Integration, assimilation, acculturation form a certain general semantic field, which embraces a wide range of diverse procedures that arise during the interaction of both individuals and entire groups with a foreign cultural environment. In part, these processes can be described in line with general problems of enculturation. However, viewed from a cultural and communicative perspective, they have a number of significant points to which we will pay attention.
Integration(from Latin integration - replenishment, restoration) denotes the state of internal integrity of a particular cultural formation, as well as the consistency between its various elements. In addition, integration is often understood as processes that should result in such mutual coordination of various cultural subjects. Different researchers interpret cultural integration (or integration of cultures) in different ways; various aspects of cultural activity are highlighted as the leading point. Cultural integration is understood, for example, as logical, emotional or aesthetic
ical coherence between cultural meanings, as the process of harmonizing these meanings between different cultural subjects or cultures, or as a correspondence between cultural norms and the actual behavior of culture bearers, or as a functional interdependence between different elements of culture, such as customs, institutions, cultural practices, everyday imperatives and etc. When representatives of different cultural traditions interact, the harmonization of norms and the development of behavior patterns that correspond to them is extremely important and is not always painless. In different cultures, the relationship between certain forms of cultural practice can vary significantly, which must be taken into account.
Today in cultural studies the following forms of both intracultural and intercultural integration are distinguished:
configuration, or thematic, integration represents integration by similarity. It occurs when different elements of culture or different cultures correspond to a common pattern, have one common “theme”. Although the potential possibilities for a person’s cultural self-expression are limitless, as are the cultural resources of a particular culture, nevertheless, the “theme” ensures the selectivity of human activity or gives the culture a certain reference point or core around which all other components are built. This guideline can be set as an unconditional foundation, a starting point for further harmonization of differences, bringing them into conformity. For example, the Christian “theme” served as the basis for the cultural integration of Western European countries for many centuries. Islam acted as the core of the cultural integration of the entire Muslim civilization (to use S. Huntington’s terminology), etc. The “theme” can be a religious doctrine, political idea, national-ethical identity, historical tradition (roots), etc. The “theme” that integrates culture can be unconscious or conscious;
stylistic integration stems from the aesthetic desire of group members for an authentic expression of their own experience. It represents a mutual adaptation of intensely felt elements of experience, based on a spontaneous creative impulse and forming a specific “style”: the style of an era, time, place, people, culture. We know very well from history how big a role the European Union plays in the integration of
Humanity played artistic styles as the “export”-“import” of the creations of geniuses, new methods and forms of artistic expression, which contributed to the formation of general cultural principles. It should be pointed out that “style” can dominate not only in the sphere of art, but also in politics, economics, science, philosophy, worldview, in everyday life, etc.;
logical integration represents the integration of cultural elements or cultures on the basis of logical coordination, bringing into consistency the various logical and ideological positions of the system. It ideally assumes the absence of “cognitive dissonance” in the perception of these elements by their carriers, people. Logical integration manifests itself in the form of developed scientific and philosophical systems. It can be carried out within the framework of individual forms and systems of culture, appealing to different types of rationality. Today, the actively promoted “theory of globalization” is a vivid example of a logical type of integration. Any options for searching for the “universal”, supported by scientific and philosophical justifications, can become and very often became the basis for logical integration of intercultural interactions;
connective integration- this is integration at the level of direct interconnection of various components of culture or different cultures. Direct contact between people, establishing direct relationships, frequent communication on various issues - all this greatly contributes to the harmonization of cultural attitudes and the adjustment of views. The need to enter into direct contact with representatives of other cultures, dictated by economic, political, ethical, religious, etc. motives, throughout the history of mankind has acted as a stimulus for the interaction of cultures, the development of common ideas - “themes”;
functional (adaptive) integration characteristic primarily of modern cultures. This form of integration is aimed at increasing the functional efficiency, primarily economic, of an individual and the entire cultural community. Examples of functional integration include such realities of today's life as the world market, the global division of labor, the World Bank for Reconstruction and Development, etc.;
regulatory integration associated with the smoothing and neutralization of cultural and political conflicts. One of the important mechanisms of regulatory integration is the logical-ideological hierarchical organization of value orientations and
various types of cultural systems. Regulatory integration is especially active within the framework of world politics. Countries that are members of the United Nations, through the conclusion of relevant conventions, have developed a certain set of guidelines that guide them in resolving emerging conflicts. The violator - country, person, ethnocultural group - is usually punished. It should be noted that both within individual states or cultures, and at the intercultural level, various types of changes are made to the codified set of regulatory rules.
When considering various options for intercultural interaction, the term “assimilation” is often used. Under assimilation in cultural knowledge they mean a process as a result of which members of one ethnocultural formation lose their originally existing culture and assimilate the culture of another formation with which they are in direct contact. Over the centuries-old history of human existence, it has happened more than once that as a result of intercultural contacts, some cultures were assimilated and absorbed by others. This process can occur either spontaneously or as a purposeful action designed to eradicate another culture. Therefore, the term “assimilation” is often used to designate a special policy of a dominant ethnocultural group towards ethnic or cultural minorities, aimed at the systematic suppression of their culture and the creation of such social conditions in which the participation of minorities in the institutional structures of the dominant group is made directly dependent on their acceptance of it cultural norms and values. Today, such processes are taking place in most of the former republics of the USSR. They are especially painful in the Baltic countries, where representatives of Russian culture, who find themselves in a minority position in relation to the titular nations, under the pressure of political mechanisms are forcibly integrated into a foreign cultural context, losing signs of national and cultural identity.
One-sided assimilation is possible, in which the minority culture is completely replaced by the dominant culture. Ethnocultural minorities, under the pressure of certain circumstances, completely adopt the values and norms of another culture, identify with it, and lose all signs of their own cultural uniqueness. During assimilation, cultural mixing may also occur, in which individual elements
subordinate and dominant cultures mix, forming new stable combinations that can form the basis of a new type of culture.
Cases of complete assimilation are extremely rare. Most often, when cultures come into contact, even when one of them clearly predominates and dominates, there is only one or another degree of transformation of the minority culture under the influence of the dominant one. At the same time, quite often the reverse process occurs: the minority culture itself influences the dominant one.
There are several components to note in the assimilation process:
replacing the old cultural values and norms of a subordinate group with the values and norms of the dominant culture. Consciously or unconsciously, forcibly or voluntarily, ethnocultural groups that find themselves surrounded by a more powerful cultural formation adopt a set of written and unwritten rules of the latter. This manifests itself in a variety of forms: in language and speech, in behavior, arrangement of life, in desires and fantasies, ethical standards, etc.;
incorporation of members of a subordinate group into the institutional structures of the dominant group. Any ethnocultural group, no matter how demonstrably it isolates itself, sooner or later is forced in one way or another to come into direct and indirect contact with the environment. This is sometimes a condition for the survival of its members. Naturally, representatives of cultural minorities have a chance to express themselves, including their identity, only in institutionalized forms acceptable to the dominant cultural environment;
increase in the number of mixed marriages. The offspring resulting from such marriages are bicultural “by birth.” Most often it inherits both cultural traditions. The dominant position is occupied by the cultural values and norms that dominate in a given community, although there are often exceptions;
the formation among members of a subordinate group of cultural identity based on belonging to the institutional structures of the dominant group, the loss of primary cultural identity or only its formal preservation. This does not happen immediately and not always. It happens that already the first generation, who grew up in the conditions of a dominant foreign culture, fully perceives new values and norms. But there have been cases in history when, even having lost such a sign of cultural identity as language, for centuries without having such a cultural attribution as state
ity, representatives of ethnocultural groups, scattered due to circumstances “across the face of the earth” among various “peoples and tribes,” continued to fully demonstrate all the features of cultural identity.
