|
The Changing Dynamics of Language
and Ethnic Identity Link by
Russian Minorities:
The Buryat Case Study
Erjen Khilkhanova
Dorji Khilkhanov
Abstract The upsurge of ethnic identity, emerging in the late 1960s, resulted in the ability of many minority movements to maintain their ethnic identities in close connection with the revitalization of minority languages. This maintenance of ethnic identity by a minority group and other ethnic identity patterns in relation to language can be identified from the perspective of a rarely discussed minority group – the Buryats. This paper found that within the Buryat minority group, the assimilation strategy widespread during the Soviet period has been replaced by a combination of integration strategies (economic assimilation, linguistic integration, and marital separation). Two options have been identified regarding the language and ethnicity link among Buryats. First, minority language is abandoned as an irrelevant ethnocultural marker. Second, minority language is preserved in combination with Russian making many Buryats bilingual persons with bicultural identity, which is quite typical for Russia. In both cases native language is considered as a significant cultural marker of the Buryat ethnic group. However, the first trend is so strong we can claim that language for Buryats has more symbolic, unifying value and its abandoning does not affect the ethnic identity itself. The Buryat case shows that ethnic identity, in fact, can survive the loss of the indigenous group language. In some sense, the language has been sacrificed to all of the historical challenges and pressures of the last two centuries. This ethnic identity pattern was probably the only possible way to survive and to preserve identity of the Buryat ethnic group. Introduction Throughout the revival of ethnic identity of the last twenty years, many researchers have tried to interpret the link between ethnic identity and language in the new changing world. Much of the debate surrounding this issue has centered on a dilemma: is language a salient marker of ethnic identity? Some scholars have argued that language has little actual significance to questions of ethnic identity (Renan 1990, p.16). For the others, the opposite is true: language is an intrinsic, determining feature of ethnic identity, and a ‘core cultural value’ (Smolicz 1993; 1995). There are many other theories between these two extremes, which we intentionally leave beyond the scope of this paper (see, for example, May 2001). Our theoretical framework in this paper will be mostly the ‘primordial,’ socio-psychological account of ethnicity, not a ‘situational,’ instrumentalist one (for more about the polarization between ‘primordial’ and ‘situational’ perspectives, see May 2001). In particular, we utilize Berry’s acculturation theory primarily focusing on acculturation processes in the present-day Buryatia. The aim of this paper is a practical one: to delineate the relationship between language and identity in one of the regions of post-Soviet Russia, Republic Buryatia offering a perspective on a rarely discussed minority language – the Buryat language (although see Humphrey, 1994). This question is especially interesting now in a post-modern period of global ethnic awakening, which apparently presupposes that the minorities redefine and reevaluate themselves, regenerate and develop their culture and their relationship with other groups, first with the majority but also with other minorities. This paper presents a general view based on the current literature and proceeds to introduce the identity link based on two surveys carried out in Buryatia in 1991-1992 and 1994. Finally, the paper identifies new changes in identity construction by the Buryat minority. Acculturation Strategies in the Soviet Union Berry (1990) has identified four alternative acculturation strategies that minorities can use when they come into contact with the majority: 1) integration, 2) assimilation, 3) separation, 4) marginalization. In integration, some degree of cultural integrity is maintained while one moves to participate as an integral part of the larger social network. In assimilation, original cultural features (language, religion, etc.) are given up completely in favor of those of the majority. In separation, the opposite is true; that is, no features of the majority culture are accepted, and only the original minority culture is valued. In marginalization neither the majority nor the minority can offer a satisfactory identity. In terms of language, it could mean the loss of the original language without simultaneous sufficient acquisition of the dominant language. During the Soviet period, when the dominant (Russian) group was presented as the integrated mainstream and its values and culture were considered the standard, the assimilation strategy was clearly widespread. The ethnic identity construction was complicated in the former Soviet Union due to the efforts of the Communist party to create a phenomenon of a collective identity ‘Soviet people,’ which was supposed to replace ethnic identities according to the ideology of internationalism. These efforts were mostly successful and resulted in a unique modification of a multiple identity when both majority and minority identified themselves as members of a particular ethnic group on the one side, and as ‘Soviet people’ on the other side. Buryat Ethnic Identity and Language Today The Buryats belong to the Central-Asian type of the North-Asian race of the large Mongoloid race. Buryats speak the Buryat language of the north subgroup of the Mongolian group of the Altai family. There are distinguished western and eastern groups of dialects within the Buryat language. Up to 1930 large groups of the Buryats made use of the Old Mongolian written language and since 1931 the written language was introduced on the basis of the Latin graph, and beginning from 1939 — on the basis of the Russian (Cyrillic) alphabet. The ancestors of modern Buryats joined to Russia in the middle of XVIIth century, and from that time on they have been sharing with Russia all vicissitudes of its history. After the October Revolution