors create social expectations for their own social group, for other social groups, for society as a whole; how social actors T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 930 evaluate social impacts based on whether they give the very subject and oth- ers equal opportunities from the standpoint of the expected social outcome. Methodology The methodological basis of the study is a procedural approach to social issues whereby society is perceived not so much as an object but as a kind of ‘field of opportunity’ for social subjects. A key unit of analysis is the ‘event’ that manifests itself in the perceptions, reactions and actions of actors, whose consequences are polyvariant for society as a whole (Shtompka, 1996). Analysis of events shows that in recent times certain social communi- ties do not wish to change “uncertainty/instability” to “certainty/stability”, which might for a long time suspend the dreams, hopes and expectations held by individuals to realise their desires and ambitions in material, social and political aspects of life (Bodnar and Pelin, 2012; Kremen, 2013) that, to some extent, ‘inhibits’ the perception of positive tendencies in the reform of Ukrainian society by its members (Yereskova and Mazuryk, 2017). To change this situation, it is important to factor in levels that reflect the objec- tive reality (meant here as ‘nation by citizenship’) in the minds of Ukrainians. We therefore consider societal expectations through the lens of a model of actualisation of social processes for social subjects. When a situation of uncertainty arises in the social system, social actors always react in a particu- lar way. In other words, the situation of uncertainty determines the proce- dure for actualising those processes that take place in society and divides it into two forms: practical and cognitive. Practical actualisation of social pro- cesses involves focussing on the value and situational means of consolidat- ing these processes. During practical actualisation of social processes for the social subject, they tend to experience their consequences themselves via different strategies: complete disregard for what is happening; adapta- tion to the current situation; open opposition; and wilful avoidance (“social blindness” – “such a thing simply does not exist, I do not see this”). The essence of cognitive actualisation lies in determination of the entire infrastructure of the process, its properties, consequences etc. While being irrelevant and insignificant for the majority, for those who employ cogni- tive actualisation, everything that happens has a special meaning, allow- ing one to understand the nature of the process and, in the future, to be able to manage it on any level (micro, meso, macro). The main functions of cognitive actualisation are the description, explanation, understanding and prediction of social processes occurring in society. Cognitive actualisa- tion’s purpose is to establish the identifying features of the social process, to determine the causes and factors of influence. Proceeding on this basis, we attempted to empirically record and determine the dominant strategies used T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 931 for actualising the perception of processes underway in Ukrainian society by its members in order to understand and predict the overriding tendencies in views on democratic reforms (as sought by Ukraine and its citizens). Analysing the “progress” vs. “leave as is/return as it was” dichotomy that has existed in Ukraine since 1991, we hypothesised the dominance of prac- tical actualisation over cognitive actualisation, based on the predominance of a wilful avoidance strategy adopted by members of Ukrainian society, which will continue to consolidate the “societal uncertainties” pattern in Ukrainian society. We believe this is significantly influenced by the current social structure of Ukrainian society, which makes overcoming the societal uncertainty processes in Ukrainian society complicated. Thus, in our study we focus on two features: age distribution and distribution by social status. The influence of age on how the objective reality is perceived is well known. We substantiate our position in the context of the use of social sta- tus. We believe causal links may exist between social status as determined by the nature of the work being performed (the degree of its content com- plexity, independence and responsibility, routinisation etc.) and the strat- egy of updating society’s expectations. The theoretical construct of social status suggests such a conclusion. In this case, we rely on the fact that work- ing conditions affect the value orientations held by an individual. A person who makes independent and responsible decisions according to the profile of their activity manifests this focus in relation to both the perception of social processes and to oneself because complex and inde- pendent work promotes the development of more flexible thinking and a responsible attitude to oneself and one’s social environment. Conversely, routine work, which limits independence, makes thinking more stereotypi- cal, in turn leading to the formation of a conformist attitude towards oneself and society. Namely, a person whose work is relatively autonomous, free from external guardianship, is better at perceiving and realising the inner meaning of events in society, while constant external control causes a sense of helplessness, which is often extrapolated to the entire social reality. In the process of research, our hypothesis was confirmed, hence the consolidation of societal uncertainties as a pattern of the development of Ukrainian society is influenced by the current social structure of Ukrainian