hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak


Zdravko Mlinar

Puni tekst: hrvatski, pdf (11 MB) str. 25-36 preuzimanja: 213* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Mlinar, Z. (1964). Neformalna grupna participacija u selu. Sociologija i prostor, (5-6), 25-36. Preuzeto s
MLA 8th Edition
Mlinar, Zdravko. "Neformalna grupna participacija u selu." Sociologija i prostor, vol. , br. 5-6, 1964, str. 25-36. Citirano 23.10.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition
Mlinar, Zdravko. "Neformalna grupna participacija u selu." Sociologija i prostor , br. 5-6 (1964): 25-36.
Mlinar, Z. (1964). 'Neformalna grupna participacija u selu', Sociologija i prostor, (5-6), str. 25-36. Preuzeto s: (Datum pristupa: 23.10.2021.)
Mlinar Z. Neformalna grupna participacija u selu. Sociologija i prostor [Internet]. 1964 [pristupljeno 23.10.2021.];(5-6):25-36. Dostupno na:
Z. Mlinar, "Neformalna grupna participacija u selu", Sociologija i prostor, vol., br. 5-6, str. 25-36, 1964. [Online]. Dostupno na: [Citirano: 23.10.2021.]

Firstly, the author gives the theoretical framework of his topic. He says,
inter alia, that »in certain sense the happenings on the informal level is significant
and, as we shall see, more original than those we discover on the formal group
level.« It »represents the most spontaneous expression of the needs and interests
of an individual and at the same time shows the „radius” of someone’s life in
geographical and social sense as well«.
This study, as a matter of fact, is a presentation of partial results of the survey
(case-study) carried out in the village Dolina in Slovenia. All adult inhabitants
of the village were interviewed (402). The author analyses gathered responses on
two questions: 1) »Do you with your friends and relatives talk about your local
comunitv, about the possibilities and difficulties of its development?« (If »Yes«)
»How often?«. The second question was of the same meaning but related to the
commune as an aggregation of more local communities. »Talking« author takes
as an indicator of relations of an individual towards the common interests of the local community or commune respectively, thus in definite sense as an indicator
of individual's indentification with his community.
Concerning the first question the author presents these global results: very
often talk about their local community 9% of the interviewed, often 1796, sometimes
32%, very rarely 17% and 25% not at all. The analysed group participation
considerably varies in dependence on the basic criteria of structuring the village
population i. e. according to their sex, age, education, reputation, number of
children under age, profession, personal income, state of health, desire to migrate
etc. The author describes these differences and some are given in tables. For
instance generally speaking the men more often talk about their local communities
(often + very often = 36%) than women (19%); also the inhabitants in
the age group 31—50 years more often talk about their local communities than
other age groups; the factor of education differentiates the interviewed more
strongly in responses on the second question than on the first one, because the
»talking« about the commune requires wider insights and understandings of
numerous questions for which the prerequisite must be a certain minimum level
of education. The order of professions according to their degree of activities was
as follows: clerical workers the most active, than workers, peasants and others.
Analysing the responses on the second question the author tries to determine
»in what extent the commune as a wider community that geographically and substantially
oversteps the local boundaries has become a subject matter of everyday
thinking and preoccupation of the ordinary citizen of the commune«. The comparison
of data collected in responses on the first and on the second question
shows in general lines the degree of integration or divergence of social life on
local and communal level as well. While every forth inhabitant does not talk about
the local community, only every second does it about the commune as a whole
(53 %). On the other hand only Vi of population take the commune as a subject
of their informal talkings (21% sometimes, 7% often, 3% very often). In tables
3 and 4 the author analyses separately the group that the least often and the
group that the most often talk about the commune according to the criteria of
differentiation of inhabitants by their membership in organizations and societies,
personal income, age, profession, sex, education, reputation etc. For instance those
who are not members of any social organization show at the same time the least
interest for the social problems of the commune.
At the end the author compares the degree of integration of an individual in
the local community with the corresponding degree of integration in the commune
and comes to the conclusion that there are no contradictions between them.

Hrčak ID: 121344



Posjeta: 384 *