Suchergebnisse

This article presents an analysis of the linguistic conflict in republics of the Russian Federation in 2017–2018. These contradictions can be reasonably interpreted as being a conflict. Three dimensions of the conflict are considered based on the example of the republics of Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. The institutional dimension lies within the contradictions between the Federal center and regions on based on legal discrepancies between regional and Federal legislation in the field of language and education. Legal practice has not been able to resolve these contradictions, because it did not have a single direction. The nature of interaction between the Federal center and republics when contradictions arise is connected to the obvious trends of centralization and the reduction of regions' authority. Analysis of contradictions at the level of "regional power – group of the population" leads to the conclusion that another significant reason for intensifying conflict lies within the continued lack of attention from regional authorities to issues concerning how part of the population perceives the language policy in education within the context of insufficient teaching of republican state languages. The "group – group" dimension consists of contradictions in the discourse between supporters of the compulsory study of official republican languages and supporters of the voluntary study of official languages. Language contradictions have led to activists and nationalists in the republics becoming more active (to varying degrees), while stimulating them to make new statements and partake in actions, which may have some impact on attitudes when it comes to interethnic relations and on the strengthening of ethnic borders.

The article provides the analysis and comparison of the integration potential of the host society and migrants in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). The analysis was carried out on the basis of two surveys: a representative survey of residents of the republic and a survey of labour migrants - immigrants from Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan). It is these categories of migrants that are most negatively perceived by the local population. The surveys were conducted in 2020. For a quantitative assessment of the integration potential, a set of questions-judgments was constructed, reflecting different parameters of this potential. Among them: the willingness of the host population to include migrants in their community and the corresponding judgment of migrants about their readiness to be included in the environment; judgment about the integration possibilities of migrants and the assessment by migrants of the acceptability of local standards of lifestyle, and others. Using the procedure of factor analysis, an indicator of the integration potential was formed.

It was revealed that among migrants the share of people with a high integration potential is significantly higher than in the host community. This means that migrants assess the receiving environment and their own integration prospects higher than local residents.

The high level of ethno-negative attitudes of the host community is accompanied by a low level of integration potential in relation to migrants. Such negativism is most often associated with a sense of cultural distance in the perception of migrants' behaviorur. At the same time, a pronounced focus on ethnicity in different contexts of social interaction is also associated with a low integration potential in relation to migrants and can be a source of the formation of stable xenophobic attitudes.

The high level of integration potential of migrants is primarily associated with long-term plans for life in Russia and this region, as well as with the presence of a family (in the region of residence or in the country of origin). Thus, for local communities, the main criterion for assessing migrants is the degree to which their behaviorur corresponds to local socio-cultural norms, and for migrants, the key criterion for assessing the host society is a measure of the possibility of a safe and materially prosperous life in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) and in Russia as a whole. Such a difference in assessment criteria can create additional obstacles for both parties to active daily interaction in different areas inhibiting the processes of mutual integration.