Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TITLE :
CONTRACTOR :
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR :
PROJECT DIRECTOR :
Dr . Rasma Karklin s
620- 1
DATE :
The work leading to this report was supported in whole or in part fro m
funds provided by the National Council for Soviet and East Europea n
Research .
Executive Summar y
ii
and communal differentiation persist and have a certain impact in thi s
sphere as well, the general ethnic experience during military service ha s
been an integrative one for most respondents exposed to it . Comparisons t o
experiences at work and in educational institutions suggest that this i s
closely related to specific institutional arrangements and the total lac k
of individual choice . Being a member of functionally oriented multi-ethni c
collectives has a socializing effect, and while a degree of individua l
choice of collective appears to be possible at places of work, this is no t
the case in the military . In institutional terms, it is significant tha t
there is no segregation into special national units, and that no sub-section s
exist within which a language other than Russian is used . Such a subdivisio n
is encountered in the case of many higher educational institutions, and a s
a result overall social integration appears hampered in this sphere, althoug h
it is considerable within the Russian language institutions attended by ou r
respondents .
Ethnicity has a considerable impact on work relationships . Besides a
tendency towards personal ethnic preferences in regard to co-workers an d
supervisors, a variety of functional factors play a role . Among these, the
most important are language knowledge and behavior, work traditions an d
financial rewards, as well as the specific ethnic mix of a work collectiv e
and broader environment .
Language knowledge and behavior is an especially important facto r
affecting ethnic relations in the Soviet Union and certainly should b e
studied much more systematically . Commonality of language--or the lack o f
it--influences work relationships, interaction in the armed forces, involvement in political organizations such as the Komsomol, as well as communa l
relations . While the knowledge of Russian is of key importance within pre dominantly Russian environments, local languages play a crucial role withi n
environments dominated by non-Russians .
Of all the areas studied, personal and communal life is the one mos t
affected by ethnic diversity . This is true for our respondents themselves ,
as well as for their neighbors, co-workers, etc . Besides our data on friend ship patterns, intermarriage, and the role of religion and traditions, thi s
is also illustrated by the terms used for different nationalities, especiall y
in the differentiation between " blacks " and "whites " (see verbatim quotes i n
report) .
Expressions and examples used by respondents were found to be highl y
suggestive and our research findings are therefore reported both in the for m
of quoting responses as well as statistical summaries and cross-tabulations .
Thus, this study has tried to keep a sensitive balance between the quantitative and qualitative approach to social research .
In light of the relatively small number of people interviewed (tw o
hundred), and in light of the limited scope of our one-year study, many o f
the findings must be regarded as tentative . Nevertheless, it appears possibl e
to draw the following general conclusions :
1 . Personal and communal integration in the Soviet Union is considerabl y
influenced by ethnic barriers ;
ii i
2. Integration is relatively smooth within social institutions such a s
the armed forces and Russian language educational institutions but i s
hampered within certain contexts at places of work ;
3. Political integration as analyzed in our report on perceptions o f
nationality power in various non-Russian union republics is highly ambiguou s
and there are important regional differences .
TABLE OF CONTENT S
LIST OF TABLES
INTRODUCTION
I.
1.
2.
3.
Intermarriage
12
4.
15
II .
19
1.
19
2.
24
3.
29
IV .
36
1.
36
2.
36
INTEGRATIVE INSTITUTIONS
54
1.
The Komsomol
54
2.
57
CONCLUSION
70
NOTES
73
APPENDIX
75
iv
LIST OF TABLE S
1.
2.
3.
10
11
12
6.
13
7.
16
8.
20
9.
21
10.
22
11.
23
12.
23
13.
24
14.
26
4.
5.
15.
Respondents '
27
16.
31
17.
18.
19.
32
.
39
40
40
41
45
47
48
25.
49
26.
50
51
51
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
27.
28.
29.
30.
vi
68
75
INTRODUCTIO N
all over the Soviet Union since World War II, the Soviet Germans--descendant s
of old time German colonists of Russia--have lived in a broad variety o f
locations and thus are especially suited for a comparative inquiry abou t
ethnic relations in the USSR . In order to limit the impact of secondar y
impressions received in the West, all interviews were conducted within th e
first four weeks after respondents had arrived in West Germany . As a result ,
memories about experiences in the Soviet Union were very fresh and man y
respondents still used the present tense when talking about life there ; th e
term " we " was also used very much . Altogether, two hundred systematicall y
structured oral interviews were conducted .
2
number of respondent quotes many of which are cited in this report as wel l
as in the interim reports . Although in some cases the grammar was changed ,
no attempts were made to change the style of quotes in order to communicat e
individual comments as directly as possible . However, a certain loss o f
" flavor " was sometimes unavoidable in light of translation difficultie s
(interviews were conducted in either German or Russian, depending on whic h
language the respondent knew best) .
1.
Sample Design .
Age :
sampled to make up two-thirds of our total sample in order to secure a respon dent population which has in most cases grown up in the post-Stalin Sovie t
Union and is therefore bound to relate experiences formed in this more recen t
era . The main reason for this emphasis is due to our research focus o n
contemporary Soviet society, but certain factors relating to the specifics o f
the Soviet German experience also played a role .
Thus, individuals who are older than forty-four years are especiall y
likely to reflect various specifically Soviet German experiences which hav e
inhibited their integration into overall Soviet society and therefore mak e
them less able to serve as respondents to questions such as ours . Fo r
example, virtually all of these older people (born before 1936) have attende d
schools where instruction was carried out in German and therefore canno t
relate experiences in multi-ethnic schools . As a result of changing Soviet
3
cultural policies and other factors, the younger generation differs in thi s
regard, as well as in many others .
For purposes of internal data comparison, three age groups were specified each of which contains a roughly equal number of respondents : th e
youngest group (age group I) consists of respondents who were born betwee n
1948 and 1959 and who were between twenty and thirty-one years old at th e
time of the interview . This latter group consists of individuals who starte d
school in 1954 and later, i .e . who have grown up entirely in the post-Stali n
era . Age group II consists of individuals born between 1936 and 1947 wh o
were between thirty-two and forty-three years old when interviewed ; and ag e
group III represents respondents aged over forty-three .
b.
Geographic Origin :
sampled depending on their last residence in the USSR . For reasons of stud y
design it was important to obtain a certain geographic distribution amon g
respondents ; as specified in the proposal we hoped to interview one hundre d
respondents who had lived in Kazakhstan and Central Asia, and fifty each wh o
had lived in the RSFSR and the Baltic republics . Unfortunately this rati o
could only be approximated, since the respondent pool from the RSFSR and th e
Baltic area was not large enough at the time of our interviewing effort . O n
the other hand, we encountered a sudden influx of emigrants from Kazakhsta n
and as a result, the latter are still overrepresented in our sample, while the
former are still underrepresented, which is of some consequence in the testin g
of various hypotheses, especially those assuming that variance in geographi c
and ethnic environment makes for variance in basic types of ethnic interactio n
in Soviet society .
c.
4
to be overrepresented in the older age group, slight adjustments in sampl e
selection were made in order to avoid a predominantly female sample in th e
older age group . Similarly, slight adjustments had to be made in the case o f
religion . There were many Baptists and Mennonites among our respondent poo l
and since they tend to have especially large families, some undersampling ha d
to be undertaken in order to avoid a weighting of our sample through thes e
two factors i .e . we tried to always interview just one individual pe r
family .
2.
5
3.
republic of the USSR in which they occur . These differences are related t o
a variety of historical, cultural, economic, and demographic factors, or- more broadly--to the differences between the major nations whose names ar e
used to designate the fifteen union republics . Since the Soviet German s
basically are "the same " no matter in which republic they have lived, th e
study of their experiences is a way to highlight republic-related distinctions ;
for this reason our data are frequently tabulated according to individua l
republics or regions .
c.
ethnic composition of an environment, it matters whether a particular nationality constitutes a numerical majority, or whether there is an " international-
6
ist" mix (for a more detailed exposition, see below), In order to tes t
whether the ethnic composition of environment indeed constitutes an " independent " variable, data are frequently cross-tabulated accordingly .
d . Ethnic relations are strongly influenced by linguistic facility ,
although this influence differs from one type of environment to another .
Interview research with emigrants poses many special problems, one o f
the primary ones being the question of " representativeness " of results . Fo r
this reason attempts were made to draw from other sources as well, and comparisons are made to the results of survey research undertaken by Sovie t
ethno-sociologists . On the other hand it should be noted that the respondent s
in our study served in a dual role, both as
1.
TABLE 1
ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF RESPONDENTS ' LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN THE USSR
Dominant Nationalit y
Republic (I) German (II) Russian (III) Mixed (IV )
Entire USSR
33 .4%
14 .5%
17%
34 .7% (100% )
By Regions *
Kazakhstan (n = 70)
16%
24%
4%
56%
(100% )
22
21
49
(100% )
Baltic (n = 37)
86
12
(100% )
Other** (n = 21)
54
31
(100% )
RSFSR*** (n = 34)
6***
12
67
15
(100% )
*For individual republics, see table 30 in the appendix .
**Includes Moldavia ( n = 14), Ukraine ( n= 5), Belorussia (n-l) and Georgia (n=1) .
***This represents two respondents who lived in places with a Karelian and Osse t
majority, respectively .
