Взаимная аккультурация русских и армян в Краснодарском крае

Полный текст

Sociocultural context of the study Russia is a multiethnic state, where more than 190 ethnic groups live.[2] Among them are indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Armenians belong to non-indigenous peoples; their number is 1182 thousand people (0.83%) of the number of Russians (Leontieva, Mkrtchyan, 2020). Armenians in Russia as an ethnic minority are sufficiently consolidated and organized, which allows them to be considered as a diaspora (Leontieva, Mkrtchyan, 2020). The Armenian diaspora is quite active in the South of Russia, especially in the Kuban (Shapovalov, 2015; Berberyan, Tuchina, 2018). The regional group of Kuban Armenians has been formed over the past thousand years as a result of large migration flows.[3] There are several hundred Armenian villages and about two dozen active Armenian churches in the Krasnodar Territory. Currently, Armenians make up 3.62% (211,000) of the region’s population.[4] This is the second largest ethnic group after the Russians. A significant part of the Armenian diaspora in the Krasnodar Territory is a fully integrated old-timer population, which is actually recognized here as ‘indigenous’.[5] As noted by a number of researchers (Dmitriev et al., 2017), the Armenian diaspora in the Kuban is distinguished by its openness and readiness to interact with other ethnic groups. The Armenians are actively involved in the life of the region; Russian is native language for the majority of them. The Armenian community makes a great contribution to the development of the Krasnodar Territory. In 2022, a monument to I. Aivazovsky was created and donated to the city at the expense of the Armenian community. One of the main charitable organizations of the region, the ‘Armenian Charity’, provides social support and protection to citizens regardless of their ethnicity, and also contributes to “strengthening peace, friendship and harmony among peoples, preventing social, national, religious conflicts”.[6] Kamo Hayrapetyan, Chairman of the Regional Branch of the All-Russian Public Organization ‘Union of Armenians of Russia’ in the Krasnodar Territory, noted in his interview that “Armenians are part of the multinational people of the Russian Federation and are united by a common destiny on this land.”[7] On the other hand, as studies have shown (Berberyan, Tuchina, 2018), the Armenians of the Krasnodar Territory represent an internally consolidated community along ethnic lines, their level of loyalty to ‘insiders’ is higher than to representatives of the ‘broad’ society. Based on the definition of acculturation (Redfield et al., 1936), we can say that intercultural interaction between the Armenians and Russians of the Kuban can be considered as ‘mutual acculturation’, since the representatives of these groups are in direct and continuous contact, which resulted in changes in the elements of the original culture of both groups. Study of mutual acculturation of ethnic groups in Russia The problem of mutual acculturation of the peoples of Russia has been sufficiently studied by researchers (Galyapina, Lebedeva, 2016; Galyapina et al., 2021; Galyapina, 2017; Kodzha et al., 2019; Lepshokova, 2017, and others). Basically, their research was carried out in the national republics or through the prism of migration processes, for example, Mutual Acculturation of Russians and Migrants from Central Asia and the South Caucasus (Lebedeva, Tatarko, 2013; Ryabichenko, Lebedeva, 2017). This study showed that both Russians and migrants from the countries of Central Asia and the South Caucasus prefer integration attitudes. In all the groups studied, the perceived security predicted their multicultural ideologies and integration attitudes, and integration was positively associated with self-esteem among members of all these groups. These similarities support the reciprocal nature of intercultural relations. However, some differences were also revealed. For example, the contact hypothesis found partial confirmation among the Russian majority and the migrants from Central Asia, but was not confirmed among the migrants from the South Caucasus. Studies conducted in the republics of the North Caucasus (Galyapina et al., 2021; Lebedeva et al., 2017) showed the importance of the sociocultural context in the mutual acculturation of ethnic groups. For example, in the context of North Ossetia-Alania, ‘culturally close’ for the Russians and the ethnic majority group (Ossetians), integration attitudes increased the positive effect of perceived security and intercultural contacts on the well-being of Ossetians, but in the context of the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic, ‘culturally distant’ for the Russians and the ethnic majority groups (Kabardians and Balkars), such a role was played by attitudes towards assimilation. Also, the research data showed that the conformity/discrepancy between the acculturation preferences of the minority groups and the majority defines problematic or even conflict zones. For example, a study of intercultural relations in Kabardino-Balkaria showed that the Russians there preferred the integration strategy, while the Kabardians and Balkars preferred segregation. The discrepancies between one group’s acculturation preferences and their preferences as to acculturating the other group predicted a lower level of life satisfaction and negative intergroup attitudes (Lebedeva et al., 2017). That is, we can say that intercultural relations have been studied in sufficient