Sociocultural Identity In The Context Of Migration Processes

Object of the study – sociocultural aspects of cross-border migration.

Subject of the study – philosophical aspect of sociocultural adaptation of migrants, as well as the risks of loss of the national identity of the indigenous ethnic group.

Problem of sociocultural adaptation

Mass migration poses the problem of sociocultural, linguistic and legal adaptation of migrant workers.

The process of finding a representative of one country in another, the process of his interaction with another environment, is commonly referred to as sociocultural adaptation. In the case of migration as a whole, sociocultural adaptation should be seen as a complex, multidimensional phenomenon, the varieties of which include social, cultural, linguistic, economic and legal processes. It is not limited to adapting an individual to a different ethnocultural environment. In the structure of adaptation, it is common to distinguish between three main components: adaptive situation, need and ability. At the same time, the adaptive situation, acting as the basis of further adaptation, defines targeting: survival, search for work, earnings potential, self-realization of personality in various spheres of life, etc. The source of this social process for an individual or a group as a whole is motivation, as well as satisfaction of needs. Therefore, sociocultural adaptation acts as a tool to establish a relative correspondence between the needs and the ability to satisfy them, as an achievement of a relative balance between the needs of an individual or a group and the requirements of the host sociocultural environment (Vladimirova et al., 2010).

Dodd identifies four main patterns of behavior within interethnic interaction under the adaptation conditions:

• Flight (creating personal microworld, trying to avoid direct contacts with foreign culture);

• Fight (active manifestation of ethnocentrism, desire to transfer the pattern of behavior to the new environment);

• Filter (dialogue of cultures or multi-directional strategy: preservation of own culture, identification with own ethnic group; high activity, communicability in the new environment);

• Flex (changing cultural identity at both the level of external behavior and social perception) (Dodd, 1998).

Based on the Dodd model the domestic researcher Yuzhanin offers his classification:

1. The strategy of “ghettoisation” (passive autarchy) is implemented when adaptors avoid contact with the culture of the host country, hoping to eliminate negative symptoms of the cultural shock. The following models of migrants create a special microworld, in which there is exclusively a “native” ethnocultural environment, where only their compatriots and fellow citizens live. Passive autarchy is generally common among the members of ethnic minorities (displaced persons and refugees) living in megacities.

2. The strategy of “cultural colonization” (aggressive autarchy) is characterized by active manifestation of ethnocentrism and intolerance among “aliens”. The new sociocultural reality is perceived extremely inadequately, and other culture is sharply criticized and rejected. Moreover, migrants (colonizers) actively seek to move their cultural attributes and ethnic stereotypes to a new environment, impose their own world perception and way of life on the host environment.

3. Assimilation involves the rejection of migrants (voluntary or forced) from their native culture and full identification with new ethnocultural community.

4. Integration (acculturation) is the most preferred and successful adaptation strategy, which is to ensure the commitment of ethnic minorities to their culture and simultaneous internalization of their foreign cultural attributes. The model also calls for the enhancement of a parity intercultural dialogue between migrants and the dominant ethnic majority, mutual adaptation of the latter ones: the ethnic minority seeks to learn basic values, norms, knowledge and patterns of a new sociocultural environment, and the host community adapts its social institutions to the needs and demands of all its constituent ethnic groups (Yuzhanin, 2007).

In modern Russia it is possible to distinguish three groups of economic migrants, for each of the groups there is a different model of sociocultural adaptation. If foreign migrants are close in language and culture to that of the host country, if the cultural distance (objectively existing and subjective degree of similarities or differences between ethnic cultures) is small, the assimilation model (Flex) is in place completely changing the cultural identity of a person, the model of cultural “dissolution” of a person in the host ethnic group. However, for most foreign migrant workers there are serious obstacles to integration into the Russian society: low educational level, poor knowledge of the Russian language, legal deposition (Vladimirova et al., 2010). These factors give opportunities for the first and third adaptation models. Migrants are in a state of communicative isolation and distance from the culture of their host society. Such a model is typical of seasonal migrants, who do not associate their future lives with Russia, pursuing the purely economic goal of earning money for their families left in their homeland. The Filter (acculturation) model is typical for economic migrants seeking to both preserve their national and cultural identity and master the language of the host country to make a professional career there. They are motivated to adapt to life in a new country.

Given the fact that migrant workers have little time to adapt, as most of them do not plan to remain in Russia forever, the objective of socio-cultural adaptation programs for migrant workers is usually acculturation.

In recent years, a new demographic phenomenon has been observed in the Russian Federation – the growth of migration networks, which poses new challenges to the migration policy, the main of which is the work with diaspora; “according to experts, public opinion is perhaps the weakest link in the migration policy today” (Kashpur & Popravko, 2012). Ethnic diasporas are the main communicative structures with autopoetic (autopoiesis –self-reproduction, self-production) procedures of new ethnic groups of migrants.