of 1917 the Buryat-Mongolian Autonomous Region was formed as a part of the Far-East Republic (1921) and the Mongol-Buryat Autonomous Region as a part of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR). In 1923 they united into the Buryat-Mongolian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (BM ASSR) as a part of the RSFSR. In 1937 they were detached and emerged the Aginsk Buryat National Area as a part of the Chita Region, Ust-Ordynsk Buryat National Area as a part of the Irkutsk Region. In July 1958, according to the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Buryat-Mongolian ASSR was renamed as the Buryat ASSR. In October 1990 the Supreme Soviet of the Buryat ASSR declared the state sovereignty of the Buryat SSR. In February 1992, it was stated by the legislative acts to proclaim the Buryat SSR as the Republic of Buryatia. Now Buryats live in three administrative regions that are not territorially adjacent to one another. The permanent division in the past, made according to the Stalin’s “divide and rule” principle as well as current absence of a political form of community, has had serious consequences for the Buryat identity. The number of the Buryats in Russia is 417,400. Accordingly, they are located approximately in the middle between the largest ethnic minority, such as Tatars (5.5 million) and the peoples of the far North, some of whom count only few hundred representatives. Our analysis will be based on statistical data that demonstrate results of two surveys carried out in this region in 1991-1992 and 1994. The first survey was conducted among the adult population of the entire ethnographic Buryatia, which includes Ust-Ordynsk Buryat autonomous district of Irkutsk region and Aginsk Buryat autonomous district of Chita region in addition to the Republic Buryatia. This is the most comprehensive sociolinguistic survey ever done in the region. Because of the large amount of data the results were published only in 1999 (Dyrkheeva, Budaeva, & Basheeva, 1999). The selection of the relevant data is presented in table 1. The second survey was conducted by the Russian State Statistical Committee and the Buryat Statistical Committee in the Republic Buryatia and published in 1996. Chart 2 shows the survey’s results. In sum, both surveys provide us with general outlook on the situation on language and ethnicity in the region after the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Table 1 shows that the level of Russian language proficiency is higher than that of the Buryat. Nobody answered that he/she does not understand, speak or read Russian, only two persons from the countryside noted that they do not write. The number of people whose Russian language proficiency is marked as “bad” does not exceed 1% both among urban and rural population. At the same time 1.5% of interviewed persons replied that they do not understand Buryat, 4.5% do not speak, 21% do not read, and 28.8% can not write. As was expected, villagers demonstrate the higher level of Buryat language proficiency than urban dwellers.
The chart 2 shows the clear trend to the Buryat language usage in the private field. In other communication fields like work, education, as well as legal proceedings, and mass media Buryat has been displaced by Russian language. Generally speaking, Russian is utilized for external (public) communication purposes, whereas Buryat - for internal (private) ones. In socio-linguistic terms such a situation is usually described as diglossia, which is a long-term and widespread complementary distribution of functions between the languages of a speech-and-writing community. In the case of the Buryat language, diglossia is a part of an exclusive circle: on the one hand, functional limitation of the indigenous language, especially of its lexicon, forces the language users to switch to the language, which can serve communication needs of the modern society more effectively. On the other hand, the regular code switching hinders from the indigenous language development, whereas each language can develop its polyfunctional potential only under the condition of constant creative work of language community members. Of course, other factors are also important for language maintenance and development (e.g., language policy and planning), but we will touch upon this particular issue later. Analyzing the statistical data, we can conclude that even today, many years after the Soviet Union’s collapse, the level of mother tongue proficiency among some minorities in Russia varies from the absence of any proficiency, to passive proficiency (understanding, but not speaking) to bilingualism and diglossia. At the same time, the majority of the population masters Russian to a greater or lesser extent. The main tendency is that Russian continues to be the lingua franca for the vast region of modern Russia. In particular, the language situation in the Republic Buryatia reveals the clear trend to diglossia, which, in our opinion, is less desirable for indigenous languages’ preservation and development than bi- or multi-lingualism, as the latter means the equal level of language proficiency in two or more languages. The question is why the situation with the Buryat language has not been improved in the time of global ethnic revival? Can we even contend existence of ethnic revival in Buryatia? The situation is particularly remarkable in comparison with the situation with small languages in other regions of the world nowadays. Fishman (1999) points out the possibility of attitudinal-functional mismatch in terms of language and its connection with ethnic identity. It means that at the same time that English is the world’s superlanguage (if not “killer language,” as some would have it), more small languages are being read and written today than even before. Unlike Russian case, in Europe alone, there were no more than thirty-one standardized languages of literacy at the beginning of the century, whereas there are more than a hundred such today. From our point of view, the current situation can be explained only in terms of identity matters, which will be considered in the following section of the paper.
