DOI
https://doi.org/10.31429/26190567-20-2-16-33How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2019 Денис Эдуардович Летняков
Abstract
The paper analyzes trends in cultural diversity management in post-Soviet space. The author aims to find out to what extent the concept of “nationalizing states” introduced by P. Brubaker in the early 1990s for former socialist block countries is still valid. The research methodology is based primarily on the comparative approach applied to political science — the analysis and juxtaposition of linguistic, historical, cultural and educational policies in post-Soviet states. In addition, the author resorts to the study of post-Soviet leaders’ public statements and the rhetoric of some normative-legal documents. The paper stands out due to a novel multi-faceted approach used by the author. Namely, the paper focuses, in this or that way, on all the post-Soviet states (including Russia which is presented as part and parcel of the former USSR, not juxtaposed to it). Besides, cultural diversity is examined in the time span between 1991 and the present from various aspects, embracing linguistic and religious diversity. As a result, the article demonstrates that, despite some modification of ethno-national attitudes in the initial period of independence, there remains a scrupulous attention, imbued with suspicion, to cultural diversity, thereafter, the tendency to assimilate ethnic, linguistic and other miscellaneous minorities. The analysis of the Russian Federation case has shown that despite the fact that the assertion that Russia is a multinational and poly-confessional state has become a major thesis in official discourse, the real policies of cultural diversity management in Russia bring it closer to other post-Soviet states rather that to liberal Western democracies. The author argues that the source of post-Soviet ethnocentrism is concealed within the delimitation borders of ethnicity with the emphasis on titular ethnic groups established by the USSR regime. Further sustainability of ethnocentrism was ensured, in the first place, by the absence of the fully fledged public space and adequate public policy in the majority of post-Soviet countries, which fact prevents the minorities from waging a successful struggle for recognition. Secondly, it was the “securitization” of ethnic minorities’ problems due to complicated relations of many post-Soviet polities with the neighboring states.
Keywords
References
Abashin, S. (2012). Nation-Construction in Post-Soviet Central Asia. In M. Bassin, C. Kelly (eds.), Soviet and Post-Soviet Identities (pp. 150–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Abashin S., Savin I. (2012). Osh, 2010: konfliktuiushchaia etnichnost’ [Osh, 2010: Conflicting Identity]. In V. A. Tishkov, V. A. Shnirel’man (Eds.) Etnichnost’ I religia v sovremennyh konflictah [Ethnicity and Religion in Contemporary Conflicts] (pp. 23–56). Moscow: Nauka.
Arel, D. (2002). Demography and Politics in the First Post-Soviet Censuses: Mistrusted State, Contested Identities. Population, 6 (47), 801–827.
Beissinger, M. (2009). Nationalism and the Collapse of Soviet Communism. Contemporary European History, 3 (18), 331–347.
Brubaker, R. (2000). Natsional’nye men’shinstva, natsionaliziruuschiesya gosudarstva i vneshnie natsional’nye otechestva v novoy Evrope [Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe]. In A. A. Prazauskas (Ed.) Etnos i politika. Hrestomania [Ethnicity and Politics. Reading Book] (pp. 173–177). Moscow: Izdatel’stvo URAO.
Danejko, E. (2009, September). Mozhno li vyuchit’ belorusskii jazyk v shkolah Belarusi [Is it Possible to Learn the Belorussian Language in Schools of Belarus?] Zautra.by. Retrieved from http://www.zautra.by/art.php?sn_nid=25884&fbclid=IwAR0fUl3xPvRjde91jxwCGqTzIvKM5Ngeyw7-m3ZkyyH4hSlifkjD4QjTupU
Glanzer, P. (2009). Religion, Education, and the State in Post-Communist Europe: Making Sense of the Diversity of New Church-State Practices. Comparative Education Review, 1 (53), 89–111.
Goble, P. (2015). Identity Recovered vs Identity Redefined: Three Post- Soviet Cases. In M. Ayoob, M. Ismayilov (Eds.), Identity and Politics in Central Asia and the Caucasus (pp. 69–81). London-New York: Routledge.
Gutman, A. (Ed.) (1994). Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton - New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Ivzhenko, T. (2018, March 01). Kiev otmenil zakon o regional’nyh jazykah [Kiev Repealed the Law on Regional Languages]. Nezavisimaja gazeta [Independent Newspaper]. Retrieved from http://www.ng.ru/cis/2018–03–01/5_7183_ukraina.html
Khrychikov, S. (2001). Containing Ethnic Mobilization: Evolving Representational Mechanisms and Ethnic Identities in Post-Soviet States. Polish Sociological Review, 134, 175–191.