Group ethnic identity is the process and result of self-description and self-observation of a self-reference system, such as the migrant community (Luman, 2005; Luman, 2006; Luman, 2007). It is this procedure of preserving and maintaining the ethnic identity of migrants, rather than adapting migrants in some form to the cultural environment, which is the most important sociocultural task (Kashpur & Popravko, 2012).

There are two trends: first, the preservation of the national identity through the growth of diaspora; second, the transformation of the national identity, which is preserving ethnic identity while losing mother tongue, culture and national way of life.

Both trends affect the identity of a regional society thus transforming it.

Russian model of multiculturalism

Migration results in inevitable changes in the social structure of the host community, the socio-demographic transformation of that community, and changes in the socio-role and socio-cultural structures of the immigrant society. For example, the extension of “immigration expansion” in the second half of the 20th century led to the emergence of communities with great cultural and ethnic diversity in the world.

As for Russia, uncontrolled migration flows can lead to significant changes in the socio-economic life of the country and a change in the habitual way of life of its indigenous people. According to ethnic configuration, Russia for centuries has been and remains a multi-ethnic and multi-religious country. Therefore, cultural integration and adaptation of migrants, according to researchers, is generally not a large-scale problem for the country (Reznik & Amirova, 2016). But practice shows that this is not quite the case. Interactions between migrants and the host community take place at both the group and individual levels, and the nature of these interactions is sometimes negative. There are many examples of ethnocentrism, xenophobia and structural discrimination based on ethnicity.

Researchers conceptually highlight 4 models-reaction of the host country to migrants: complete exclusion, differential exclusion (segregation), assimilation and pluralism (it has two varieties – non-interference and multiculturalism).

Much of the research on migrant adaptation in the host society has been conducted in line with multiculturalist discourse, and postulates the preservation of migrants’ ethnic and cultural identity. Among them are, first of all, Kymlicka, who is considered among the developers of this concept, as well as Taylor, who presents a liberal version of multiculturalism (Chernyak, 2015). The concept of “multiculturalism” has prevailed in the foreign sociology of migration since the 1970s–1980s due to the strong influence of left-liberal political values on social sciences and humanities of the Western Europe. The concept of multiculturalism was later subject to some adjustment. Multiculturalism as a universal phenomenon connected with the identity of universal values in the modern world, is presented in detail in the works of Kukathas. In particular, Chandran Kukathas highlighted five options for society to respond to the problem of forced clash of cultural paradigms (isolationism, assimilation, “soft” multiculturalism, apartheid). In his view, isolationism (or ghettoization) reflects the desire of public policy to preserve existing social structure and privileges. Assimilation is seen by scholars as an alternative to isolationism, replacing the strategy of banning immigration with cultural patronage policies that require migrants to enter the cultural space of the host state and to adopt its system of values. “Soft” multiculturalism involves supporting a common cultural field, preaching smooth and equal treatment of ethnic cultures that want to preserve local identity. “Hard” multiculturalism is seen as an alternative to isolationism, assimilation, and positions comprehensive support for minority culture by strengthening and supporting it. Apartheid aims at artificial differentiation of ethnic communities and prevents intercultural and inter-ethnic mixing (Kukathas, 2007).

Zizek sees multiculturalism as a form of cultural expansion formed in the context of globalization, or as a manifestation of cosmopolitan worldview. In particular, according to Zizek, the essence of multiculturalism manifests itself in the replacement of social ideals, when the notion of integration, representing a form of tolerance, is often hidden behind the notion of assimilation. Assimilation, eventually, means the adaptation to the dominating identity forms (Zizek, 2005).

Fedotova considers that now the cultural diversity is natural and inevitable. According to her, multiculturalism acts not simply as a statement of this diversity, but as a strategy aimed at maintaining the dividing lines and expelling the common diversity (Fedotova, 2005).

The problem of the ideas of multiculturalism is thus presented in the direction of understanding multiculturalism as a sociocultural phenomenon, multiculturalism is interpreted as an awareness of multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism within a given society, as well as a synonym for the concept of cultural pluralism. In this case, “multiculturalism” is a diversity of ethnocultural elements as opposed to a unified culture.

The idea of multiculturalism involves preserving the national and cultural identity of migrants. In the context of the constantly increasing migration flow, all spheres of public life are being transformed, provoking conflict situations on inter-ethnic and interfaith grounds. Multiculturalism implies cultural pluralism, which means that the states shall ensure equal status for all ethnicities and cultures, which causes ambiguity concerning the need to introduce multiculturalism policies in Russia.

Although the ideology of multiculturalism presupposes the preservation of the sociocultural identity of migrants and the host country, the practice demonstrates the opposition of migrants to the host society, the imposition of their own traditions on that society, the persistent reluctance of migrants to integrate into the surrounding reality, thus provoking conflicts and increasing inter-ethnic tensions.