Interethnic Interaction Dynamics in the Russian Federation

The collapse of the Soviet Union at the beginning of the 1990s also meant the end of the idea of a common soviet identity incarnated in the "soviet man" and the new "historic community of the soviet people". While this idea still lives on in the generations of the 1920s to 1940s, the younger generations tend to prefer identification with family, profession, ethnic group or religion. Ms. Alexakhina set out to investigate different interethnic interaction strategies in the multi-ethnic context of the Russian Federation, with an emphasis on analysing the role of cultural and ethno-demographic characteristics of minority ethnic groups. It aimed to identify those specific patterns of interaction dynamics that have emerged in response to the political and economic transformation at present under way. The basic supposition was that the size and growth of an ethnic population are defined not only by demographic features such as fertility, mortality and net migration, but are also dependent on processes interethnic interaction and ethnic transition. The central hypothesis of the project was that the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural composition of Russia is apparently manifesting itself in the ethnic minority groups in various forms, but particularly in the form of ethnic revival and/or assimilation. The results of these complex phenomena are manifested as changes in ethnic attachments (national re-identification and language behaviour (multi-lingualism, language transition and loss of the mother tongue). The stress of the political and economic crisis has stimulated significant changes in ethnographic, social and cultural characteristics of inter-ethnic dynamics such as the rate of national re-identification, language behaviour, migration activity and the spread of mixed marriages, among both those minorities with a long history of settlement in Russia and those that were annexed during the soviet period. Patterns of language behaviour and the spread of mixed marriages were taken as the main indicators of the directions of interethnic interaction described as assimilation, ethnic revival and cultural pluralism. The first stage of the research involved a statistical analysis of census data from 1959 to 1994 in order to analyse the changing demographic composition of the largest ethnic groups of the Russian Federation. Until 1989 interethnic interaction in soviet society was distinguished by the process of russification but the political and economic transformation has stimulated the process of ethnic revival, leading to an apparent fall in the size of the Russian population due to ethnic re-identification by members of other ethnic groups who had previously identified themselves as Russian. Cross-classification of nationalities by demographic, social and cultural indicators has shown that the most important determinants of the nature of interethnic interaction are cultural factors such as religion and language affiliation. The analysis of the dynamics of language shift through the study of bilingualism and the domains of language usage for different demographic groups revealed a strong correlation between recognition of Russian as a mother tongue among some non-Russian ethnic groups and the declining size of these groups. The main conclusion from this macro-analysis of census data was the hypothesis of the growing importance of social and political factors upon ethnic succession, that ethnic identity is no longer a stable characteristic but has become dynamic in nature. In order to verify this hypothesis Ms. Alexakhina conducted a survey in four regions showing different patterns of interethnic interaction: the Karelian Republic, Buryatiya, the Nenezkii Autonomous Region and Tatarstan. These represented the west, east, north and south of the Russian Federation. Samples for the survey were prepared on the basis of census lists so as to exclude mono-Russian families in favour of mixed and ethnic-minority families. The survey confirmed the significant growth in the importance of ethnic affiliation in the everyday lives of people in the Federation following the de-centralisation of the political and economic spheres. Language was shown to be a key symbol of the consciousness of national distinction, confirmed by the fact that the process of russification has been reversed by the active mastering of the languages of titular nationalities. The results also confirmed that individual ethnic identity has ceased to be a fixed personal characteristic of one's cultural and genetic belonging, and people's social adaptation to the current political, social and economic conditions is also demonstrated in changes in individual ethnic self-identification. In general terms, the dynamic nature of national identity means that ethnic identity is at present acquiring the special features of overall social identity, for which the frequent change of priorities is an inherent feature of a person's life cycle. These are mainly linked with a multi-ethnic environment and high individual social mobility. From her results Ms. Alexakhina concludes that the development of national languages and multi-lingualism, together with the preservation of Russian as a state language, seems to be the most promising path to peaceful coexistence and the development of the national cultures of different ethnic groups within the Russian Federation.