society, which makes overcoming the societal uncertainty processes in Ukrainian society complicated because the individual desires held by social subjects do not translate into a single set of demands for all; more specifically, into general directions and goals. Moreover, the primary strategy for actualis- ing the events taking place in Ukrainian society is one of wilful avoidance. The empirical basis of the study is data taken from a survey of resi- dents of regional centres of Ukraine aged 18 years and older by means of a face-to-face interview conducted in the framework of the project “Social T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 932 Conflictogenity of Ukrainian Society”. The sample is representative by age, gender and region (N=1500, margin of error no more than 3.0%. Dates of research: 29 April – 13 May 2019). The empirical data were processed using the SPSS application software package with use of correlation analy- sis; respondents’ answers to open-ended questions were processed using a scale method, with the indicator scale not being set a priori, but formed upon identification of the internal semantic structures of the respondents’ answers. When coding the respondents’ answers, the idea was to ease the researchers’ interpretation of the expressions used by the respondents. Results and discussion In a discourse on modernity, J. Lyotard’s hypothesised that, in response to the greater social uncertainty, complexity and diversity of social reality, social actors may be differentiated between those willing to accept complex social things and those who seek to simplify the reality (Lyotard, 1992). This is largely due to the inaccuracy (lack of credibility/unreliability) of the knowl- edge possessed by social subjects about the conditions and processes occur- ring in the social community and the external environment, coupled with the probabilistic nature of adverse events (Rishniak, 2003). The chief issue for members of society in a situation of social uncertainty is connected with the uncertainty of social perspectives (not so much at the personal level, but at the level of both social groups and communities, and society in general). The analysis of the theoretical aspects outlined above allows an assump- tion to be made that a state of societal uncertainty arises when it is possible and necessary to choose the ways for society to develop, to refine world- views, ideological sympathies, lifestyles etc. In other words, societal uncer- tainties accompany the exacerbated search for possible exits from certain situations in society and the likelihood of their occurrence. We associate the formation of societal uncertainties with different expectations of social communities regarding their own actions and the conclusions they draw about the actions of other social groups in relation to certain social transfor- mations. A comparison of social expectations provides a more sophisticated understanding of the substantive component of the stratified structure of any society. After all, the place occupied by the individual in society to some extent ‘instructs’ them how to act and what to expect from life because “to have a certain place in society” (according to P. Berger) means “to be at the point of intersection of certain social forces” (Berger, 1996). Axiomatically, this affects the attitudes and reactions of social communities to events tak- ing place in society (on the basis of W. Thomas’ introduction of the “situa- tion definition” concept, which means that any social situation is how it is defined by the participants) (Berger, 1996). T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 933 Social expectations have a considerable impact on the interaction mech- anisms in society and the result of such interactions between various social actors (Griffin, 2015). Following this logic, in the process of researching the pattern of ‘societal uncertainties’, we first identify the key strategies for forming social expectations (passive, active, interactive) and their main con- tents. Identifying strategies for shaping social expectations became possible due to the application of Ch. Berger’s uncertainty reduction theory, which explores how communication is used to achieve understanding between social groups (Griffin, 2015). A passive strategy for generating social expec- tations entails discrete observation of the reactions of other social groups from a distance. An active strategy involves reaching out to a third party for information to assess the reactions of other social groups to social change. Here it is understood that a third party will provide some degree of bias, but the majority of researchers is confident in their own ability to filter bias and ‘extract’ valuable information. An interactive strategy is a direct social inter- action, a kind of social probing of the societal expectations of other social subjects and, thus, a prediction of tendencies of social consequences for the society in general. Second, we classify social expectations by meaningful content – wishes, warnings, or predictions of future actions. This will give insights into com- prehension of the “social expectations” concept by representatives of differ- ent social communities (that is, what is desired to come true, or a prediction of what may come true, or potential responses to changes in society). Third, we model social groups with respect to their practices of forming social expectations. Particular social groups may be neutral to the processes occur- ring in society if their societal expectations are positively correlated with the societal expectations of others, or they may not be concerned by outcome inequalities if everyone has equal chances in terms of the expected