detail among the ethnic majority groups and ethnic minorities in national republics. However, non-indigenous minorities have almost never been the subject of separate studies. Moreover, in the Krasnodar Territory one can observe an interesting phenomenon that requires analysis: the Armenians (representatives of an ethnic minority) behave like an ethnic majority in certain areas of the region’s life, while the Russians (representatives of an ethnic majority) use behavior patterns characteristic of ethnic minorities[8] (Koryakin, 2007). All of the above actualizes the study of the problem of mutual acculturation of the Russians and Armenians in the Krasnodar territory. Theoretical foundations of the study The theoretical basis of our study is J. Berry’s ecocultural approach (Berry, 2019). This author proposed a model that included acculturation attitudes, changes in behavior or lifestyle in a new society, and acculturative stress (Berry, 1990). In the course of this study, we tested three hypotheses of intercultural relations (multiculturalism, contact and integration hypotheses) proposed in the framework of the acculturation model (Berry, 1990). According to this model, the multiculturalism hypothesis is based on the postulate that the reason for accepting people from a different culture and reducing discrimination is a sense of cultural, economic and physical security (Berry, 2017). Several studies conducted in Russia and abroad have proven the positive relationship between perceived security and multicultural ideology or ethnic tolerance (Ward, Masgoret, 2008; Lebedeva, Tatarko, 2013; Galyapina, 2017, and others). The contact hypothesis proves that intercultural friendly contacts promote mutual acceptance of cultural groups. However, it is very important that this contact should take place under certain conditions, including equality of the contacting individuals or groups, voluntariness of contact, support for intercultural contacts by politics, social norms and laws prohibiting discrimination, etc. (Tropp, Pettigrew, 2005). Previous studies in Russia have proven that intercultural friendly contacts promote tolerance, attitudes towards integration and assimilation (Ryabichenko, Lebedeva, 2017; Galyapina, 2017; Lepshokova, 2017). The integration hypothesis proves that the integration strategy, which assumes the involvement of groups and their members both in preserving their own culture and in adopting another one, contributes to the achievement of greater psychological and social well-being than participation in the life of only one cultural group (Berry, 2017; Lebedeva, Tatarko, 2013, 2017). Based on the theoretical analysis, we formulated the hypotheses of this study: 1. The multiculturalism hypothesis: among the Russians and Armenians in the Krasnodar territory, perceived security is positively associated with the support of multicultural ideology, ethnic tolerance, and integration and assimilation attitudes. 2. The contact hypothesis: among the Russians and Armenians in the Krasnodar territory, their intense intercultural friendly contacts are positively relationship with ethnic tolerance, integration and assimilation attitudes. 3. The integration hypothesis: among the Russians and Armenians in the Krasnodar territory their integration attitudes are positively related to self-esteem and life satisfaction. In addition, taking into account, on the one hand, the fairly strong consolidation of the Armenians of the Kuban, and, on the other hand, the high ethnic mosaic of the Krasnodar territory, we assumed that the separation strategy can play a significant role in intercultural relations. It can be weakened by both intense intercultural contact and increased perceived security (Kodzha et al., 2019). In addition, the analysis shows that the separation strategy is positively associated with life satisfaction (Galyapina, Lepshokova, 2017). Based on the above, we put forward additional hypotheses: 4. Among the Russians and Armenians their perceived security and the intensity of intercultural friendly contacts are negatively related to separation attitudes. 5. Among the Armenians, their separation strategy is positively associated with their self-esteem and life satisfaction. 6. Among the Russians, their separation expectation of the Armenians is negatively related to their self-esteem and life satisfaction. Research methods Sample. The participants of the study were Russian and Armenian residents of the Krasnodar territory. The total sample size was 388 persons. Table 1 presents the age and gender characteristics of the participants. Table 1 Gender and age characteristics of the sample Ethnic groups Number N = 384 Age Gender M Min - Max SD Male, N, % Female, N, % Russians 198 19.7 18-30 2.5 99 (50%) 99 (50%) Armenians 186 23.3 17-43 7.8 78 (43%) 108 (57%) Note: N - total sample size; M - mean value; Min - minimum age; Max - maximum age; SD - standard deviation. An analysis of the level of education in the Armenian sample showed that 17 respondents (9.1%) had incomplete secondary education, 79 respondents (42.4%) had secondary education, 21 respondents (11.3%) had specialized secondary education, and 69 respondents (37%) had higher education. In the Russian sample, one respondent (0.5%) had an incomplete secondary education, 10 respondents (5.1%) had secondary education, 72 respondents (36.4%) had secondary specialized education, and 117 respondents (59.1%) had higher education. Research procedure. The participants completed a socio-psychological survey in person in the Krasnodar