LITERATURE REVIEW - Factors Affecting Attitude of Local People Towards Migrants in Russia: In-g

This chapter offers a review of the most relevant literature and studies of the variables to be examined in order to provide a theoretical basis of the current research. It provides definitions of the key variables and the relationships among them. This chapter also presents the hypotheses for this research.

Brief introduction of Russia

Russia or the Russian Federation is a state in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia, it is the largest country in the world, population is 146 million people. The territory of Russia is 17 125 191 km² (Federal Service of State Registration, Cadastre and Cartography (Rosreestr), 2017).

It takes the first place in the world in terms of territory, the sixth - in terms of GDP in terms of PPP and the ninth place in terms of population. National language is Russian. Russia is a Presidential-parliamentary republic with a federal structure. The Russian Federation includes 85 subjects, 46 of which are called regions, 22 - republics, 9 - edges, 3 - cities of federal significance, 4 - autonomous regions and 1 - autonomous region. In total there are about 157 thousand settlements in the country

Russia borders on twenty states (the largest indicator in the world), including two partially recognized and two unrecognized countries.

Russia is a multinational state, distinguished by a great ethno-cultural diversity. Most of the population (about 75%) refers to Orthodoxy which makes Russia a country with the largest Orthodox population in the world. According to the 2010 population census, there are representatives of more than 180 nationalities (ethnic groups) in Russia. The largest part of population are Russians (115 million people or 80% of the country's population), Tatars (5.5 million people), Ukrainians (about 3 million people), Bashkirs, Chuvashs, Chechens and Armenians, the number of which exceeds 1 million people. Russians are prevailing nation only in the Central, Central Black Earth and Northwest regions, while all other regions, especially the North Caucasus, have a complex national composition of the population. On the territory of the Volga-Vyatka region, Russians, Mari, Chuvash and Mordovians live; in the Northern region - Russians, Karelians, Komi, Nenets and Sami; in the Urals - Russians, Tatars, Bashkirs, Udmurts, Komi-Permyaks; in the Volga region - Russians, Tatars, Kalmyks, Kazakhs; in

Western Siberia - Russians, Altaians, Nenets, Selkups, Khanty, Mansi, Shors, Kazakhs, Germans; in Eastern Siberia - Russians, Buryats, Tuvans, Khakasses, Nenets, Dolgans, Evenks;

in the Far East - Russians, Yakuts, Chukchi, Koryaks, Jews, Evenks, Evens, Nanai, Udege, Orochi, Nivkhs and other small nations (Geography of Russia, 2019).

Russia owns the nuclear superpower, one of the world's leading industrial and space powers. Russia is among the countries with the richest cultural heritage. The Russian language belongs to the world's richest languages, the language of world significance, one of the six official languages of the UN, UNESCO and other international organizations. Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council with the right of veto. After the collapse of the USSR in late 1991, the Russian Federation was recognized by the international community as a successor state to the USSR in matters of nuclear potential, foreign debt, state property abroad, and membership in the UN Security Council. Russia is represented by a number of international organizations: the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the UNECE, the CIS, the BSEC, the CSTO, the GFRM, WIPO, IMO, WTO, UNWTO, WWF, SCO, APEC, BRICS, COOMET, IOC, IEC, ISO, EUREKA, IRENA, G20 and others. According to the World Bank, GDP for PPP for 2014 was 3.745 trillion dollars (25,636 dollars per person). The monetary unit is the Russian ruble (the average rate for 2017 is 58.31 rubles for 1 US dollar (Wikipedia, 2018).

Xenophobic Sentiments in Russia

There is a survey conducted by Levada analytical center (2016) which took place at 5-8 August 2016. It was conducted throughout all of Russia in both urban and rural settings. The survey was conducted among 1600 people over the age of 18 in 48 of the country’s regions.