Currently, most researchers advocate careful use of the term “assimilation” due to the fact that it causes negative political associations. We most often associate ethnocultural assimilation with violent and discriminatory measures applied towards minorities. Nevertheless, the communicative processes that invariably arise during assimilation sometimes play a huge role in the formation of the overall image of a particular cultural type.
First time concept "acculturation" American cultural anthropologists began to use it at the end of the 19th century. in connection with the study of the processes of cultural change in the tribes of North American Indians. Initially, it had a narrow meaning and denoted the processes of assimilation that occurred in Indian tribes when they came into contact with the culture of white Americans. Since the 1930s the term “acculturation” was entrenched in American and European anthropology, becoming pivotal in “field” ethnographic and ethnological research. This concept was most often addressed by F. Boas, M. Mead, B.K. Malinovsky, R. Linton, M. J. Herskowitz. They defined it as “the set of phenomena that arise as a result of the fact that groups of individuals with different cultures come into permanent direct contact in which changes occur in the original cultural patterns of one of the groups or both of them.” A distinction was made between the recipient group, whose original cultural patterns undergo change, and the donor group, from whose culture the former draws new cultural values and norms.
Linton and Herskowitz identified three main types of reaction of the recipient group to a situation of intercultural contact: acceptance or complete replacement of the old cultural pattern with a new one, gleaned from the donor group; adaptation or partial change of the traditional pattern under the influence of the culture of the donor group; reaction or complete rejection of the cultural patterns of the donor group. In the latter case, the recipient group makes strenuous attempts to keep traditional patterns unchanged.
Acculturation can occur under one of two conditions. Firstly, with free borrowing by contacting cul
tours of each other’s elements, occurring in the absence of military-political domination of one group over the other. The voluntariness of borrowing cultural patterns and their free migration from one cultural tradition to another create the opportunity to establish stable intercultural communicative relations. Secondly, in directed and regulated cultural change, when a militarily, economically or politically dominant group pursues a policy of forced cultural assimilation of a subordinate group. With this approach, intercultural communication puts cultures in an unequal position, and the relationships that arise between them disintegrate as soon as the levers supporting them lose their elasticity.
In the period after World War II, the meaning of the term "acculturation" expanded significantly. It began to be used in studies devoted to the interaction and mutual influence of non-Western cultures: Spanishization, Japaneseization, Sinicization, Russeization, etc.
So, in modern cultural knowledge, acculturation is understood as broad processes of interaction between different cultures, during which they change, they assimilate new elements, and as a result of mixing different cultural experiences, a fundamentally new cultural formation appears. Acculturation changes occur with the direct mutual influence of different sociocultural systems at both micro and macro levels, establishing contacts between them, as a result of communicative exchange between cultural subjects. Moreover, acculturation is both the communicative process itself and its results, i.e. those real changes that can be observed in various spheres of culture.
SCIENTIFIC NOTES OF KAZAN STATE UNIVERSITY Volume 150, book. 4 Humanities 2008
MINORITIES, ASSIMILATION AND MULTICULTURALISM: EXPERIENCE OF RUSSIA AND THE USA
L.R. Nizamova Abstract
The issues of preserving cultural pluralism and assimilation of minorities are considered through the prism of a comparative analysis of modern Russian and American practices. The similarities and differences in the current ethnic policies of Russia and the United States are revealed, the place and specifics of multiculturalism, and the features of interethnic and interracial relations in these countries are determined. The empirical basis for the central provisions of the work was the results of the case study “American Tatars”, which made it possible to reveal the main mechanisms of “resistance” to assimilation and the reproduction of a distinctive cultural identity.
Key words: multiculturalism, cultural pluralism, assimilation, ethnic minorities, national minorities, nation-building, Russia, USA, Volga Tatars, American Tatars.
Introduction
The rejection of multiculturalism in Russia and the unprecedented growth of xenophobia and intolerance have many diverse and multi-level reasons. Among them, they are often rightly cited as the transition period Russian society is going through, inevitably accompanied by a fierce struggle of interests, the low standard of living of significant sections of the population and deepening socio-economic inequality, defects in the upbringing and education of the younger generation, worsening intolerance and distrust of “others” in the media. However, in our opinion, there are fundamental macro-social reasons for the rejection of the multiculturalist “agenda”.
At the beginning of the 21st century, Russian society entered a qualitatively new stage of its development, the main characteristics of which are determined by at least two groups of factors. Firstly, this is the “external” factor of increasing globalization and the increasingly active inclusion of Russia in the system of comprehensive international economic, political, communication, migration, cultural relations and connections. Secondly, an equally significant “internal” factor is the increasingly confident assertion of a nationally oriented political vector. After the collapse of the USSR at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, Russia received a new historical chance to become a national state. Under the conditions of the new presidency, this possible perspective has been recognized as an indisputable political goal and at the same time a means of implementing specific political programs.
We can talk about a “new” stage of nation-building in a broad sense, counting it from 1992-1993. - the time of signing the new Union Treaty and adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. However, the 1990s turned out to be primarily a period of transition in terms of state building. The main features of the current stage in the formation of the Russian nation-state have emerged most clearly and firmly in the last eight years. This means that in a narrow sense, the “new” stage in the formation of the Russian national state is associated with the policies of President V. Putin and the federal authorities.
The stage of the 1990s and the current period differ significantly from each other in the content of ethnic policy, the nature of interethnic and ethnopolitical relations, and the assessment of the importance of the ethnic factor in the country’s domestic policy. If the most noticeable and characteristic expression of Boris Yeltsin’s policy in public discourse were his words “Take as much sovereignty as you can swallow,” then President V. Putin’s line is justifiably associated with the strengthening of the “vertical of power” and the gradual rethinking of previous practices of implementing multinational federalism, supposedly not has withstood the test of strength, as skeptics claim, citing the example of the collapsed USSR. Accordingly, ethnic policy, which led to the decentralization of government and the strengthening of regional elites, often pursuing selfish and narrow territorial interests, was replaced by a much stronger federal policy aimed at maintaining and consolidating the general civic identity of Russians. These efforts are also supported by a gradual change in the principles of building a federation: multinational federalism is increasingly being replaced by American-type federalism, that is, its administrative-territorial version. Thus, the consolidation of regions carried out in recent years (apparently inevitable and true in itself) is carried out due to the elimination from the map of the Russian Federation of the former national-territorial units: Komi-Permyak, Koryak, Evenki, Taimyr, Ust-Orda Buryat, Aginsky Buryat autonomous okrugs , which for many years have acted as a means of realizing the internationally recognized right of peoples to self-determination and corresponding to the federalist principles laid down in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
Such reforms confirm a significant change in Russian national policy towards minorities. By default, assimilation becomes the dominant ethnopolitical vector - a typical version of state policy in the 19th - early 20th centuries. in relation to minorities during the formation of nation-states in Western Europe and America. On the one hand, assimilation makes all citizens living in a given territory equal and gives them the same rights and responsibilities, regardless of their ethnic and racial origin. On the other hand, the acquisition of equal rights by minorities with the dominant majority is “paid” by the loss of their own culture, name, history or their noticeable marginalization. The manifestation of ethnocultural (racial) distinctiveness and originality in this context may be perceived by members of the majority as a challenge or “disrespect” from “others” or “outsiders.”
