Исчезает ли этничность в городской среде? Некоторые ответы на загадки большого города

Полный текст

Max Weber, when analysing the processes of industrialisation and urbanisation, predicted blurring of interethnic differences. Experts on globalisation of our time – Archer, Albrow, and Giddens also based their concepts on the fact that “global values and guidelines receive priority dominance over local values, including the ethnic factor, which is being eliminated...” (Pokrovskiy, 2001: 51). However, actual social practice does not confirm the predictions of the classics. Sociological research data demonstrate opposite trends. We have to give answers to challenging questions: why, when and how people perceive the world and interpret problems in ethnic, racial, national terms, and not in some others; why we encounter ethnic rhetoric in political projects, reproduced meanings, events, discursive frames, in various everyday circumstances when interpreting people’s interactions?

We are going to make an attempt to approach the explanation of some of these issues by analysing the results of studies in the focus of the urban environment influence of varying degrees of urban load.

As a source, we use materials from an all-Russian study by the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences “20 years of reforms through the eyes of Russians”, series of studies by the Center for Interethnic Relations Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology in Moscow and the republics based on representative samples, a study conducted by the Department of Sociology and Personnel Management at Penza State University as part of the grant “Dynamics of values and orientations of student youth in the Volga Federal District in the context of sociocultural modernisation of Russia”, as well as data from the European Social Survey.

First of all, the unexpected result is that ethnic identity in cities is not only as important as in rural environments, but its significance for people in the city is approximately the same as for rural residents (Fig. 1).

Actually, in the city, people’s identity matrix is certainly more diversified. The concept of an identity matrix was introduced into scientific lexis by the famous French psychologist S. Moscovici when substantiating the theory of social representations. The famous American psychologist T. Shibutani used the concept of identity matrix as a combination of “self-images” integrated into the “self-concept”. In the city, a person definitely has more identities and “self-images”. With all the “fluidity,” as they say now, of the given categories, they are present; and the ones to which significance and meaning are attached in the matrix, naturally, avoided levelling and have potential. Thus, according to the study, civil identity has high potential (Fig. 2).

Figure 1. Ethnic identity in settlements of different types (proportion of respondents who answered that they feel a connection to people of the same nationality, as a percentage of respondents)

Figure 2. Civil identity in settlements of different types (proportion of respondents who answered that they feel a connection with the citizens of the country, as a percentage of respondents)

Civil identity should be stronger in comparison with ethnic identity in the city, but the given hypothesis is not confirmed in a straightforward manner. In regional cities, both civil identity in general and the share of people with a significant urban identity are indeed slightly larger than in rural areas. However, in megacities there are slightly fewer people for whom civil identity is significant and strong – 58% versus 72% in rural areas. Overall, civil identity in cities and villages does not differ significantly between people, and ethnic identity in cities is even slightly higher. Why? To answer this question, we have to make assumptions which need to be tested.

Naturally, in cities, and particularly in metropolises, there is a larger proportion of educated people, who are included in the global Internet space (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Distribution of answers to the question about the use of computers (as a percentage of respondents)

They critically evaluate categorical prescriptiveness, are able to apply a stricter filter to stereotypical ideas (such as “we are all people of such and such nationality”, “we are citizens”); they are more prone to identifying themselves with different communities dynamically (their identity matrix is more versatile and more flexible). If today a person acts more as a member of a professional community, tomorrow he or she is a supporter of a political movement, the day after tomorrow – a citizen, etc. Every time the place and meaning of the identities which interest us – ethnic, civil, each of which is associated with interethnic relations – can change. For example, let us say, today, a person acts as a businessman who does not need country or republic borders; and tomorrow he understands that the country or the territory where he lives is losing resources, and he begins to think through actions from the point of view of a representative of certain people and the country as a whole.

Ethnic identity, despite the traditional nature of its presence among people, is fluid in its significance, particularly in cities – metropolises and regional capitals. It would seem that it is supposed to be calmer here, less relevant. After all, the number of high-achieving people in large cities is higher (Table 1).

Table 1

Self-assessment of the qualities of economic success. Distribution of answers to the question “Do you relate or not relate to the following statement: ‘It seems to me that I have few qualities which are valued in the present-day economic situation’”? (as a percentage of the number of respondents)

In large cities, there are more residents who are satisfied with their labour compensation (Table 2).

Table 2

Degree of satisfaction with wages in Russian regions. Distribution of answers to the question “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the payment for your work?” (as a percentage of the number of respondents)

Judging by the results of the surveys in Moscow, life satisfaction makes an impact on identity. Among those who are satisfied with life, there are more people who often feel like Russian nationals and fewer people who feel connected to representatives of their own nationality (Table 3).

Table 3

Updated ethnic and Russian identities in groups with different degrees of life satisfaction (as a percentage of the number of respondents)

It must be said that in cities not many people have personally encountered the kind of problems which can be interpreted as infringements based on national origin: 96% have not encountered infringements of rights based on ethnic origin when applying for a job or a school; 85% did not feel discriminated against in everyday life, even though it is in shops and public transport where citizens of different ethnicities usually come into contact with each other and it is the area with the least social control.

