Characteristics of the concept of "diaspora". Diaspora types

The role and place of the diaspora in modern ethnic processes

Tagiyev Agil Sahib oglu,

post-graduate student of Azerbaijan State Pedagogical University.

The system of interethnic interactions and interstate relations, the formation of transnational communities determines the development of ethnic diasporas. The interaction between the country of origin, the country of settlement and the diaspora is interpreted in different ways. Nowadays, there is a tendency to expand the concept that considers these processes in the context of globalization. According to some scholars, globalization, describing future scenarios of human development, is characterized by the gradual disappearance of borders and the activation of free flows of goods, people and ideas.

At the present stage, many concepts need to be rethought and reformatted, and among them, first of all, the concept of transnational space, the community of migrants and the diaspora. Currently, the frequency of the use of the term "diaspora" has increased significantly. In this regard, the meaning attached to this concept has significantly acquired a new color. Modern diasporas are not only a form and mechanism for the existence of historically formed communities that are carriers of certain ethnocultural traditions, but also a political tool. This circumstance requires the definition of the political and legal field in which the diasporas act as actors, as well as the designation of the illegitimate, but existing rules of the political game that diaspora associations are forced to follow. The discussion about the diaspora is being conducted by specialists of different directions, including not only ethnologists, sociologists, political scientists, but also writers, directors, and journalists. It can be stated that “diaspora” has become simply a fashionable word that is commonly used when it comes to ethnic groups..

As you know, the term "diaspora" (from the Greek.diaspora - resettlement; English -diaspore ) is used in two different senses. In a narrow sense - the totality of the places of settlement of the Jews after Babylon's defeat of the Kingdom of Israel, later - the totality of all the places of settlement of the Jews in the countries of the world outside Palestine. In a broad sense - to designate the places of settlement of certain ethnic groups, cut off from their native ethnic territory. The diaspora does not include cases of dismemberment of the ethnic territory by political-state borders, while maintaining the compactness of settlement.

As a result, the diaspora is understood as different formations. The problem of such a spread is also rooted in the versatility of the concept under study itself, which requires a more or less precise definition.

The term “diaspora” is used for such heterogeneous phenomena as ethnic minorities, refugees, labor migrants, etc. Ultimately, we are talking about any groups, for one reason or another, living outside their country of origin. In fact, the use of the term “diaspora” was an attempt to unite all possible processes of ethnic division. This applies to both "old" ethnic formations (the so-called historical or classical diasporas) and "new" forms of dispersion, which only strive to preserve their ethnic isolation and create their own distinctive features.

The literature contains the following main interpretations of the concept of diaspora:

1) an ethnic community in a foreign environment;

Departure for the repair of Liebherr refrigerators seven days a week

liebherr-service24.ru

2) the population of this or that country belonging ethnically and culturally to another state. At the same time, it is pointed out that there are immigrant diasporas and groups of indigenous people of the country who have found themselves cut off from the main place of residence of their ethnic group due to the redrawing of state borders and other historical circumstances.

Kazakh researcher G.M. Mendikulova wrote in this regard: “In modern political science, the term irredent, or non-reunited nations, means ethnic minorities inhabiting a territory adjacent to the state, where their fellow tribesmen dominate. Outside their country, non-reunited nations (as opposed to diasporas, which are created by the migration of ethnic groups to other countries that are not their historical homeland) turned out to be the result of conquests (conquests), annexation, disputed borders or a complex of colonial models. "

VA Tishkov examines the phenomenon of the diaspora from a different point of view. The very concept of "diaspora" seems to him to be rather arbitrary, as are the accompanying categories no less conventional. Having considered them, the scientist comes to the conclusion that history and cultural distinctiveness are only the basis on which the phenomenon of the diaspora arises. However, this framework alone is not sufficient. According to V.A. Tishkov “Diaspora is a culturally distinctive community based on the idea of \u200b\u200ba common homeland and the collective ties, group solidarity and demonstrated attitude towards the homeland built on this basis. If there are no such characteristics, then there is no diaspora either. In other words, the diaspora is a style of life behavior, not a tough demographic, and even more so, an ethnic reality, and thus this phenomenon differs from the rest of routine migration. "

In modern scientific literature it is proved that diasporas are collective, multi-ethnic. Their creation is based primarily on the factor of the common country of origin. Diaspora, according to some authors, has a special mission. It is a political mission of service, resistance, struggle and revenge. One of the main producers of the diaspora is the donor country. If there is no country of origin, there is no diaspora either. Diaspora is primarily a political phenomenon, while migration is social. The key moment of diaspora formation is not an ethnic community, but the so-called nation state.

V.A. Tishkov believes that the diaspora as a tough fact and situation and feeling is a product of the division of the world into state formations with guarded borders and fixed membership.

According to T. Poloskova: “The definition of the concept of diaspora should begin with the identification of system-forming features, which include:

1) ethnic identity;

2) community of cultural values;

3) sociocultural antithesis, expressed in the desire to preserve ethnic and cultural identity;

4) representation (most often in the form of an archetype) about the presence of a common historical origin. From the point of view of political science analysis, it is important not only the awareness of the diaspora that they are part of the people living in another state, but also the existence of their own strategy of relations with the state of residence and the historical homeland (or its symbol); the formation of institutions and organizations whose activities are aimed at preserving and developing ethnic identity. In other words, the diaspora, in contrast to the ethnic group, carries not only ethnocultural, but also ethnopolitical content. "

It is believed that in modern studies of the relationship between states and national diasporas, an approach is increasingly being adopted that can be characterized in terms of pragmatism. The dialectical relationship between the state and the diaspora is manifested in the fact that not only diasporas exist in a specific political and legal field, but also the state is forced to reckon with the potential of diaspora associations. The role of diasporas in the internal political life of states depends on a number of circumstances, among which the potential of the established diaspora associations plays a decisive role, their ability to influence the policy pursued by the state of residence both in relation to the diasporas and in relation to the country of origin. In the sphere of relations between the diaspora and the state of residence, historical experience shows that the higher the authority and influence of its representatives in the state, economic, and cultural circles of society, the more chances that the interests of this ethnic group will be taken into account in the policy of this state when making decisions. At the same time, the diaspora can only constitute itself if it becomes obvious that its representatives are not going to carry out coups d'etat in the host countries and are not going to turn into a "fifth column". The viability of the diaspora as an ethnocultural community depends on the readiness of its subjects to live in accordance with the legal norms defined in a given state. Political institutions created within the framework of diaspora associations will be able to function successfully if they manage to determine the common interests of all participants in this social subsystem and become their spokesmen, as well as find optimal forms of interaction with state institutions that can ensure a "balance of interests."

The role of the diaspora in the political life of the state can be characterized as follows:

1. The development of such a phenomenon as transnational networks made us look at the role and place of diasporas in the system of international relations in a completely different way and pay special attention to their economic, socio-cultural and socio-political potential. The approach to the foreign diaspora as the most important foreign policy and economic resource is becoming more widespread in the international practice of modern states that have significant potential for using the diaspora resource in the international arena. Using the potential of the foreign diaspora to create a network of economic, socio-political and other ties is a fairly widespread world practice. But the state does not always have the first word. Quite often the diaspora itself creates a system of network connections and the state - the historical homeland becomes one of the links in this international chain.

2. No less urgent is the pragmatic need for the national diasporas themselves to maintain at a sufficient level the elements of their own national identity, originality and, accordingly, to counteract the challenges of an assimilation nature, invariably present in varying degrees and intensity within the framework of the foreign state environment. It is obvious that in this matter, without the “national nutritional” support of a comprehensive nature on the part of our own national statehood, the opposition to these challenges becomes more complicated and often becomes completely ineffective.

3. Pragmatism, linking the above two parameters into a single and organically interacting systemic network, requires its own institutional, structured design. The latter presupposes the presence of a certain center for planning, coordination and implementation of diaspora policy through the efforts of state structures directly concentrated in this area of \u200b\u200bactivity. "

The problem of diaspora participation in international relations includes the interaction of not only the state and its diaspora, but also the use in foreign policy contacts of those diasporas that live on the territory of a multiethnic state. The most significant factor is the policy of the state of residence in relation to ethnic minorities. And this policy can range from a complete prohibition of consolidation along ethnic lines (modern Turkmenistan) to the legislatively enshrined participation of diaspora associations in lobbying activities. Discrimination against national minorities and the ban on the creation of diaspora associations are most often characteristic of states in the initial period of their independence. As a rule, the "bans" are selective in nature and concern people from those countries from which, according to the leaders of the diaspora states, a real or "imaginary" threat to their sovereignty comes. So, in Finland, after gaining independence, the Russian population was discriminated against, while the Swedes received a number of preferences at the legislative level.