New Changes in Language and Identity Link Certainly, the revival of ethnic identity has had an impact on the current ethno-linguistic situation in Russia. Nowadays, indigenous languages are considered as the cultural basis and symbol of ethnic identity and national unity. You will hardly find a person among minorities who would neglect the importance of the mother tongue now. Nevertheless, such an attitude rarely leads to the real process of language acquisition. In the Buryat case, urban Buryats, who predominantly grew up within the Russian culture, feel the need to learn Buryat, but do not do it; often such a need is absent all together. As a matter of fact, ethnic identity awakening among the Buryat exists mostly in terms of endo- and exo-categorization, realization of persons belonging to a particular ethnic group, but not in real actions toward indigenous language acquisition. Explaining contradiction between the endo- and exocategorization, on the one side, and the real language acquisition, on the other, we do not consider such cases as ethnic nihilism or irrelevance of ethnic identity for some minority members. More relevant for our investigation are cases, when the “adequate” ethnic identity correlates with ignorance of the mother tongue. According to Berry’s alternative acculturation strategies’ theory, modern Buryats demonstrate two variants of strategy: integration and strategies’ combination. In the first case (integration), Buryats identify themselves with their ethnic group and do not reject their historical, ethnic and cultural heritage. They have learned new cultural knowledge (first of all, the majority language) for successful integration into the all- Russian society and have selected relevant ethnic-cultural markers. If the language is such a relevant marker it is preserved. In this case we have as a result a bilingual person with bicultural identity, which is quite typical for Russia. But if language is not included in the relevant markers’ set, we have the phenomenon when a person identifies him- or herself as a Buryat without knowing the Buryat language. The fact proves that an ethnic group in general and every single person can maintain their ethnic identity when an original cultural base and conception of unity with their ancestors who spoke the same language is preserved. The existence of many people (especially young) among Buryat minority group, who do not know not only the native language but also many native customs, traditions and other cultural markers shows that we can speak only about the very base of culture. It means that from many cultural components (religion, habits, mentality, traditions and so on) a definite set of relevant ethno-cultural markers remains when ethnic identity survives. The language can be included or excluded from this set. The Buryat example demonstrates that many Buryats in fact have excluded the native language from these markers. In the second case of strategies’ combination Buryats as a rule try to have economic assimilation (in jobs), linguistic integration (through bilinguism or diglossia), and marital separation (through endogamy). Thus, the Buryat case shows that ethnic identity can survive the loss of the indigenous group language if other original cultural components remain. Moreover, a widespread attitude among many Russian minorities is not intentional but nevertheless virtual exclusion of native language from the relevant ethno-cultural markers’ set. Of course, this attitude is not only the matter of social psychology, but also a question of economic and social reasons. As far as one wants to gain benefits like a good education, job perspectives and integration into a greater socio-economic economic space of Russia, one has to master Russian. Hence, the proficiency in Russian is a vital necessity, whereas proficiency in Buryat is only an optional ethnic identity marker. Conclusion The global ethnic identity revival has had a definite impact on the current ethno-linguistic situation in Russia. For the Buryat minority, the assimilation strategy, widespread among minorities in the Soviet Union, is being replaced by the integration strategy and strategies’ combination (economic assimilation, linguistic integration, and marital separation). In both cases native language is identified as a significant cultural marker of the Buryat ethnic group. However, along with the actual language use and maintenance, the trend to abandon the language as an irrelevant ethnocultural identity marker, which started during the Soviet period, continues now. The trend is so strong that we can claim that language for Buryats has more symbolic, unifying value and its abandoning does not affect the ethnic identity itself. The Buryat case shows that ethnic identity, in fact, can survive the loss of the indigenous group language. In some sense, the language has been sacrificed to all the historical challenges and pressures put on minorities in Russia throughout the last two centuries. This ethnic identity pattern is probably the only possible way to survive and preserve their ethnic identity. Acknowledgements: Research for this article was supported in part by 1) the Junior Visiting Fellowship Program at the Central European University (Budapest and Warsaw), and 2) the Junior Faculty Development Program, which is funded by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States Department of State, under authority of the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 as amended, and administered by the American Council for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS. The opinions expressed herein are the authors’ own and do not necessarily express the views of either ECA or the American Councils. Acknowledgements: Research for this article was supported in part by 1) the Junior Visiting Fellowship Program at the Central European University (Budapest and Warsaw), and 2) the Junior Faculty Development Program, which is funded by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs of the United States Department of State, under authority of the Fulbright-Hays Act of 1961 as amended, and administered by the American Council for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS. The opinions expressed herein are the authors’ own and do not necessarily express the views of either ECA or the American Councils. References
Copyright ©2002-2004 |