Today, the ethnic is increasingly being squeezed out of politics and economics, and in general, from the public sphere. The deinstitutionalization of ethnicity and its “movement” into the sphere of the purely private, personal, and family began. The first and most significant step in this direction was the introduction in the early 2000s of new internal passports for Russian citizens, which excluded mention of ethnic origin and brought to the fore the civil and state identity of passport holders. By this, ethnicity was relegated to the background and equated to a private matter of the individual and family.
The current ethno-national changes in Russia and the ethno-racial policy of the United States, with all their noticeable differences, also have clear features of closeness and similarity: 1) the predominance of efforts to form an inclusive (unifying) civic identity of the country's residents; 2) designing the political and administrative division of the country deliberately contrary to the principles of multinational federalism and in accordance with the ideology of the “melting pot”; 3) in the long term, the inevitable “inheritance” of the “multinational™” factor (national republics in the Russian Federation and the special political status of Indian tribes, Puerto Rico and Guam in the USA) with the continued dominance of primarily the administrative-territorial principle in politics; 4) formal freedom of ethnic self-expression, localizing the “ethnic” primarily in the family, in the private circle and at the local level. (And in Russia, these may be the results of the deinstitutionalization of ethnicity, its displacement from the public sphere and “silent” assimilation.)
Case study “American Tatars”: assimilation versus multiculturalism
The case study1, which, among other things, set the task of studying the features of the ethnic and multiculturalist policies of the United States, as well as the mechanisms and methods of assimilation into the host society, makes it possible with a high degree of probability to predict the results of the policy of deinstitutionalization of ethnicity that has emerged in Russia. Statistically small peoples will most quickly experience its effects: assimilation and Russification, which began during the years of Soviet modernization, will noticeably intensify and lead to the extinction of minorities and even the complete disappearance of languages, cultures, traditions and customs of small peoples. Here we can refer to the example of the United States, where a multiculturalist policy that promotes ethnocultural self-preservation and self-expression, encouraging tolerance towards others, nevertheless
1 The project “Returning the Ethnic: Multiculturalist Values and Practices in the Context of Globalization,” focused on getting to know the American Tatar community and studying the features of US multiculturalist policy, was carried out in New York with the support of the Fulbright Program. In collecting empirical data, the following methods were used: the method of researching personal biographies and family histories through free informal interviews and the method of participant observation. In total, about 70 acquaintance meetings took place and 24 free biographical interviews were conducted using three languages (Tatar, Russian, English - at the respondent’s choice) with Tatars who have US citizenship or permanent residence permits (“green cards”) and predominantly living in the country for at least 6 years. Most of these meetings took place in New York City and the surrounding areas of Long Island and New Jersey; In addition, respondents living in Washington (DC), Chicago, and other cities took part in the interviews. In this article, quotes from interviews in Tatar and English are translated into Russian.
cannot prevent the action of powerful assimilation factors and mechanisms that erase and level cultural distinctiveness.
The assimilation “pressures” experienced by immigrant groups in the United States are very strong and often irresistible. However, there are also numerous channels and mechanisms for “resistance” to them and the reproduction of a distinctive ethnocultural and religious identity, even if we are talking about very small groups. They are based on economic and political freedoms, the principle of equal co-citizenship, and multiculturalist values and attitudes that are relatively new to the United States. Consideration of the example of the diaspora of the Volga Tatars in the USA made it possible to identify the following practices that ensure the survival and development of “one’s” culture in the new homeland: 1) preservation of the native language and its adaptation to the new socio-cultural environment (teaching the Tatar language at home, communicating in the native language with family and relatives and in the Tatar association); 2) following the Muslim tradition: celebrating Muslim holidays, visiting the mosque, transmitting religious tradition to children, in particular through teaching in Sunday schools; 3) the desire to marry “one of our own” and thus preserve one’s ethnic name and identity (most common in the middle and older age groups); 4) the desire to preserve and pass on to children various elements of Tatar culture: ideas about the history of the people, their culture (including literature, music, etc.) and customs, skills in preparing Tatar food and organizing family meetings and collective gatherings; 5) the creation on a voluntary basis of Tatar societies and associations as stable centers of the “Tatar world” in a foreign ethnic environment (organization of annual evenings dedicated to the classic of Tatar literature G. Tukai, and the regular celebration of Sabantuy), which in recent years have also become a channel connecting with Tatarstan and its capital (participation in the events of the World Congress of Tatars in Kazan); 6) maintaining personal informal and, less often, official connections with the homeland of their ancestors or the territories of residence of Tatars in the former USSR (for example, attending concerts and performances of artists from Tatarstan); 7) use of the Tatar Internet and inclusion in online communities and a number of others. Depending on the time and trajectory of emigration, Tatar ethnocultural consciousness in the United States is supplemented or adjusted by elements of Soviet, Russian, territorial (for example, Tashkent or St. Petersburg) or Turkish, Turkic and Muslim identities.
The example of the Tatars of America also demonstrates that Russian instrumentalist interpretations of ethnicity are one-sided. The ethnicity of the American Tatars was preserved not because it was institutionalized or enshrined in any official documents, but because it was an expression of a deep and relatively stable identity - the core of a person’s “I” and an important component of his family and personal life. All this suggests that, in addition to instrumentalist, ethnicity also performs an expressivist function.
A generalized assessment of the dynamics of the life of the Tatar diaspora in the United States can be used as the basis for a forecast regarding the possible consequences and effects of the reorientation of Russian ethno-national policy in
the direction of the administrative-territorial version of federalism and the implementation of the project of general civil nationalism in Russia, which only at first glance seems ethnically neutral. In the case of the Tatars, who constitute the second largest ethnic group in the Russian Federation, targeted deinstitutionalization and depoliticization of ethnicity may in the long term mean the fading and disappearance of state structures and political will that today ensure the existence and development of the Tatar “infrastructure” in Russian society. Its core and predominant share are Tatarstan institutes of education (from preschool to higher education), science, book publishing, broadcasting in the Tatar language (television, radio, press, Internet), as well as Tatar cultural production (theater, fine arts, etc.) and religious cult. In other words, in the context of the already obvious ignorance of the ethnocultural requests of minorities at the federal level, the situation will not only not be corrected, but, on the contrary, will noticeably worsen if the regional (republican) and local levels of government also withdraw from the conduct of the affairs of ethnic groups and the management of interethnic relations.