Note that the role and significance of diasporas in the post-Soviet states are also great. This has to be constantly reckoned with by creating the appropriate coordinating bodies. The leaderships of the states are actively using the resources provided by the ethnic affinity between the diasporas and foreign states. Thus, it has become a widespread practice to include in the composition of official delegations during visits to this or that country the leaders of the respective national cultural centers and societies.

Literature

1. Popkov V.D. The phenomenon of ethnic diasporas. Moscow: IS RAS, 2003.

2. Dyatlov V. Diaspora: an attempt to define itself in terms of // Diasporas, 1999. № 1; Dyatlov V. Diaspora: expansion of the term into public practice modern Russia// Diasporas. 2004. No. 3. P. 126 - 138, etc.

3. V.I. Kozlov Diaspora // Code of ethnographic concepts and terms. M., 1986.S. 26.

4. XIX - XX centuries Sat. Art. Ed. Yu.A. Polyakov and G. Ya. Tarle. - M .: IRI RAN, 2001.S. 4.

5. Mendikulova G.M. Kazakh irredent in Russia (history and modernity // Eurasian community: economics, politics, security. 1995. No. 8. P. 70.

6. National diasporas in Russia and abroad inXIX - XX centuries Sat. Art. Ed. Yu.A. Polyakov and G. Ya. Tarle. - M .: IRI RAN, 2001.S. 22.

7. National diasporas in Russia and abroad inXIX - XX centuries Sat. Art. Ed. Yu.A. Polyakov and G. Ya. Tarle. - M .: IRI RAN, 2001.S. 38.

8. Poloskova T. Modern Diasporas: Domestic Political and International Problems. M., 2000.S. 18.

9. Sultanov Sh.M. Regional vectors of foreign policy of the Republic of Tajikistan. Author's abstract. diss. d.p.n. M .: RAGS, 2006.S. 19.

1.3 Diaspora functions

The fate of each diaspora is unique and distinctive to the same extent as the life of each person is unusual and individual. At the same time, their activities have many common functions. They are inherent in both "old" and "new" diasporas, both point and dispersed, both small and numerous national communities. Despite the different reasons for their appearance and formation, they are nevertheless characterized by some common features. However, it should be noted that the volume, richness and completeness of these functions can seriously distinguish one diaspora from another.

The most common function of the diaspora is their active participation in the maintenance, development and strengthening of the spiritual culture of their people, in the cultivation of national traditions and customs, in maintaining cultural ties about their historical homeland.

In this regard, the preservation of the native language takes a special place. It is well known that the language is fully realized in a compact environment, and in conditions of dispersed living it can lose its communicative role. And as a rule, the full functioning of a language depends on its status in a particular state. The emerging diaspora usually uses their native language in informal communication and very rarely in teaching at school, in office work, in the media, etc. It is precisely to achieve this that she has to fight. The native language is a retransmitter of national culture, and its loss has a direct impact on some of its components, primarily in the spiritual sphere (customs, traditions, self-awareness). Nevertheless, in reality we can observe a situation where many parts that have broken away from their ethnic group, having lost partially or completely their native language, continue to function as a diaspora (for example, German, Korean, Assyrian, Chuvash, etc.).

Consequently, the preservation of the native language is sometimes not a defining feature of the diaspora. Nevertheless, its gradual loss indicates the development of assimilation processes. This situation may be aggravated by the proximity of the cultural distance between ethnic groups - titular and diasporic. And if there are no other signs that unite the ethnic community, or they are also lost, its disintegration as a result of assimilation is close.

It is no less important for the functioning of the diaspora to preserve its ethnic culture by its representatives, by which we mean the components of material, spiritual and socionormative activity, which differ to one degree or another from the other ethnic and supra-ethnic culture. Ethnic culture is most clearly manifested in literature, art, ethnic symbolism, traditions, some forms of material culture (especially food, clothing), and folklore.

The preservation of ethnic culture is undoubtedly a sign of the diaspora. However, after a certain period of time, the ethnic culture of the diaspora is no longer identical to the culture of the ethnos, from which the ethnic community split off. It is imprinted on it by the culture of a foreign ethnic environment, and as a result of a possible loss of connection with the mother's ethnic group, the continuity of cultural traditions is lost. The situation is aggravated by the difficulty of preserving ethnic culture in an urbanized environment, where standardized standards of material and spiritual culture are widespread.

The preservation of ethnic culture largely depends on the cultural distance between the diaspora and the foreign ethnic environment, the tolerance of the state, and, finally, the desire of the group itself to preserve its culture.

The key, in our opinion, is the preservation of ethnic self-awareness or a sense of belonging to a particular ethnic group, which externally manifests itself in the form of a self-name or ethnonym. Its internal content is made up of the opposition "we - they", the idea of \u200b\u200bcommon origin and historical destinies, the connection with the "native land" and "native language." According to O.I. Shkaratan, the change of ethnic identity is an indicator of the completion of the assimilation of the national diaspora.

The most important function of diasporas in modern Russia is the protection of the social rights of representatives of a given nation. As mentioned above, this is associated with the regulation of migration flows, employment, assistance in professional self-determination, participation in the life of their republic or host country.

Social functions also affect the problems of citizenship, the preservation of the positive that existed in the USSR when peoples lived together. This should include the efforts of the diasporas to overcome various manifestations of chauvinism, anti-Semitism, the so-called ideology of "persons of Caucasian nationality", etc., for here are the roots of mutual distrust, alienation and even enmity.

The economic function, which some diasporas seek to realize, is gaining more and more importance. We are talking about the development of such forms of economic activity in which specific types of production of folk crafts and consumer goods are realized. This enriches the life of not only the representatives of this diaspora, but also the lives of people of other nationalities. The attempts, for example, by the Tatar diaspora to organize in Moscow, the Moscow region, and a number of regions of Russia the production of consumer goods, special foodstuffs, and drinks contributed to a more full-blooded life of both the Tatars themselves and all other nationalities, primarily Russians. The Ukrainian diaspora in Moscow is also taking a number of measures to revive the crafts of the Ukrainian people.

The implementation of such an economic function as the right to trade is taking shape in a somewhat peculiar way, although it gives rise to many doubts, frictions and even aggravations (for example, in relation to the Azerbaijani diaspora). However, it is necessary to proceed from the historical experience, when practically many types of trade are transferred into the hands of the representatives of the eastern nations. The experience of Europe once again testifies that from such a trend, for example, among the Turks, Europe has only won, although for this it formulated a number of conditions that ultimately turned out to be beneficial for both sides.

In addition, one should not close one's eyes to the fact that a number of diasporas also perform political functions. This is manifested, firstly, in the fact that they are lobbying for the possibility of obtaining additional rights and opportunities for their republics (their people), obtaining special guarantees for their effective development, expanding their powers both within Russia and in the international arena.

Second, the diasporas, or rather a number of their organizations (Tajik, Uzbek, Turkmen) act as opposition to the ruling regime, organizing all possible forces - from publishing newspapers to organizing public opinion - to fight against political forces unacceptable to them.

Thirdly, diasporas directly affect the international positions of the country of residence.

The life of the Bulgarian diaspora, formed in the oil fields of the Tyumen North and in the timber industry enterprises of the Komi Republic, also acquired an international aspect, for their further presence affects the processes of economic and political interaction between Russia and Bulgaria.

Chapter 2 The Russian Diaspora in the Baltic States

Ethnologists divide the ethnic structures of polyethnic states into two systems: centralized and dispersed. In the first case, some of the ethnic groups are so large that their relationship is constantly at the center of social and political life. In the second, the population consists of a small number of ethnic groups, each of which is too weak or small in number to dominate the Center.

The relationship between the titular nation and ethnic Russians is close to the first system. Moreover, the acuteness of the problem is far from always identical with quantitative indicators. Conditionally the post-Soviet republics can be divided into three groups:

1. republics where Russians make up 20% and more (Kazakhstan - 37.8%, Latvia - 34%, Estonia - 30.3%, Ukraine - 22.1%, Kyrgyzstan - 21.5%);

2. republics where Russians account for 10 to 20% of the population (Belarus - 13.2%, Moldova - 13%);

3.Republics where Russians account for less than 10% (Lithuania - 9.4%, Uzbekistan - 8.3%, Tajikistan - 7.6%, Turkmenistan - 7.6%, Azerbaijan - 5.6%, Georgia - 6 , 3%, Armenia - 1.6%).

However, the comparative small number of Russians in Moldova and Tajikistan does not mean that their relationship with the titular nation is less important for the social and political life of the republics than, for example, in Kazakhstan or the Baltic countries. In Armenia, where Russians are especially small in number, among the reasons that prompted them to leave the republic is the unresolved language issue. According to the Armenian Foreign Ministry, the situation that has developed in connection with the adoption of the Law on Language and the introduction of the language inspection has deprived the Russian population of the opportunity to study in secondary and higher educational institutions, and has led to unemployment of many highly qualified workers. If in the 1987/88 academic year there were 82 purely Russian schools and 29 mixed schools in the republic, then in 1993/94 there were only 4 of them.

