The Resource of Inter-Ethnic Tolerance and the Balance of Intolerance in Contemporary Russian Society

Abstract

Leokadiya Drobizheva — Head of the Centre for Interethnic Relations, Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences. Address: Bldg. 5, 24/35, Krzhizhanovskogo St., Moscow, 117218, Russian Federation. E-mail: drobizheva@yandex.ru

The resource of interethnic tolerance in the Russian multiethnic society as well as the balance of intolerance and exceptions is analyzed in this article. The analysis is based on the results of the sociological survey, ‘20 Years of Reforms as viewed by the Russians’, which was conducted in 2011 by the Institute of Sociology at the Russian Academy of Sciences. It had a cross-regional sample with a total of 1750 respondents.

The results of the research show that the balance of consent and intolerance in Russia depends on the activities of Russians in various fields, such as institutions (family, school, higher education, mass-media), ideologies (construction of country images, heroes, positive norms of interaction, historical memory wars, formation of radical ethnic or civic nationalism, etc.), and state policy (integration or assimilation, Russia as a mutual home or the Russian state). The article defines problem zones and offers operational steps which try to avoid the risks of splitting society at an ethnic level.

The author does not waive such terms as ‘the political nation’ or ‘the Russian identity’ because they unite citizens independently of their nationality. She demonstrates that the Russian (civil) identity complies with the ethnic identity. As to the Russians as a nation, their strong connection with the state-civil identity is even more expressed than the one with the ethnic identity. At the same time, a share of people with actualized ethnic identity is no less than that of the Bashkirs, Tartars or Yakuts. Under these conditions, mutual understanding and tolerance may vary.

In the discussion, the author demonstrates the illegal character of now popular proposals to forbid the term ‘state-forming nation’ as the state is formed by citizens, not by nationalities. It is also illogical to limit the interests and demands of the Russian people and other nationalities to the cultural aspects only, since their interests are wider — including labor equality, access to the resources and participation in decision-making processes.