territory in 2019-2020. Convenient sampling (‘snowball’ method) was used. The participants did not obtain any reward. Measure. In this study, we used scales from the MIRIPS questionnaire, which were translated into Russian and adapted to the Russian sample (Lebedeva, Tatarko, 2009). All the responses were given on a 5-point scale from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 5 (absolutely agree). The reliability and consistency of the scales were assessed using the reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s α). Perceived security: 6 questions, for example, “There is room for a diversity of languages and cultures in the Kuban” (for the Russians, α = 0.54; for the Armenians, α = 0.59). Intercultural friendly contacts: this scale included 2 questions: “How many Russian/Armenian close friends do you have?” and “How often do you meet with your Armenian/Russian friends?” (for the Russians, α = 0.67; for the Armenians, α = 0.52). Multicultural ideology: 10 questions, for example, “We must help cultural and racial minorities preserve their cultural heritage in the Kuban” (for the Russians, α = 0.65; for the Armenians, α = 0.56). Ethnic tolerance: 6 questions, for example, “We must strive for equality of all groups, regardless of their racial or ethnic origin” (for the Russians, α = 0.62; for the Armenians α = 0.59). Acculturation expectations: for the Russians: integration (4 questions, for example, “Representatives of other ethnic groups (non-Russians) living in the Kuban must be fluent in both their native and Russian languages”) (α = 0.58); assimilation (4 questions, for example, “Representatives of other ethnic groups should participate in those activities where only Russians participate”) (α = 0.56), separation (4 questions, for example, “I believe that representatives of other ethnic groups should, above all, preserve their cultural traditions”) (α = 0.56). Acculturation strategies: for the Armenians: integration (4 questions, for example, “I believe that Armenians should be fluent in both their native and Russian languages”) (α = 0.64); assimilation (4 questions, for example, “I believe that it is more important for Armenians to be fluent in Russian than in their native language”) (α = 0.67), separation (4 questions, for example, “I believe that Armenians should make friends only with Armenians”) (α = 0.81). Self-esteem: 4 questions, for example, “I believe that I have some good qualities” (Rosenberg, 1985) (for the Russians, α = 0,80; for the Armenians, α = 0.66). Life satisfaction: 5 questions, for example, “I have everything I need in life” (Diener et al., 1985) (for the Russians, α = 0.81, for the Armenians, α = 0.79). Sociodemographic characteristics: gender, age, education. Mathematical statistical data processing. The data were processed using the SPSS 26.0 statistical software package. The following methods were involved: the differences between the groups were measured using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA); the hypotheses were tested using SEM (structural equation modeling). Results Results of comparison of means of all the variables. The results showed that the Russians and Armenians of the Kuban significantly differ from each other in the studied variables (Table 2): Wilks’ Λ = 0.517, F (23.011) = 1.98, p < 0.01, Partial η²= 0.048. Structural equation modeling results. Further, to test the main hypotheses, we analyzed the data using structural equation modeling. We controlled for the gender and age of the respondents. However, since they did not have significant effects on the variables under study, we did not display them in the model. At the first stage, we conducted a multigroup analysis. The results indicated the absence of invariance (Δ CFI > 0.01; Δ RMSEA > 0.01). Therefore, we carried out further analysis separately for each group. Table 2 Results of the survey of the Russian and Armenian respondents Variables Russians Armenians F (3,381) Partial η² M SD M SD Perceived security 3.15 0.46 3.56 0.51 25.183*** 0.061 Intercultural friendly contacts 3.22 1.11 4.80 0.86 79.282*** 0.170 Multicultural ideology 3.34 0.55 3.71 0.80 66.763*** 0.147 Ethnic tolerance 3.60 0.62 3.78 0.50 49.814*** 0.114 Integration 3.85 0.69 4.42 0.59 80.470*** 0.173 Assimilation 2.35 0.67 2.83 0.63 5.988** 0.015 Separation 2.65 0.61 2.45 0.68 6.139** 0.016 Self-esteem 3.89 0.63 4.1 0.88 31.300*** 0.075 Life satisfaction 3.62 0.86 4.19 0.48 51.256*** 0.118 Note: M - mean value; SD - standard deviation; F - Fisher’s F-test; Partial η² - partial eta squared (non-linear correlation coefficient). * effects are significant at p < .05. ** effects are significant at p < .01. *** effects are significant at p < .001. To test the hypotheses, we built path models for the Russians and the ethnic minority group, the Armenians (Figure). The characteristics of the models correspond to the requirements for models in structural modeling: χ²/df =1.4/2.1; SRMR = 0.03/0.05; CFI = 0.98/0.94; RMSEA = 0.07/0.08; PCLOSE = 0.43/0.31. Изображение выглядит как текст, снимок экрана, число, Шрифт Автоматически созданное описание Path model for testing the hypotheses of intercultural relations among the Russians and Armenians of the Kuban (coefficients are presented through a slash: Russians/Armenians) Note: *p < 0,05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; † р = 0.06. The multiculturalism hypothesis was partially confirmed in both samples: for the Russians, their perceived security predicted attitudes towards maintaining the multicultural ideology; for the Armenians, their