In contrast to the traditional diasporas, the Russian diaspora in the countries of the new abroad consists of the indigenous inhabitants of the previously united state, in relation to whom the term "migrant" is in principle inapplicable. A quantitative analysis of the structure of the Russian population in the republics of the new abroad shows that by 1989 at least a third (from 32.5 to 65.1%) of Russians were natives of these republics. Thus, in Estonia in 1989, only 34.9% of the Russian population were newcomers (65.1% were born in Estonia); 43.3% of the Russian population of Moldova, 42.3% of Ukraine, 41.6% of Latvia were born in these republics. Thus, attempts to identify Russians with the concept of "migrants" can hardly be considered justified. The reasons for the migration of Russians from Russia, according to the latest census, are in most cases due to family motives, and by no means the "imperial policy of the Center." So, 88% of those who moved in 1986-87. Russians in Tallinn and 44% of those who came to Chisinau named family circumstances as the main reason for moving. In second place in terms of motivation for migration processes from Russia to other republics of the former USSR were: continuation of studies, distribution after graduation from a higher education institution, invitation as specialists. The Russians who arrived made a great contribution to the development of industry, science, culture and education of the republics of the former USSR. According to the census, by the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, in all republics, except Lithuania, Belarus, Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, Russians accounted for a quarter or more of workers employed in industrial production. The main work in agriculture in all republics was performed by workers of indigenous nationalities. The Russian population was replenished mainly due to highly qualified personnel.

The term "national minority" is hardly applicable to the Russians living in the republics of the former USSR, because in most of the countries of the new abroad, Russians are the state-forming nation, making up more than a third of the population in Kazakhstan, Latvia, Estonia; more than 20% - in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan; 13% - in Belarus and Moldova.

The course towards building a mono-ethnic, monolinguistic society, undertaken by the leadership of most of the countries of the new abroad, met with a negative reaction not only from the Russian, but also from the Russian-speaking population of these states. So, the linguistic situation in the republics was as follows. The most familiar with the language of the indigenous nationality should be recognized the Russian population of Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and Armenia, where from 27 to 34% of Russians were fluent in it as a second language or considered it their native language. At the same time, 19.7% of Belarusians and 12.2% of Ukrainians called Russian their native language. In Minsk, according to experts, the processes of the loss of the Belarusian language as the native language of the Belarusian population have become massive and, possibly, irreversible. The majority of Moldovans (95.7%), Latvians (97.4%), Estonians (99%), Lithuanians (99.7%) named the language of their nationality as their native language in 1989. Representatives of other ethnic groups living in the republics named Russian not only as the main language of communication, but also as their native language. Thus, by the beginning of the 90s, real multilingualism had developed in the republics of the USSR, in which both ethnic Russians and representatives of other nationalities were speakers of the Russian language. Polylinguism was complemented by a large number of interethnic marriages. The lowest indices of endogamy of the Russian population were typical for Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Lithuania. The Russian population was more endogamous in Latvia (28.9%) and even higher these indicators were in Estonia. Thus, by 1989 the republics of the USSR were polyethnic, polylinguistic formations. The collapse of the USSR led to a gigantic split in a single ethnic, cultural and linguistic space. A specific feature of the Russian diaspora in the new diaspora is the blurring of its ethnic contours. It is no coincidence that it is the linguistic factor and the commonality of culture that become decisive in the formation of the modern Russian diaspora, and not national identity.

Unlike traditional diasporas in non-CIS countries, ethno-Russians in the new abroad experience serious difficulties in exercising civil rights and do not have the opportunity to influence decisions regarding the situation of the Russian diaspora. In most of the countries of the new abroad, the rights of representatives of non-titular nationalities (most of whom are Russian and Russian-speaking) are significantly limited: to work, to receive an education in their native language, to social security. The possibility of exercising the right to protection from propaganda, which has a detrimental effect on the preservation and development of Russian culture, language, education, and from manifestations of everyday nationalism, is significantly limited.

The problems of political rights and socio-economic security of Russians are interconnected. The latter cannot be considered as something secondary, since social security not only depends on the general situation in the republic, but also has an ethnic connotation. There is a well-known thesis of official circles in Estonia and Latvia that Russians in the Baltic countries are primarily concerned with their economic situation and do not experience infringement due to restrictions on their civil rights.

However, already in 1992, 40% of working Russians in Estonia suffered from social competition caused by their ethnicity; 82.5% of Russians felt the infringement of national dignity in the domestic sphere, 20% - in the business sphere. 64% of Estonians are against working in international teams.

The block of social problems includes restrictions on the right to social security, the right to protect the honor and dignity of the individual. The need for Russian labor exists in all former Soviet republics.

The introduction of certification in the knowledge of the state language complicated interethnic relations in many republics, depriving Russians of the prospects for professional growth and the opportunity to continue working in their specialty.

The social and economic insecurity of Russians, due to the general economic situation of the "initial period of capital accumulation", is burdened by the ethnic factor.

Indeed, the bulk of Russians, as well as non-Russian citizens of the republics of the former USSR, are concerned about their economic situation. It can be assumed that if the standard of living of Russians in the republic is higher than in Russia, then migratory sentiments will manifest themselves weaker, even if political rights are limited. But the prospect of Russians as an ethnic group will be assimilation, the loss of national identity. In addition, practice shows that in republics with a relatively high standard of living, social advancement of Russians is impeded, leaving them jobs associated with unskilled, manual labor (the Baltic republics).

The course towards building a mono-ethnic society, chosen by the leaders of the former Soviet republics, has undergone major changes in recent years. Nevertheless, the problem of preserving and developing the Russian national heritage - culture, education, language - is one of the most acute.

It is no coincidence that a number of researchers, naming the possible landmarks of Russian foreign policy, single out the goal of introducing state bilingualism in all post-Soviet states, actively promoting the creation and strengthening of Russian communities, and allocating funds to support Russian culture and education.

It is possible to debate whether "Soviet culture" existed in reality, but the fact that certain cultural values \u200b\u200bwere formed during the years of Soviet power that cannot be identified with any one national culture can hardly raise doubts.

The post-Soviet Baltic states or post-Soviet Central Asia are precisely the post-Soviet states, and not some "revived" formations. In the conditions of interaction of cultures, it is possible to create a stable, prosperous society only on the basis of a unifying goal and common spiritual values \u200b\u200bfor all nationalities. At present, in the post-Soviet space, it is primarily the elites of the new political formations that are "self-determined" and "mutually determined". The new political elites of the former Soviet republics have not yet been able to create or implement an optimal model of interethnic relations. Although the achievement of interethnic consensus is one of the important conditions for the preservation of political power by the new elites. That is why the question of how much the new national cultures are really homogeneous is extremely important and how much they are able to build their identities not on the principle of exclusivity, but on a unifying basis and on the loyalty of citizens to the state in which they live.

The position of Russians in a number of countries of the new foreign countries remains a factor that seriously complicates the development of relations between Russia and these states. An analysis of the policy pursued by the leadership of the Baltic states, primarily Estonia and Latvia, shows that it is based on a course towards the creation of ethnocratic, mono-national states. There is no tendency to improve the position of non-titular peoples in the area of \u200b\u200bobservance of their civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights. As before, the most acute issue in Latvia and Estonia is the issue of acquiring citizenship. It should be noted that representatives of the Council of Europe, OSCE and other international organizations actually use the practice of double standards in assessing the events taking place in the Baltic countries. For public opinion in the West, this anti-Russian course is presented as liquidation of the consequences of the occupation of the Baltic by the USSR in 1940. The building of ethnocratic states is carried out in the CIS member states. The sharp narrowing of the Russian cultural, linguistic, educational, information space is aggravated by the intensification of the activities of nationalist organizations in Kazakhstan, Ukraine, in zones of interethnic conflicts, which raises the question of the very possibility of preserving ethnic identity by Russians in the countries of the new abroad.

Unlike the world's diasporas, which have a long historical experience of organizational functioning, have financial potential, influence in the political and business circles of various countries of the world, the Russian diaspora of the new abroad is in its infancy. State of the art The Russian social and socio-political movement in the CIS and the Baltic states is characterized by a continuing split, rivalry between various large and small structures, and the absence of leaders capable of uniting the most active part of the diaspora on the scale of the republic or at least a large region. An analysis of the development of the situation in the Russian movement of the new abroad allows us to say with a sufficient degree of confidence that the timing of their painful growth will largely be determined by the degree of activity in this issue by the relevant departments of Russia, which will have to abandon the goal of achieving quick results and aim for the long term.