societal outcome. Others find a balance between their own expectations and their societal outcome, i.e. they make a choice between an outcome for society that may be somewhat unfair to these social groups but not risky for the majority of members of society. Still others manage their societal expecta- tions to avoid a safe yet relatively inferior outcome for the society’s develop- ment. This thereby helps understand the objective patterns in the formation of societal expectations as reflecting certain social trends during times of societal uncertainties. Respondents’ understanding of the dominant strategy used for shaping social expectations was determined by two blocks. The first block of ques- tions was the definition and registration of respondents’ personal reflec- tions on their view of the state of societal uncertainty. The second block was directly concerned with identifying dominant strategies used for shap- ing society’s expectations. In this context, the above described attributes of T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 934 key strategies (passive, active, interactive) served as the content network. Thus, analysing the empirical data, we understood that the results of the survey confirm the argument that the majority of Ukrainian society mem- bers has no negative reaction to the state of “societal uncertainty” (70.8%). For convenience, we combined responses with synonymous content of respondent reflections (for example, the statements “This does not contrib- ute to social cohesion” and “This always has catastrophic consequences for Ukrainian society”). There is an understanding that this is a natural condi- tion for Ukrainian society (42.1%), which is driven by mental characteristics. A utilitarian attitude to this situation (a desire to exploit it for their own ben- efit) was shown by 28.7% of the respondents, while 27% of them believed that societal uncertainty does not help unify Ukrainian society and brings negative consequences (Table 1). Table 1: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS’ ANSWERS TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION “HOW DO YOU TAKE THE FACT THAT UKRAINIAN SOCIETY IS CONSTANTLY IN A STATE OF SOCIAL UNCERTAINTY REGARDING VARIOUS SOCIO-POLITICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES?” (% of total respondents) Answer option % (N=1500) This is a normal state for Ukraine throughout all the years of its independence 36.8 When there are no clearly defined rules or guidelines, this is an additional opportunity to gain some material or social preferences 24.7 This does not contribute to social cohesion 18.9 This always has catastrophic consequences for Ukrainian society 8.1 The reluctance to decide is our Ukrainian mentality 5.3 Normally, as a certainty which one has to adapt to and exploit 4.0 Difficult to answer 2.2 Total 100 Source: compiled by the authors. The data presented in Table 2 give an opportunity to trace the correla- tion of respondents’ responses by social status. Upon analysing the data, we noted that respondents from social groups like “students”, “retirees” and “employees” were more concerned about the state of societal uncertainty (28.2%, 25.2%, 23.2%, respectively). The least concerned about this situation were representatives of the “workers” social group (11.3%). Evidently, the overwhelming majority of respondents (regardless of social status) sees it as appropriate to take advantage of the state of societal uncertainty to implement their personal life strategies. Analysis of the data shown in Table 3 indicates a tendency for a decrease in the number of respondents viewing social uncertainty as “natural/ T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 935 normal” for Ukrainian society (those aged up to 20 years – 84.2%; 21–30 years – 75.7%; 31–40 years – 69.7%; 41–50 years – 69.1%; 51–60 years – 62.3%; over 60–56.1%). This can be explained by a certain disappointment with the situation in Ukraine during the years since independence among representatives of the older age groups, possible nostalgia for times of ‘con- fidence in the future’, and awareness of the ‘side effects’ of the state of soci- etal uncertainty for the formation of civil society, the reform of particular spheres of life in Ukrainian society, their level of integration, and the desire for a common future. Table 2: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS' ANSWERS TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION »HOW DO YOU TAKE THE FACT THAT UKRAINIAN SOCIETY IS CONSTANTLY IN A STATE OF SOCIAL UNCERTAINTY REGARDING VARIOUS SOCIO-POLITICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES?« (% of the share of the category named among those who chose this answer) Answer options Social status (N=1467) workers (n=306) officials (n=471) business sector (n=174) students (n=160) retirees (n=195) unemployed (n=161) This is a normal state for Ukraine throughout all the years of its independence 39.8 39.9 37.1 45.7 19.8 29.2 When there are no clearly defined rules or guidelines, this is an additional opportunity to gain some material or social preferences 27.5 24.7 28.0 12.7 30.6 34.8 This does not contribute to social cohesion 6.3 16.8 10.3 18.9 17.3 13.0 This always has catastrophic consequences for Ukrainian society 5.0 6.4 7.1 9.3 7.9 5.6 The reluctance to decide is our Ukrainian mentality 11.8 5.5 4.6 3.1 11.4 5.0 Normally, as a certainty which one has to adapt to and exploit 9.6 6.7 12.9 10.3 13.0 12.