7
8
One should add that the ethnic composition of each responden t ' s last place o f
residence in the USSR was established by asking each respondent to list th e
nationalities who lived there, and provide an approximate percentage rate .
In the case of villages, kolkhozes, and small towns, there was no other way t o
obtain data on ethnic composition since no such census data are available .
In the case of larger cities for which official Soviet census are available ,
it was nevertheless deemed to be more pertinent to rely on the perception o f
the individual respondent since no city is homogeneous and a particula r
neighborhood would be most relevant .
One might be surprised that a certain number of Soviet Germans stil l
live in places where they form a majority . This can be explained by tw o
factors . First, even though the old all-German villages in the Volga area ,
the Ukraine, and the Caucasus, were dissolved in the course of World War II ,
most of the ones located in the RSFSR (around Orenburg, Omsk, and in th e
Altai) and those in Central Asia and Kazakhstan, remained . Secondly, som e
of these old colonies have seen a new influx of Germans since the releas e
from forced settlement areas in 1955 and in other cases new centers wer e
formed in the course of spontaneous internal migration, or as remains o f
forced settlement areas (e .g . Tselinograd, Karaganda) .
Nevertheless, the predominantly German places of residence form a
minority . Most of our respondents have lived in environments where the y
were in close contact with other nationalities . We will have to inquir e
whether and how the human interaction differs according to type of environment .
2.
about the nationality of their personal friends . Taking into account the
9
ethnic composition of the general environments the respondents lived in th e
USSR (see table 1) a surprisingly large percentage specified that they ha d
only or mostly German friends . In light of the relatively strong linguisti c
Russification of the younger generation (see table 9) it is also notabl e
that so few had mostly Russian friends, although one should add that man y
of those classified as having ethnically " mixed " friends had at least some
Russian friends, as well as others . The percentage of those who had associated primarily with local non-Russians is also very low :
TABLE 2
NATIONALITY OF PERSONAL FRIEND S
Nationality
of Friends
Entire
USSR
(n = 200)
Kazakhstan
(n = 70)
Centra l
Asia
(n = 38)
Baltic
Other*
RSFS R
(n = 37)
(n = 21)
(n = 34 )
Mostl y
Germans
45 .5%
48 .5%
45%
51%
52%
29 %
Mixed
41
41 .5
42
38
38
44
21
Mostl y
Russians
8 .5
8 .5
Mostly Loca l
Non-Russians
1 .5
11
No Friends
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
100%
3* *
3
100%
*Includes Moldavia (n=14), Ukraine ( n = 5), Belorussia (n=1) and Georgia (n=1) .
**One respondent with Osset friends .
10
common than just work .
case " (#166)* . When specifically asked about friends of a nationality othe r
than German or Russian several other respondents replied with
" a few, a t
work, " which does not really suggest close personal friendships . Some
other comments suggest that personal trust, or religious ties are importan t
in the selection of friends : " My friends were mostly Germans . There ar e
many nationalities who stick together more ; as human beings the nationalitie s
are good, but not as friends .
would not keep everything to themselves, there would be talk" (#3) . Some
of the strongly religious persons indicated that their personal friendship s
were formed within their religious congregation and in those cases wher e
the latter included both Germans and Russians several said that
" we kep t
TABLE 3
Personal
Friends
Total
(n = 196
Mostl y
Germans
31
37%
20%
12%
21%
100 %
Mostl y
Russians
17
15
1.2
47
26
100 %
Mostly Loca l
Non-Russians 6
85
17
100 %
Mixe d
Nationality
27
12
17
44
100 %
82
I (Republic)
II (German)
III (Russian)
IV (Mixed )
11
As Table 3 illustrates, each specified type of ethnic environment i s
most closely associated with respondents having friends with a correspondin g
ethnic background i .e ., the highest percentage of those with friends of a
local nationality can be found among those who lived in an environment wher e
the locals formed the majority, the highest percentage of those with mostl y
German friends come from places with a predominantly German population, an d
the same basic tendency also holds true for the predominantly Russian and th e
ethnically mixed environments .
We have also argued that there are indications that knowledge o f
specific languages has something to do with ethnic interaction, and in thi s
regard the knowledge of the local republic languages and its relationshi p
to friendships with local nationals is most interesting . Although the general score for respondents with local language knowledge is rather low (compare table 10) one can find a rather close association with friendship choice s
as a look at the cross-tabulation in table 4 reveals . A good knowledge o f
the local language correlates very closely with the variable
n = 19
n = 22
n =105
Close
37 %
5
3
Loose
42 %
27
22
Non e
21 %
68
75
*Evaluations are based on replies to the question " what nationality wer e
your personal friends ." If a respondent mentioned friends of a local nationality only as an afterthought, these friendships were categorized as " loose . "
12
3.
Intermarriag e
To measure personal and communal ties even more, our interview s
TABLE 5
ATTITUDES TOWARDS MARRIAGE BETWEEN GERMANS AND LOCAL NON-RUSSIAN S
Total
n = 192
Kazakhs
n = 70
Central
Asians
n= 36
Reject
82%
94%
92%
74%
67%
60 %
No
Difference
18%
6%
8%
26%
33%
40%
Balt s
n = 35
Moldavians*
and Others
n= 21
Non-Russian s
in RSFS R
n= 3 0
13
groups vary according to group and place of residence, attitudes toward s
marriage with Russians are strongly consistent no matter where the Germa n
respondents lived--with one crucial exception . Those Germans who lived i n
the Russian Federal Republic reject intermarriage with Russians to a
considerably lower degree than do Germans who lived in non-Russian area s
(see table 6) . This suggests that within the RSFSR tendencies toward s
assimilation and integration are considerably heightened .
TABLE 6
ATTITUDES TOWARDS MARRIAGE BETWEEN GERMANS AND RUSSIAN S
Last Residence i n
Total
n = 196
Kazakhstan
n = 70
Central
Asia
n = 36
Baltic
n = 35
Moldavi a
and Other
n= 21
RSFS R
n = 34
Reject
74%
79%
81%
80%
76%
53 %
No
Difference
26%
21%
19%
20%
24%
47%
*In all three cases Kazakh men had married German women ; one of th e
Kazakhs involved had a German stepmother . Both Kazakh and German wer e
used as the family languages (1182) .
14
passport . When asked about the non-German spouses '
15
all cases Muslims) was undesirable . Our group includes a reverse case a s
well : one person with a Karelian spouse thought that intermarriage wit h
Karelians was fine, but not desirable in the case of Russians .
In sum, one finds that in some cases positive experiences had le d
to or underlined positive attitudes towards intermarriage--the same applyin g
to negative experiences reinforcing negative attitudes--but there are als o
instances when experience has had no perceptible influence on attitudes .
One may thus conclude that although the occurrence of intermarriag e
alters attitudes towards it to some degree, this tendency is by no mean s
one-directional or overwhelming .
Clearly, intermarriage with non-Germans was rejected by a majorit y
of our Soviet-German emigrant respondents .
its own peopl e " was the most typical comment explaining negative attitude s
towards intermarriage, and many people also mentioned that mixed marriage s
sooner or later encountered special difficulties . Others pointed out tha t
in many cases intermarriage was also rejected by the non-Germans, th e
rejection of intermarriage being especially strong among Soviet Muslims ?
4.
16
of religious persons among our respondents it is important to inquire abou t
the effects of this factor on communal life and ethnic relations .
It is clear both from general comments made by the religious respon dents as well as by our summary data on the ethnic composition of congregations that their religious group affiliation is a crucial link with othe r
Germans . As table 7 indicates, the religious group was in a majority o f
cases composed primarily of other Germans :
TABLE 7
ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF CONGREGATIONS *
Mostly German
Mostly Russian
Mixed Russian-German
Mostly Local Non-Russian
No Data
Total
78
8
13
6
22
61
7
10
5
17
100
100
17
facility and perceptions of other groups (i .e . some of these respondent s
mentioned that they had both Russian and German friends " from the congregation, " etc .) .
One should also consider the possible impact of religion on ethni c
interaction between Soviet Germans and Balts . Since quite a few of the
Germans are Lutherans or Catholics, and since there also are many Lutheran s
among Estonians and Latvians, and many Catholics among Lithuanians, on e
could assume that religion forms a special tie among the Germans and Balts .
However, in the case of the Soviet Germans interviewed, questions abou t
their religious affiliation reveal that only one person had close ties t o
a Baltic religious congregation, and seven more had rather loose ties . 6
Altogether, these persons constitute just twenty-two percent of the tota l
sample of respondents who lived in the Baltic republics and one thus ha s
to conclude that in its organized form religion does not form a significan t
bond of communality between the Soviet Germans and the Balts, which is no t
to say that it might not have an undetermined psychological role ,
In the case of Germans living in Central Asia and Kazakhstan, on e
may note a slight reciprocal " love prejudice " between our respondents an d
Muslims in regards to religion and traditional customs . It is very interesting that although the religions differ, both sides show appreciation an d
a certain tolerance for the other . Thus, several respondents made a poin t
of relating that the
18
from Issyk, Kazakhstan) ;
our faith--we erected a large tent during the Thanksgiving celebration- they passed as if they didn ' t see anything .