The survey was conducted using personal interview in respondents’ homes. According to this survey ethnophobia could be named as the trend of the 2016 year. The highest percentage people who thinks there should be restrictions on the residency in Russia answered that they would restrict the amount of people from the Caucasus and people from Central Asian former Soviet Republics. Most of responders said they have no particular feelings towards people from southern republics, next to frequency answers were annoyance and contempt. On the question

“What is your attitude towards the idea of “Russia for Russians”?” most of responders answered that they think it wouldn’t be bad to implement it, but within reason. At the same time most of responders do not think there is palpable inter-ethnic tension in the city, region they live. On the question “Which political course do you think Russia should take: attempt to

limit the flow of migrants into the country or attempt to use it to Russia’s benefit and not place any administrative barriers in its way?” most of responders answered that they would like to attempt to limit the flow of migrants.

There is another survey took place between 17-20 February 2017 conducted by Levada analytical center as well, it was conducted throughout all of Russia in both urban and rural settings as personal interviews in respondents’ homes. According to the survey it is possible to observe different attitude or Russians towards different categories of migrants. Responders were asked about their perception of migrants from different places (Levada analytical center, 2017).

Figure 2.1 Attitude towards migrant labors from other regions with a predominantly Russian Population. Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/en/2017/05/29/attitudes-toward-migrants/ (2017). Copyright 2003-2020, Levada-Center.

One of the questions asked was “How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from other regions with a predominantly Russian Population?” According to figure 2.1 more than a half of Russian people sympathize with migrant labors from other region with a predominantly Russian Population. Only 16% have bad attitude towards them.

23%

53%

16%

8% Good, sympathize

with them Tolerant, neutral

Bad

It is difficult to say

Figure 2.2 Attitude towards migrant labors from Ukraine. Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/en/2017/05/29/attitudes-toward-migrants/ (2017). Copyright 2003-2020, Levada-Center.

Another question asked was “How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from Ukraine?” According to figure 2.2, 25% of Russian people have good attitude towards Ukrainian migrant labors and 52% are neutral, only 19% have bad attitude towards Ukrainian migrant labors.

Figure 2.3 Attitude towards migrant labors from Belarus. Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.levada.ru/en/2017/05/29/attitudes-toward-migrants/ (2017). Copyright 2003-2020, Levada-Center.

25%

52%

19%

Good, sympathize with them Tolerant, neutral

Bad

It is difficult to say

25%

57%

13%

5% Good, sympathize

with them Tolerant, neutral

Bad

It is difficult to say

Another question asked was “How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from Belarus?” According to figure 2.3, 25% of Russian people have good attitude towards migrants labors from Belarus and 57% of Russian people are neutral, only 13% of Russian people have bad attitude towards them.

Figure 2.4 Attitude towards migrant labors from Transcaucasia (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan). Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from

Another question asked was “How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from Transcaucasia (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan)?” According to figure 2.4, only 10% of people in Russia have good attitude towards migrant labors from Transcaucasia, 51%

of people are neutral, 34% of Russian people have bad attitude towards them.

10%

51%

34%

5% Good, sympathize

with them Tolerant, neutral

Bad

It is difficult to say

Figure 2.5 Attitude towards migrant labors from the Central Asian Republics (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan)? Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants” by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from

“How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from the Central Asian Republics (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan)?” According to figure 2.5, only 10% of people in Russia have good attitude towards migrant labors from the Central Asian Republics, 47% of people are neutral, 38% of Russian people have bad attitude towards them.

Figure 2.6 Attitude towards migrant labors from the North Caucasian Republics (Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia). Adapted from Levada Analytical Center “Attitudes towards migrants”

by Levada Analytical Center, 2017. Retrieved from

10%

47%

38%

5% Good, sympathize

with them Tolerant, neutral

Bad

It is difficult to say

41% 43%

7% Good, sympathize

with them Tolerant, neutral

Bad

It is difficult to say

“How would you characterize your attitude towards migrant labors from the North Caucasian Republics (Dagestan, Chechnya, Ingushetia)?” According to figure 2.6, only 9% of people in Russia have good attitude towards migrant labors from the North Caucasian Republics, 43% of people are neutral, 41% of Russian people have bad attitude towards them.