The new stage of Russian nation-building is being carried out in conditions that are fundamentally different from the era of the formation of the first modern nation-states in Western Europe and America in the 19th and 20th centuries. It takes place in the context of expanding globalization and legitimation of the collective rights of peoples and minorities at the international level. It will be able to acquire a different content, while fully maintaining its goal, if the Russian version of the policy and ideology of multiculturalism is chosen as a guideline and then gradually built. The new Russian multiculturalism can be based on critically revised practices of Soviet multiculturalism, brought into line with the agenda of modern society and “cleansed” of internal contradictions and defects, which are inertially reproduced today. The implementation of multiculturalist principles in the country’s domestic policy will make Russian demands in the spirit of nationalism of an “external historical homeland” (as defined by the American theorist of nationalism R. Brubaker) to protect the rights of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers outside the Russian Federation, primarily in the post-Soviet space, justified and legitimate.
Ethno-racial relations and multiculturalism in the USA and Russia
Despite the emergence of a number of similarities and similarities between the ethno-racial policy of the United States and the current ethno-national changes in Russia, there are also important differences that noticeably distance the national models under consideration from each other. Among them are the following.
1. In the USA and Russia, different types of “multiculturalism” dominate: “multi-ethnicity” in the first case and “multinationalism” in the second. The distinction between the two named types of multiculturalism was introduced into scientific circulation by the famous Canadian researcher U. Kymlicka. Multinationality is a historical result of the unification of previously independent
independent, self-governing, territorially separate cultures into one state. The formation of new states often occurred involuntarily - through conquest, colonization, transfer of rights from one ruler to another; The option of voluntary unification through the formation of a federation that satisfies the interests of two or more parties is also possible. The second type of multiculturalism is “multi-ethnicity,” which is the result of immigration to a country. After the Second World War, the multiethnicity of Great Britain, France, Germany and other European countries increased. Post-Soviet Russia is also becoming more and more multi-ethnic due to the massive influx of labor from abroad (immigration from the former republics of the USSR, Vietnam, China, Afghanistan, etc.). In turn, the United States has the characteristics of a multi-nationality, although marginal from the point of view of the formation of American national identity.
2. Unlike Russia, in the United States the dominant and most pressing issue is racial inequality and deprivation of the African-American minority. While the country's ethnic pluralism is undeniable, it is generally less of a concern. In Russian society, on the contrary, for obvious reasons, interest in the study of interethnic relations noticeably prevails over the study of racial hierarchies (although the topic of racism is becoming increasingly relevant in the context of identifying the reasons for the growth of xenophobia and chauvinism in the Russian Federation in the early 2000s). Thus, if the 2002 All-Russian Census recorded 160 nationalities, of which Russians make up about 80% of the population, then in the 2000 US Census, racial groups were counted. Among them have traditionally been highlighted:
1) Americans of European descent, or “whites,” - 70% (199.3 million);
2) Latinos, or “Latinos”, immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries - 13% (37 million); 3) African Americans, or “blacks,” - 13% (36.1 million); 4) Asian Americans - about 4% (12.1 million); 5) Native Americans, or Indians - less than 1% (data from the U.S. Census Bureau). The past decade has seen remarkable growth in the Hispanic population, more than twice as fast as the African American population; As a result, Latinos became the largest minority in the United States for the first time in history.
3. The American version of multiculturalism is perhaps the historical successor to the “affirmative action” policies of the 1960s, aimed at overcoming centuries-old forms of racial and ethnic inequality. It aims to accommodate ethnoracial diversity and recognize the rights of minorities, including beyond the private sphere - in the public sphere (primarily in the education system, which is becoming increasingly pluralistic and serves to create a culture of equality and tolerance in society). In Russia, ethnicity, once protected and protected by protectionism, is, on the contrary, gradually being removed from the public sphere at the federal level. This is contrary to the international focus on protecting the rights of minorities and runs counter to the increasingly widespread multiculturalist values and practices around the world. Today, the attitude towards them in Russia is characterized by great bias and is characterized by pronounced
significant rejection, both in political discourse and in mass attitudes and behavior. This largely explains the unprecedented growth of xenophobia, racism, extreme forms of nationalism and chauvinism in modern Russian society.
The dynamics of interethnic relations in the Russian Federation are determined, on the one hand, by ethnopolitical stabilization in regions in which, after the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s, there was a noticeable increase in ethnonationalism of the titular ethnic groups of the national republics (Tatar, Yakut, Bashkir, etc.). A notable exception was the crisis situation in the Chechen Republic, the North Caucasus region and the territories adjacent to them. On the other hand, interethnic mistrust and negative heterostereotypes, fueled by the war in Chechnya and the actions of terrorist forces in the region and in Russia as a whole, worsened in the early 2000s in the context of the progressive growth of Russian ethnic self-awareness and the establishment of Russian nationalism, which was clearly ahead of and challenging dissemination of the inclusive idea of all-Russian civil nationalism. Russia increasingly began to be thought of as a “state for Russians”; Russians, as an ethnic majority, were declared a “state-forming” (or “empire-forming”) nationality and, accordingly, became the “legal owners of the state.”
The logical consequence of such views is the legitimation of practices of exclusion and political and cultural marginalization of significant sections of the population (all migrants, ethnic minorities, foreigners, people of other faiths, etc. - in a word, all “strangers”). This means that interethnic relations in the Russian Federation have entered a new, and very problematic and alarming, stage, characterized by a noticeable increase in xenophobia, racism and chauvinism. Russian experts rightly qualify xenophobia as a “systemic factor” of modern Russian society, as a form of mass “negative consolidation” that runs counter to the country’s modernization development program. The fears are confirmed by the results of sociological research in recent years, recording that people of other nationalities living in Russia are increasingly perceived as a “threat to security and order,” and this point of view is beginning to prevail. According to the mass respondent, foreigners and migrants are “dangerous”, “behave impudently and aggressively”, “profit from the indigenous population” and there are too many of them: in Russia there is “the dominance of newcomers”. A distinctive feature of the current stage of interethnic relations is that the social base of xenophobia and chauvinism has expanded significantly and today includes not only the deprived mass “lower classes,” but also the political and cultural elite of Russian society. Of course, in such an ideological atmosphere the possibility of using the potential of multiculturalism is not even indicated.
Interviews conducted as part of the case study “American Tatars” made it possible to discuss the state and problem “areas” of interethnic and interracial interaction in the United States. The following aspects were considered: the nature of relations between representatives of different races and nationalities in New York City and in the United States in general; existence of tensions, discrimination or
insults based on ethno-racial principles; the influence of ethnic origin on the ability to obtain a good education, work or career; cases (or lack thereof) of concealing one’s ethnicity or religion; the impact of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 on the life of the respondent, the attitude towards the Tatars as a Muslim group and towards Muslims and Islam in general.
Perhaps the most significant factors that influenced the responses and comments of the American Tatars were: the inclusion of the Tatars by the host society in the socially prosperous racial group of “whites or Americans of European descent” (which coincides with the dominant racial self-esteem of the Tatars in the USA), on the one hand, and self-identification with the Muslim population of the USA - on the other. In general, a positive assessment was given of the general state of interethnic relations in American society, especially in cosmopolitan New York:
“Every nation has its own communities. There are associations. Every nation with its associations lives very well” [I. 6].