. In our . ,
. polic e
there were only Kazakhs, they didn ' t do anything unless they were sen t
[and then they explained]
superficially, very constrained, without hate compared to the Russians- the Russian authorities are worse " (#91, Dzetesai, Kazakhstan) . Althoug h
it was not possible to test this aspect more systematically, comment s
like these suggest that religiosity--even if it involves a different faith- may have a positive influence on ethnic perceptions and interactions ; w e
found that there is some evidence not only for Muslims being understandin g
towards German religious activity, but that religious Germans similarly ten d
to be more perceptive in regard to the influence of Islam on the life o f
their Muslim cohabitants than are non-religious Germans . 7
1.
most crucial aspects affecting ethnic relations . Some of the basic findings will be presented here, but further references and comments ca n
be found in the various sections focusing on specific spheres of socia l
interaction .
Linguistic facility and usage in the USSR is interesting in regar d
to all the languages encountered, but within our context three basi c
languages should be considered : 1) the native language of the specifi c
ethnic group (i .e . German in our case) ; 2) Russian ; 3) the language o f
the republic nationality specifically referred to .
a . Native Language .
asked in the Soviet census :
An over-
whelming majority (191 out of 196) stated that it was German, 8 with th e
other individuals claiming Russian . However, if one compares thes e
results to findings about actual language behavior and facility, one find s
that the claim of a specific native language is hardly a reliable indicator of either . Since language use within the family is especially closel y
linked to a definition of native language, and since the overall patter n
in terms of generational differences overlaps with that of languag e
knowledge, the data provided in table 8 may be taken as indicative :
19
20
TABLE 8
LANGUAGE USE OF SOVIET GERMANS CLAIMING GERMAN NATIVE LANGUAG E
Language Used
With Parent s
With Spous e
With Children
n = 191
n = 148
n = 13 4
Only German
78 .5%
50%
32 .8 %
Both Germa n
and Russian
13 .1%
2 ;7
29 .9 %
8 .4%
29%
37 .3 %
Only Russian
Totals
100%
100%
100%
The data* clearly indicate that " native language " is by no means alway s
identical with the language used in family conversations . In the case o f
the Soviet Germans it also shows a tendency of Russian being used increasingly with each following generation .
Since the category " native language " is a major datum found i n
Soviet census data this finding is of interest to anybody using the m
in interpretations of ethnic processes in the USSR . Our research indicates that " native language " is an ambiguous category which, at least i n
certain cases, is less an indicator of actual linguistic ability or usag e
than a psychological measure indicating self-perception . For many of ou r
*One should note that the data for this table are also based o n
the self-evaluation of respondents and it is the impression of th e
interviewers that there was a tendency for the respondents to overrat e
their actual use of German . There were several respondents who sai d
that they spoke German to their children, but in fact used Russian i n
the hearing of the interviewer .
21
respondents the statement that their native language is German represente d
a way of asserting their ethnic identity ,
b.
Knowledge of Russian .
Russian : very well, well, medium well, badly, or very badly . A self evaluation of this kind certainly is not a very exact measure, but it wa s
deemed to be adequate for our purpose, i .e . to obtain a rough measure o f
the degree to which a linguistic barrier might exist in this regard . The
summary results show that only twenty-one percent of our respondents categorized themselves in the last three categories . This percentage woul d
probably have been higher if we had not oversampled the younger ag e
groups . As table 9 indicates, age is very closely associated with knowledge of Russian :
TABLE 9
KNOWLEDGE OF RUSSIAN, BY AGE GROUP S
Age Group
Knowledge of Russian
Tota l
( n= 200)
I
(n=75)
II
(n=62)
II I
(n=63 )
79%
99%
89%
54 %
Medium Good
15%
1%
11%
27 %
14 %
5%
Bad
4 .5%
Very Bad
1 .5%
Totals
100%
100%
100%
100%
As will be outlined in the next section, age is very closely associated with specific types of schooling, i .e . all of the persons attending school before 193 7
22
attended German language schools, and after that date, most attended Russia n
language schools . This factor therefore goes a long way in explaining the
above pattern of language knowledge . Additionally, the ethnic compositio n
of environments matters ; of the forty--two respondents who had a limite d
knowledge of Russian, 11 (26%) lived in places where Germans constitute d
the majority, and another 10 (24%) came from places where a republic nationality constituted a majority . However, this only reflects the las t
place of residence, one can safely assume that just about all of the olde r
respondents have lived in predominantly German villages or towns sometim e
in the past .
c . Knowledge of Union-Republic Languages .
The knowledge of republic languages generally is very low, althoug h
there are significant differences according to republic and region :
TABLE 1 0
KNOWLEDGE OF REPUBLIC LANGUAGE, IN PERCEN T
Respondent Knows Language o f
Respective Non-Russia n
Republic Nationalit y
Well
Entire USSR
(n=166)
12
Kazakhstan
(n=70)
Central Asia
(n=38)
Baltic
Other*
A Little
17,5
Not At Al l
70 .5
100 %
90
100 %
16
76
100 %
(n=37)
30
30
40
100 %
(n=21)
14
14
72
100%
23
have lived in specific republics, since on the average respondents ha d
lived longer in Kazakhstan and Central Asia than in the other non-Russia n
republics :
TABLE 1 1
LENGTH OF TIME RESPONDENTS LIVED IN UNION-REPUBLIC FRO M
WHICH THEY EMIGRATE D
Republics
RSFS R
23 .2 year s
19 . 1
Balti c
11 . 5
Other
10 .1
How else can we explain the regional differences in the knowledge of loca l
languages? A certain indication can be found in the way respondents wh o
knew a local language had acquired this knowledge . When asked about this ,
a variety of contexts were mentioned, and mentioned at different frequencies :
TABLE 1 2
CONTEXT IN WHICH REPUBLIC LANGUAGE WAS LEARNE D
Context Mentioned by Respondents
Frequency Mentione d
21 case s
At Work
12 case s
10 case s
24
2.
our respondents had attended school for less than nine years . As the same
table illustrates, level of education is very closely associated with age :
while most (54%) of the younger respondents have nine to twelve years o f
schooling, a majority (51%) of the respondents in the second age group hav e
attended school for five to eight years, and the oldest age group has th e
largest percentage (47%) of attended school for less than five years . Amon g
these, four individuals had never attended school .
TABLE 1 3
EDUCATION ACCORDING TO AGE, IN PERCEN T
Number of Years
of Schooling
Respondent s ' Ag e
Tota l
(n=200)
18-32 Years
(n=75)
33-34 Years
(n=62)
Over 43 Year s
(n=63 )
16%
47 %
0-4 (Category I)
20
34
19%
51%
35 %
54%
15%
8%
12 and Mor e
(Category IV)
27%
18%
10 %
100%
100%
100%
Totals
18 .5%
100%
25
Since so very few of our respondents fall into the category o f
persons having a higher education, it is not fruitful to examine ou r
general data in terms of possible variation of general ethnic attitude s
according to level of education . The general literature on ethnic attitudes and interaction has found that one can find interesting difference s
according to educational level--and this has also been found in certai n
ethno-sociological studies in the USS R 1 --but our data do not lend themselve s
for such inquiry . However, certain tentative conclusions can be made abou t
the ethnic experiences in higher educational institutions as such (se e
below) .
b . As to the primary and secondary schools attended by respondents ,
one finds a very clear pattern closely related to historical events . Thus ,
all those persons attending school before 1937 attended German languag e
schools where the entire student body consisted of Germans . This relate s
to the historical fact that until the mid-thirties education in the nativ e
language was available in all of the so-called
Volga, in the Ukraine, Siberia, the Caucasus, etc . After 1936, thes e
schools changed to Russian or the respective republic language (in most o f
our cases Ukrainian) . Since then, schools in which the language of instruction is German have not been available to the German population of th e
USSR, and one thus finds that just about all of the Soviet Germans attending school after 1937 have attended Russian language schools (table 14) .
The case of those respondents who studied in German languag e
schools is rather straightforward and requires little comment, excep t
maybe for the rather obvious one that these respondents are those wh o
generally know German best, and have a relatively weak knowledge of Russian .
26
TABLE 1 4
SCHOOLS ATTENDED BY RESPONDENTS, ACCORDING TO LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTIO N
Number of Cases
In Percen t
150
76 %
1 .5 %
0 .5 %
31
Totals
196
1 6%
100 %
The case of those respondents who have attended Russian language school s
is more complex . In itself, the fact of having attended such a schoo l
implies a good knowledge of Russian . However, one should keep in min d
that many individuals in the medium or older age group attended schoo l
for a few years only . In addition, replies to another question in our inter view schedule reveal that approximately half of those who attended Russia n
language schools had serious difficulties with learning this languag e
during the first years of schooling . In many cases, a German child entere d
a Russian language grade school without knowing any Russian at all and th e
quality and speed of the learning process differs considerably from case t o
case .
27
On the other hand, one cannot assume that a person who attended a
Russian language school has had no formal instruction in German . Sinc e
German is one of the important world languages, most pupils in the USS R
can study it as a foreign language, and as can be seen in table 15,
TABLE 1 5
RESPONDENTS' EXPOSURE TO THE STUDY OF GERMAN AT SCHOOL *
Students Attending Russian or Republic
Language Schools After 1945
Number of
Student s
99
64 %
10
4%
45
29 %
154
100 %
Totals
*See also table 14 .