Ethnic groups rarely live compactly on their territory. Wars, changes in borders, the formation and disintegration of empires and states, natural disasters and economic crises scatter peoples across the globe. According to the UN, in 1960 75.5 million people lived in foreign countries, in 2000 - already 176.6 million, in 2009 - 213.9 million, in 2013 - 232 million. different countries from 3 to 10% of the population are migrants. 35 million Chinese live in foreign countries, 25 million people from different African countries, about 19 million Russians, 14 million Kurds, 9 million people from India, 10 million Irishmen, 8 million Italians, Jews and Gypsies, 5.5 million Armenians, 4.5 million Hungarians and Poles, 4 million Greeks, 3.5 million Turks and Iranians, 3 million Japanese, 2.5 million Germans.

Once in a foreign country, people stick to their fellow countrymen. To do this, they unite in communities. Today community - this is an association of people - as a rule, whole families and related clans - who are connected by economic, cultural, legal activities and live in the same territory. If one of the criteria for uniting people into a community is their ethnic origin, then such a community is called a diaspora.

Diaspora (from the Greek word byyuttora - scattering) - an ethnically homogeneous group of the population, compactly living in a foreign country, realizing and supporting their community and creating social and cultural structures and institutions to maintain their identity and ties with their people living in the ethnic homeland. Diasporas exist in the position of a national-cultural minority.

The notion of a diaspora has an ancient Greek origin and is associated with the Great Greek colonization (VII-V centuries BC). The Greeks colonized the shores of the Mediterranean and Black Seas, established trading posts there, from which city-states later grew. The core of the population of trading posts and city-states was made up of ethnic Greeks who moved from their homeland. In a new location, they reproduced the social structure and cultural imperatives of their metropolis, carefully distancing themselves from the local "barbarians". Over time, cross-breeding and mixing with the local population inevitably took place, but it was the unification in the diaspora that helped preserve the memory of their origin and ethnocultural integrity.

The term "diaspora" became widespread among the Hellenized Jews, denoting compact settlements voluntarily living outside Israel. It is believed that then this term was applied to the Jews, forcibly expelled from the Promised Land, "scattered". It was the Jewish communities (along with the Armenian, Greek, Genoese, “German settlements” in Russian cities, etc.) in the Middle Ages and the New Age in European cities that formed compact areas of residence with a special social structure, linguistic environment, cultural life, etc. .d.

In the XIX-XXI centuries. the concept of a diaspora is becoming more vague and ambiguous. This is primarily due to the redistribution of state borders, the collapse of empires, the formation of new states. At the same time, entire areas with compactly living ethnic groups ended up in foreign countries. New and modern times such a phenomenon as labor migration, which has a pronounced ethnic character, is developing. In other words, the phenomenon of overlapping social, ethnic and political spaces is manifested in modern diasporas.

Naturally, scientists today give more complex definitions of the diaspora: "Diaspora is an entity that arose as a result of the forced or voluntary migration of ethnic groups outside the ethnic homeland, which ended up in the host country as a minority that retained its ethnic, religious identity and social unity" (G. Scheffer), or: “Diaspora is a stable aggregate of people of the same ethnic origin, living outside their historical homeland (outside the area of \u200b\u200bsettlement of their people) and having social institutions for the development and functioning of this community” (Zh.T. Toshchenko, T.I. Chaptykova).

Diaspora should not be perceived simply as a separate part of one or another ethnic group. According to the correct remark of V. Dyatlov, the principal feature of the state of the diaspora is the state of “dispersion”: “dispersal has turned into a way of life, into a special stable socio-economic, cultural, spiritual state of society, a special form of existence in physical and psychological isolation from the ethnic continent or without such in general. " Moreover, the "ethnic continent" may be completely absent, as it was until the middle of the 20th century. among the Jews and how it still remains among the Gypsies. Or this “mainland” exists, but its role, material position, condition is even weaker than that of the diaspora (for example, the Armenians before independence). A member of the diaspora, in spite of the presence of an “ethnic continent” “somewhere out there,” must look for support and foundations of his being, identity in the diaspora. Hence the increased requirements for the observance of this identity (when members of the diaspora at some point turn out to be more “pure”, more pronounced carriers of ethnicity than an ethnos on the “ethnic continent”). Hence the isolation of the diasporas, their unwillingness to integrate into their alien environment (which leads to conflicts on everyday, cultural and ethnic grounds).

At the same time, the following tendency is observed: diasporas, consisting of former or still colonial, oppressed peoples, show a greater degree of vitality, the ability to adapt and survive, while maintaining their cultural and national identity. At the same time, diasporas from the imperial, titular nations (English, Russians, Germans, etc.) turn out to be unstable and, having existed for some time in the position of immigrants, then rapidly dissolve in the local population. Their historical experience lacks the experience of living as an ethnic minority, so they may still exist as an enclave (Germans in South America, Russians in Harbin), but on the whole they demonstrate extremely low ability for ethnic cooperation. Perhaps the situation will change in the XXI century. in territories where Russians turned out to be an ethnic minority after the collapse of the USSR (Central Asia, the Baltic countries).

It is believed that the diasporas are in an oppressed, humiliated position. The inferior position of diasporas determines the specifics of the professional specialization of its members. They, as a rule, are pushed aside from the state-significant spheres - military, bureaucratic, production (be it an agrarian or industrial society). They either get jobs that members of the titular ethnic group do not want to do (the phenomenon of guest workers), or the intermediary sphere, mainly trade and craft, the sphere of free professions (including often criminal ones). Due to the humiliated position of the diasporas in them big role family and client ties, corporate and community solidarity, clannishness play.

However, some diasporas in a number of countries gain strong influence and influence even national governments. The role of the Jewish, Armenian, Greek diasporas in influencing both business and political world is known. Diasporas of Muslim migrants, especially from Arab countries, are gaining momentum today.

The migration factor is beginning to shape politics in the world. It threatens the principles of the European Union, the Schengen zone, since the permeability of borders leads to uncontrolled mass migration from the “zone of disadvantage” to developed countries. First of all, the influx of migrants threatens their social and economic stability and undermines the foundations of security. The values \u200b\u200bof democratic regimes include attention to the situation of minorities, including internally displaced persons and refugees. A contradiction arises between values \u200b\u200band realities.

Hence the second problem - the developed countries of the European Union are trying to redirect the flow of migrants to the “new states” of the Schengen zone, which oppose this in every possible way. There are contradictions already within the European Union, which shake its basic foundations. This is superimposed on the third problem: today, migration from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, the Balkans to Western Europe is growing rapidly, and it is of a pronounced generational character: able-bodied youth are leaving. There is a threat of filling the emerging demographic void with refugees from Eastern Europe (for example, from the zone of the Ukrainian conflict), which will once again contradict the domestic policy of these national states, which has a mono-national direction.

Thus, processes have been launched in the world today, which in a few years may lead to a radical change in its appearance. And the diasporas in this process are playing an ever more significant role, starting to compete with states in terms of their influence.

The following characteristic features of diasporas can be distinguished (according to A. Militarev):

• 1. Belonging to a minority of the population.
• 2. Corporateness.
• 3. Limited areas of work.
• 4. Infringement of rights.
• 5. Prohibition or restriction on changing social status, primarily on entering the upper classes, land ownership and military career.
• 6. Isolation from other groups of the population, expressed in:
• 6.1. negative attitude to apostasy - forced or voluntary transition to another religion or denomination.
• 6.2. prohibition or restriction on mixed marriages.
• 6.3. living in a compact, enclosed area, in a ghetto.
• 7. Assimilation tendencies, expressed in:
• 7.1. apostasy, characterized by the transition almost exclusively to the religion of the dominant population.
• 7.2. ignoring the ban on mixed marriages, concluded almost exclusively with representatives of the dominant population.
• 7.3. the desire to escape from the ghetto, from the territory of residence of their diaspora group.
• 7.4. intensive development of the language and culture of the dominant group.
• 7.5. active penetration into the most prestigious spheres of activity outside the territory of residence and the traditional circle of activity of their diaspora group.
• 8. Diaspora consciousness - consciousness of community with relatives

diaspora groups, including:

• 8.1. community of origin.
• 8.2. common cultural history.
• 8.3. community of the original habitat ("ancestral home").
• 8.4. common language of scattering.
• 8.5. the perception of dispersion as exile.
• 8.6. the perception of dispersion / exile as punishment from above.
• 8.7. the idea of \u200b\u200breturning to the historical ancestral home.
• 8.8. the perception of oneself as "aliens" and "aliens" among autochthonous groups.

Today, different types of diasporas are distinguished, their different classifications are proposed. There are old diasporas dating back to antiquity or the Middle Ages (Jewish, Armenian, Greek, etc.), modern diasporas (Polish, Russian, Japanese, etc.) and modern ones associated with labor migration (migrant workers), mainly - Latin American, Asian, African. There are diasporas generated by migration, and there are diasporas caused by a sudden and abrupt change of borders, when people “wake up” in another state (R. Brubaker called them “diasporas of cataclysm”).