All positive conditions are present. Nevertheless, specifically in cities, and even more often in megacities, we observe people who feel the need for ethnic solidarity (Fig. 4) and have negative attitudes towards people of a different national origin (Fig. 5).

Figure 4. Solidaristic tendencies (based on the results of the project “20 years of reforms through the eyes of Russians”) [2].

Figure 5. Irritation and hostility towards representatives of other nationalities (based on the results of the project “20 years of reforms through the eyes of Russians”) [2]

Moreover, on the account of megacities, this negative tendencies in Russia (68%) is higher than in a number of republics, in particular in Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) (14–37%). Research among the student youth in the regions showed different results compared with the general population. Most of all, hostility towards people of other ethnicities is expressed in Mordovia (24%); in the Penza region, and Tatarstan – 22% each; in Bashkortostan – only 7%.

A study conducted among the student youth in the Volga region showed the following: only 8% feel hostility towards people of other national origin; 75% do not feel hostility; 7% find it difficult to answer. Distribution by nationality: among Russians, 19% feel hostility; among Tatars – 13%; among Mordvins – 28%; Bashkirs – 6%; among Russians 73% do not experience it, among Tatars – 80%, Mordovians – 72%, Bashkirs – 92%. Besides, if in the first year at university 29% feel hostility, then by the fifth year only 13% of students with such attitudes remain. Students from rural areas also experience greater hostility towards people of other nationalities compared to people from large cities (24% versus 16%, respectively). Thus, it can be concluded that the student youth are more tolerant of other nations than the older generation.

Studies show that interethnic tension in recent years has been associated mainly with the influx of foreign migrants. 63% of respondents approve of the forced eviction of migrants from megacities, almost half as much in regional centers and villages (Fig. 6).

Figure 6. Attitudes towards forced eviction of migrants (as a percentage of respondents)

It often concerns people who came from the republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia. It is a known fact that Russia is not alone in anti-migrant sentiments. According to the data of the European Social Survey (ESS), 22% of the respondents in the Russian Federation agree with the opinion that “no migrants are to be allowed to enter the country” (21.7%). In the following countries the data on this marker in 2010 was higher than in Russia: Israel (33.3%), Hungary (32.1%), Czech Republic (24.4%), and Portugal (22.6%).

However, we must admit that it is in cities, and particularly in metropolises, where negative attitudes are often considered to be xenophobia.

From the data of the survey which examines the attitude of Muscovites towards immigrants, it can be observed that people who attach less importance to the ethnicity of others are more tolerant, including their attitude towards immigrants, and are less likely to support ideas of advantages for themselves compared to people of other nationalities. Attitudes toward, for example, immigrants are simply transferred to all “others”, including people of other national origin. However, xenophobia, a fear of the other, is far from a purely psychological, spontaneous reaction. We have observed how such attitudes are fueled both during election campaigns and when it is necessary to shift attention from other events that are unpleasant for people. This kind of xenophobia is formed and launched by political technologists (Fig. 7).

Figure 7. Level of ethnocentrism among people with different degrees of tolerance (proportion of those who agree with the statements, as a percentage of respondents)

Therefore, people in megacities allow violence and are characterised by stricter forms of ethnic protection (Fig. 8).

Over 80% of the population in Moscow and up to 90% of the population in other cities (primarily regional) believe that violence is unacceptable in interethnic conflicts. However, if “justice for my people” is violated, then violence is considered acceptable by 60% of city residents in megacities, 36% in regional centers, and 48.7% in villages. “Any means are good to protect the interests of my people”, half of citizens in megacities believe (Fig. 8).

These negative attitudes extend to the political sphere (Fig. 9).

In cities, and particularly in metropolises, there are fewer people (Russians dominate in our all-Russian study in Moscow) who maintain the following idea: “Russia is the common home for many peoples with equal rights”. In 1994, according to national surveys, that number amounted to 65%, now it is 42%, and in megacities – 50%. While 40% in megacities and 32% in regional cities believe that Russians should have more rights. It is no coincidence that the most noticeable Russian marches take place in megacities. Their organizers expect to find the support of so-called soft nationalists.

Figure 8. Strict ethnic protective forms of isolationism (based on the results of the project “20 years of reforms through the eyes of Russians”, the total of those who fully and most likely agree).

Figure 9. Opinions of respondents from different types of settlements about what the national structure of the Russian state should be (as a percentage of respondents)

At the same time, in the capitals of the Russian republics, there are supporters of the opinion that titular nationalities should have advantages in the republics, although the proportion of people with such ethnocentric attitudes, for instance, in Kazan, Ufa, and Yakutsk, is noticeably smaller than in megacities.