28
closely linked to differing patterns in interethnic relations . There fore, we asked our respondents whether they had studied any of th e
republic languages or literatures in school . In a small number of case s
(four) individuals had had a course in Kazakh literature, in Russian .
In another forty-eight cases, respondents had studied the republi c
language, mostly Kazakh (28 cases), or another Central Asian languag e
(11), with individual persons studying Moldavian (2) or Lithuanian (1) ,
or Ukrainian in the pre-war Ukraine (5) . Since the latter cases ar e
relatively few, they will be disregarded in the analysis below .
A closer examination of those cases where respondents had studie d
a Central Asian language in school yields rather suggestive results .
Thus we find that although a total of thirty-nine respondents had studie d
these languages in school, a total of only sixteen respondents ha d
claimed knowledge of these same languages in response to an earlie r
question on the interview schedule asking about language knowledge .
Since even among these, some had learned the language on their own, on e
can only conclude that the study of these languages in schools was highl y
ineffective . There are, however, two other important factors which emerge
from replies to additional questioning of those respondents who had ha d
instruction in Central Asian languages . In response to the question ho w
they had liked studying the particular language, two-thirds (26) replie d
that they disliked it, and in response to a further question as to whethe r
they ever used this language outside of school, three fourths (30) sai d
that they hadn ' t . To quote :
" there was no attempt to teach the Kazakh language in a serious way" (#30) ;
"one doesn't need this language [Tadzhik], at work all papers were in
29
Russian "
(#181) ;
Yes, [I used it] at work, the older Kirgiz do not understand any Russia n "
(#109) ;
" when one lives there [Kazakhstan] it is good when one knows thei r
3.
or separate institution s
30
especially true for the Baltic republics, but applies to other places a s
well .
In our sample a total of thirty-seven individuals were categorize d
as having a degree of higher education, defined as twelve or more year s
of formal schooling . However, the quantity and quality of this highe r
schooling differs from case to case and is rather unimpressive on th e
average . Thus one finds that only twelve of our respondents had attende d
universities and the other twenty-five respondents categorized as havin g
some degree of higher education attended various types of
tekhnikumi .
Also ,
31
encounter a considerable number of respondents with this type of experience, but it turned out that these cases were rare as well . As a result ,
we could only study multiethnicity as it applies to students of differen t
ethnic backgrounds studying together in an educational establishment wit h
Russian as the language of instruction .
An examination of the ethnic composition of the student body of th e
educational institutions attended by our respondents (table 16) shows that ,
in fact, Russians dominated in most cases . In all of the other cases no
one ethnic group had a numerical majority, i .e ., the ethnic environmen t
was mixed " internationalist " :
TABLE 1 6
ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ATTENDE D
Composition of Student Bod y
Mostly Russian
Mixed, No Majorit y
Kazakhstan (n = 10)
50%
50%
100 %
Central Asia (n = 9)
89
11
100 %
100
100 %
Moldavia (n = 1)
100
100 %
RSFSR (n = 14)
64%
36%
100 %
Total (n = 37)
68%
32%
100%
Baltic (n = 3)
32
the data shown in table 17 suggest that the ethnic composition of the respective institutions had a considerable impact on the choice of friends . O n
several occasions respondents made a point of mentioning that friendship s
had emerged within a functional context :
countryside who was renting a room from us " (#59) ; "My friend was a Russian
neighbor, we travelled to school together " (#53) ; or else "My friends wer e
all who happened to be my roommates : two Russians, one Ukrainian, two German s "
(#158) . Several times one could also hear the explanation " there were n o
other Germans there, I was the only one, so my friends were Russians " (#134 ,
and others) implying that Germans would have been preferred as friends i f
there had been any .
TABLE 1 7
FRIENDS IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ,
ACCORDING TO ETHNIC ENVIRONMEN T
Composition of Student Bod y
Nationality of Friends
Mostly Russia n
(n = 25)
Mixed, No Majorit y
(n = 12 )
8%
8%
Mostly Russian
68%
17 %
Mixed, No Majority
12%
34 %
No Friends, or No Reply
12%
41 %
100%
100%
Mostly German
Total
33
" relations were good . "
" when one is studying, nationality doesn ' t make any difference, all hav e
the same goal, to study " (#25) ; and " I didn ' t notice anything, everybod y
was only thinking about exams . "
that this relationship does not apply all the time : " That was okay, where ever there are only whites, it's okay" (#1, Frunze) ;
friendly .
shops, in the city, a Kirgiz will let another Kirgiz go ahead when standing in line" (#59) ; " In those times [1920 and 1930s] no differences wer e
made" (#134) .
As indicated, only 18 percent of the responses mention some proble m
at the specific institution, and only 14 percent mention some general problem in the relations between students of various ethnicity . While thes e
percentages are very low, one should remember that in a majority of case s
non-Russians were present at the respective institutions only in smal l
numbers . In those instances where relations were characterized as unusua l
most referred to students of a certain nationality keeping to themselves .
In one interesting case a respondent from the Udmurt region of the RSFS R
described relations like this : "The Tatars know how to get along well wit h
other people .
and Kazakhs, especially among the students" (#21) ; "Everyone looks down o n
the Kirgiz, they are the most backward, dumb, dirty" (#59) .
Since the latter remark is phrased in strongly pejorative terms it
34
is worthwhile to note that comments about the
others specified how and why students were favored : " The Kirgiz have a harde r
time studying, and therefore are helped more, so that they can graduate .
. More is required from the Russian students
. we accept that, th e
Russians as well, everybody knows that the Kirgiz have a harder time study ing .
Russian, they don't understand as well " (#1, Frunze) . There was anothe r
respondent who mentioned that when somebody knows Russian very badly he i s
let through exams easier (#173) ; and a similar reply said, that generall y
no difference is made " except for the blacks, they [the instructors] as k
less of them, because they know that they are less gifted" (1/144) . Th e
latter quote again illustrates the statement made at the beginning of thi s
paragraph .
Of course specific students can be favored or disfavored for reason s
other than nationality as well, but only four respondents mentioned examples .
35
Thus, two respondents said that politics mattered, i .e ., one thought tha t
children of party members were privileged (#114), and another one though t
that this was generally true for Komsomol members (#79) . Two other respondents mentioned that believers were treated worse than other students (#117 ,
#130) . In sum, one finds that favoritism due to ethnic criteria is the on e
factor cited most frequently which is even more interesting if one remember s
that a majority of our respondents had attended institutions where Russian s
formed the majority of the student body . This finding corresponds rathe r
well, however, with the findings in regard to favoritism in universit y
admissions . 9
1.
2.
37
establish some basic facts about the ethnic composition of places of work ,
as well as specific work collectives, Then several questions were aske d
about the role of nationality in relationships at work . Since Soviet sociologists have published material on surveys asking people whether the nationalit y
of co-workers and supervisors made any difference to them, the same topic wa s
strongly emphasized in our interviews in order to secure some data for comparisons . Originally it was hoped that we could phrase some of thes e
questions in exactly the same way as done by Soviet scholars, but this unfortunately turned out to be impossible . Not all of them report the exac t
formulation of questions, they differ among each other in formulations ,
and sometimes formulations that are used are problematic in light of methodological criteria established in the West.10
compare results of Soviet surveys and Western surveys in detail ; nevertheless, it is interesting to compare the broad conclusions and internal variance .
One such very broad comparison that can be amde concerns varianc e
between attitudes towards intermarriage and attitudes towards co-worker s
and supervisors of different nationality . In various ethno-sociologica l
studies Soviet survey researchers have found that the percentage of individuals who view that the nationality of co-workers and supervisors i s
insignificant is usually considerably larger than the percentage of peopl e
regarding nationality to be insignificant in marriage, The percentage difference cited in various studies fluctuates, but the average is aroun d
twenty percentage points . 11
38
marriage, fifty-five percent thought that it did not matter in regard t o
co-workers, and sixty-five percent thought that it made no difference i n
regard to supervisors . 12
ence found is comparable to the one found in Soviet surveys, the percentag e
values as such differ, i .e . the percentage of " internationalist " attitude s
reported in Soviet studies is much higher than in ours .
Clearly, ethnicity is perceived to be significantly more importan t
in the personal and familial sphere than in work relationships . Nevertheless, our survey found that to a significant percentage of respondents ,
ethnicity did also play a role on the job . Why? What reasons are mentione d
by the respondents themselves, and what conclusions can we draw on th e
basis of cross-tabulations of individual variables? A closer look at ou r
data suggests that besides a human tendency to have personal ethnic preferences--especially in regard to one's own national group--, a variety o f
" functional " reasons play a role . Among these, the most important are language knowledge and behavior, work traditions and financial rewards, a s
well as the specific ethnic mix of a work collective and broader environment .