W. Cohen identified four types of diasporas: victim diasporas (Jewish, African, Armenian, Palestinian), labor diasporas (Indian), trade (Chinese) and imperial (British, French, Spanish, Portuguese). J. Armstrong identified two types of diasporas: “mobilized” and “proletarian”. “Mobilized” diasporas have a long and complex history, they have been taking shape over the centuries. These diasporas have the ability to socially adapt and are therefore deeply rooted in the society that has adopted them. As J. Armstrong emphasizes, "although in terms of their position in society, these diasporas do not surpass other ethnic groups in multi-ethnic states, nevertheless, compared with them, they have a number of material and cultural advantages." To the category of “mobilized” diasporas, G. Armstrong classifies primarily the Jewish diaspora (he calls it the archetypal, that is, the true, original diaspora) and the Armenian. “Proletarian” diasporas are young, newly emerged ethnic communities. J. Armstrong considers them "an unfortunate product of modern politics."

G. Schaeffer identifies the following types of diasporas:

• - with deep historical roots (this includes Armenian, Jewish and Chinese);
• - "dormant" (Americans in Europe and Asia and the Scandinavians in the United States);
• - "young" (they are formed by Greeks, Poles and Turks);
• - "incipient", ie, those who are only in the initial stage of their formation (Koreans, Filipinos, and also Russians in the former Soviet republics are just beginning to form them);
• - “homeless” who do not have “their own” state (diasporas of Kurds, Palestinians and Roma fall into this category);
• - "ethno-national", feeling the invisible presence of "their" state, the most common type of diaspora;
• - "scattered", living compactly.

The classification of diasporas according to V.D.Popkov is worthy of mention:

• 1. Based on the commonality of historical fate. This includes those diasporas whose members in the past were citizens of one state and currently live on its territory, but outside the now independent country of origin. For example, Armenian or Azerbaijani diasporas in Russia; Russian diasporas in the Baltic countries or Central Asia. Also, this should include diasporas, whose members were not previously associated with the territory of new residence by a single legal, linguistic field and have never been part of a single state. These are Armenians in the USA, Turks in Germany, etc.
• 2. Based on legal status. This includes diasporas that have the formal legal status required to legally reside in the host region. This is the status of a citizen of the country of settlement, who has a residence permit, refugee status, etc. This also includes the diasporas, whose members are on the territory of the host country mostly illegally and do not have official documents regulating their stay.
• 3. Based on the fact of migration or relocation of borders. This refers to the movement of groups of people from one region to another with the crossing of state borders, as a result of which there are (or replenishment of already existing) diasporas, or the movement of the borders themselves, while this or that group remains in place and "suddenly" finds itself in the situation of the ethnic minority and forms the diaspora.
• 4. By the nature of the motivation for resettlement. These are diasporas that arose as a result of voluntary displacement, based, for example, on the economic motivations of individuals. Most of the “new” diasporas in the countries of the European Union belong to this type, for example, the diaspora of Turks or Poles in Germany. This also includes the diasporas, which were formed as a result of the squeezing of members of a given ethnic group from the "original" territory due to various kinds of social, political changes or natural disasters. This type includes most of the "classical" diasporas that arose as a result of forced resettlement, or, for example, Russian emigration after 1917.
• 5. By the nature of the stay in the region of the settlement.Here it is necessary to name the diasporas, whose members are focused on the permanent presence of a new settlement on the territory of the region, that is, on settling and obtaining citizenship of the country of settlement; diasporas, whose members tend to view the region of the new settlement as a transit area, from where migration should continue or return to the country of origin (immigrants from Asian countries trying to get to the EU countries through Russia); diasporas, whose members are inclined to continuous migration between the country of origin and the region of the new settlement (the so-called shuttle migration, typical, say, for guest workers from Central Asian republics working in Russia).
• 6. On the basis of the presence of a "base" in the region of the new settlement. This type includes diasporas whose members have been living (or have lived) for a long time in the territory of the settlement region and already have experience of interaction in the society and culture of the new settlement and are historically associated with the place of their new residence. Such diasporas have already established communication networks and have a high level of organization and economic capital. Most of the classical diasporas, for example, such as the Jewish or Armenian diasporas, should be attributed to this type.
• 7. By the nature of the "cultural similarity" with the host population. Three types can be distinguished here (classification by A. Farnhem and S. Bochner): 1) diasporas with a close cultural distance (Ukrainians in Russia, Azerbaijanis in Turkey); 2) diasporas with an average cultural distance (Russians in Germany, Armenians in Russia); 3) Diasporas with a long cultural distance (Afghans in Russia, Turks in Germany).
• 8. On the basis of the presence of state entities in the territory of the country of origin. These are diasporas, whose members have “their own state”, where they can leave on the basis of their perceived belonging to their “historical homeland,” or they can be expelled there by the authorities of the region of the new settlement 11.

A.I. Reitblat
Diasporas and "Diasporas" (Review of the "Diaspora" magazine)

In the 1990s, scientific interest in the problem of the diaspora intensified. This was largely due to the increase in the number and importance of various diasporas - and those generated by labor migration, like Turks in Germany, Arabs and Negroes in France, Indians in Great Britain, and arising for political reasons - during the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia. The growth in the number of publications on this topic led to the formation, if not of a scientific discipline, then at least of the general problem field and, accordingly, the emergence of special scientific publications. In 1991, the English-language magazine "Diaspora" began to appear, and with a relatively slight delay (in 1999) the Russian one - "Diaspora".

The then editor-in-chief of the publication (now his deputy) V.I. Dyat-lov wrote in his address “To Readers”, which opened the first issue of the journal, that “it is intended to fill the gap in the complex interdisciplinary study of the process of the formation of diasporas, the logic of their internal development, the most complex problems of their relationship with the host society. It is also necessary to discuss the very term and the concept of "diaspora". There is a need for a stricter definition of the subject of study itself, and, consequently, to bring existing criteria into a certain system, subject them to criticism, and possibly formulate new ones ”(p. 5). At the same time, he warned that “when compiling the issues of the journal, it is supposed to follow the path not of a narrow a priori outline of the concept of“ diaspora ”with a corresponding selection of materials, but through a broad definition of the field of research, analysis and comparison of specific situations with subsequent conceptualization "(Ibid.).

The publication is not associated with any organizational structure and in the subtitle is positioned as an "independent scientific journal". At first, he came out twice a year, since 2002 - four times, but since 2007 he returned to the original schedule. Usually there is a key topic in an issue, which is associated with a significant part of the articles included in it. As a rule, such a topic is either the people whose diaspora is being considered: Jews (2002. No. 4; 2009. No. 2; 2011. No. 2); Armenians (2000. No. 1/2; 2004. No. 1); Tatars (2005. No. 2); Poles (2005. No. 4); Koreans and Chinese (2001. No. 2/3); "Caucasians" (2001. No. 3; 2008. No. 2); Russians (2002. No. 3; 2003. No. 4; 2010. No. 1), or the region in which certain diasporas are located (mainly on the territory of the former USSR): Moscow (2007. No. 3), South of Russia (2004. No. 4), Siberia and the Far East (2003. No. 2; 2006. No. 1), the Baltic States (2011. No. 1), Central Asia (2012. No. 1), etc. But there are also numbers compiled according to the problem principle: language in the diaspora (2003. No. 1; 2007. No. 1/2), diaspora identity (2002. No. 2; 2009. No. 1), gender and diaspora (2005. No. 1), youth in the diaspora (2004. No. 2), diasporas in literature (2008. No. 1/2), etc.

Most of the articles are based on empirical material; many authors use sociological methods in their work: surveys of the population and experts, focus groups, content analysis, etc.

From the first issue of the journal, the theoretical heading "Diaz-time as a research problem" was introduced. IN AND. Dyatlov in his article "Diaspora: An Attempt to Define Concepts" (1999, No. 1) pointed out that this term is used in a variety of meanings and is often interpreted very broadly as a synonym for "emigration" or "national minority". Trying to give a clearer interpretation of this term, he paid particular attention to the specific features of the diaspora situation, which presupposes both concern for preserving one's own identity and the ability to integrate into the surrounding lifestyle. He stressed that for the diaspora, “the preservation of their own identity becomes<...> an urgent, everyday task and work, a constant factor of reflection and strict intra-community regulation. All other aspects of society's life were subordinated to this ”(pp. 10-11). An interesting and productive position is that the inhabitants of empires, finding themselves in colonies or other states, “did not feel anxiety about the preservation of their identity” and “could not form a stable, developing on its own basis of society” (p. 12). For example, Russian emigrants in the twentieth century. in the first generation they considered themselves as refugees, and in the second and third generations they assimilated and “dissolved” in the surrounding society.