"Well, I<дискриминации или оскорбления по этническом признаку>I haven't met. I haven't seen this before. People here are more friendly" [I. 3].
“I’m telling you, everyone lives here: ‘I don’t care’<Меня не касается>. He doesn't care how you live; you don't care how someone lives. Therefore, there can be no conflict. Because they don’t care about anyone” [I. 5].
"Not really. Nobody cares about this at all. The question of nationality does not concern anyone here. They might ask out of pure curiosity. From pure" [I. 7].
“They live very well. Surprisingly good. There are many Koreans here. You're walking... like in a Korean village<... >If you go to the Chinese... to a Chinese store... the signs are in Chinese. And they write in Arabic. And there are newspapers. But when I was in Moscow, I didn’t see any inscriptions in Tatar anywhere” [I.14].
At the same time, many of the respondents are well aware that the situation is not problem-free. One of the most acute and visible problems is the persistence of racism in changed forms and the reproduction of dividing lines between “whites” and the African-American population:
“People get along. When I arrived in this country, my first impression was that racism practically does not exist here. That is, people don’t even have such a concept as racism.<...>But<теперь>I still understand that people just get along. Everyone still has different emotions. Some people, yes, feel distrust. Especially people from the South" [I. 13].
“Racism is alive and well. I think that now... with the increase in Latin<имеется в виду латиноамериканского>population, the problem becomes even more dramatic. Perhaps this is not yet felt on our coast. And, for example, in California, in states close to Mexico, this is a huge problem” [I. 8].
“Racial conflicts exist between blacks and whites, between blacks and Jews.<...>Sometimes it is fueled by the press.<...>Well, ethnic conflicts - to a lesser extent, they probably exist...” [I. 1].
As recognized by a number of American researchers, the adoption of multiculturalism in the United States is the “price” that America pays for its inability (or unwillingness) to incorporate African Americans into its society in the same way as many other ethnocultural groups were integrated. Indeed, racial discrimination, as well as various kinds of manifestations of ethnic mistrust, is reproduced in hidden and latent forms, but racism as an ideology and practice is illegal and is harshly persecuted. The principle of equality, which underlies the idea of a civil nation, is strictly protected by the state and is quite deeply rooted in the mass consciousness:
"Maybe there is<этнические предрассудки и предубеждения^ Но нам с этим сталкиваться не приходится. Здесь закон серьезно работает в этом отношении. То есть люди здесь взаимно вежливы и уважительны» [И. 7].
" Not here<комментарий о наличии напряженности и дискриминации в эт-норасовых отношениях>. This is a violation of the law here. And if you really feel like an American, you don’t think about it” [I. 12].
The majority of interviewees did not establish any influence of ethnicity on their life chances - the opportunity to find a job, get an education, or make a career. However, several respondents with good education and relatively high socio-economic status made a number of reservations in answering this question:
«<О влиянии этничности на карьеру, возможность получить образование и работу:>No. No. I don't know... Unless I'm going to be there... on the US Supreme Court.<... >Up to the level of a cabinet member, I think it makes no difference” [I. 8].
“Yes, I think so. In the entire history of America there has not been a single President who is black or any other ethnic group" [I. 13].
“I am an immigrant to this country... Although I am an American citizen... I know that I most likely will not be able to achieve any high administrative positions.<... >I think there are certain relationships among people, especially in politics, that do not allow certain minorities or racial minorities or ethnic minorities to be at the top... at the top of the cake, let's put it that way. Where is the cream" [I. 1].
The greatest concern, however, was the rise in mistrust and prejudice against Muslims following the series of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The majority of respondents noted a deterioration (more or less) in attitudes towards Muslims, expressed in interpersonal insults and accusations, acts of vandalism, attacks on Muslims and Muslim organizations in the period immediately after the terrorist attack:
“Here we were going<в Америку, потому>that this is exactly... a free country; that they do not oppress; no one will tell you anything... Well, now, you see, politics has changed radically. After September 11. Muslims suddenly became guilty of all sins” [I. 2].
“I believe that after September 11, the attitude towards the Muslim faith has changed.<... >Well, maybe even hostile. Although they say there that not everyone is the same...” [I. 3].
"This is not true.<... >What do they think... Since Muslims did it, then all Muslims are like that. This is wrong" [I. 14].
Other respondents paid tribute to the public position of the authorities, who explained in the media that the perpetrators were terrorists and not supporters of the Muslim faith:
“... They said very well on TV here that this is terrorism, not Muslims.<... >For example, as a Muslim, I didn’t feel this either.<... >They didn’t let all this flare up in time. These are again laws and thinking<то есть умение тех, кто управляет>look forward" [I. 7]
Among the positive effects of increased attention to Muslims were noted: the desire of Americans to better know Islam and a significant increase in the amount of information about it; introduction of teaching at universities; new facts about the adoption of the Muslim faith; rapprochement and unity of the Muslim community in the United States:
“I usually considered myself Tatar-American or Turkic-American and, to a much lesser extent, Muslim-American. But after 9/11, we all inevitably became much more Muslim-American.<...>I am very saddened that civil liberties in the United States are being eroded, especially for Arab-Americans and Muslim-Americans, and the future is fearful" [I. 15], noted one of the respondents in 2003. However, time has shown that American multiculturalism has largely passed the test sent down: thanks to adhering to the principle of equality and respect for civil rights and freedoms, it has generally been possible to maintain the same quality of the climate of interethnic and interfaith relations in the United States.
Conclusion
The example of the implementation of multiculturalism in the USA and in other countries, both the New and the Old World, indicates, firstly, that in the conditions of the beginning of the 21st century, national states can no longer ignore the requests of ethnocultural and racial minorities and need to create mechanisms and institutions for their accommodation and integration into the civil community, meeting the norms of international law and promoting the realization of both individual and collective freedoms. Secondly, the world experience of following the multiculturalist path convinces us that there is no single normative “form” of multiculturalism; on the contrary, there are a huge number of national models of accommodation of cultural pluralism that meet nationally specific challenges and needs. Consequently, in Russia, the formation and implementation of an acceptable model of multiculturalism should be based on current national goals and objectives: 1) managing the original multinationality of Russia in the context of the development of genuine federalism, including the systematic implementation of the practices of multinational federalism; 2) assistance in solving ethnocultural problems of numerous Russian diasporas; 3) integration into society of the growing flow of migrants and immigrants, legal labor from abroad; 4) creation of a favorable domestic political
a basis for protecting the interests of “compatriots” and the Russian-speaking population outside the borders of the Russian Federation in the spirit of “nationalism of the external historical homeland” (the latter essentially means Russia’s recognition of multiculturalism in the international dimension); 5) countering the spread of extremism, chauvinism, extreme manifestations of nationalism, racism and intolerance, which are a serious obstacle to the realization of national interests (for example, in the development of the tourism industry, the internationalization of Russian education and the inclusion of Russia in the world educational space, and generally strengthening international positions and the prestige of the country in the world community).
