Hot and cold ethnicities in the Baltic states

Abstract

The article discusses the temperatures of the main ethnic groups in the Baltic states: Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and their three Russian-speaking communities, and the Latgalian and Polish minority groups in Latvia and Lithuania, respectively. The study uses a triangulated methodology that includes a survey questionnaire for quantitative study and an associated protocol for a semi-structured focus group interview. The aim of the methodology is to make the notion of ethnic temperature quantitatively assessable, while retaining the opportunity for a rich qualitative description to understand its nature. The quantitative analysis confirms the wide divergence of subgroups within each ethnic group, each of which has a different ethnic temperature. The (intergroup) interaction of the members of these subgroups influences both the average temperature of the in-group and the temperatures of significant out-groups. The findings are interpreted to forecast the nature of ethnic processes in the Baltic states. IntroductionThe recent history of the Baltic nations is a textbook example of changes in ethnic temperature. Before WWII, the Baltic states were very mono-ethnic, with minorities of less than 10% of the total populations. Lithuania had a territorial conflict with Poland in which the Polish minority played an active part, while the other two Baltic countries did not have significant minority-majority conflicts.All three were annexed by the Soviet Union just before WWII and were incorporated into the Soviet Union. During the Soviet time, Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians seemed relatively cold, there were no major revolts, life was organised along Soviet lines and Soviet ideology was propagated in education, media and culture. The Soviet power encouraged immigration from the other parts of the Soviet Union. As a result of this process, large Russian-speaking communities were formed in Latvia and Estonia, which amounted to 34% and 30% of the populations, respectively, at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union.These Russian-speaking communities were multi-ethnic, Russians making up the largest share, but also including many Ukrainians, Belarusians and members of other ethnicities. Some of them were Russian-ethnic bilingual; some had already shifted to Russian prior to immigration to the Baltic states, while others shifted to Russian while in the Baltic states. The Russian-speaking population was a mobile, ethnically cold category

From discouragement to self-empowerment. Insights from an ethnolinguistic vitality survey among the Kashubs in Poland

“…shame, pride, guilt, joy, nostalgia). This component builds on earlier research pointing to the importance of the emotional dimension of ELV and indicating that emotional attachment to group identity positively correlates to the level of ethnocentrism and, moreover, mobilizes members for collective action [ 46 , 50 , 51 p304-308]. In earlier research emotional attachment was measured through a self-reported scale regarding participant’s tendency to value cultural heritage and tradition and was included in the six-factor Web Model of intergroup settings.…”

“…Our scale, similar to those used in previous studies, aimed to reflect a broad range of domains of language use, taking into account use of both the minority and dominant language in family circles, immediate social networks, with friends, in schools, institutions, services, public events, and on social media (12 items, α = .93). Previous scales of this kind include those by Allard & Landry [36], Ehala & Zabrodskaja [46] and the EuLaViBar Project [47]. In comparison with previous tools, we addressed frequent patterns of interrupted intergenerational language transmission that often skip the parents' generation, but are based rather on the oldest family members as well as other relatives who transmit the language to the youngest generations.…”

Daudzveidīgās un mainīgās Latvijas identitātes

“…Izlases apjoms katrā valstī bija apmēram 1000 respondentu: Igaunijā -538 igauņi un 460 krieviski runājošo; Latvijā -419 latviešu, 406 krieviski runājošie un 200 Latgalē dzīvojošo latviešu; Lietuvā -400 lietuviešu, 230 krieviski runājošo un 200 poļu. Šī dzīvotspējas pētījuma rezultāti ir atspoguļoti vairākās publikācijās (Ehala & Zabrodskaja 2011;Ehala & Zabrodskaja 2013;Ehala & Zabrodskaja 2014). Šeit analizētas atbildes uz vairākiem jautājumiem no minētā pētījuma.…”

Language Orientations and the Sustainability of Arbanasi Language in Croatia – A Case of Linguistic Injustice

“…We have conducted 18 in-depth individual interviews with speakers of various ages (ranging from mid-20s to mid-80s) and two focus groups -one at the beginning of the research process (November 2015) and the other 6 months later (April 2016). The interview questions were loosely based on Ehala and Zabrodskaja's vitality questionnaire (Ehala and Zabrodskaja 2014) which needed to be modified as it was not fine-tuned for the hybridity present in Arbanasi community.…”