Like Dyatlov, other authors, whose articles are placed in this section, do not so much analyze the key concept itself as try to define it based on an examination of specific cases and situations. Thus, the prominent American sociologist R. Brubaker, in his article "Diasporas of Cataclysm in Central and Eastern Europe and Their Relations with Homelands (on the Example of Weimar Germany and Post-Soviet Russia)" (2000, No. 3), examines the aspect that researchers diasporas are either ignored or not considered significant - the influence of the "metropolises" on the position of "their" diasporas (protection of their rights and interests, assistance, etc.). Taking the two examples indicated in the subtitle of the article, the author examines the fate of diasporas in connection with the development different types "Post-multinational" nationalism:

1. “nationalizing” nationalism, when the titular nation is regarded as the “owner” of the country, and the state as called to serve this nation (for example, in Estonia, Latvia, Slovakia, Croatia, etc.);

2. “nationalism of the motherland” - when citizens of other countries are perceived as ethnoculturally related, in relation to which the “motherland” considers it its duty to protect their rights and interests. He "is born in direct opposition and in dynamic interaction with the nationalism of the nationalizing state" (p. 11) (Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Russia); 3) the nationalism of the diasporas that arose after the collapse of the multiethnic states. They demand from the authorities to recognize them as a special national community and to give them collective rights based on this. The researcher shows how dangerous a clash of the types of nationalism he identified can be.

A number of authors consider the phenomenon of the diaspora on the basis of a "model" diaspora - Jewish (Militarev A. On the content of the term "diaspora" (Towards the development of the definition) (1999. No. 1); Chlenov M. Jewry in the system of civilizations (posing the question) (there same); Militarev A. On the problem of the uniqueness of the Jewish historical phenomenon (2000. No. 3); Popkov V. "Classical" diasporas. To the question of the definition of the term (2002. No. 1)). In many ways, the American political scientist U. Safran follows the same path in his article “Comparative Analysis of Diasporas. Reflections on the book by Robin Cohen "World Diasporas" "(2004. No. 4; 2005. No. 1), translated from the Canadian magazine" Diaspora ".

The political aspects of diasporas are discussed in the article by the Israeli scholar G. Schaeffer "Diasporas in World Politics" (2003. No. 1), and about the political contexts of the use of this word - in the article by V. Tishkov "Passion for the Diaspora (about political meanings diaspora discourse) ”(2003. No. 2).

For all the unequal value of the works placed in the theoretical heading (there were, for example, quite declarative and scholastic articles, for example, "Diasporas: Ethnocultural Identity of National Minorities (Possible Theoretical Models)" by M. Astvatsaturova (2003. No. 2) and “Diaspora and the state of the ethnic individual” by M. Fadeicheva (2004. No. 2)), she played an important role in the journal, creating a theoretical “frame” for numerous purely empirical articles. But since 2006, this heading in the magazine, unfortunately, disappeared.

One of the key topics of the journal is diaspora identity; the lion's share of articles is devoted to this topic, especially those concerning the situation of the Russian diaspora abroad and various diasporas in Russia.

The works presented in the journal show all the complexity of diaspora identity, a typical example is K. Mokin's article "Diasporal identity in dynamics: convergence and entropy (studying the Armenians of the Saratov region)" (2006. No. 4). The author considers identity as a product of complex social interaction, the basis of which is "the process of identification, in which an individual positions himself in relation to people he knows, determines his place in society" (p. 152). Researchers have established that “the territory of exodus and migration aspirations are a significant factor of delimitation within the Armenian community” (p. 159), whose members in the Saratov region distinguish five groups within the community: “Armenian Armenians” (from Armenia itself, who they emphasize in every possible way their connection with Armenia and know the language), “Azeri Armenians” (from Baku, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc.), whose identity is not so definite, they speak Russian well; “Central Asian Armenians”, who have a very vague concept of what an “Armenian” is; “Russian Armenians”, that is, Armenians who have been living in Russia for several generations; “Labor migrants”. It turned out that “for the diaspora, it is not the problem of choosing an alternative direction in the formation of identity and self-determination that is important, but the problem of synthesizing selected cultural landmarks and creating a special type of diaspora identity” (p. 163).

An interesting example of “floating identity” is provided by the behavior of the Hemshils living in the south of Russia - Armenians who converted to Islam. Depending on the situation, they position themselves either as Armenians or as Turks (see N. Shakhnazaryan's article “Drifting Identity: The Case of the Hemshils (Khemshin)” in No. 4, 2004).

Studies have shown that in different parts of the diaspora or in the diaspora and metropolis, the basis of the diaspora identity of persons who are usually attributed to the same nationality can be largely different factors. So, for example, in the United States, according to sociological research, the key to the formation of Jewish identity are belonging to the Jewish community, Judaism, support of the state of Israel and the Holocaust (see the article by E. Nosenko "Factors of the formation of Jewish identity in descendants mixed marriages "(2003. No. 3)). In Russia, the key factor is contemporary anti-Semitism, other important factors include Jewish literature and music, holidays and cuisine.

At the same time, the respondents more often defined themselves as “Russian Jews” or “Russians”, which gave researchers grounds to talk about their “dual ethnicity” (Ts. Gitelman, V. Chervyakov, V. Shapiro, National Identity of Russian Jews. (2000) . No. 3; 2001. No. 1, 2/3)).

Numerous examples of the “re-emigration” of representatives of a number of peoples living in the USSR to their historical homelands testify to the conditional, purely constructive nature of ethnicity. So, in the article by I. Yasinskaya-Lahti, T.A. Mähönen et al. Authors “Identity and Integration in the Context of Ethnic Migration (on the Example of Ingermanland Finns)” (2012. No. 1) refers to the Finns who left Russia for Finland in 2008-2011. Many of them are descendants of the Finns who moved to Russia several centuries ago, assimilated and forgot the Finnish language. Nevertheless, they considered themselves Finns, seeing in themselves “Finnish” character traits, such as honesty. They hoped to successfully integrate into Finnish society without losing their culture and establishing contacts with the Finnish environment. However, in Finland they were considered Russians and treated accordingly. The result was "(Finnish) national de-identification, as well as the actualization of Russian identification in connection with this negative experience" (p. 189).

Such rejection is no exception. Exactly the same fate, when “their own” do not accept and call the newcomers “Russians”, and the arrival is accompanied not only by a decline in professional status, but also by cultural alienation from the new environment, social marginalization, awaited the Germans who had moved from Russia to Germany, Greeks in Greece, Jews in Israel (see: Meng K., Protasova E., Enkel A. Russian component of the identity of Russian Germans in Germany (2010. No. 2); Kaurinkoski K. Perception of the homeland in the literary work of former Soviet Greeks - “Repatriates” (2009. No. 1); Rubinchik V. Russian-speaking immigrants in Israel of the 90s: illusions, reality, protest (2002. No. 2); L. Remennik Between the old and the new homeland. Russian aliyah of the 90s . in Israel (2000. No. 3)).

It is curious that Russians who came to Russia after the collapse of the USSR faced similar problems, as British researchers H. Pilkington and M. Flynn write about ("Strangers at home? A study of the" diasporal identity "of Russian displaced persons" (2001. No. 2/3)): “The move turned out to be not an idyllic“ return home ”for them, but a difficult ordeal associated with confrontation and the need to defend their rights” (p. 17). Researchers in 1994-1999. conducted surveys of Russian-speaking immigrants from other countries in a number of regions of Russia. It turned out that they do not have a clearly defined diaspora identity. Their attitude to the former country of residence was largely determined by the imperial consciousness, the interpretation of themselves as civilizers. At the same time, along with a low assessment of the qualifications and hard work of the local population, they spoke positively about the atmosphere of interethnic communication, about the local culture and local traditions. In the language of the respondents, there was no "Russianness", a sense of the common language and homeland with the Russians, the researchers fix "a strange distortion of the notion that" home is there "(" we have there "), and "they are here" in Russia (" they are here ")" (p. 17). The authors come to an important conclusion that “the classical models of the diaspora are hardly applicable to the experience of the survival of the Russian-speaking imperial minorities in the newly independent states - because of the peculiarities of their settlement of the former Soviet periphery and their objective, but by no means subjective,“ diasporaization ” in the post-Soviet period ”(p. 28). For them, their homeland was divided into two incarnations - "home" (the place where they lived) and "homeland" (as an imaginary community).

Another conclusion that follows from the articles presented in the journal is the differences in the diaspora behavior of persons who came to Russia from the countries of the former USSR and Russians who found themselves in the countries of the former USSR. The former establish social ties among themselves, create mechanisms for maintaining national identity. A good example of this is provided by the Armenian community in the small town of Kolchugino in the Vladimir region, which has a common monetary fund to which all members of the community contribute money and on the basis of which there is a Sunday school, a newspaper in Armenian, assistance is rendered to community members. experiencing financial difficulties, etc. (see: Firsov E., Krivushina V. On the Study of the Communication Environment of the Russian Armenian Diaspora (Based on Field Research of Local Groups of the Vladimir Region) (2004. No. 1)).