Currently in Russia there is a deep contradiction between the urgent need to adapt Russian cultural diversity and give it contours consistent with the spirit of the times and national interests, and the pronounced rejection of the discourse of multiculturalism, both in mass attitudes and behavior, and in political action. This discrepancy has not yet been properly recognized, and the de facto cultural pluralism that exists is considered rather an annoying obstacle to the consolidation of a single Russian co-citizenship. Nevertheless, the future of the country depends on how soon erroneous and one-sided ideas about the potential and limits of variability of multiculturalism are overcome and the compatibility of ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity with the formation of a single civil identity is realized.
L.R. Nizamova. Minorities, Assimilation and Multiculturalism: the Cases of Russia and the USA.
The issues of preservation of cultural pluralism and assimilation are studied within comparative analysis of contemporary Russian and American social and political practices. Common features and differences of the ethnic policy of Russia and the USA have been displayed; the role and specific character of multiculturalism and inter-ethnic relations have been identified. Conclusions of the article are based on the data of the empirical case study “American Tatars” that have helped to reveal the mechanisms of ‘resistance’ to assimilation and reproduction of the cultural ‘otherness’.
Key words: multiculturalism, cultural pluralism, assimilation, ethnic minorities, national minorities, nation-building, the USA, Russia, Volga Tatars, American Tatars.
Literature
1. Nizamova L.R. Ideology and politics of multiculturalism: potential, features, significance for Russia // Civil society in multinational and multi-confessional regions: Proceedings of the conference. Kazan, June 2-3, 2004 / Ed. A. Malashenko. - M.: Gandalf, 2005. - P. 9-30.
2. Brubaker R. Myths and misconceptions in the study of nationalism // Ab Imperio. Theory and history of nationalities and nationalism in the post-Soviet space. -2000. -No. 1. - P. 147-164; No. 2. - pp. 247-268.
3. Kymlicka W. Multicultural Citizenship. A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights. - Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1995. - 280 p.
4. LevadaYu. “Soviet Man”: the fourth wave. Framework of self-determination // Vestn. society opinions. - 2004. - No. 3 (71). - pp. 8-18.
5. Gudkov L., Dubin B. The originality of Russian nationalism // Pro et Contra. Journal grew up internal and external politicians. - 2005. - No. 2 (29). - P. 6-24.
6. Shnirelman V. Racism yesterday and today // Pro et Contra. Journal grew up internal and external politicians. - 2005. - No. 2 (29). - pp. 41-65.
7. Pain E.A. Costs of Russian modernization: ethnopolitical aspect // Society. science and modernity. - 2005. - No. 1. - P. 148-159.
8. Glazer N. We Are All Multiculturalists Now. - Cambridge, Mass.; London, England: Harvard Univ. Press, 1997. - 179 p.
Received by the editor 01/21/08
Nizamova Liliya Ravilievna - Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Sociology at Kazan State University.
- Assimilation - I Assimilation (from Latin assimilatio) assimilation, fusion, assimilation. II Assimilation (ethnographic) the merging of one people with another with the loss of one of their language, culture, and national identity. Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- assimilation - The formation in the body of complex substances from simpler ones coming from the external environment. In the broad sense of the word, a synonym for anabolism. At the same time, they often talk about the A. of a particular compound, implying the ways of its transformation and assimilation in the body, in the cell. Microbiology. Glossary of terms
- assimilation - ASSIMILATION, assimilation, female. (Latin assimilatio) (book). Action under Ch. assimilate and assimilate. Assimilation of sounds (similarity of one sound to another in a word; ling.). Assimilation of nationalities. Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary
- assimilation - noun, number of synonyms: 7 assimilation 4 melting 10 merger 21 assimilation 13 assimilation 18 assimilation 29 ethnocide 2 Dictionary of Russian synonyms
- assimilation - ASSIMILATION (from Latin assimilatio - likening, identification), the process of assimilation by the body of substances entering it from the environment, as a result of which these substances become an integral part of living structures or are deposited in the form of reserves. see also metabolism and energy Veterinary encyclopedic dictionary
- assimilation - Assimil/yа́tsi/ya [y/a]. Morphemic-spelling dictionary
- Assimilation - (from Latin assimilatio) assimilation, fusion, assimilation. A. is the concept of J. Piaget’s concept of intelligence, which expresses the assimilation of material due to its inclusion in already existing patterns of behavior. It is carried out by analogy with biological assimilation. Pedagogical terminological dictionary
- assimilation - -i, f. 1. Action according to verb. assimilate (in 1 value) and state by value. verb assimilate; assimilation. Language assimilation. Assimilation of sounds. 2. ethnographic The merger of one people with another with the loss of one of their language and culture. 3. biol. Small academic dictionary
- ASSIMILATION - (from Latin assimilatio - fusion, assimilation, assimilation) - in the concept of intellectual development by J. Piaget - an attribute, an aspect of adaptation. Contents... Large psychological dictionary
- assimilation - ASSIMILATION -i; and. [lat. assimilatio]. 1. to Assimilate and Assimilate. A. peoples. Violent, natural a. A. nutrients. 2. Linguistic Kuznetsov's Explanatory Dictionary
- assimilation - (lat. assimilatio - likening). The likening of one sound to another in articulatory and acoustic terms (cf.: dissimilation). Assimilation occurs between vowels and vowels, and between consonants and consonants. Rosenthal's Dictionary of Linguistic Terms
- assimilation - ASSIMILATION - see anabolism. (Terminology of sports. Explanatory dictionary of sports terms, 2001) Dictionary of sports terms
- ASSIMILATION - ASSIMILATION (from Latin assimila-tio - assimilation, fusion, assimilation, Association index adaptation) - English. assimilation; German Assimilation. Sociological Dictionary
- assimilation - spell. assimilation, -and Lopatin's spelling dictionary
- Assimilation - ASSIMILATION (lat. “assimilation”). In relation to the sounds of speech - the likening of some sounds to others, neighboring or close to them in speech, consisting in a change in the articulation of some sounds in relation to others. Dictionary of literary terms
- assimilation - Same as anabolism. Biology. Modern encyclopedia
- assimilation - Assimilation, assimilation, assimilation, assimilation, assimilation, assimilation, assimilation, assimilation, assimilation, assimilation, assimilation, assimilation, assimilation Zaliznyak's Grammar Dictionary
- ASSIMILATION - Here: the acquisition by investors of new securities after a cycle of their complete sale during underwriting. Economic dictionary of terms
- assimilation - ASSIMILATION, and, g. (book). 1. see assimilate, xia. 2. In linguistics: assimilation, the appearance of similarity with another, neighboring sound, for example. pronouncing instead of the voiced b in the word babka the unvoiced sound p [bapka] as a result of similarity in deafness to the next k. | adj. assimilative, oh, oh. Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
- assimilation - assimilation I f. Assimilation of the articulation of sounds within one word or phrase (in linguistics). II The fusion of language, culture and national identity of one people with the language... Explanatory Dictionary by Efremova
- Assimilation - (lat. assimilatio assimilation, assimilation; syn. anabolism) the process of assimilation by the body of substances entering it from the environment, as a result of which these substances become an integral part of biological structures or are deposited in the body in the form of reserves. Medical encyclopedia
- ASSIMILATION - ASSIMILATION (from Latin assimilatio) - .. 1) assimilation, fusion, assimilation... 2) In ethnography - the merging of one people with another with the loss of one of them of its language, culture, national identity. Large encyclopedic dictionary