Konstitutsiia respubliki Kazakhstan. Ofitsial’nyi sait Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan [Official website of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan]. Retrieved from http://www.akorda.kz/ru/official_documents/constitution
Kudaibergenova, D. (2018). Compartmentalized Ideology: Presidential Addresses and Legitimation in Kazakhstan. In R. Isaacs, A. Frigerio (Eds.), Theorizing Central Asian Politics: the State, Ideology and Power (pp. 145–166). Oxford: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kulyk, V. (2010). Natsionalizm v Ukraine. 1986–1996 gody [Nationalism in Ukraine, 1986–1996] In E. Jahn (ed.) Natsionalizm v pozdne- i postkommunisticheskoi Evrope [Nationalism in Late- and Post-Communism Europe] (pp. 101–126). In 3 volumes. V. 2. Moscow: ROSSPEN.
Kymlicka, W. (2007). Multi-Nation Federalism. In B. He, B. Galligan, T. Inoguchi (Eds.), Federalism in Asia (pp. 33–56). Cheltenham - Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Malahov, V.S. (2016). Natsiia i kul’turnoe raznoobrazie v imperskoi, sovetskoi i postsovetskoi Rossii [Nation and Cultural Diversity in Imperial, Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia]. In V. A. Tishkov, E. A. Filippova (eds.) Kul’turnaia slozhnost’ sovremennykh natsii [The Cultural Complexity of Modern Nations] (pp. 190–202). Moskow: Politicheskaja jenciklopedija.
Malahov, V. S. (2014). Organizatsiia demokraticheskogo obshchezhitiia v usloviiakh kul’turnoi neodnorodnosti, ili mul’tikul’turalizm kak ritorika i politika [Organization for Democratic Citizenship in the Conditions of Cultural Heterogeneity, or Multiculturalism as Rhetoric and Policy], Vestnik Rossijskoi nacii [Bulletin of Russian Nation], 2, 111–126.
Marquardt, K. (2015). Language and Sovereignty: a Comparative Analysis of Language Policy in Tatarstan and Kazakhstan, 1991–2010. In M. Ayoob, M. Ismayilov (Eds.), Identity and Politics in Central Asia and the Caucasus (pp. 44–68). London-New York: Routledge.
Markedonov, S. (2007, April). Zemlia i volia Zviada Gamsakhurdia [Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s Land and Will]. Politkom.ru. Retrieved from http://politcom.ru/4379.html.
Mehtiev, R. (2011, May). Sovremennyi Azerbaidzhan kak voploshchenie natsional’noi idei [Present-day Azerbaijan as the Embodiment of the National Idea]. Pravozashchita [Pravozashchita]. Retrieved from http://old.memo.ru/d/78577.html
Meissner, F., Vertovec, S. (2015). Comparing Super-Diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 4 (38), 541–555. DOI:10.1080/01419870.2015.980295
Nojkirh, K. (2010). Respublika Moldova mezhdu unionizmom, moldavanizmom i natsionalizmom grazhdan gosudarstva [Republic of Moldova between Unionism, Moldavanianism and Nationalism of its Citizens]. In E. Jan (Ed.) Natsionalizm v pozdne- i postkommunisticheskoi Evrope [Nationalism in Late- and Post-Communism Europe] (pp. 155–181). In 3 volumes. V. 2. Moscow: ROSSPEN.
Osipov, A. G. (2012). Nacional’no-kul’turnaya avtonomiya posle SSSR: simvolicheskaya ili instrumental’naya politika? [National-Cultural Autonomy after the USSR: Symbolic or Instrumental Policy?]. Politeks [Political expertise: Politex], (8), 200–222.
Parekh, B. (2000). Rethinking multiculturalism: cultural diversity and political theory. New York: Palgrave.
Poslanie Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan – Lidera natsii Nursultana Nazarbaeva narodu Kazakhstana “Strategiia “Kazakhstan-2050’ (2012, December) [The President of Kazakhstan, the Leader of the Nation - Nursultan Nazarbayev’s Message to the People of Kazakhstan “The Strategy ‘Kazakhstan-2050’”]. Kazahstan-2050 [Kazakhstan-2050’]. Retrieved from https://strategy2050.kz/ru/multilanguage/.
Putin otmetil vazhnost’ razvitiia rossiiskoi islamskoi bogoslovskoi shkoly (2018, January) [Putin Emphasizes the Importance of the Russian Islamic School of Theology’s Development]. TASS. Retrieved from https://tass.ru/obschestvo/4900658.
Ratas: grazhdanstvo nuzhno dat’ vsem, kto prozhil v Estonii kak minimum 25 let (2017, January) [All Those People Who have Lived in Estonia for at Least 25 Years Should be Granted Citizenship]. Rus.err.ee. Retrieved from https://rus.err.ee/240918/ratas-grazhdanstvo-nuzhno-dat-vsem-kto-prozhil-v-jestonii-kak-minimum-25-let.