Russians who ended up in other states after the collapse of the USSR behave differently. They, as the Norwegian researcher Paul Colsto shows in the article “The Establishing Diasporas: Russians in the Former Soviet Republics” (2001, No. 1), somehow adapt to life there and are not very inclined (judging by the data of opinion polls, see. p. 29) consider Russia as their homeland.

N. Kosmarskaya in the article “Russian Diasporas: Political Mythologies and Realities of Mass Consciousness” (2002. No. 2) notes that in many ways the “diasporization” of Russians outside the borders of Russia is a myth created by the mass media, which claim that these people perceive Russia as their homeland and strive to return to its borders. The characteristics of “real” diasporas are attributed to Russian-speaking communities: “1) ethnic homogeneity; 2) an acute experience of their ethnicity, and precisely as a community with the mother's people; 3) a high degree of cohesion (which, moreover, has a well-developed institutional basis - in the form of "institutions of Russian communities"), as well as manageability, trust in leaders and, finally, social homogeneity, in fact, and makes such unanimity possible (as in the "community "); 4) orientation towards ethnic (historical) homeland as a basic element of identity; the desire to reunite with her ”(pp. 114-115).

In reality, as N. Kosmarskaya writes, relying on the data of sociological research in Kyrgyzstan, the situation is much more ambiguous and multivariate. Firstly, there are many people who are not ethnic Russians, for whom the Russian language and Russian culture are native; secondly, such Russian-speaking communities are rapidly differentiating, including in relation to Russia; thirdly, the self-consciousness of this group is a “complex and dynamically developing structure” in which different identities compete, and “Russianness” is only one of them; fourthly, their consolidation can occur on a different basis.

Among Russians in Kyrgyzstan, 18.0% called Russia their homeland, and Kyrgyzstan - 57.8%; in Kazakhstan, 57.7% called Kazakhstan their homeland, and Russia - 18.2%, in Ukraine 42.5% of the Russians surveyed named it their homeland, and Russia - 18.4% (p. 134).

There is also another level of identity - the Central Asian community, that is, local identity (for example, solidarity with the peoples of this region). Russians in Kyrgyzstan perceive themselves to be somewhat different from Russians in Russia.

I. Savin in his article “Russian identity as a social resource in modern Kazakhstan (based on the research of representatives of the Russian elite)” (2003. No. 4) writes that Russians in Kazakhstan “do not have kinship or neighboring structures of mutual assistance, held together by symbolic at- ribbons of generally divided ethnicity ”(p. 101),“ in every Russian another Russian does not automatically see a potential social partner ”(p. 92). Moreover, the majority does not know the Kazakh language, i.e. not going to assimilate. Thus, according to the researcher, language (and the attitude of the state to language) is the basis of the identity of Russians in Kazakhstan. A similar picture of the inability to rally and achieve common goals among the Russians of Uzbekistan is drawn by E. Abdullaev (“Russians in Uzbekistan in the 2000s: Identity in the Conditions of Demodernization” (2006, No. 2)).

In the Baltics, the Russians are quite intensively going through the processes of assimilation, identification of themselves with the "indigenous population". Thus, E. Brazauskienė and A. Likhacheva, in their article “Russians in modern Lithuania: linguistic practices and self-identification” (2011. No. 1), based on a study conducted in 2007-2009, come to the conclusion that Russians in Lithuania “feel themselves different from the Russians of Russia and believe that in Russia they are not considered their own. 20% of Russians in Lithuania do not mind if they are considered Lithuanians, 46% stated in the course of the survey that they do not care what they will be called - Russians or Lithuanians, 10% refrained from a definite answer and only about 14% do not agree to so that they should be considered Lithuanians ”(p. 71). At the same time, the Russians of Lithuania also note their difference from the Lithuanians. The basis of such self-identification is the Russian language.

An interesting situation was considered by M. Ryabchuk in the article “Who is the largest fish in the Ukrainian pond? A new look at the relations between the minority and the majority in the post-Soviet state ”(2002. No. 2). Unlike other states of the post-Soviet space, Ukraine has two numerous indigenous peoples for this territory. The author characterizes the socio-cultural and political confrontation between two parts of the population - with the Ukrainian identity and with the Russian identity, between which there is a rather large group of “Russified Ukrainians, distinguished by a mixed, blurred identity” (p. 26) and defining themselves through the region residence ("residents of Odessa", "residents of Donbass", etc.). The former strive to create a national Ukrainian state with one state language - Ukrainian, the latter do not want to lose the position of cultural dominance that belonged to them in the past, and in many respects even now, the position of cultural dominance, and the intermediate group, in the author's opinion, does not have a clear position, and for both extreme groups are fighting against it. The government does not pursue any consistent policy in this aspect, which creates a very unstable situation.

The author does not believe that the existing status quo can be maintained for a long time. He sees two possible options for the development of events: either the marginalization of the Ukrainians (that is, Ukraine will become "the second Belarus"), or the marginalization of the Russians. He considers the second option preferable, since “'convinced' Ukrainians who have managed to protect their linguistic identity even under the powerful pressure of the Russian and Soviet empires will never accept the marginal status of a minority in their country, in independent Ukraine” (p. 27). According to sociological polls, to which M. Ryabchuk refers, only 10% of Russians in Ukraine consider Russia their homeland, almost a third of this group do not object to the fact that their children (grandchildren) will study at school in Ukrainian (p. 21), for In the ten post-Soviet years, almost half of the Russians in Ukraine began to identify themselves with the Ukrainians (p. 22).

The above data on the situation of Russians who found themselves outside Russia after the collapse of the USSR, when a variety of variants of diaspora identity emerge, clearly demonstrate the complexity of both the scientific study of the problem of the diaspora and the practical activities of Russia in providing them with help and support.

Evaluating the work done by the editorial board of the journal (and the domestic “diaspora studies”?), It should be stated that in the course of a number of studies, various empirical data have been collected about the living situation of some peoples (mainly the former USSR) among others, about their self-consciousness and identification. However, the “subsequent conceptualization” promised in the first issue of the journal has not yet been realized. In our opinion. this is due to the fact that, while willingly using sociological methods of collecting information, researchers do not practice a sociological vision of the material. This is expressed in the fact that, while studying the identity of the diaspora, they usually ignore the social institutions "responsible" for the creation and maintenance of the diaspora identity. So, in the magazine, there are very few works in which the role of school, church, literature, cinema, mass media, especially the Internet, in this process would be investigated.

It is curious that the social reasons for the emergence of organizations that claim to express the interests of the diasporas that do not really exist or exist outside of their connection with them (a kind of “pseudo-diasporas”), and their further functioning were thoroughly studied in the journal in an article by S. R. Baramidze "Azerbaijanis and Georgians in Leningrad and St. Petersburg: how" diasporas "are constructed" (2008. No. 2; 2009. No. 1). The authors demonstrated that “the Azerbaijani and Georgian“ diasporas ”are (re) produced through the institutionalization of bureaucratic structures and discursive practices, in the space of which ethnic activists (intellectuals and businessmen) and“ statistical ”Azerbaijanis and Georgians unite into numerous cohesive communities, are endowed with common goals and build, as collective political authors, relations with the political regimes of the countries of destination and origin ”(2009. No. 1. P. 35).

But few people are involved in the social mechanisms by which a real diaspora is formed (that is, the church, parties, cultural organizations, the press, television and radio, the Internet, etc.). The media and literature are often considered in their “reflective” role - the “mirror” (albeit often very crooked) of the diasporas, for example, in the block of articles “Life of Diasporas in the Mirror of the Media” (2006. No. 4), as well as in the works of M. Krutikova "The experience of Russian Jewish emigration and its reflection in the prose of the 90s." (2000. No. 3), S. Prozhogina "Literature of the French-speaking Maghrebians about the drama of the North African diaspora" (2005. No. 4); D. Timoshkina "The image of a" Caucasian "in the pantheon of villains of the modern Russian crime novel (on the example of the works of Vladimir Kolychev)" (2013. No. 1). But their creative role, participation in the creation and preservation of diasporas is hardly studied. Thus, only four works are devoted to the role of the Internet for diasporas. In the article by M. Shorer-Seltser and N. Elias "My address is not a house or a street.": The Russian-speaking diaspora on the Internet "(2008. No. 2), based on the analysis of Russian-speaking emigrant sites, the thesis about the transnational diaspora, and N. Elias's article "The Role of Mass Media in the Cultural and Social Adaptation of Repatriates from the CIS in Israel", based on interviews with emigrants from the CIS, concludes that "Mass media in Russian, on the one hand, strengthen the cultural framework of the Russian-speaking community , on the other hand, they contribute to the integration of immigrants on the basis of the formation of a new self-consciousness, including topical social issues ”(p. 103).