- Assimilation - Or assimilation - the assimilation of substances by a plant or animal. See the articles Animal Physiology and Plant Physiology. Some phytophysiologists simply call carbon absorption by plants “assimilation.” Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron
- assimilation - ASSIMILATION - the process of assimilation by organisms of substances from the external environment and the formation from them of more complex organic substances inherent in the body. A. occur with the absorption of energy. Botany. Glossary of terms
- - 1. (< лат. assimilatio уподобление, отождествление) 1) Слияние одного народа с другим путем усвоения его языка, обычаев и т. п.; 2) уподобление одного звука другому: свадьба из сватьба (от сватать). 2. Социол. Dictionary of linguistic terms Zherebilo
- ASSIMILATION - (from Latin assimilatio - likening) - the merging of one people with another through the loss of their language, culture, etc. In Tsarist Russia, under national conditions. and religious oppression was widely practiced through violence. assimilation - Russification of the peoples of the Volga region, Europe. Soviet historical encyclopedia
- Assimilation - In petrography (from Latin assimilatio - likening, merging * a. assimilation, magmatic digestion, magmatic dissolution; i. Assimilierung, Assimilation; f. assimilation;... Mountain encyclopedia
- assimilation - Assimilation, w. [latin. assimilatio] (book). Action according to verb. assimilate and assimilate. Assimilation of sounds (similarity of one sound to another in a word; linguistic). Assimilation of nationalities. Large dictionary of foreign words
- assimilation - See assimilate Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary
- Assimilation - According to the area of action in which A. occurs, linguistic, cultural and ethnic A. are distinguished: linguistic A. - the assimilation of a foreign ethnic language and recognition of it as a native one; ethnic... Dictionary of sociolinguistic terms
- assimilation - ASSIMILATION and, g. assimilation f., German Assimilation. 1. Assimilation, assimilation, fusion. BAS-2. In man, as in all past creatures of nature. both physically and morally there is the ability to assimilate, i.e. Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian language
ASSIMILATION (from Latin assimilation - use, merger, assimilation) - in history, the merger of one people with another with the loss of one of the peoples of their language, culture, national identity. It can be either natural or violent.
Orlov A.S., Georgieva N.G., Georgiev V.A. Historical Dictionary. 2nd ed. M., 2012, p. 24.
ASSIMILATION - according to J. Piaget - a mechanism that ensures the use of previously acquired skills and abilities in new conditions without significantly changing them: through it, a new object or situation is combined with a set of objects or another situation for which a scheme already exists.
Dictionary of a practical psychologist. - Minsk, Harvest. S. Yu. Golovin, 2001, 50.
Assimilation (Rybakovsky, 2003)
ASSIMILATION (lat. assimilatio) – assimilation, fusion, assimilation. The term is widely used in many natural and social sciences. In a broad sense, assimilation is understood as a process during which two (or more) groups, previously differing in internal organization, value orientations, and culture, create a new community in which a change in group self-identification occurs, and the sense of their originality and specificity is lost. According to the theory of the American sociologistR. Park, the assimilation process consists of the following phases: contact, competition, adaptation and assimilation itself...
Assimilation (Akmalova, 2011)
ASSIMILATION. The gradual merging of minority groups with the dominant group in terms of the adoption of norms of behavior, culture, customs, and mixed marriages. Assimilation can occur voluntarily, without causing social conflicts, and by force, which can cause resistance among those being assimilated, giving rise to ethno-nationalist protest.
A. Akmalova, V. M. Kapitsyn, A. V. Mironov, V. K. Mokshin. Dictionary-reference book on sociology. Educational edition. 2011.
Ethnolinguistic assimilation
ETHNOLINGUISTIC ASSIMILATION - the stage of ethnic assimilation, the process of loss by one or another ethnic group, in a foreign language environment, of its native language as a means of communication, including in the sphere of intra-ethnic communication. Linguistic assimilation is an important stage of ethnic assimilation in general; it begins after cultural and everyday assimilation and, together with the loss of ethnic identity, completes this process. Linguistic assimilation, i.e. a complete transition to another language, refers to ethnolinguistic processes of an evolutionary nature.
Ethnic assimilation (Tavadov, 2011)
ETHNIC ASSIMILATION (Latin assimilatio - assimilation) is a process during which ethnic groups or small groups separated from them, finding themselves in a foreign ethnic environment, perceive the language and culture of another ethnic group, gradually merge with it and consider themselves to be a given ethnic group. With ethnic assimilation, the assimilating group experiences a complete or almost complete loss of its original ethnic properties and an equally complete assimilation of new ones. A change in ethnic identity is usually considered the final stage of this process.
Assimilation (Matveeva, 2010)
ASSIMILATION - in phonetics - adaptation of the sounds of a speech series to each other in terms of articulation and acoustic properties, their phonetic convergence, likening one of the sounds to another. In the Russian language, consonants are assimilated. Assimilation is possible by place and method of formation, by hardness and softness, by sonority and deafness of consonants. In combinations of consonant sounds of the literary Russian language, the subsequent sound is stronger, it influences the previous one, assimilating (assimilating) it: approach [th] - deafening [d] under the influence of the subsequent [x], in place [s "t"] - softening [s] under the influence of the subsequent [t "], compare place [st]. Such assimilation is called regressive...
Assimilation (C.G. Jung)
Assimilation.- there is an assimilation of the new content of consciousness to the already existing processed (constellated) subjective material, and the similarity of the new content with the existing one is especially emphasized, sometimes even to the detriment of the independent qualities of the new. In essence, assimilation is a process apperception(see), distinguished, however, by the element of assimilation of the new content to subjective material. In this sense, Wundt says: “This method of formation (i.e., assimilation) appears especially clearly in ideas when the assimilating elements arise through reproduction, and the assimilated through direct sensory impression...
Assimilation (Shapar, 2009)
ASSIMILATION (lat. assimilatio - likening, comparison) - according to Piaget, a mechanism by which a new object or situation is combined with a set of objects or with another situation for which a scheme already exists. In social psychology, the merger of one people (or part of it) with another through the assimilation of its language, customs, etc. and the loss of its language, culture and national identity. There is a natural assimilation that occurs in favorable conditions for peoples (using the principle of complete equality of peoples) and has the character of a merger of small nations with larger ethnic communities. Along with natural, there is forced assimilation, which occurs under conditions of national, religious, etc. oppression and has the character of suppression of some peoples.
When cultures interact, they not only complement each other, but enter into complex relationships, during which they mutually adapt by borrowing their best products. The changes caused by these borrowings force people of a given culture to adapt, adapt to them, mastering and using these new elements in their lives. As a result of this, a person more or less achieves compatibility with the new cultural environment. It is believed that both during the interaction of cultures and when a person adapts to the elements of a new culture, the process of acculturation occurs.