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: compiled by the authors. It may therefore be stated that in the conditions of today societal uncer- tainties are perceived to be an inevitable and natural state. For most mem- bers of Ukrainian society, this state of societal uncertainty brings neither destructive (like anxiety, confusion, aggression etc.) nor constructive reac- tions (desire for integration, the need to decide on key socio-economic, socio-political issues etc.). A state of societal uncertainty is perceived to be where one is unable to not simply ‘endure’ but also effectively exist. We classified the entire range of answers from the second block (consisting of questions for identifying T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 936 respondents’ key strategies for forming societal expectations and their details) according to the corresponding strategies for forming societal expectations (Table 4). Table 3: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS’ ANSWERS TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION “HOW DO YOU TAKE THE FACT THAT UKRAINIAN SOCIETY IS CONSTANTLY IN A STATE OF SOCIAL UNCERTAINTY REGARDING VARIOUS SOCIO-POLITICAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES?” (% of the share of the category named among those who chose this answer) Answer options Age (N=1467) up to 20 years. (n=200) 21–30 years. (n=318) 31–40 years (n=309) 41–50 years (n=333) 51–60 years (n=181) over 60 years (n=126) This is a normal state for Ukraine throughout all the years of its independence 53.2 48.5 37.9 40.3 21.3 23.0 When there are no clearly defined rules or guidelines, this is an additional opportunity to gain some material or social preferences 25.0 22.5 28.4 23.6 34.8 21.2 This does not contribute to social cohesion 6.5 18.3 16.8 16.0 23.8 19.0 This always has catastrophic consequences for Ukrainian society 9.3 6.0 13.5 14.9 13.9 24.9 The reluctance to decide is our Ukrainian mentality 6.0 4.7 3.4 5.2 6.2 11.9 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: compiled by the authors. Table 4: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS’ ANSWERS TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: “HOW DO YOU MOST OFTEN (TYPICALLY) RESPOND TO THE SITUATION OF SOCIAL UNCERTAINTY?” (% of total number of respondents) Answer option % (N=1500) I do nothing, just waiting to see what happens 35.2 I am in no hurry to do something; I am observing what will happen 15.4 I listen to what people who I find to be authoritative think about this 14.2 I start looking for information on the essence of events or similar events 12.4 I simply observe the reactions of others 6.4 I try to predict the actions of others in such a situation 5.4 I communicate (interact, confer) with others regarding the situation that occurred 5.3 I try to predict the consequences for everyone 3.2 Difficult to answer 2.5 Total 100 Source: compiled by the authors. T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 937 Classification of the respondents’ responses to indicate the key strategies for forming societal expectations we described above suggests that the passive strategy for forming societal expectations dominates among the respondents (Table 5). To summarise the data obtained, we derived a total indicator for each strategy of forming societal expectations, which not only allows the exist- ing levels of relevant strategies in respondents to be clearly demonstrated, but also to track their distribution depending on their social status and age. This serves to further confirm the argument that the respondents per- ceive the state of societal uncertainties as a normal condition for Ukrainian society. Yet, it could also indicate societal uncertainty in the correctness of the reactions made by other social subjects, which in turn ‘inhibits’ the pro- cess of social ‘attachment’ to other social groups and consolidates social dis- tance in society. Table 5: DISTRIBUTION OF INDICATORS BY TOTAL INDICATORS ACCORDING TO STRATEGIES FOR THE FORMATION OF SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS FROM THE OPEN QUESTION »HOW DO YOU MOST OFTEN (TYPICALLY) REACT TO THE SITUATION OF SOCIAL UNCERTAINTIES?« (% of the total number of respondents) Answer option % (N=1500) Passive strategy 57.0 I do nothing; just waiting to see what happens 35.2 I am in no hurry to do something; I am observing what will happen 15.4 I simply observe the reactions of others 6.4 Active strategy 26.6 I listen to what people who I find to be authoritative think about this 14.2 I start looking for information on the essence of events or similar events 12.4 Interactive strategy 13.9 I try to predict the actions of others in such a situation 5.4 I communicate (interact, confer) with others regarding the situation that occurred 5.3 I try to predict the consequences for everyone 3.2 Source: compiled by the authors. Classification of strategies for shaping societal expectations depending on social status helped determine the distribution of the corresponding social groups by the key strategies (Table 6). Analysis of the obtained data reveals that indicators of a passive strat- egy for forming societal expectations dominate among representatives of all social statuses. This is strongly pronounced in the student-age youth (76.1%) who, more so than the representatives of other social statuses, take an ‘outside observer’ position regarding the processes occurring in society. The distribution of indicators of an active strategy by social status, where all T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 938 groups (excluding students) are dominated by the indicator “I listen to what people who I find to be authoritative think about this”, fully illustrates the sit- uation in modern Ukrainian society where the respondents’ perception of the social reality is significantly affected by external information and social content. Building on this, in Ukrainian society each social group has, in fact, its own authorities (opinion leaders), that are mostly situation-dependent. Table 6: DISTRIBUTION OF INDICATORS BY TOTAL INDICATORS ACCORDING TO STRATEGIES FOR THE FORMATION OF SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS FROM THE OPEN QUESTION “HOW DO YOU MOST OFTEN (TYPICALLY) REACT TO THE SITUATION OF SOCIAL UNCERTAINTIES?” (% of the share of the category named among those who chose this answer) Indicators % (N=1462) Workers (n=306) Officials (n=466) Business sector (n=174) Students (n=160) Retirees (n=195) Unemployed (n=161) Passive strategy 52.7 47.4 58.5 76.1 45.9 48.6 I do nothing; just waiting to see what happens 27.8 24.9 23.8 32.7 21.8 30.6 I am in no hurry to do something; I am observing what will happen 15.0 13.1 27.8 23.1 10.8 17.4 I simply observe the reactions of others 9.9 9.4 6.9 20.3 13.3 0.6 Active strategy 34.0 37.8 23.2 18.9 31.2 28.6 I listen to what people that I find to be authoritative think about this 18.5 25.5 15.5 5.8 26.1 13.0 I start looking for information on the essence of events or similar events 15.5 12.3 7.7 13.1 5.1 15.6 Interactive strategy 13.3 14.8 18.3 5.0 22.9 22.8 I try to predict the actions of others in such a situation 5.9 5.2 1.6 2.7 3.6 – I communicate (interact, confer) with others regarding the situation that occurred 5.4 7.8 14.0 2.3 16.7 19.8 I try to predict the consequences for everyone 2.0 1.8 2.7 – 2.6 3.0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: compiled by the authors. Low scores for interactive strategy indicators among students (5.0%) are quite indicative, suggesting that representatives of this social status make no attempts to discover, understand or hear the opinions of others. Conversely, pensioners, non-working people and business representatives are those most focused on reducing societal uncertainty, with their indica- tors of an interactive strategy for forming societal expectations being 22.9%, T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 939 22.8% and 18.3%, respectively. The correlation of indicators of strategies for forming societal expectations depending on the respondents’ age (Table 7) reveals, on one hand, that representatives of different social groups, in a situation of societal uncertainty, attempt to isolate themselves from interac- tion with other social groups (by occupying the position of outside observ- ers) and, on the other hand, are quite adapted to such a situation, and have adjusted well to the varied and uncertain reality facing society. Table 7: DISTRIBUTION OF INDICATORS BY TOTAL INDICATORS ACCORDING TO STRATEGIES FOR THE FORMATION OF SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS FROM THE OPEN QUESTION “HOW DO YOU MOST OFTEN (TYPICALLY) REACT TO THE SITUATION OF SOCIAL UNCERTAINTIES?” (% of the share of the category named among those who chose this answer) Indicators % (N=1462) Up to 20 years of age. (n=200) 21–30 years of age (n=318) 31–40 years of age (n=309) 41–50 years of age (n=328) 51–60 years of age (n=181) over 60 years of age (n=126) Passive strategy 70.3 76.5 80.0 84.2 80.4 76.7 I do nothing; just waiting to see what happens 35.8 44.3 25.3 37.3 21.7 38.7 I am in no hurry to do something; I am observing what will happen 23.9 7.7 8.9 39.4 42.3 9.3 I simply observe the reactions of others 10.6 24.5 45.8 7.5 16.4 28.7 Active strategy 24.2 18.7 14.4 9.4 10.6 12.5 I listen to what people who I find to be authoritative think about this 4.0 4.4 8.3 1.9 8.3 12.5 I start looking for information on the essence of events or similar events 20.2 14.3 6.1 7.5 2.3 - Interactive strategy 5.5 4.8 5.6 6.4 9.0 10.8 I try to predict the actions of others in such a situation 1.6 1.5 2.3 1.4 3.2 0.5 I communicate (interact, confer) with others regarding the situation that occurred 1.6 1.9 1.7 4.3 5.8 10.3 I try to predict the consequences for everyone – 1.4 1.6 0.7 – – Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: compiled by the authors. We have already noted that to understand whether the state of societal uncertainties is a pattern of modern Ukrainian society one must define and classify the societal expectations of members of this society. Table 8 pro- vides an overview of what the concept of societal expectations means to representatives of various social groups. Distribution of indicators by total indicators according to strategies for T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 940 forming societal expectations from the open question “How do you most often (typically) react to the situation of societal uncertainties?” % of the share of the category named among those who chose this answer). Table 8: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS’ ANSWERS TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: “WHAT DO SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS MEAN TO YOU?” (% of total number of respondents) Answer option % (N=1500) These are my expectations from the actions of the President, the Verkhovna Rada, the government for the betterment of our lives 25.2 This is when I want what is best for me (my family) to come true 20.4 This is when I want everything to happen for my (my business) benefit 18.3 This is what is most likely to happen in certain circumstances 12.5 This is what allows to understand what is going on in society so as to adapt 6.6 These are my expectations of other people’s possible reaction to what is going on in society 5.9 These are my concerns regarding the development of our society 4.9 This is an understanding of what needs to be done to improve the lives of ordinary people 3.2 This is when one wants what would be appropriate for our state, society in the future 1.5 Difficult to answer 1.5 Total 100 Source: compiled by the authors. Table 9: CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS’ ANSWERS BY TOTAL INDICATORS ACCORDING TO THE CONTENT OF SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS?” (% of the total number of respondents) Answer option % (N=1500) Wishes 43.4 This is when I want what is best for me (my family) to come true 20.4 This is when I want everything to happen for my (my business) benefit 18.3 This is an understanding of what needs to be done to improve the lives of ordinary people 3.2 This is when one wants what would be appropriate for our state, society in the future 1.5 Warning 37.7 These are my expectations from the actions of the President, the Verkhovna Rada, the government for the betterment of our lives 25.2 This is what is most likely to happen in certain circumstances 12.5 Forecast for future action 17.4 This is what allows to understand what is going on in society so as to adapt 6.6 These are my expectations of other people’s possible reaction to what is going on in society 5.9 These are my concerns regarding the development of our society 4.9 Source: compiled by the authors. T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 941 Classification of the respondents’ answers as ‘fillers’ of the meaningful content of the societal expectations described above shows that the vast majority of respondents form their own societal expectations by way of per- sonal ‘wishes’ (Table 9). In other words, respondents see societal expecta- tions as what they wish to come true. Table 10: CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS’ ANSWERS BY SUMMARY INDICATORS ACCORDING TO THE CONTENT OF SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS?” (% of the share of the category named among those who chose this answer) Classification % (N=1477) Workers (n=306) Officials (n=461) Business sector (n=174) Students (n=160) Retirees (n=195) Unemployed (n=161) Wishes 66.8 76.5 80.0 84.2 83.9 76.7 This is when I want what is best for me (my family) to come true 25.3 24.5 21.2 27.6 15.3 24.6 This is when I want everything to happen for my (my business) benefit 15.4 12.3 30.8 23.8 20.5 18.2 This is an understanding of what needs to be done to improve the lives of ordinary people 20.6 26.6 21.5 10.6 23.8 22.0 This is when one wants what would be appropriate for our state, society in the future 5.5 13.1 6.5 22.2 24.3 11.9 Warning 24.1 18.5 14.2 9.3 10.6 12.4 These are my expectations from the actions of the President, the Verkhovna Rada, the government for the betterment of our lives 15.2 11.0 10.2 7.9 8.1 6.9 This is what is most likely to happen in certain circumstances 8.9 7.5 4.0 1.4 2.5 5.5 Forecast for future action 9.1 5.0 5.8 6.5 5.5 10.9 This is what allows to understand what is going on in society so as to adapt 1.3 2.6 3.4 3.2 1.2 6.4 These are my expectations of other people’s possible reaction to what is going on in society 0.3 2.4 0.9 1.6 0.8 2.2 These are my concerns regarding the development of our society 7.5 – 1.5 1.7 3.5 2.3 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: compiled by the authors. The analysis of the data supports the argument that in the conditions of societal uncertainty the respondents attempt to fill the social reality around them with subjective content, as manifested in the desire to subject public life to their personal (individual) priorities. This situation seems understand- able since the phenomenon of the ‘atomisation’ of members of society from each other is not novel in modern societies. But a stalemate emerges in the T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 942 condition when, if society is too individualised about societal expectations for further social life, then, a priori, the state, other social subjects cannot ‘fit’ within the societal expectations and, accordingly, satisfy society’s members (any actions would be perceived as failing to meet expectations). The clas- sification of societal expectations by social status is presented in Table 10. Table 11: CLASSIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS’ ANSWERS BY SUMMARY INDICATORS ACCORDING TO THE CONTENT OF SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTION “WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS?” (% of the share of the category named among those who chose this answer) Classification % (N=1477) Up to 20 years of age (n=200) 21-30 years of age (n=318) 31-40 years of age (n=309) 41-50 years of age (n=343) 51-60 years of age (n=181) Over 60 years of age (n=126) Wishes 76.1 74.9 84.3 85.7 85.2 88.7 This is when I want what is best for me (my family) to come true 34.4 30.4 20.5 18.9 23.5 46.6 This is when I want everything to happen for my (my business) benefit 8.4 20.6 34.7 40.2 11.7 6.4 This is an understanding of what needs to be done to improve the lives of ordinary people 19.8 15.1 17.1 13.9 34.5 21.4 This is when one wants what would be appropriate for our state, society in the future 13.5 13.3 12.0 12.7 15.5 14.3 Warning 11.6 17.6 10.6 10.1 10.1 8.2 These are my expectations from the actions of the President, the Verkhovna Rada, the government for the betterment of our lives 2.8 9.5 6.3 7.4 6.6 5.8 This is what is most likely to happen in certain circumstances 8.8 8.1 4.3 2.7 3.5 2.4 Forecast for future action 12.3 7.5 5.1 4.2 4.7 3.1 This is what allows to understand what is going on in society so as to adapt 3.5 5.2 1.0 2.0 1.5 3.1 These are my expectations of other people’s possible reaction to what is going on in society 8.8 0.7 2.9 0.9 1.2 – These are my concerns regarding the development of our society – 1.6 1.2 1.3 2.0 – Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 Source: compiled by the authors. If we accept the argument that, in the context of societal uncertainties when a society holds mixed perceptions of the social reality