A Sociological Study of the Political Subsystem in Yugoslavia

In this critical analysis of sociological studies of the political subsystem in Yugoslavia since the fall of communism Mr. Ilic examined the work of the majority of leading researchers of politics in the country between 1990 and 1996. Where the question of continuity was important, he also looked at previous research by the writers in question. His aim was to demonstrate the overall extent of existing research and at the same time to identify its limits and the social conditions which defined it. Particular areas examined included the problems of defining basic concepts and selecting the theoretically most relevant indicators; the sources of data including the types of authentic materials exploited; problems of research work (contacts, field control, etc.); problems of analysisl and finally the problems arising from different relations with the people who commission the research. In the first stage of the research, looking at methods of defining key terms, special attention was paid to the analysis of the most frequently used terms such as democracy, totalitarianism, the political left and right, and populism. Numerous weaknesses were noted in the analytic application of these terms. In studies of the possibilities of creating a democratic political system in Serbia and its possible forms (democracy of the majority or consensual democracy), the profound social division of Serbian society was neglected. The left-right distinction tends to be identified with the government-opposition relation, in the way of practical politics. The idea of populism was used to pass responsibility for the policy of war from the manipulator to the manipulated, while the concept of totalitarianism is used in a rather old-fashioned way, with echoes of the cold war. In general, the terminology used in the majority of recent research on the political subsystem in Yugoslavia is characterised by a special ideological style and by practical political material, rather than by developed theoretical effort. The second section of analysis considered the wider theoretical background of the research and focused on studies of the processes of transformation and transition in Yugoslav society, particularly the work of Mladen Lazic and Silvano Bolcic, who he sees as representing the most important and influential contemporary Yugoslav sociologists. Here Mr. Ilic showed that the meaning of empirical data is closely connected with the stratification schemes towards which they are oriented, so that the same data can have different meanings in shown through different schemes. He went on to show the observed theoretical frames in the context of wider ideological understanding of the authors' ideas and research. Here the emphasis was on the formalistic character of such notions as command economy and command work which were used in analysing the functioning and the collapse of communist society, although Mr. Ilic passed favourable judgement on the Lazic's critique of political over-determination in its various attempts to explain the disintegration of the communist political (sub)system. The next stage of the analysis was devoted to the problem of empirical identification of the observed phenomena. Here again the notions of the political left and right were of key importance. He sees two specific problems in using these notion in talking about Yugoslavia, the first being that the process of transition in the FR Yugoslavia has hardly begun. The communist government has in effect remained in power continuously since 1945, despite the introduction of a multi-party system in 1990. The process of privatisation of public property was interrupted at a very early stage and the results of this are evident on the structural level in the continuous weakening of the social status of the middle class and on the political level because the social structure and dominant form of property direct the majority of votes towards to communists in power. This has been combined with strong chauvinist confusion associated with the wars in Croatia and Bosnia, and these ideas were incorporated by all the relevant Yugoslav political parties, making it more difficult to differentiate between them empirically. In this context he quotes the situation of the stream of political scientists who emerged in the Faculty of Political Science in Belgrade. During the time of the one-party regime, this faculty functioned as ideological support for official communist policy and its teachers were unable to develop views which differed from the official line, but rather treated all contrasting ideas in the same way, neglecting their differences. Following the introduction of a multi-party system, these authors changed their idea of a public enemy, but still retained an undifferentiated and theoretically undeveloped approach to the issue of the identification of political ideas. The fourth section of the work looked at problems of explanation in studying the political subsystem and the attempts at an adequate causal explanation of the triumph of Slobodan Milosevic's communists at four subsequent elections was identified as the key methodological problem. The main problem Mr. Ilic isolated here was the neglect of structural factors in explaining the voters' choice. He then went on to look at the way empirical evidence is collected and studied, pointing out many mistakes in planning and determining the samples used in surveys as well as in the scientifically incorrect use of results. He found these weaknesses particularly noticeable in the works of representatives of the so-called nationalistic orientation in Yugoslav sociology of politics, and he pointed out the practical political abuses which these methodological weaknesses made possible. He also identified similar types of mistakes in research by Serbian political parties made on the basis of party documentation and using methods of content analysis. He found various none-sided applications of survey data and looked at attempts to apply other sources of data (statistics, official party documents, various research results). Mr. Ilic concluded that there are two main sets of characteristics in modern Yugoslav sociological studies of political subsystems. There are a considerable number of surveys with ambitious aspirations to explain political phenomena, but at the same time there is a clear lack of a developed sociological theory of political (sub)systems. He feels that, in the absence of such theory, most researcher are over-ready to accept the theoretical solutions found for interpretation of political phenomena in other countries. He sees a need for a stronger methodological bases for future research, either 1) in complementary usage of different sources and ways of collecting data, or 2) in including more of a historical dimension in different attempts to explain the political subsystem in Yugoslavia.