Ruget, V. (2014). Citizenship in Central Asia. In E. F. Isin, P. Nyers (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Global Citizenship Studies (pp. 335–345). London-New York: Routledge.
Salimov, S. (2006, November 27). Na paritetnykh nachalakh [On a Parity Basis]. NG-Dipkur’er [Independent Newspaper – Diplomatic Courier]. Retrieved from http://www.ng.ru/courier/2006–11–27/16_nazarbaev.html.
Safran, U. (2011). Nacional’naja identichnost’ vo Francii, Germanii i SShA: sovremennye spory [National identity in France, Germany, and the United States: the Recent Debate]. Politicheskaja nauka [Political Science], 1, 64–97.
Semenenko, I. (Ed.) (2017). Regulirovanie e’tnopoliticheskoi konfliktnosti i podderzhanie grazhdanskogo soglasiya v usloviyakh kul’turnogo raznoobraziya: modeli, podxody, praktiki. Analiticheskii doklad [Regulating Interethnic Conflicts and Building Civic Concord in a World of Cultural Diversity: Models, Approaches, and Practices. Analytical report]. Moscow: IMEMO.
Semenenko, I. S., Lapkin, V. V., Bardin, A. L., Pantin, V. I. (2017). Mezhdu gosudarstvom i naciej: dilemmy politiki identichnosti na postsovetskom prostranstve [Between the State and the Nation: Dilemmas of Identity Politics in Post-Soviet Societies]. Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya [Polis. Political Studies], 5, 54–78. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2017.05.05
Semenov, A. (2002). Kul’turnoe mnogoobrazie i etnicheskaia model’ natsional’nogo ustroistva: reshenie v pol’zu “etnicheskoi demokratii’ v Estonii [Cultural Diversity and the Ethnic Model of the Nation: A Decision in Favor of “Ethnic Democracy” in Estonia]. In V. S. Malahov, V. A. Tishkov (Eds.) Mul’tikul’turalizm i transformatsiia postsovetskikh obshchestv [Multiculturalism and Transformation of Post-Soviet Societies] (pp. 195–205). Moskva: IEA RAN; IF RAN.
Shevel, O. (2009). The Politics of Citizenship Policy in New States. Comparative Politics, 3 (41), 273–291.
Sobianin: dlia musul’man, zhivushchikh v Moskve, mechetei dostatochno [There Are Enough Mosques for Muslim Residents in Moscow] (2015, October). RIA Novosti [RIA Novosti]. Retrieved from https://ria.ru/20151013/1300959614.html
Tsumarova, E. Yu. (2012). Politika identichnosti: “politics” ili “policy”? [Politics of Identity or Policy of Identity?]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Politologiya [Review of Political Science. Perm State University], 2, 5–16.
Tishkov, V. A. (2016). Uslozhnjajushhee raznoobrazie: kak ego ponimat’ i uporjadochit’ [Complicating diversity: how to understand and organize]. In V. A. Tishkov, E. A. Filippova (Eds.) Kul’turnaja slozhnost’ sovremennyh nacij [The Cultural Complexity of Modern Nations] (pp. 7–18). Moscow: Politicheskaja jenciklopedija.
Uitli, Dzh (2009). Gruziia i Evropeiskaia khartiia regional’nykh iazykov ili iazykov men’shinstv [Georgia and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.]. Rabochii doklad ECMI [ECMI Working Paper]. Retrieved from http://www.ecmicaucasus.org/upload/publications/working_paper_42_rus.pdf
Vsemirnyi kurultai bashkir i Vsemirnyi kongress tatar podvergli kritike proekt Kontseptsii o natsional’noi politike [The Bashkir World Kurultai and the Tatar World Congress Criticize the Draft Project of the National Policy Concept] (2009, July). Bashinform.rf [Bashinform.rf]. Retrieved from http://www.bashinform.ru/news/211211-vsemirnyy-kurultay-bashkir-i-vsemirnyy-kongress-tatar-podvergli-kritike-proekt-kontseptsii-o-natsionalnoy-politike/
Vystuplenie prezidenta K. Bakieva po sozdaniiu Natsional’nogo proekta “Kul’tura” [President Bakiev’s Speech on Working out the National Project “Culture”] (2009, June). FOR.kg. Retrieved from http://www.for.kg/news-89601-ru.html
Zam, A. (2010). Respublika Belarus’ — suverenitet vpred’ do otmeny? [Republic of Belarus – Sovereignty until it’s Canceled?] In E. Jan (Ed.) Natsionalizm v pozdne- i postkommunisticheskoi Evrope [Nationalism in Late- and Post-Communism Europe] (pp. 127–154). In 3 volumes. V. 2. Moscow: ROSSPEN.
Zaharov, A. (2012).“Spjashhij institute”: federalizm v sovremennoj Rossii i mire [“Sleep Institute”: Federalism in Modern Russia and the World]. Moscow: NLO.