and is thereby conflictogenic (socially split), it is appropriate (to ensure greater integration) to pay attention to intergroup interaction in the society, it then becomes evi- dent that respondents of all social statuses practically leave out the possible T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 943 reactions of other social groups, instead focusing on their personal social expectations. Similar tendencies may be observed by age groups (Table 11). It is clear that social expectations have both a rational and an emotional component. This explains our belief, especially during times of societal uncertainty, that it is prudent to consider the realm of interpretations of reality wherein one’s personal status as a social subject is formed or actual- ised, which depends on relations with other individuals at the level of social communities and groups. In times of societal uncertainties, many variations for social interaction arise but, considering the fact that social subjects are unsure as to which situation they are encountering, they cannot (or are unwilling to) predict the actions of other social groups due to having mini- mised social cooperation, seeing each social group ‘shut itself off’ in a world of their own ideas and desires regarding a common future and creating their own versions. As a result, members of society perceive the representatives of ‘other’ social groups as social competitors in achieving the desired result. The paradox of Ukrainian realities is that, unlike in most European countries, which have also passed through a stage of democratically reforming the social system at vari- ous times in their existence, high uncertainty should lead to greater coopera- tion among all social subjects in order to overcome this situation as quickly as possible (van den Berg 2018). Our results indicate the further individualisation of social interaction strategies among members of Ukrainian society. Conclusion Considering the state of societal uncertainty as a pattern of modern Ukrainian society, we proceeded from the assumption that the uncertainty of the social prospects of Ukraine’s development is a certain permanent state of functioning of Ukrainian society, triggering uncertainty of members of society about their own actions and their own conclusions concerning certain social transformations. It appears that in this situation social subjects should feel the need to minimise such a situation by enhancing social inter- actions with each other in order to obtain information about the behaviour of the ‘others’ and to predict possible reactions or the consequences of actions in given social situations. This is the decisive factor in the develop- ment of social relations in the country. However, our results show that most members of Ukrainian society not only perceive the state of societal uncer- tainty as constituting a threat to society, but are also ready to take advan- tage of the opportunities of this scenario to satisfy their personal needs (70.8%). Building on the fact that the prevention of uncertainty may indi- cate the extent to which members of a certain society have a need for social structuring (rules, values, national ideas, particular vectors of development T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 944 in certain spheres of life etc.), we may assume that it is precisely a certain destructuring of Ukrainian society which is promoting the more permanent establishment of the state of social uncertainty as a model of interaction between social subjects. This is intensified by the different strategies for forming societal expec- tations. Social expectations determine social group practices in relation to other social subjects, which may manifest themselves in several variations, such as group self-sufficiency (“we can do without it”, “we will achieve it on our own and for ourselves”), as expectations of future effective interac- tion, as a utilitarian attitude (“they have what we need” or “they can pro- vide what we need”) or as an attempt to ‘consider’ a threat as public (“they behave wrongly, abnormally, strangely …”) etc. Thus, 57% of the respond- ents are dominated by a passive strategy for forming societal expectations, 26.6% by an active and 13.9% by an interactive one, with 2.5% of respond- ents being unable to decide on their own societal expectations. In our opin- ion, the dominance of the passive strategy of forming societal expectations (irrespective of the respondents’ social status and age) indicates a further cementing of the pattern of “societal uncertainties” in Ukrainian society. Due to the distance from other social subjects, the desire to ‘simply wait and see what happens’ does not assist in enhancing social interaction and integration in society. A strengthening of the pattern of “societal uncertainty” may be indirectly confirmed by the fact that this strategy is formed by representatives of the social groups of “students” (76.1%) and the “business sector” (58.5%). This is worrying because these are the very social groups that, by their social char- acteristics, must best of all understand the expediency of and be interested in reducing societal uncertainties because in a society with low levels of societal uncertainty social interaction between subjects is not perceived to constitute a threat to their personal welfare but is seen more as an opportu- nity to bring about effective outcomes for society in general. Another factor helping to strengthen the pattern of “societal uncertainty” in Ukrainian society is the mechanism for forming societal expectations relied on by members of society. Representatives of all analysed social sta- tuses form their societal expectations of public life as ‘wishes’. The