Much more interesting are two works by O. Morgunova. The first is the article "" Europeans Live in Europe! ": The Search for Identity in the Internet Community of Russian-Speaking Immigrants in the UK" (2010. No 1), which analyzes the Internet discourse of Russian-speaking migrants in the UK. Based on the materials of the web forums "Brother" and "Rupointe", the author shows how the idea of \u200b\u200b"Europeanness" is formed there, which is then used to formulate its own identity. "Europeanness" acts as a synonym for "culture" and "civilizedness" (this interpretation has been widespread in Europe itself over the past three centuries), and "culture" is mainly limited to the 18th-19th centuries, contemporary art and literature are not included in it , it is “a culture created in the past and practically unchanged” (p. 135). The author comes to the conclusion that the system of group solidarities of migrants includes two types of positive Other (external - British and internal - migrant from Ukraine) and two of the same types of negative Other (external - migrants - "non-Europeans" and internal - "Scoop"), and this typology is based on the idea of \u200b\u200b"Europeanness".

The second article - "The Internet community of post-Soviet Muslim women in Britain: religious practices and the search for identity" (2013. No. 1) - deals not so much with the national, as with the religious identity in the diaspora. Based on interviews and analysis of the relevant sites, the author comes to the conclusion that, for various reasons, Muslim women who came from the territory of the former USSR "transfer religious practices to the Internet, where they follow Islam among friends and relatives, remaining unnoticed by British society" ( p. 213). It is the Internet that becomes the sphere of construction and the manifestation of their religiosity.

In our opinion, the underestimation of the media observed in the magazine when choosing topics is unjustified, since they radically changed the very nature of modern diasporas. All who write about the diaspora agree that it is made up of representatives of a people living outside their native country, aware of their connection with it and striving to preserve their cultural (religious) specificity. At the same time, historians know that, finding themselves in a similar situation, some peoples create a diaspora community, while others assimilate in one or two generations. It is clear that the precondition for the creation of a diaspora is a “strong” cultural “baggage” (belonging to an ancient and rich culture, faith in the mission of one's people, etc.), but in order to realize this precondition, special social institutions are needed. ensuring both the maintenance of purely social ties (institutions of mutual assistance, charity, etc.), and the preservation, transmission of national culture (church, school, publication of books and periodicals, etc.).

In the traditional diaspora, the cultural detachment arising from the territorial remoteness from the homeland is compensated by the careful preservation (to a certain extent - conservation) of the cultural baggage taken from the homeland. If for the metropolis the markers of national identity are not so important, then the diaspora, due to its existence in a foreign cultural context, needs clear boundaries, therefore it is culturally conservative in comparison with the metropolis. Loyalty to the past, to key symbols is always emphasized here, and much more attention is paid to maintaining tradition than innovation.

The process of globalization is changing the character of diasporas in many ways. First, transport is developing, and airplanes, high-speed trains, cars, etc. provide fast travel, including frequent travel back home for immigrants. Secondly, television and the Internet have created an opportunity for synchronous, "online" communication, for everyday communication (including business, political, artistic) participation in the life of the homeland.

The nature of “national” identity is also changing. If earlier it was "two-layer" ("small homeland" and the country), now there are hybrid formations (for example, "German Turks", which have a triple identity - "Turks", "Germans" and "German Turks" ), not to mention the trans-national identity ("resident of Europe").

Now there is no such isolation of the diaspora from the metropolis as it used to be. You can always return home, you can work (live) abroad part of the time, etc.

But, on the other hand, with the development of the media and the Internet, the maintenance of social and cultural ties becomes easier, which creates the preconditions for a simpler formation and maintenance of diaspora identity (this is especially true of peoples who have been expelled from their native places).

All these processes call into question the traditional interpretation of the diaspora phenomenon, so researchers will have to look for new terms and new theoretical models for it.

Ethnic diasporas.

Ethnic diasporas - these are stable aggregates of people of the same ethnic origin (one or related nationalities), living in a different ethnic environment outside their historical homeland (or outside the area of \u200b\u200bsettlement of their people) and having social organizations for the development and functioning of this historical community.

Especially it should be emphasized such a sign of the diaspora as its immanently inherent self-organizing ability, which allows the diaspora to exist for a long time, remaining a relatively self-sufficient organism.

In the course of historical development, the number of such diasporas has steadily increased after campaigns of conquest, wars, in conditions of ethnic and religious persecution, oppression and restrictions. New and Modern times have written their pages in the history of the diasporas, they began to appear as a result of the development of new territories, economic transformations that required significant labor resources (USA, Canada, Siberia, South Africa, Australia). The reason for the formation of diasporas outside their historical homeland for a number of nations was also agrarian resettlement, the need for other spheres of employment, oppression and restriction in public life, which could be interpreted as ethnic persecution ...

The modern period of civilization has made certain adjustments to the development and functioning of diasporas. In every country, this process has common features and some features in comparison with similar phenomena.

Let's take the example of Russia:

1. there is a process of growth, consolidation and organizational strengthening of the old diasporas: Armenian (550 thousand), Jewish (530 thousand), Tatar (3.7 million) Greek (91.7 thousand), etc. These organizations of various orientations protect and promote culture, language , the religion of their people, as well as promote the development of economic ties and carry out others, incl. social functions.

2. Diasporas of peoples appeared and took shape organizationally, which arose solely for the reason that independent states were formed, such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, etc. In the changed conditions, the value of national culture, the significance of national identity prompts them to various forms of consolidation, both in the sphere socio-economic and political and spiritual relations

3. a number of diasporas on the territory of Russia appeared as a result of turmoil, civil wars, and interethnic tensions. It was these conflicts that gave rise to the Georgian (30 thousand), Azerbaijani (200-300 thousand), Tajik (10 thousand) and other diasporas of the peoples of the former Soviet republics. These diasporas are a miniature reflection of the contradictions that are characteristic of these republics, so their activities are ambiguous.

4. diasporas appeared, representing the peoples of Russia proper. This is typical for Moscow and a number of other large cities or regions of the country and applies to such republics as Dagestan, Chechnya, Chuvashia, Buryatia and some others.

5. it should be noted a special group of diasporas existing in a semi-formed, embryonic state, which reflect the political processes of the past and present. This applies to the Korean diaspora (whose population was evicted from the Far East), the Afghan diaspora (due to emigrated adults or children who grew up in the USSR and Russia), the Bulgarian diaspora (after the breakdown of Soviet-Bulgarian ties), the Meskhetian diaspora (which, after the forced eviction of this people from Georgia lived in Uzbekistan for almost 40 years, and, having survived the Fergana tragedy of 1989, its representatives still cannot return to their historical homeland)

Analyzing the phenomenon of the diaspora, it is important to note that in scientific literature still there is no clarity in the use of this term. It is often combined with the concept "Ethnic community", "ethnic group" and others, but the latter concepts are clearly broader in scope.

An analysis of the history of the emergence and development of diasporas allows us to conclude that its first and main feature is the presence of an ethnic community of people outside the country (territory) of their origin in a different ethnic environment. It is this separation from one's historical homeland that forms that initial distinctive feature, without which it is useless to talk about the essence of this phenomenon.

Diaspora Is an ethnic community that has the main or important characteristics of the national identity of its people, preserves them, supports them and contributes to their development: language, culture, consciousness.

Diaspora has some organizational forms of their functioning, starting with the community and ending with the presence of public and sometimes political movements.

Another hallmark of the diaspora: the exercise of social protection of its members: assistance in employment, professional self-determination, ensuring their rights within the framework of the constitution and legislation in general, etc.

An important role in the formation and existence of diasporas is played by religious factor... Religion in a number of cases becomes a cementing factor in the consolidation of co-religionists (often coinciding with a certain nationality).

Diasporas exercise a wide variety of function: economic, social, cultural, and sometimes political.

The volume of functions performed, various life circumstances, the presence of statehood, and other factors determine one or another diaspora typology... SM: A book ...

No less significant is the question of diaspora life cycle or the duration of its existence. The analysis shows that the time interval of the diaspora functioning depends on demographic, territorial, socio-economic, political, ethnocultural and other factors. Diaspora is rather fragile organism, especially at the stage of its formation, which can cease to exist at any stage.

CONCLUSION

Sphere of national politics - This is to a large extent the sphere of coordination of ethnic interests, where it is possible to build an optimal structure of interaction.

However, until now, the official national policy weakly or does not operate at all with this concept, does not consider the diaspora as a real and effective tool for the implementation of rational interaction between people of different nationalities, both within the entire state and its individual territories.

______________________________

Russian civilization: Uch. manual for universities / Under total. ed. M.P. Mchedlova. - M., 2003 .-- p. 631 - 639.