著者

櫻間 瑛

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2011, no.40, pp.34-49, 2011 (Released:2013-05-31)

参考文献数

55

---

Contemporary Russia is considered one of the most multiethnic countries in the world. Consequently, questions such as “how to recognize ethnicity?” can give rise to serious problems. The Russian census is the focus of this discussion. When the first All-Russian Census was conducted in 2002, a number of groups demanded that their ethnicity be recognized. The second All-Russian Census was conducted in October 2010. Similar to the previous one, although on a smaller scale, this census process caused a controversy regarding the recognition of ethnicity. The governments of ethnic republics, especially Tatarstan, widely appealed for the integration of the nations. The director of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology in Moscow, V. Tishkov, emphasized the respect toward self-definition. Moreover, he insisted that a double-ethnic affiliation like “tatar-bashkir” should be recognized as an answer to the census. In this way, he attempted to adhere to every person’s opinion. However, in recent years, Tishkov has been actively arguing the importance of the unification of the “Russian nation [Rossiiskii narod]”. Contrary to Tishkov’s ideas, ethnic intellectuals such as Tatar historian D. Iskhakov have attempted to prove the validity of the unification of the nation. He insists that the integration and formation of the Tatar nation was completed on the basis of high culture, which was developed in the context of the standardization of Tatar language, rising rates of literacy, and activization of transmigration from the nineteenth to twentieth centuries. He regarded each group’s movement for independence from the Tatar nation as a process of the nation’s breakdown and a result of the Soviet legacy. In reviewing these ideas, we can see that they both, at first, denied the Soviet ethnic policy. Tishkov criticized it by stating that the Soviet ethnic policy created a fixed ethnic framework and the hierarchies in it. Iskhakov considered the Soviet ethnic policy to be a way for the central government to suppress the ethnic minorities. Later, they actively publicized the European ethnic idea. At the same time, when we consider what they say, we find that the Soviet ethnic idea is reflected in their way of thinking. Iskhakov’s idea is, in principle, based on a fixed understanding of ethnicity. This tendency resembles the Soviet understanding. On the other hand, Tishkov often refers to the 1926 census as the ideal one. Moreover his emphasis on the “Russian nation” brings to mind the idea of a “Soviet people [sovetskii narod]”. When we pay attention to the reactions from ordinary people, we also find the Soviet ethnic policy being reflected. When they are asked about their ethnic affiliation, most of them refer to the name of an ethnic group that was written in the internal passports during the Soviet era. In Russia today, the understanding of the nations is contradictory. Most intellectuals have attempted to overcome the Soviet idea of nations and introduce European thinking. However, on the other hand, we see a continuation of Soviet ideas on the basis of their arguments.

著者

櫻間 瑛

出版者

北海道大学スラブ研究センター

雑誌

スラブ・ユーラシア研究報告集

巻号頁・発行日

vol.4, pp.157-174, 2012-03

---

文化空間としてのヴォルガ. 望月哲男, 前田しほ編

著者

櫻間 瑛

出版者

ロシア・東欧学会

雑誌

ロシア・東欧研究 (ISSN:13486497)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2016, no.45, pp.184-187, 2016 (Released:2018-06-02)

参考文献数

3

著者

櫻間 瑛

出版者

京都大学地域研究統合情報センター ; 2004-

雑誌

地域研究 (ISSN:13495038)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.16, no.1, pp.240-268, 2015-11