Thereby these surveys support the claim that Russian people have negative attitude towards migrants, moreover they differently treat migrants from different ethnic groups.

The large-scale migration flows that are observed in the modern world give rise to many conflicts. The variety of different types of migrants, based on their sociocultural characteristics causes social tension among the host population and develops negative attitude towards migrants. Contrary to the popular belief that conflicts are created by migrants, the dangerous situations are most often created by the local population. (Population matters, 2018)

Calderon (2017) notes that anti-immigrant movements are causing the rise of populist politicians. A growing number of migrants and increasing focus on migration reflect numerous trends, including the civilian nature of recent conflicts.

According to Dikun (2013), most of the conflicts between migrants and local people are caused by ethno-cultural interaction. Migrants who arrived from the same country, have a common culture, are a social ethnic community whose members recognize themselves as an integral, independent subject of social action and behavior therefore they form a group. The local population of the host society also represents a separate group. Both of these groups have a self-identification and a sense of group solidarity. Any internal or external impact, which threatens to violate the integrity of these groups to a conflict.

Recently the problem of negative perception of migrants is getting a lot of attention from the government and various research centers. The general director of Ipsos Institute for Sociological Research, Ozlem Bora, in his interview to the News Website Dünya commented on the results of his study: "...when we take into account the general trend since 2011, significant changes in the perception of migrants in many countries become evident. For example, Germany and Sweden come forward as the countries with the highest growth in the number of those who believe that the influx of migrants to their countries has grown. In 2011 this indicator was 22 and 24%, respectively, according to the results of the last survey - 85 and about 90% respectively." He also mentioned that according to the study, 28% of respondents point to the positive consequences of migration from the point of view of the economy. Saudi Arabia (50%), Great Britain (47%) and New Zealand (47%) have the most positive perception

on this issue. On the other hand, in Serbia, Russia and Hungary, the view that migration has positive economic consequences is least supported: 8, 9 and 9% respectively. Turkey (78%), Russia (64%) and South Africa (58%) are the first in the list of countries whose residents are most inclined to believe that migration has made it harder to find work. In general, two out of five respondents (40%) believe that priority should be given to highly educated and qualified migrants. New Zealand (58%), Saudi Arabia (56%), Great Britain (55%) are the most ardent supporters of this view (Ünlü, 2017).

Markaki and Longhi (2012) hold the position that the identity of the migrant groups can be formed using many characteristics. These characteristics may become race, religion, language, nationality, citizenship, etc. In these conditions it is necessary to understand what cause negative attitude towards migrants. This topic currently is widely discussed in Europe.

Some findings show that high regional unemployment rate of immigrants and the percentage of migrants born outside the EU cause concerns in the population over the impact of immigration. Another interesting finding is that higher proportions of local people and migrants with low-level qualifications are associated with lower feelings of economic threat caused by immigration. At the same time researches observed that anti-immigration attitudes are significantly higher in regions where local people overestimate the level of immigration.

In-groups and Out-groups

In-groups and out-groups are groups in relation to which the individual determines himself.

The group in this context means group towards which the individual experiences a sense of identity and belonging; on the contrary, the individual does not feel such a feeling towards the out-group. Each individual selects a certain set of groups to which he belongs and defines them as "mine." It can be "my family", "my professional group", "my company", "my class". Such groups will be considered as in-groups, i.e. those to which the individual has the feeling of belonging and in which he is identified himself with other members in such a way that he regards the members of the group as "we." Other groups to which the individual does not belong - other families, other companies of friends, other professional groups, other religious groups etc. will be considering as out-groups so he will perceive them as "not we", "others"

(Whitbourne, 2010).

Sherif (1954) introduced the term "reference group". Reference group means a real or conditional social community which follow some standard, norms, values and assessments

which the individual perceives as reference ones, so he is able to control his behavior and keep self-esteem, in other words it is a group that individuals compare themselves to for the purpose of evaluating their behaviors. A boy playing a guitar or doing sports, focuses on the lifestyle and behavior of rock stars or sports idols. An employee in an organization, aiming at a career, focuses on the behavior of senior managers. Ambitious people which unexpectedly received a lot of money tend to imitate the representatives of the upper classes in dress and manner.