A first indication of this is provided if we examine why certai n
respondents perceive that the multi ethnic composition of a work collectiv e
does have significance and others think that it doesn't . Cross-tabulatio n
of individual responses with other variables suggest that responses ar e
associated with the actual experiences respondents have had . These experiences differ ; and the first difference becomes evident in a closer examinatio n
of the role of the concrete experience of having worked in multi- or mono ethnic work group at the last place of work . As can be seen in table 18 ,
individuals who have worked in multi-ethnic collectives generally are less
39
likely to perceive that multi-ethnicity has a negative influence on interaction than is the case for individuals who have worked in mono-ethnic collectives (the latter is defined as a group where all, or nearly all, member s
belong to one nationality) . This would imply that experience with multi ethnicity has an "integrativ e " influence . However, the category " mono-ethni c "
collective actually subsumes three distinctive types of collectives--o r
TABLE 1 8
INFLUENCE OF MULTI-ETHNICITY ON INTERACTION WITHIN WORK GROUPS *
Evaluation of
Multi-ethnicity
Total
(n = 132)
Multi-ethnic
(n = 58)
Worked Alon e
(n = 15 )
No Difference
64%
58%
72%
60 %
Negative Influence
31
37
23
40
Positive Influence
100%
100%
100%
Totals
100%
*The question was : " Scientists here in the West and also in the Sovie t
Union frequently study the interaction in multi-ethnic work collectives ;- what is your experience, does the multi-ethnic composition of a work grou p
have any influence, and if so, is this influence positive or negative? "
40
asked after the general evaluation of multi-ethnic collectives, i .e ., "woul d
you yourself have preferred co-workers of a specific nationality? "
Again th e
als o
shows a pattern similar to the one evident in its corresponding table (table 19) .
TABLE 1 9
EVALUATIONS OF MULTI-ETHNIC WORK GROUPS ACCORDING TO TYP E
OF MONO-ETHNIC GROUP RESPONDENT WORKED I N
Dominant Nationality in Work Collectiv e
Evaluation o f
Multi-Ethnicity
German
(n = 17)
Russian
(n = 27)
Native
(n = 15 )
No Difference
24%
70%
73 %
Negative Influence
70
22
27
Positive Influence
100%
100%
100 %
Totals
TABLE 2 0
"WOULD YOU YOURSELF HAVE PREFERRED CO-WORKER S
OF A SPECIFIC NATIONALITY? "
Type of Collective in Which Respondent Worke d
Response
Tota l
(n = 136)
Mono-ethnic
(n = 58)
Multi-ethnic
(n = 59)
Worked Alon e
(n = 19 )
No Difference
55%
53%
63%
42 %
Yes
45
57
37
58
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
41
TABLE 2 1
ETHNIC PREFERENCE REGARDING CO-WORKERS, DIFFERIN G
MONO-ETHNIC WORK GROUP S
Dominant Nationality in Work Collectiv e
Evaluation o f
Multi-Ethnicity
German
(n = 17)
Russian
(n = 26)
Nativ e
(n = 15 )
No Difference
29%
50%
60 %
Personal Preference
71
50
40
100%
100%
100%
Totals
majority or all were Germans . The first striking aspect of this finding i s
the strong overlap or personal preference and actual work experience : doe s
this mean that the experience of having worked in a German brigade cause d
these evaluations, or is it the other way around, i .e . can we assume tha t
persons with certain attitudes and experiences will seek out work groups i n
which Germans dominate? At this point we cannot answer this question, bu t
if the latter is true it would be an intriguing example of autonomous behavior and group formation in the working environment .
It should be interjected here that a great majority of respondent s
expressing specific preferences in their co-workers preferred other German s
(for exact data, see below table 25) . The explanations given vary and i t
is by no means possible to categorize all--or even a majority--as attitudinal .
Functional reasons relating to smooth interaction within the group an d
" getting the job done " were cited surprisingly often . One of the factor s
cited is the advantage of having a common language (more about the role o f
existing or non-existing language barriers below), Another frequentl y
42
mentioned and most intriguing reason for personal preferences in co-worker s
(mostly other Germans) or in generally negative evaluations of multi-ethni c
work collectives focuses on differences in earnings . It was said tha t
because Germans work harder, the brigades in which they dominate earn more :
" There are German construction brigades, and they earn mor e "
were three of us working together, but our pay was calculated together an d
we didn ' t want to take any lazy blacks (in our group) " (#144) ; " There ar e
quarrels about earnings if it (brigade) is mixed "
43
Of course preferences in co-workers were frequently also explaine d
by individual reasons such as better understanding, or the reverse, but i t
appears that tangible reasons such as the ones cited above should be studie d
more closely, especially since they are very rarely mentioned in comparabl e
Soviet studies which tend to focus more on the personal-attitudinal side o f
interethnic relations at the place of work .
As to the impact of the ethnic composition of respondents' wor k
collectives, no differentiation of mono- or multi-ethnic collectives i s
made in the published results of Soviet surveys . However, some surveys d o
examine the role of the ethnic composition of the larger environmen t
basically arguing that more negative attitudes are associated with homogeneous environments, or rather environments in which a non-Russian nationalit y
has the great majority . However, this conclusion is methodologically doubtful in the case of Kholmogorov, 13 and at least partially doubtful in th e
case of Arutiunian . Thus the latter differentiates between ethnicall y
homogeneous Tatar villages and ethnically homogeneous Russian villages, an d
finds that ethnic attitudes are more positive in the latter . Curiously ,
this is said to apply both to Tatars and Russians, implying that a Russia n
dominated environment is more " integrative " in any case . 14
There is jus t
44
the Soviet studies differentiate between " homogeneou s " environments dominate d
by Russians or an indigenous group (Tatars), and in our case a third type- dominance by an extraterritorial group (Germans)--is found . From the poin t
of view of the Germans, only the latter environment is
It is importan t
no notable differenc e
45
suggestive points emerge . Thus one can note the role of language barrier s
if one examines the association between language skill and specific evaluations of multi-ethnicity influencing interaction within work collective s
(table 22) . It is evident that persons who do not know the local language ,
or know it only a little, are much more likely to evaluate it negatively
than people with a good knowledge of the local language .
TABLE 2 2
LANGUAGE SKILL AND EVALUATION O FMULTI-EHNC
WORK GROUPS IN THE BALTIC REPUBLIC S
Respondent Knows Local Languag e
Evaluation of
Multi-Ethnicity
Tota l
(n = 24)
Well
(n = 8)
A Little
(n = 6)
Not at Al l
(n = 10 )
No Difference
54%
75%
50%
40 %
Negative Influence
38
12
50
50
Positive Influence
10
Don't Know
13
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
any Latvian, and they don ' t understand German " (#118), or " If one doesn ' t
understand the language, one sits alone " (#70) .
46
who had lived in the Baltic especially many respondents volunteered statements that some knowledge of the local language was crucial for effectiv e
and friendly interaction . It was pointed out that many Latvians, Lithuanians ,
and Estonians do not speak Russian well, or do not want to use it ; a truck driver who lived in Latvia explained,
(#119) .
few mentioned that they preferred Germans--and in some instances Russians- because of the commonality of language .
The latter point is underlined for the case of local language knowledge if we examine table 23 . Clearly, knowledge of the republic language i s
associated with a more positive attitude towards co-workers of the indigenou s
nationality, in this case the Balts . It is furthermore interesting to compare the data in tables 22 and 23, since it highlights the distinctive con tent of the two questions . While in the case of a general evaluation a
majority of persons with a good knowledge of the local language thought tha t
multi-ethnicity of a work group made no difference, personal ethnic preferences regarding co-workers were expressed in most instances when the question focused on personal attitudes . This suggests that--at least in som e
cases--multi-ethnicity was evaluated positively because it did coincide wit h
personal preferences . On the other hand, one finds that among those respondents
47
who did not know the local languages at all, the percentage of people wit h
personal preferences in co-workers is smaller than the percentage statin g
a negative perception of multi-ethnic work collectives . In this case negative evaluations of multi-ethnic collectives clearly relate less to persona l
preferences than to language problems .
TABLE 2 3
LANGUAGE SKILL AND ETHNIC PREFERENCE O F
CO-WORKERS IN THE BALTIC REPUBLIC S
Respondent Knows Local Languag e
Preference
Tota l
(n = 24)
Well
(n = 8)
A Little
(n = 7)
Not At Al l
(n = 9 )
None
54%
37 .5%
72%
56 %
Other Germans
25
25
14
33
Local Balts
13
37 .5
1 1
Russians
Germans or Russians
14
100%
100%
Totals
100%
100%
48
emphasis is always placed on the knowledge of Russian . Nevertheless, on e
might draw a parallel between our cases and those instances where Sovie t
scholars studied the role of language knowledge in a strongly Russian environment . In studies of Tatars in the RSFSR it was found that persons who do no t
know Russian are most likely to state that the nationality of their co-worker s
and superiors does make a difference to them . Individuals who knew Russian
said so less frequently . 17
not about the knowledge of Russian per se, but rather about the role of th e
knowledge of the language of the people who form a majority in an environment, then these findings match the findings of our survey, since we foun d
that within a context in which local Balts dominate numerically, knowledg e
of the relevant Baltic language is the key to better ethnic interaction .