The concept and essence of acculturation
The study of acculturation processes began to be studied at the beginning of the 20th century. American cultural anthropologists R. Redfield, R. Linton and M. Herskowitz. At first, they considered acculturation as the result of long-term contact between groups representing different cultures, which was expressed in a change in the original cultural models in one or both groups (depending on the proportion of interacting groups). However, researchers gradually moved away from understanding acculturation only as a group phenomenon and began to consider it at the level of individual psychology, presenting the acculturation process as a change in value orientations, role behavior, and social attitudes of the individual. Currently, the term “acculturation” is used to denote the process and result of the mutual influence of different cultures, in which all or part of the representatives of one culture (recipients) adopt the norms, values and traditions of another (from the donor culture). We can say that at the level of the individual, acculturation is the process of acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary to live in a foreign culture.
Research in the field of acculturation especially intensified at the end of the 20th century. This is due to the migration boom that humanity is experiencing and which is manifested in the ever-increasing exchange of students and specialists, as well as in mass relocations. According to some estimates, today more than 100 million people live in the world outside their country of origin.
Basic acculturation strategies
In the process of acculturation, a person is forced to simultaneously solve two problems - maintaining his cultural identity and inclusion in a foreign culture. The combination of possible solutions to these problems gives the basic acculturation strategies:
- assimilation- a variant of acculturation in which a person fully accepts the values and norms of another culture, while abandoning his own norms and values;
- separation- denial of foreign culture while maintaining identification with one’s own culture. In this case, representatives of the non-dominant group prefer a greater or lesser degree of isolation from the dominant culture. The strategy of isolation that members of the dominant culture insist on is called segregation;
- marginalization- a variant of acculturation, manifested in the loss of identity with one’s own culture and lack of identification with the majority culture. This situation arises due to the inability to maintain one's own identity (usually due to some external reasons) and lack of interest in acquiring a new identity (perhaps due to discrimination or segregation from this culture);
- integration- identification with both the old culture and the new one.
Until recently, scientists called complete assimilation into the dominant culture the best acculturation strategy. Today, the goal of acculturation is considered to be the achievement of cultural integration, which results in a bicultural or multicultural personality. This is possible if interacting majority and minority groups voluntarily choose this strategy: the integrating group is ready to accept the attitudes and values of a new culture, and the dominant group is ready to accept these people, respecting their rights and values, adapting social institutions to their needs.
Both the minority and the majority can accept integration only voluntarily, since this process represents the mutual adaptation of these groups, the recognition by both groups of the right of each of them to live as culturally different peoples.
However, members of the non-dominant group are not always free to choose an acculturation strategy. The dominant group may limit choices or force certain forms of acculturation. Thus, the choice of the non-dominant group may be separation. But if separation is forced - it arises as a result of discriminatory actions of the dominant majority, then it turns into segregation. The non-dominant group may choose to assimilate, indicating a willingness to accept the idea of a "melting pot" of cultures. But if they are forced to do this, then the “cauldron” turns into a “pressure.” It is very rare for a minority group to choose to be marginalized. Most often, people become marginalized as a result of attempts to combine forced assimilation with forced segregation.
In this case, integration corresponds to positive ethnic identity and ethnic tolerance, assimilation corresponds to negative ethnic identity and ethnic tolerance, separation corresponds to positive ethnic identity and intolerance, marginalization corresponds to negative ethnic identity and intolerance.
Acculturation as communication
The basis of acculturation is the communication process. In the same way that local people acquire their cultural characteristics, i.e. In the same way, visitors undergo inculturation through interaction with each other, and visitors become acquainted with new cultural conditions and master new skills through communication. Therefore, the process of acculturation is the acquisition of communicative abilities in a new culture.
Any communication, including personal communication, has three interconnected aspects - cognitive, affective and behavioral, as communication takes place! - processes of perception, processing of information, as well as actions aimed at objects and people surrounding a person. In this process, the individual, using the information received, adapts to the environment.
The most fundamental changes occur in the structure of cognition, in the picture of the world through which a person receives information from the environment. It is on differences in the picture of the world, in the ways of categorizing and interpreting experience, that differences between cultures are based. Only by expanding the sphere of acceptance and processing of information can a person comprehend the system of organization of a foreign culture and adjust his cognitive processes to those inherent in the bearers of a foreign culture. A person defines the mentality of “outsiders” as difficult and incomprehensible precisely because he is unfamiliar with the cognitive system of another culture. But a person has the potential to expand his knowledge about the cognitive system of a foreign culture, and the more a person learns about a foreign culture, the greater his ability to learn in general. The opposite is also true: the more developed a person’s cognitive system, the greater the ability to understand another culture he demonstrates.
To develop fruitful relationships with representatives of a foreign culture, a person must not only understand it on a rational level, but also on an affective one. You need to know what emotional statements and reactions are acceptable, since every society has adopted a certain criterion of sentimentality and emotionality. When a person is adapted to a different affective orientation, he can understand the reasons for humor, amusement and delight, anger, pain and disappointment as well as the locals.
Decisive in a person’s adaptation to a foreign culture is the acquisition of technical and social behavioral skills for action in certain situations. technical skills include skills that are important for every member of society - language proficiency, the ability to shop, pay taxes, etc. Social skills usually less specific than technical ones, but more difficult to master. Even carriers of culture, who naturally “play” their social roles, very rarely can explain what, how and why they are doing. However, through trial and error, a person constantly improves behavior through the formation of algorithms and stereotypes that can be used automatically without thinking.
Full adaptation of a person to a foreign culture means that all three aspects of communication occur simultaneously, coordinated and balanced. People adapting to the conditions of a new culture usually feel underdeveloped in one or more of these aspects of communication, resulting in poor balance and coordination. For example, one may know a lot about a new culture, but not have contact with it on an affective level; if such a gap is large, there may be an inability to adapt to the new culture.
Acculturation results. The most important goal and result of acculturation is long-term adaptation to life in a foreign culture. It is characterized by relatively stable changes in individual or group consciousness in response to environmental demands. Adaptation is usually considered in two aspects - psychological and sociocultural.
Psychological adaptation represents the achievement of psychological satisfaction within the framework of a new culture. This is expressed in good health, psychological health, and a clearly and clearly formed sense of personal or cultural identity.
Sociocultural adaptation lies in the ability to freely navigate a new culture and society, solve everyday problems in the family, at home, at work.
Since one of the most important indicators of successful adaptation is employment, job satisfaction and the level of one’s professional achievements and, as a consequence, one’s well-being in a new culture, researchers began to identify economic adaptation.
The adaptation process may not lead to a mutual correspondence between the individual and the environment, and then it will be expressed in resistance, in an attempt to change one’s environment or to change mutually. Therefore, the range of adaptation results is very large - from very successful adaptation to a new life to complete failure of all attempts to achieve this.
The results of adaptation depend on both psychological and sociocultural factors, which are quite closely interrelated. Psychological adaptation depends on a person's personality type, events in his life, and social support. The effectiveness of sociocultural adaptation is determined by a gay person’s knowledge of culture, the degree of involvement in contacts and intergroup attitudes. Both of these aspects of adaptation are successfully implemented provided that the person is convinced of the benefits of the integration strategy.
