Рецензия на книгу Е. Деминцевой «Быть «арабом» во Франции»
In the present study proposes to consider the social status of a relatively small group of people of Korean nationality, residing in the territory of the USSR. As human activity is multifunctional, and then in the Korean community have been various social strata and status. According to the criteria of social status: status in employment, due to the power structures, income (size and shape), the social status of Russian-speaking Koreans in Russia for 150 years has changed several times.
In the period from 1937 to 1991, the Soviet Koreans have actively participated in the construction of the Soviet state. Along with all the peoples of the USSR, they restored the destruction of the war, develop science and technology, mastered the virgin lands. Special role belongs to the Koreans in agriculture, the invaluable contribution made by them in its development.
During the difficult years of the 1940-1960 Soviet Koreans were able to consolidate, unite to overcome all the hardships and tribulations. Only mutual assistance and patience to each other helped them to survive and not to dwell on the results achieved. In the Soviet Union, more than 200 Koreans were awarded the title "Hero of Socialist Labor" and the Order of Lenin. Despite the official ban on the mobilization of ethnic minorities to the front during the Great Patriotic War, 372 Koreans fought, received medals for bravery and courage.
Between 1970 and 1991. characteristic of creative work, increasing the well-being of all Soviet Koreans, it was promoted interference of two cultures, Korean and Russian. Invaluable influence of Russian culture, the Soviet government, thereby Koreans in the Soviet Union, like all Soviet citizens had the opportunity to receive free not only secondary, but also higher education, receive medical and other forms of social assistance. On the other hand, they were able to maintain such a Korean national character traits as diligence, tolerance, particularly relating to education.
Multicultural policy is one of the few theory-based approaches to managing ethno-cultural diversity. However, Russian scientific community expresses doubts about the feasibility of the policy for Russia. Such doubts arise from the difficulties in integration of migrants in Europe and support for assimilation policies among the Russian public. The goals of this article are to 1) present theoretical and empirical evidence for multiculturalism policy; 2) describe two components of the multiculturalism policy: support and promotion of cultural diversity and facilitation of equitable participation of heterogeneous ethno-cultural groups; 3) and to compare the degree of implementation and effectiveness of multiculturalism policies in Canada, countries of Europe, and Russia. We conclude that recent changes in Russian policy are likely to improve intergroup relationships in the Russian Federation, however, such changes cannot be seen as sufficient for satisfactory social, political, psychological and economic integration of migrants into Russian society.
This article examines intercultural relations in the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania (RNO-A). The research is based on the theory of acculturation of J. Berry and uses the hypotheses and measures developed in the Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies project. The RNO-A is the most favorable place for the Russians living in the North Caucasus because attitudes toward the Russian minority in the RNO-A are not discriminatory. In this study we tested the multiculturalism hypothesis, the integration hypothesis, the contact hypothesis and hypothesis of threat/discrimination. The sample included members of the ethnic majority — Ossetians (N = 340), and members of the ethnic minority — Russians (N = 344). Data processing was carried out using structural equation modeling (SEM) separately for the ethnic minority and for the ethnic majority, and the models were compared with each other. The results show that perceived security among Russians (the ethnic minority) as well as among Ossetians (the ethnic majority) promoted support for a multicultural ideology, tolerance, and mutual integration. The number and frequency of friendly intercultural contacts had a positive and significant impact on a preference for integration among both Ossetians and Russians. An integration strategy and the expectation of integration promoted self-esteem in both groups. In addition, the high level of perceived threat among Ossetians and perceived discrimination among Russians predicted their preference for assimilation. In general, the results of the study confirmed the multiculturalism hypothesis, the integration hypothesis and the contact hypothesis.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.