Ethnicity and social cohesion in the post-Soviet Baltic states

Abstract

This article examines the efforts of post-Soviet Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to promote social cohesion by addressing the ethnic and linguistic cleavages that are part of the legacy of Soviet rule. In examining the particular situation of each Baltic state and the response to international pressure for integration and social inclusion policy, Muiznieks, Rozenvalds and Birka note the roles of threat-perception, the historic context, the linguistic and citizenship policy, as well as socio-economic inequality, in facilitating Russian-speakers' sense of belonging to their respective Baltic state. While ostensibly aimed at fostering a sense of belonging to the national state, Baltic integration and social inclusion policy has often had a contradictory effect, especially in Estonia and Latvia, where the emphasis on the majority language and culture as a prerequisite for access to citizenship and formal membership has enhanced the threat-perceptions of minorities, and led to their alienation or identification with the external homeland of Russia. In Lithuania, early inclusion of minorities into the polity has had a beneficial long-term impact in terms of their identification with their country of residence, demonstrated by the fact that Russian-speakers express a greater sense of belonging to Lithuania. A review of the available survey data on the Baltic states suggests that the same cannot be said for Estonia and Latvia, where minorities express a weak sense of belonging to the state. This suggests a challenging road ahead for Estonia and Latvia in achieving social cohesion, understood by minorities as a sense of membership in the community and feelings of mutual recognition. Furthermore, all three Baltic states, Latvia in particular, have yet to address growing socio-economic inequality, which threatens to cause long-term difficulties for social cohesion.

The Relationship Between Social Identities, Acculturation Strategies and the Psychological Well-Being of Young Russians in Latvia and Crimean Tatars in Crimea

“…in Latvia conducted by Lebedeva and Tatarko showed that despite the existence of the integration policy formally aimed at preserving Latvian cultural and ethnic identity, integration in this case basically means "the participation of the ethnocultural minority in the life of a dominant society, while there is no direction towards maintaining culture of ethnic minorities; it means that the political term of integration is much closer in meaning to the acculturation expectation of assimilation" (Lebedeva, Tatarko, 2017, p. 319). This reduces the sense of belonging of minorities to their country and enhances the perception of a cultural threat by both minorities and ethnic Latvians (Muiznieks et al, 2013).…”

Residential satisfaction and mobility behaviour among the young: insights from the post-Soviet city of Riga

“…According to national statistics, the share of ethnic minorities even today constitutes more than half of city's population (CSB, 2017), thus competing with Latvians for better conditions in a free market oriented economy. The studies have confirmed that the members of the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia have adjusted worse to economic restructuring and suffered more from employment losses in different industrial sectors in which they were overrepresented (Aasland, 2002;Lindermann, 2013;Muiznieks et al, 2013). Nevertheless, today slightly more than 75 percent of the inhabitants of Riga live in Soviet-era mass housing areas or neighbourhoods dominated by this distinctive type of housing.…”

Motivation for Ethno-Cultural Continuity as a Predictor of Acculturation and Adaptation in Two Generations of Latvian Russians

“…The assimilationist tendencies of such integration policy affected the sense of belonging in minority groups as well as the perception of cultural threat in both Latvian and Russian communities. In a 2006 study, 34% of Russian-speaking respondents claimed that the Russian language and culture in Latvia is under “somewhat of a threat,” and 35% of the Latvian respondents claimed that the Latvian language and culture in Latvia is under “somewhat of a threat” (Muiznieks, Rozenvalds, & Birka, 2013). This leads to mutual fears and misunderstanding instead of mutual trust and national integration.…”