Национальная политика в Советском государстве в 1920-х–1930-х гг.: случай финнов-иммигрантов в Карелии
This chapter addresses changes in immigration trends and their psychosocial effects in post-Soviet Russia. Russia is currently the world’s second most populous country (after the USA) in terms of its immigrant population, with most coming from the Central Asian States (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan) and China. The chapter begins with an examination of the social issues that immigrants must face. The research focuses on Moscow as the most attractive destination for immigrant workers. The chapter presents the findings of an empirical study conducted on the reciprocal acculturation between immigrants and the host society in Moscow. The study examines the correlations between the immigrants’ acculturation attitudes and the host society’s acculturation expectations and perceptions of the immigrants. More specifically, the study focuses on how measures of integral security (including physical, cultural and economic security) influence the host society’s attitudes towards immigrants.
The paper addresses a set of ways to conceptually organize and represent ethnic diversity though law and politics. The point of departure is an examination of the Russian law on non-territorial autonomy for ethnic groups (1996) and the conclusion that the law virtually has no practical value. A wider study reveals that the idea of "non-territorial autonomy" and its practical implications have much in common with the approaches resting on the notions of "multiculturalism" and "minorities". Also a comparison of legal and administrative practices related to ethnicity demonstrates that a variety of terminologies employed in different national contexts may denote similar ideas, decisions and outcomes. Ethnic differences are described in terms of "group" and "culture"; the issues of territorial affiliation becomes the crucial one; the theme of equality is being reduced to the issues of a "fair" classification and taxonomy of groups. It turns out that these approaches have no utilitarian meaning, but rather contribute to a publicly acceptable representation of social reality. These observations allow us to question the specific position of Russia in the area known as "nationalities policy" or "ethnic relations". Reversely, one can talk about some local manifestations of the global trends in the perceptions and representations of ethnic diversity. It is supposed that actual "diversity policies" stem from a set of essentialist and group-centric assumptions which have become universally accepted. The meaning of these "diversity policies" can be explained in terms of symbolic (re)production of social reality. Dissemination of these socially acceptable narratives concerning ethnic diversity turns to be a mechanism of power and social cohesion.
The paper deals with the problem of Soviet-Finnish scientific-technical cooperation in the mid-1950s - mid-1960s as well as the role of specialists who worked in the "new Soviet area" of the Karelian Peninsula and Ladoga Karelia which became a part of the USSR after the Soviet-Finnish war in 1941-1944. The article examies the mechanisms of cooperation between the states as well as it effects on enterprises of the former Finnish territory.