Our findings are supported by a further check about the role o f
language knowledge, this time in regard to ethnic preferences in regard t o
superiors . Our data show that among those who have some or a good knowledg e
of the respective local language the tendency to prefer native bosses i s
higher than among those who do not know the language :
TABLE 2 4
LANGUAGE SKILL AND ETHNIC PREFERENCE OF SUPERVISOR* IN NON-RUSSIAN REPUBLIC S
Respondent Knows Local Languag e
Preference
Wel l
(n = 24)
A Littl e
(n = 18)
Not at Al l
(n = 89 )
None
46%
61%
65 %
Other Germans
21
20
Locals
33
22
11
Russians
17
100%
100%
100%
Totals
*Ethnic preference was measured by the question : " If it had been possibl e
for you to choose your immediate superior, would you have preferred a specifi c
nationality, or wouldn ' t it have made any difference to you? "
49
Generally, however, it is interesting to note that there are certai n
differences between ethnic preferences expressed in regard to supervisors an d
those expressed in regard to co-workers . The first notable difference i s
that the number of respondents preferring Russian bosses is extremely low ,
and that the percentage of persons preferring German bosses is also relativel y
low if one compares the percentage to the one regarding co-workers (table 25) .
In contrast, one finds that the number of persons preferring native bosse s
TABLE 2 5
ETHNIC PREFERENCE REGARDING SUPERVISOR AND CO-WORKER S
Preference
Supervisor
(n = 159)
Co-Worker s
(n = 136 )
None
65%
55 %
Germans
20
39
Republic Nationals
12
Russians
All, Except Locals
50
TABLE 2 6
ETHNIC PREFERENCE REGARDING SUPERVISO R
IN NON-RUSSIAN REPUBLIC S
Nationality of Respondent s '
Last Superviso r
Preference
Loca l
(n = 44)
Non-Loca l
(n = 89 )
None
52%
67 %
Local
29
German
17
25
100%
100%
Russian
Total
" Do you think that it made any difference to the others at you r
place of work who their superiors were?" As can be seen in table 27, man y
thought that this was the case, but the pattern varies somewhat in regar d
to individual republics . The most noticeable variation can be observed i n
the case of the Baltic republics which represent the only instance in whic h
a majority of respondents thought that the nationality of the superviso r
51
TABLE 2 7
ETHNIC PREFERENCE IN REGARD TO WORK SUPERVISORS : RESPONDENTS '
EVALUATION OF PREFERENCE OF CO-WORKER S
Tota l
(n = 136)
Kazakhstan an d
Central Asia
(n = 74)
Moldavia
Baltic
RSFS R
25) and Other
(n =
(n = 21 )
(n = 16 )
Specific Nationalit y
Is Preferred
37%
35%
56%
38%
24 %
No Difference
51
53
32
56
62
Don't Know
12
12
12
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100 %
Totals
TABLE 2 8
ETHNIC PREFERENCE IN REGARD TO WORK SUPERVISORS :
RESPONDENTS ' PERSONAL ATTITUD E
(n
Tota l
= 159)
Kazakhstan and
Central Asia
(n = 89)
Moldavia
Baltic
RSFS R
27) and Other
(n =
(n = 26 )
(n = 17 )
Specific Nationalit y
Is Preferred
35%
35%
41%
53%
19 %
No Difference
65
65
59
47
81
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
52
the Baltic cases are somewhat " atypical " within our general sample in tha t
a majority of respondents lived in environments in which the indigenou s
nations constituted a numerical majority . Thus, it appears that this specifi c
" ethnic mix " may explain the atypical response pattern . Unfortunately ou r
sample is too small to allow " controlling for " this one variable .
If one furthermore compares the ethnic preferences regarding super visors as they relate to the Soviet Germans themselves and as they relate t o
their co-workers, one again notes certain divergences from the overal l
pattern . Thus, the Germans who lived in the Baltic republics personall y
come rather close to the average percentage of respondents saying that the y
do or do not prefer supervisors with a certain background . This suggest s
that in this instance the Soviet Germans are more
their outlook than their non-Russian and Russian colleagues . In the cas e
of Moldavia, however, the reverse is true . In light of the small number o f
cases, any explanation must remain tentative, but it is possible that th e
difference in this case can be explained by the fact that most respondent s
had lived in Moldavia for a much shorter period than in other republics, an d
therefore felt comparatively less at ease with indigenous supervisors . Mos t
of those who preferred specific bosses preferred Germans, or else Russians .
Many of the respondents who stated that the ethnic background o f
supervisors did make a difference to their co-workers provided explanation s
for this phenomenon . Among these explanations one finds several major points .
According to the first, each nationality prefers a boss of its own background ,
typical comments being,
would prefer Russian s " (#100), or " of course everybody wants their own " (##167) .
Another respondent related this experience : " Our boss was a Ukrainian . The
53
Kazakhs didn ' t like him, but they liked the Kazakh [who was boss before] .
When the Ukrainian was boss, the Russians would come to work on Sundays [t o
fulfill the plan], but when the Kazakh was boss, the Muslims came to work o n
Sundays" (#82) .
The second point coincides with several statements made before whe n
the Germans commented on their own preferences in regard to co-workers an d
supervisors, i .e . language was pinpointed as a major reason for preferences ,
especially in the Baltic area . Thus, a lorry driver who had lived in Latvi a
said : " If a Russian is the boss, one has to speak in Russian "
(#119), an d
" becaus e
(#130) .
A further basic category of explanations focused on colleagues preferring a boss of their nationality because " it is their native country . "
This reply underlines the perception of an indigenous republic nationalit y
having special rights and strivings within their republic, a point that wa s
also frequently encountered in replies to other questions in our intervie w
schedule . 18
IV . INTEGRATIVE INSTITUTION S
1.
The Komsomo l
The possibilities of studying interethnic relations within th e
and occupational status, and among individuals with a special ethnic religious profile . Nevertheless, this finding suggests that more comprehensiv e
follow-up studies could yield new insights about this aspect of life in th e
contemporary Soviet Union .
Among those respondents who had not been members of the Komsomol ,
most (63%) just stated the fact in response to our question, and did not ad d
any comments . Among those who provided explanations, religion was mentione d
most frequently (19%) . Most specified that it was impossible to be both i n
the Komsomol and a believer, and in one intriguing case the responden t
compared this attitude to that of the Muslims : " I wasn't in the Komsomo l
because I am a believer . We cannot serve two masters at the same time, bu t
they [Turkmens] are able to do both--believe and be in the part y "
(#71) . Th e
55
(6%), concerns the early wish to emigrate, i .e ., " I knew that we would emigrate, and then this makes difficulties (#116) . Some (5%) also mentione d
that there was no point in joining the Komsomol, that it only cost money ,
and a few stated that they didn't join because of their nationality . Amon g
the latter were some who felt rejected, i .e ., " Germans are stepchildren, "
and there were others who did n ' t want to join on their own, because " German s
usually didn't join .
Among those who had joined the Komsomol (29 respondents) and who di d
specify their reasons, the largest percentage (45%) stated that they ha d
joined because everybody else was doing so, i .e ., all their peers . Som e
specified that they conformed without thinking much about it, and other s
thay they did not want to stick out . The latter point was made to impl y
that it would be uncomfortable to do so, i .e ., " everybody joined, so I di d
too .
. If one doesn ' t join one is hassled all the time "
(#32) ;
" I wa s
the best student, everybody joined, so I had to as well--otherwise every body would have looked at me strangely " (#114) . The second largest grou p
(28%) mentioned that they had been more or less coerced to join
" I wa s
forced to join during military service, they require that 100% are member s
of the Komsomol . A Chinese and I were the only ones who weren ' t members ,
so on May 9th they simply gave us membership cards witout us learning th e
by-laws, or anything" (#94) ;
(#82) .
56
was a Komsomol . Among the two respondents joining out of conviction on e
said " at that time I didn ' t dream yet about Germany, that was in sevent h
grade, and then I was still a patrio t " (#153) and the other " everybody a t
school joined and it gave me pride to be a member of the Komsomo l "
(#154) .
57
membership on ethnic relations all respondents who had been members of th e
Komsomol were asked : "Do you think that the Komsomol contributed to a n
improvement of understanding between various nationalities? "
Twenty-on e
percent of the respondents replied in an affirmative manner, another twenty one percent did not reply or said that they didn't know, and fifty-eigh t
percent replied with a " No . "
appears that the main reason for the negative evaluations can be found i n
the generally low level of serious activity within the framework of th e
Komsomol . Thus, one of the respondents explained his "no" by adding tha t
" there weren't any activities, they only collected membership dues "
(#32) ,
and another one said that " it [the Komsomol] isn ' t made for that--eithe r
culture or human contacts "
(#77) .
(#97
(#41) .
2.
is minimal, the same cannot be said for the armed forces . Although w e
found that communal and linguistic differentiation has a major impact i n
this particular sphere as well, the general ethnic experience during military service has been an integrative one for most respondents . It appear s
that this is closely related to the various institutional arrangements, a s
well as to the socializing effect of participation in multi-ethnic groups
58
that are much less susceptible to individual influences than work collectives ,
All male respondents who were younger than forty were asked whethe r
they had served in the Soviet armed forces, and if so, a number of question s
were posed about the role of ethnicity within this context . It emerge d
that--compared to educational institutions for example--the study of ethnicit y
is rather fruitful in this area since formally this is just about the mos t
integrated Soviet institution . There is no segregation into special nationa l
units, and no sub-sections exist within which a language other than Russia n
is used, as is the case in education . Therefore, respondents such as th e
Soviet German emigrants have had comparatively much contact with othe r
nationalists in this sphere and are able to relate their experiences .