predomi- nance of societal expectations formed as wishes may indicate the unwill- ingness of members of Ukrainian society to unify societal expectations, establish clear requirements for the state and social institutions, and mini- mise the state of societal uncertainties. One may thus assume that members of Ukrainian society do not want to sacrifice their personal achievements in order to form unifying societal expectations and ensure the effective func- tioning of society. This is a key component of any civil society that brings together social subjects who want a common future within a given country. T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 945 BIBLIOGRAPHY Amiel, Y. and F. Cowell (2007): Social Welfare and Individual Preferences under Uncertainty: A Questionnaire-Experimental Approach. Research on Economic Inequality 14: 345–362. Berger, P. (1996): Invitation to Sociology: A Humanistic Perspective. Moscow: Aspekt Press. Bodnar, V. and A. Pelin (2012): Uncertainty as the Core of a New Social Paradigm. In: Relevant Issues of Ukrainian Political Science, 204–207. Uzhhorod: Uzhhorod National University Publishing House. Deaux, K. and D. Martin (2003): Interpersonal Networks and Social Categories: Specifying Levels of Context in Identity Processes. Social Psychology Quarterly 66 (2): 101–117. Dodonov, R., S. Mofa (2003). Priority Directions of Optimization of National-State Consciousness in Ukraine. Politychnyi Menedzhment 2: 3–13. Fawcett, T. W., B. Fallenstein, A. D. Higginson, A. I. Houston, D. E. W. Mallpress, P. C. Trimmer and J. M. McNamara (2014): The Evolution of Decision Rules in Complex Environments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18: 153–161. Gaudeul, A. (2013): Social Preferences under Uncertainty. Jena Economic Research Papers 2013-024. Accessible at https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2013-024. html, 12. 12. 2019. Griffin, E. (2015): Communication: Theory and Practice. Kharkiv: Humanitarnyi tsentr. Holovakha, Ye. I. and N. V. Panina (1994): Social Madness. Kyiv: Abris. Horbachyk, A. and Ye. Holovakha (2012): Tendencies in Social Change in Ukraine and Europe: According to the European Social Survey 2005–2007–2009–2011. Kyiv: Sociology Institute of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Johnston, J. (2019): Uncertainties Can Drive Positive Social Change & Success. Accessible at https://www.mpi.org/blog/article/uncertainties-can-drive-posi- tive-social-change-success, 12. 12. 2019. Kremen, V. (2013): Man in the “Open World” Controversy. Navchannia i vykho- vannia obdarovanoi dytyny 1: 9–12. Kuz, O. M. and O. M. Sakhan (2016): Post-Modern Theorization of Social Reality. Bulletin of the National University “Yaroslav Mudryi Law Academy of Ukraine” 2 (29): 95–112. Lyotard, J.-F. (1992): Note on the Meaning of “Post”. In: J.-F. Lyotard, J. Pefanis, M. Thomas (eds.), The Postmodern Explained to Children: Correspondence, 1982– 1985: 89–93. Sydney: Power Publications. Popova, I. (1999): Everyday Consciousness in a Transitional Society: Symptoms of Crisis. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing 1: 5–22. Rand, D. G., A. Peysakhovich, G. T. Kraft-Todd, G. E. Newman, O. Wurzbacher, M. A. Nowak and J. D. Greene (2014): Social Heuristics Shape Intuitive Cooperation. Nature Communication 5: article number 3677. Rishniak, I. V. (2003): Systematic Analysis of Risk and Uncertainty Categories. Bulletin of Lviv Polytechnic National University Information Systems and Networks 489: 263–275. T. V. YERESKOVA, O. V. MAZURYK, O. S. ALEKSANDROVA, H. V. TYMOFIEIEVA… TEORIJA IN PRAKSA let. 57, 3/2020 946 Savage, S. V., D. Melamed and A. Vincent (2013): The Role of Uncertainty in Social Influence. In Advances in Group Processes: Thirtieth Anniversary Edition, 109– 129. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Saveliev, Yu. B. (2015): Contradictions of Contemporary Theoretical Interpretations of Social Development, Social Evolution, Modernization and Social Change. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing 3: 59–74. Shtompka, P. (1996): Sociology of Social Change. Moscow: Aspekt Press. Shulha, M. (2018): Social Matrix Failure. Kyiv: Sociology Institute of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Symonchuk, O. (2016): Institutionalization of Class Analysis in Ukrainian Sociology. Sociology: Theory, Methods, Marketing 4: 19–39. Van den Berg, P. and T. Wenseleers (2018): Uncertainty about Social Interactions Leads to the Evolution of Social Heuristics. Nature Communications 9: article number 2151. Vdovychenko, E. (2016): Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of Anti- Corruption Philosophical and Educational Concept. Skhid 1 (141): 63–68. Yereskova, TТ. (2016): The Social Nature of the Conflictogenity of Modern Ukrainian Society: The Dichotomy of «Progressing» vs. «Leave as Is/Turn Back as It Was». UkrayinsТkyi instytut stratehii hlobalТnoho rozvytku i adaptatsii 2: 183–93. Yereskova, T. and O. Mazuryk (2017): Social Expectations in the Conditions of Social Uncertainties as a Sociological Parameter of ‘New’ Inequalities. Ukrayinskyy Sotsiolohichnyy Zhurnal 1–2: 77–81 Accessible at https://periodicals.karazin. ua/usocjour/issue/view/ ISSN 2079-1771, 12. 12. 2019. Zabolotna, N. (2018): Ukraine at 27: Live Fast, Die Young? Ukrainska Pravda. Accessible at https://life.pravda.com.ua/columns/2018/08/23/232838/, 12. 12. 2019. Zborovsky, G. E. and P. A. Ambarova (2016): Future Educational Communities: Time Perspective in the Context of Social Uncertainty. Sociological Research 10: 3–13. Zlobina, (ed.) (2011): Social Interests in the Context of Socio-Cultural Modernization. Kyiv: Sociology Institute of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.