perceived security was positively associated with attitudes toward maintaining the multicultural ideology and integration strategy, but negatively associated with assimilation attitudes. The contact hypothesis was partially confirmed in the Russian sample and completely confirmed in the Armenian sample: for the Russians, the intensity of intercultural friendly contacts was positively related only to ethnic tolerance; among the Armenians, the intensity of intercultural friendly contacts was positively associated with ethnic tolerance as well as integration and assimilation strategies. The integration hypothesis was fully confirmed in the Armenian sample and partially confirmed in the Russian sample: for the Russians, their expectation of the Armenians’ integration predicted their self-esteem; for the Armenians, the integration strategy was positively associated with both their self-esteem and life satisfaction. The additional hypothesis (4) about the negative relationship of the perceived security and intercultural contacts with separation attitudes was not confirmed in both samples. However, the additional hypotheses (5 and 6) were partially confirmed: the Armenians’ separation strategy was positively related to their life satisfaction; for the Russians, the expectation of the Armenians’ separation reduced their self-esteem (at the level of trends). Discussion The multiculturalism hypothesis was partially confirmed in the sample of the ethnic majority (Russians of the Kuban): their perceived security predicted attitudes towards maintaining the multicultural ideology. In the ethnic minority group (Armenians of the Kuban), the hypothesis was also partially confirmed: their perceived security was not associated with the ethnic tolerance; however, it was positively associated with attitudes towards maintaining the multicultural ideology and the integration strategy. These data can be interpreted in the context of the hypothesis of ideological asymmetry proposed by the social dominance theory, according to which multiculturalism is more beneficial for an ethnic minority than for a group of the host population, since multiculturalism allows the minority to preserve their culture and receive a higher social status in society, whereas the host population may perceive the minority and their desire to preserve their culture as a threat to their identity and status (Schalk-Soekar, Van de Vijver, 2008). Interesting in this study was the result that the perceived security of the ethnic minority (Armenians) was negatively associated with their assimilation attitudes. Accordingly, for the representatives of this group, security is seen as a factor in preserving themselves as an ethnocultural community. The Armenians see the problem not in the imposition of other traditions and rules of conduct, but rather in the gradual loss of their own national traditions. Consequently, they do not feel anxiety in relation to their acceptance by the majority; on the contrary, they want to demonstrate their cultural characteristics and their influence on the life of the region. The contact hypothesis was partially confirmed in the sample of the ethnic majority: the intensity of intercultural friendly contacts was positively associated only with the ethnic tolerance of Russians. Given the rather high level of ethnic tolerance both in the ethnic minority group and in the ethnic majority group, as well as the high level of intercultural contacts, it can be assumed that these results are due to the low level of interethnic tension in the multicultural society of the Krasnodar territory, as well as long-standing historical relationship between the indigenous population and the “indigenized” Armenian diaspora. The contact hypothesis was fully confirmed in the Armenian sample: their friendly contacts with Russians were positively associated with ethnic tolerance and preference for the integration and assimilation strategies. The representatives of the Armenian diaspora of the Kuban are characterized by a large number of intercultural contacts, openness in communication and active interaction with representatives of other ethnic groups. This feature suggests that intercultural contacts are a powerful factor in effective interethnic relations. The integration hypothesis was partly confirmed in the sample of the ethnic majority: their expectation of the Armenians’ integration in the Krasnodar territory predicted their self-esteem. This is consistent with the results of numerous previous studies, namely, the ethnic majority most often expects the minority to be integrated or assimilated (Barrette et al., 2004; Jasinskaja-Lahti et al., 2003; Ljujic et al., 2010). Migrants who choose the assimilation or integration strategies are perceived by most as less threatening to the host society (Berry et al., 2006; Kosic et al., 2005). The integration hypothesis in the ethnic minority group was fully confirmed. Their preference for the integration strategy was positively associated with the measures of psychological well-being (self-esteem and life satisfaction). The high level of self-esteem and life satisfaction in this group demonstrates that the Armenians of the Kuban are a fairly adapted and psychologically prosperous ethnic group within the region, and one of the predictors of their well-being is the orientation towards integration into the host society. The additional hypothesis about the negative relationship of the perceived security and intercultural contacts with the attitudes towards separation was not confirmed in both