Ahuja (2018) states that there are normative and comparative reference functions of the group. The normative function of the reference group is manifested in the fact that this group is the source of norms of behavior, social attitudes and value orientations of the individual. A migrant who comes to another country tries to master the norms and attitudes of local people as soon as possible in order not to be a "black sheep". The process can be complicated by excluding them from all possible groups by locals. The comparative function is manifested in the fact that the reference group acts as a standard by which the individual can evaluate himself and others.

Undeveloped, primitive societies, people live in small groups, isolated from each other and representing clans of relatives. Family relationships in most cases determine the nature of the in-groups and out-groups in these societies. When two strangers meet, they first begin to look for kinship ties, and if they are relatives this fact connects them, they are both members of the group. If family ties are not found, then in societies of this type, people feel hostile to each other. In modern society, relations between its members are built on many types of connections besides relatives, but the feeling of belonging to the group and the search for its members among other people, remain very important for every person. When an individual enters an unknown stranger's environment, he first of all tries to find out whether among them there are those who came from his social class or someone who adheres to his political views and interests (Frolov, 2010).

Stets and Burke (2000) note that there are many motives for joining groups. The theory of social identity emphasizes the need to increase self-esteem and reduce uncertainty. The norms and prototype of the group lead people in terms of how a person should behave, think and feel, so this directly affects their behavior. Initially, it was believed that the motive for self-esteem base on the intragroup favoritism and ethnocentrism, as well as hostility towards an out-group group. (Stets & Burke, 2000)

It is obvious that the sign of people belonging to the group is sharing certain feelings and opinions, for example, same goals in life. Members of the out-group can have many features and characteristics common to all groups of the society, they can share many common feelings and aspirations, but they always have some certain own features different from members of another group. People unconsciously and involuntarily notice these features, dividing other people into "us" and "others." In modern society, an individual belongs simultaneously to many groups, so a large number of group and out-group relationships can overlap. A senior course will consider a junior student as an individual belonging to an out-group, but at the same time a junior student, along with a senior student, can be members of the same sports team, where they are members of in-group (McLeod, 2008).

The researchers note that in-group identifications, crossing in many directions, do not reduce the intensity of self-determination of differences, and the complexity of including the individual in the group makes painful the exceptions from the in-group. So, for example, a person who unexpectedly received a high status, has all the attributes to get higher status in society, but cannot do it, since he is considered an upstart; the teenager desperately hopes to participate in the school team, but others do not accept him; a worker who starts to work in a brigade cannot get accustomed to it and being bullied. Thus, exclusion from in-groups can be a very complicated and sometimes cruel process. For example, most primitive societies consider strangers to be part of the animal kingdom, many of them do not distinguish between the words "enemy" and "outsider", considering these concepts identical. According to this terrifying logic Nazis excluded Jews from human society. Rudolf Hoss, who led the concentration camp in Auschwitz where 700,000 Jews were killed, characterized the slaughter as "the removal of alien racial-biological bodies." In this case, in-group and out-group identifications led to fantastic cruelty and cynicism (Frolov, 2010).

It is impossible to understand many cruel acts repeating in history without understanding of in-group and out-group relationships and its connection to people's identity. The distinction and separation of the in-group and out-group make it psychologically possible to commit cruel acts even by humane people. There is historical example of the great figure of the English Revolution, the English of the XVII century were usually tolerant and humane. Even in civil wars and the revolution, they remembered that their opponents were not different from themselves, and therefore they were gentle and generous in battle. Oliver Cromwell went ahead of his century in promoting this tolerance. But when Cromwell invaded Ireland, he completely changed his attitude towards the enemy. For him and his associates, the Irishman was

completely different from the Englishman. In the English army, as in English society there was

在文檔中 Factors Affecting Attitude of Local People Towards Migrants in Russia: In-group and Out-group Concept (頁 15-42)