Again, one of our first objectives was to try to measure the ethni c
composition of this particular social environment . Respondents were aske d
to estimate the percentage ratios of various nationalities represented i n
their units ; this emerged as relatively easy in those instances when on e
group--the Russians in all our cases--formed a numerical majority of 6 0
percent or more, In those cases where no one nationality formed th e
majority respondents frequently were unable to specify percentages and als o
stated that they were unable to always tell the nationalities apart . Thus :
" There were too many nationalities, I don't know" (#34) ;
. We
together, about 35 percent " (#119) ; " There were about 30 percent blacks-I couldn ' t tell them apart " (#16) ; " There were Muslims--Kazakhs, Uzbeks ,
Turkmens "
also mean Ukrainians and Belorussians, we don ' t differentiate among them,
59
only by their name s '' (#144) ; " Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians were 7 0
percent altogether " (#158) .
It is well-known that within the Soviet armed forces ethnic mixin g
does not only affect the national groups, but also the territorial assignments . Thus we did not encounter a single case in which a republi c
nationality had had the numerical majority within a unit stationed in th e
respective republicor, for that matter, stationed anywhere else . The on e
important exception, of course, is constituted by the Russians, althoug h
even here one finds indications of a considerable mixing . Thus, exactl y
two-thirds of our respondents had been stationed in the RSFSR, but of thes e
twenty-four cases only thirteen reported that Russians had formed th e
numerical majority in their unit, with ten others indicating that thei r
unit had had an ethnically mixed composition in which no one nationalit y
dominated (the one remaining respondent replied with
60
Turning first to the question of ethnic stratification, the finding s
in response to two questions are pertinent . The first question asked whethe r
soldiers of a specific nationality were preferred in selections for mor e
responsible tasks or special training courses . Among our thirty-si x
respondents, 58% replied with " No, " 8% gave no answer, and 36% gave som e
type of affirmative answer . Among these (eleven respondents) three sai d
that Germans would not be assigned to rocketbases or other more secret units ,
several stressed that 'black s " frequently are assigned to guard units (MVD) ,
and several others thought that Russians are chosen for more responsibl e
positions, although there was one respondent who said the opposite : " The y
take Russians less frequently, prefer the others who have more of a n
ingrained tendency towards the service .
proud to be a sergeant .
also want that more " (#144) . Some said that non-Russians were more frequently assigned to construction units, but this was not stressed ver y
strongly with some respondents mentioning other criteria for service i n
these units such as bad health, low level of education, a criminal tendency ,
or strong religious belief .
The other question in this area asked about the nationality o f
sergeants and whether the respondent though that nationality played a rol e
in the promotion to sergeant . The typical response was no, there was n o
difference, " with additional comments such as "I was a sergeant myself, " o r
" education is decisive . "
were made on the basis of nationality, the one exception being self-selection ,
i .e ., some respondents indicated that certain persons were more eager t o
become sergeants and as a result would also be chosen more frequently .
61
Several mentioned that this was true for Ukrainians, but one also mentione d
Caucasians and another one said " those are mostly Germans
, whoeve r
knows how to command, nationality doesn ' t play a role ; there was also a
Turkmen "
(#82) .
quite a few of our respondents appear to have been in that role (we did no t
ask about this, but quite a few volunteered the information) . There is on e
more comment which was volunteered in this context and deserves to b e
quoted : " No, in the army everybody is equal .
making ethnic slurs .
thrown my draft card on the table and said 'if I am a fascist, send me t o
the FRG'"
(#52) .
(#52) .
(#119) . In sum ,
62
that men who wanted that kind of career could have it, and one responden t
specified : " In Kazakhstan there are Kazakh officers as well ; I too wa s
offered the chance to go to officers training, but I did n ' t want to--on e
serves twenty-five years and then doesn't have a profession "
(#121) .
63
the new ones, but even here nationality intervenes at least in some occasions :
" Of course the black nation kept together . The Russians ridicule thei r
first-year soldiers, harass them, but the Kazakhs defend their young draftees .
. The Kazakhs and Tatars always stand one for the other, go on furloug h
together " (#61) .
The second question asked whether soldiers conversed in language s
other than Russian . Eighty-nine percent of our sample said yes, which i s
rather notable if one remembers that many respondents had served in unit s
where Russians formed the numerical majority and the non-Russians thus wer e
not very numerous . However, persons of specific nationality apparentl y
seek each other out and systematically converse in their own native languages .
This appears to be prevalent among all non-Russians . No one nationality
was singled out in the comments, except for those instances where onl y
certain nationals were present in a unit : " There were thirteen nationalities ,
each conversed in their own language "
(#75) ;
" We as well .
. , and th e
Muslims ; the Russians object that they don't understand anything" (#82) ;
" The Kirgiz speak Kirgiz in their free time, there are Kirgiz who do no t
know Russian" (#109) ;
their own, the Uzbeks among themselves always, even if there are Russian s
there .
doesn't allow it .
64
at work as well as in their free time" (#58) ;
happen that they used it during duty hours as well" (#30) ; " Yes,
. no t
only in their free time, also ask each other questions, those who have bee n
in the service for a longer time already--but after a year they lear n "
(#173) .
(#168) o r
" One learns very quickly what is needed" (#16) . Those who saw some problem s
made comments such as these : " The Kirgiz had difficulties, but they learne d
[Russian] from each other
half a year they play the fool, as if they don ' t understand anything, bu t
then they learn" (#163) : " It is more difficult at the beginning, but by th e
end of the service, they know it" (#156) .
Some comments about linguistic difficulties were : The Kazakhs and
65
Armenians know Russian very badly, but they don't yield, [they] are takin g
the upper hand " (#61) ; " There was an Uzbek about whom it was said that h e
didn ' t want to speak Russian and pretended not knowing it . I taught hi m
' say mina, '
" Yes, somebody who doesn't understand isn't going to be sent to work wit h
radar or the telegraph . However, the majority only pretend that they don' t
know it [Russian] " (#94) ; " Of course it matters, there are more conflict s
because of those who don't know the language " (#31) ; " The Kirgiz an d
Kazakhs can speak it only very badly when they come into the army
There are general difficulties because they know it so badly, one has t o
explain everything ; that takes much time and frequently he doesn ' t carry
out what was asked of him " (#173) .
One interesting aspect of some of these comments is the apparen t
perception among some non-Muslims that Kirgiz, Kazakhs, et al ., only preten d
to not know Russian . This suggests that language behavior is associate d
with a certain attitudinal outlook which remains unarticulated in othe r
ways . More study of this problem is indicated, since from our data it i s
impossible to say whether the phenomenon expresses certain ethnic attitude s
of the Muslims, or unwillingnesses to be an effective part of the arme d
forces, or pure lazyness, or what . It could, of course, also represent a
misconception of the non-Russians who might just think that the Muslim s
pretend not to understand Russian when they indeed don't .
This leads us to the question about the general state of ethni c
relations within the military context, a question which is rather difficul t
to answer within the limited scope of our study . A tentative reply may be
66
based on the results of the first question asked in this sub-section of th e
interview protocol, i .e ., " do you think that serving in the military strengSixty-four percen t
" Yes, we all ate from the same pot, we had to be unified " (#16) ; "Yes ,
in the army a command is a command, there one doesn ' t look at nationality "
(#27) ;
it in two years " (#159) ; " You meet very many, find some friends " (#58) ;
" In the service all are unified .
ture " (#173) ; " Mostly yes, it is different only in those cases where ther e
are many Russians, or many from the Caucasus, then there might be som e
disunity, but in general the Russian army is very strong, there are man y
polit-workers ; those always see to it that nothing happens
." (#144) .
. The Russians ar e
service the way they tell it to you, but it isn ' t " (#168) ;
know each other, but not to understand each other .
(#18) ;
" Th e
Russians and Germans did not get along with the Asians ; one gets angry ,
they pretend to be fools, don't want to work, one has to do their work--w e
beat them up, that helped " (#94) ;
67
Georgians, Khokhols, Russians, Germans, and there were always quarrels, disharmony . The Armenians want to separate from the Russians, the Georgian s
regard themselves as a higher race " (#31) ; "No, conflicts occur . Th e
Armenians and Tatars keep in groups . The Russians keep with the German s
and Ukrainians, are more unified "
(#93) ;
what society . The nationalities stick together " (#61) . One should ad d
that respondents giving such negative evaluations tended to have served i n
units with a strongly mixed ethnic composition, but the sample is too smal l
to allow statistically valid conclusions ,
The results of one more question should be reported and this tim e
the question focused on the Soviet German respondents themselves, i .e . ,
they were asked about the nationality of their own friends during militar y
service . The largest group (47 percent) mentioned friends of varyin g
nationality, while thirty-one percent had mostly Russian friends and th e
rest had friends of a republic nationality (14 percent) or other German s
(8 percent) . A cross-tabulation of these data with other variables turn s
out to be most intriguing in regard to a comparison with the general friendship pattern of these same young men, Although this particular sub-sampl e
is relatively small (n = 36), one finds a certain pattern which suggest s
that friendships formed within the special institutional context of military service are related in rather specific ways to friendship choices i n
a general social context . In forty-two percent of the cases (fifteen )
there is a direct overlap and the same ethnic profile of friends pertain s
(for specifics see table 29) . In those cases where there is no overlap ,
one nevertheless finds a very strong tendency towards specific friendshi p
choices : those who had mostly German friends in general life had the very
68
TABLE 2 9
ETHNICITY OF FRIENDS DURING MILITARY SERVICE AND IN GENERA L
Ethnicity of Friend s
During Militar y
Servic e
Mostly
Germans
Mostly
Russians
Republi c
National s
Mixe d
Mostly German
Mostly Russian s
Republic National s
21
No Reply
Total Cases
I looke d
for them, we were from the same place and it was very interesting whe n
someone received a letter " (#109) ; "With Kazakhs, we were from the sam e
place, I knew the m " (1121) ; " If he is your zemlijak,
then even if he is a
69
Turk, you stick together with him " (#163) . This notion of a special tie o f
friendship being based on a common place of origin emerging within th e
context of a new and " foreign " environment suggests that under certain special conditions new factors begin to influence ethnic relations . This suggestion should be followed up with research focusing on this one aspec t
since its implications are quite significant .