samples. This is apparently due to the fact that the Kuban is historically a multiethnic region, with a high frequency of intercultural contacts. However, the additional hypothesis about the relationship between the separation strategy of the Armenians and their life satisfaction was partially confirmed. Therefore, we can say that the orientation of the Armenians to preserve their culture and language, maintaining contacts with members of their ethnic group, participating in the diaspora events contributes to their life satisfaction (Galyapina et al., 2022). Thus, “closure” within one’s own ethnocultural community can be a factor in life satisfaction, but does not contribute to an increase in self-esteem. That is, it can be said that in the multiethnic Krasnodar territory, intensive intercultural contacts of the Armenians lead to the blurring of ethnic boundaries, to their assimilation, which does not contribute to their well-being, since the Armenians of the Kuban are quite consolidated and focused on preserving their culture. Their life satisfaction was promoted by the strategy of separation rather than that of assimilation. This is consistent with the results of a number of other studies (e.g., Lebedeva, 2017). For the ethnic majority group (Russians of the Kuban), the following trend was revealed: their expectation of the Armenians’ separation reduced their self-esteem. This is a rather disturbing trend demonstrating that the Russians perceive the Armenians as a rival group, potentially threatening the status of the Russians in the region, since low-status groups are more sensitive to subtle status differences in the contact situation than representatives of larger high-status groups (Dixon et al., 2005; Tropp, Pettigrew, 2005). A number of studies have shown that the leading role in intercultural relations in the region belongs to the ethnic majority, which sets the tone and atmosphere of interaction (Lebedeva et al., 2017). In general, if a hypothesis is completely confirmed in the majority group, then, as a rule, it is confirmed at least partially in the minority group. If it is partially confirmed in the majority group, then most likely it is partially or not confirmed in the minorities. In our study, on the contrary, the hypotheses were fully or partially confirmed in the minority group (Kuban Armenians), and partially confirmed in the majority group (Kuban Russians). This may indicate that the Armenians in the Krasnodar territory are becoming not only a numerous but also influential group that largely determines intercultural interaction in the region. Conclusion The results of the study of mutual acculturation of the Russians and Armenians in the Krasnodar territory allow us to conclude that intercultural relations between these groups are successful and fruitful. This is, first of all, due to the coincidence of acculturation preferences of the Armenians and Russians of the Kuban: integration is seen as the most preferable strategy, it positively affects both the psychological well-being of the ethnic minority (Armenians) and the self-esteem of the ethnic majority (Russians). However, a rather disturbing trend has also been revealed, the expectation of the separation of the Armenians negatively affects the self-esteem of the Russians, which demonstrates their concern in relation to this group but, at the same time, this strategy contributes to life satisfaction of the Armenians. The perceived security and especially intense intercultural friendly contacts lead to mutual integration. The specifics of the socio-cultural context of the Krasnodar territory, namely multiethnicity and multiconfessionalism, historical background, as well as the absence of assimilation imposed by the ethnic majority, are important conditions for the successful mutual acculturation of the Russians and Armenians of the Kuban. In general, the results obtained show that it is important to actively involve representatives of the Armenian diaspora, especially young people, in citywide and regional public and cultural events, providing them with the opportunity to position themselves as representatives of the Kuban. It is equally important for national public organizations to more actively involve representatives of other ethnic groups in their activities, to focus not only on their ethnic characteristics, but also on value, cultural and ideological similarities with them.

Об авторах

Виктория Николаевна Галяпина

Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»

Автор, ответственный за переписку.
Email: vgalyapina@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3885-1455
SPIN-код: 2391-7845

кандидат психологических наук, доцент, доцент департамента психологии, главный научный сотрудник центра социокультурных исследований, факультет социальных наук

Российская Федерация, 101000, Москва, ул. Мясницкая, д. 20

Оксана Роальдовна Тучина

Кубанский государственный технологический университет

Email: tuchena@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5525-7645
SPIN-код: 6989-5374

доктор психологических наук, доцент, профессор кафедры истории, философии и психологии

Российская Федерация, 350072, Краснодар, ул. Московская, д. 2

Иван Александрович Аполлонов

Кубанский государственный технологический университет

Email: obligo@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1926-8213
SPIN-код: 7423-6142

доктор философских наук, доцент, профессор кафедры истории, философии и психологии

Российская Федерация, 350072, Краснодар, ул. Московская, д. 2

Список литературы

Дополнительные файлы