Thus, cities, particularly megacities, are territories not only for the formation of civil and ethnonational ideas and projects, but also the most important fields of ethnopolitical interactions that require the attention of the public, including the academic community.

At present, in Russia as a whole, and particularly in Moscow, order with the immigration influx is set to be restored. These are essential projects. The future will show to what consequences the mechanism for implementation of such measures will lead. However, for now, we as researchers can say that the importance of the role of increased contact with migrants of foreign nationalities should not be exaggerated. In our study in Moscow, two districts have been singled out: Veshnyaki, with high ethnic contact with migrants, and Otradnoye, where such contact is less frequent. Nonbetheless, the reaction of Muscovites to the influx of visitors in these areas turned out to be closely approximated (Fig. 10).

Figure 10. Attitude to the migration situation in Moscow (as a percentage of respondents)

In both Veshnyaki and Otradnoye, 70% of Muscovites shared the opinion “Moscow is getting worse with the influx of visitors,” and the opinion that it is “getting better” was also practically the same (10–12%). It means that “migrant phobia is rather a virtual phenomenon, which relates to images circulating in the information environment” formed by the mass media. In Veshnyaki, 28% of Muscovites agreed that Moscow should accept migrants because it needs workers; in Otradnoye, 9% agreed with this opinion, i.e. those who have more contacts turned out to be more tolerant. Obviously, due to more frequent contacts in such areas as Veshnyaki, there is a greater theoretical possibility of conflicts; at the same time, a stronger degree of adaptation, a feeling of certain benefits from migrants are observed.

In urban areas, clashes are most likely to occur in the event of problematic situations which are related to access to property or struggling for it, for the use of official positions, which is in the nature of conflicts.

Upon reflection on the latest data from representative studies, we find more and more evidence that not cultural differences themselves, but the meanings that we attach to them shape the nature of interpersonal relationships. Space that is fragmented according to various characteristics is especially typical of cities and metropolises; it encourages us to consider a maximally possible number of factors, specifically for each space, including the space within cities.

For instance, unlike in the past, we cannot say that education significantly fragments attitudes toward interethnic contacts. Ethnic negativism in some locations diminishes among people with higher education, while in others it has very little to do with the level of education and, even more broadly, with cultural outlooks.

Previously, satisfaction with labour compensation and work in general, as a pattern, used to be associated with tolerance, but nowadays – not everywhere and not always. Related to it in cities is, for example, satisfaction or dissatisfaction with “one’s affairs in life” with an assessment of what one has lost or gained over the past 15–20 years. Those who believe that they have lost a lot are more irritated by their foreign ethnic environment.

Unfulfilled hopes, as well as irritation from corruption and injustices in life, are projected onto the sphere of interethnic relations. Moreover, each factor in conjunction with others “works” differently in each locality.

Transl. by D.R. Sharifullina

Перевод на англ. Д.Р. Шарифуллиной

Об авторах

Леокадия Михайловна Дробижева

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: medi54375@mail.ru

профессор, доктор исторических наук

Список литературы

Дополнительные файлы

Доп. файлы

Действие

1. JATS XML

Скачать

2. Рисунок 1. Этническая идентичность в населенных пунктах разного типа (доля респондентов, ответивших, что они чувствуют связь с людьми одной национальности, в процентах от числа опрошенных)

Скачать (35KB)

Метаданные

3. Рисунок 2. Гражданская идентичность в населенных пунктах разного типа (доля респондентов, ответивших, что они чувствуют связь с гражданами страны, в процентах от числа опрошенных)

Скачать (34KB)

Метаданные

4. Рисунок 3. Распределение ответов на вопрос об использовании компьютеров (в процентах от числа респондентов)

Скачать (21KB)

Метаданные

5. Рисунок 4. Солидаристские тенденции (по результатам проекта “20 лет реформ глазами россиян”) [2].

Скачать (57KB)

Метаданные

6. Рисунок 5. Раздражение и враждебность по отношению к представителям других национальностей (по результатам проекта “20 лет реформ глазами россиян”) [2]

Скачать (20KB)

Метаданные

7. Рисунок 6. Отношение к принудительному выселению мигрантов (в процентах от числа респондентов)

Скачать (20KB)

Метаданные

8. Рисунок 7. Уровень этноцентризма среди людей с разной степенью толерантности (доля тех, кто согласен с утверждениями, в процентах от числа опрошенных)

Скачать (88KB)

Метаданные

9. Рисунок 8. Жесткие этнические защитные формы изоляционизма (по результатам проекта “20 лет реформ глазами россиян”, общее количество тех, кто полностью и с наибольшей вероятностью согласен).

Скачать (50KB)

Метаданные

10. Рисунок 9. Мнения респондентов из разных типов населенных пунктов о том, каким должно быть национальное устройство Российского государства (в процентах от числа опрошенных)

Скачать (52KB)

Метаданные

11. Рисунок 10. Отношение к миграционной ситуации в Москве (в процентах от числа опрошенных)

Скачать (27KB)

Метаданные