CONCLUSION S
" language o f
interethnic communication, " the research reported on here suggests that the
language of republic nationalities has a key role in social contexts i n
70
71
which the republic nationality dominates . The main point is that commonalit y
of language is a major factor in ethnic relations, and this commonality ca n
apply to various languages .
Closely linked to this is our broader finding that lack of ethni c
integration or negative attitudes towards multi-ethnicity are associate d
with " functional " problems such as language barriers and cannot simply b e
dismissed as attitudinal phenomena . This emerged especially clearly in thos e
instances where functional needs and tasks formed the basis of multi-ethni c
interaction, which is the case at places of work and during service in th e
armed forces . In these spheres of life people concentrate on
" getting th e
job done " and ethnic identity as such plays a secondary role unless th e
beforementioned functional problems interfere . In contrast, our study suggests that ethnic identity plays a considerable role in the personal an d
communal sphere, where there is a strong tendency for everybody to keep t o
people of their own nationality . This is not to say that there are n o
exceptions, or divergences in the case of specific groups . 1
In general, one can summarize our findings by saying that in discussing interethnic relations one has to clearly differentiate betwee n
contexts and spheres of life . In the personal and communal sphere, inter action tends to focus on co-nationals ; whereas relations are rather integrated--if somewhat neutral--within the working environment and withi n
specific institutional contexts such as the armed forces . Even here, how ever, functional problems do have an impact, and one finds that relation s
become more particularistic again once relations move into the more persona l
sphere, such as is-the case during off-duty time in the military .
Findings such as the latter fit very well with propositions found in
72
general comparative social research . It therefore appears promising t o
pursue the themes addressed in our study further . A certain tentativenes s
of our research was assumed from the outset, even more so since it was on e
of the tasks of the project to explore the degree to which a topic o f
interest such as ethnic relations in the USSR can be studied by means o f
survey research among emigrants . It appears that this method is indeed ver y
promising and that a larger study based on a larger sample, more ambitiou s
methodology and statistical analysis, and most of all, more manpower, would
provide new insights not available otherwise .
NOTE S
See interim reports submitted on this project ; Rasma Karklins, " Islam :
1.
How Strong is it in the Soviet Union? Inquiry based on Oral Interviews wit h
Soviet Germans Repatriated from Central Asia in 1979 , " Cahiers du Monde russ e
et sovietique XXI (1), Jan .-Mar ., 1980 ; in press ; ibid ., " Nationalit y
Power in Soviet Republics, " submitted for publication ; ibid ., " A Researc h
Note on the Soviet Census 1979, " Soviet Studies, July, 1980, in press .
This study has grown out of a pilot-study undertaken by R . Karklins i n
2.
1978 with the support of the Nationalities project of AAASS, and as a post doctoral fellow of the Slavic Area Committee, The University of Chicago .
The procedures followed are those recommended by standard manuals o n
3.
interviewing such as Manual of Procedures for Hiring and Training Interviewers ,
published by the National Opinion Research Center, The University of Chicago ,
September 1972 .
For a similar finding in interviews with both German and Baltic emigrant s
4.
from the USSR, see Juozas A . Kazlas, " Social Distance Among Ethnic Groups, "
in Nationality Group Survival in Multi-Ethnic States, ed . Edward Allwort h
(New York : Praeger, 1977), pp . 228-255 .
5.
op . cit ., pp . 15-17 .
6.
Among these eight cases, there are two Lutherans who lived in Latvi a
and attended special German language services held by Latvian pastors ; on e
case of a Baptist living in Latvia and having a small number of Latvian s
among her German Baptist congregation (on a Latvian kolkhoz) ; three Lutheran s
who participated in the services of mixed German-Lithuanian congregations i n
the Memel area, and two Catholics participated in general Catholic service s
held in Lithuania .
7.
. ," op . cit .
See Karklins, " Nationality Power, " interim report, op . cit. pp. 20-27.
10. The questions used by Kholmogorov--although not reported in detail- appear especially problematic . Thus, when asking about the effect of multi ethnicity of the work force, he asks about two factors at once, i .e . th e
effect of a multinational composition upon work and interpersonal relations .
Compare A . I . Kholmogorov, Internatsional ' nye cherty sovetskikh natsii . (N a
materialakh konkretno-sotsiologicheskikh issledovanii v Pribaltike) . (Moscow :
Mysl, 1970), pp . 168-70 . The study has been translated as A . I . Kholmogorov ,
International Traits of Soviet Nations (Based on Data of Concrete Sociologica l
73
74
Research in the Baltic Area) and published in Soviet Sociology XI, no . 3/ 4
and XII, no . 1 .
11. See, for example, Iurii V . Arutiunian, " Konkretno-sotsiologischesko e
issledovanie natsional ' nykh otnoshenii, " Voprosy filosofii, No . 12, 1969 ,
pp . 129-39, especially tables 2 and 3 ; L . M . Drobizheva, " Sotsian ' no-kul ' turny e
osobennosti lichnosti i natsional ' nye ustanovki (po materialam issledovani i
v Tatarskoi ASSR), Sovetskaia etnografiia No . 3, 1971, pp . 3-15, table 5 .
While these two studies report on Tatars and Russians, a study of fou r
different non-Russian groups living in Western Siberia also found that the
percentage of those having a positive attitude towards mixed marriages wa s
consistently smaller than the percentage who believe that multi-ethnicit y
of a work collective has no significance . The percentage difference range d
between nine and forty-six percent . N . A . Tomilov, " Sovremmenn ' ie etnicheski e
protsessy v yuzhnoi i srednei polose zapadnoi Sibiri, " Sovetskaia etnografii a
No . 4 (1978), pp . 9-20, p . 15 . A Western survey also undertaken with Sovie t
German emigrants also found that attitudes of acceptance or rejection towar d
individual ethnic groups vary significantly according to social context .
Juozas A . Kazlas, " Social Distance Among Ethnic Groups, " op . cit .
12.
13. According to the data shown in Kholmogorov, op . cit ., p . 174, Kholmogorov ' s case is partially valid only if one looks at the column showin g
percentages of negative attitudes . If one examines the columns showing " n o
answers " and positive attitudes, the conclusion no longer fits . Thus, th e
lowest percentage of openly expressed positive attitudes towards multi national work forces applies to Daugavpils, which is one of the most heterogeneous cities of Latvia .
14. Iurii V . Arutiunian, Sotsial ' noe i natsional ' noe, Opyt etnosotsiologicheskikh issledovanii po materialam Tatarskoi ASSR (Moscow : Nauka, 1973) ,
p . 283 .
15.
16.
17.
" Nationalit y
19. Thus there are indications that attitudes towards intermarriage diffe r
significantly from group to group . A relatively low percentage of Jew s
objected to intermarriage in one study of ethnicity in the Baltic area .
See Jeffrey A . Ross, " Interethnic Relations and Jewish Marginality in th e
Soviet Baltic, " Journal of Baltic Studies IX, no . 4 (Winter 1978) : 360-2 .
This study is also based on interviews with emigrants .
APPENDIX
TABLE 3 0
ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF RESPONDENTS ' LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN THE USS R
Dominant Nationalit y
Entire USSR
Republic (I)
German (II)
Russian (III )
Mixed (IV )
33 .4%
14 .5%
17 %
34 .7%
(100% )
By Republics
Estonia (n = 8)
100%
(100% )
Latvia (n = 9)
72
28
(100% )
Lithuania (n = 20)
87
10
(100% )
Moldavia (n = 14)
54
39
(100% )
Ukraine (n = 5)
80
20
(100% )
Belorussia (n = 1)
100*
(100% )
Georgia (n = 1)
100
(100% )
100
(100% )
Turkmenistan (n = 1)
100
(100% )
Tadzhikistan (n = 10)
40
60
(100% )
Kirgizia (n - 26)
13
31
12
44
(100% )
Kazakhstan (n = 70)
16
24
56
(100% )
12
67
15
(100%)
Usbekistan (n = 1)
RSFSR** (n = 34)
6**
75