Ammon Cheskin

State–society relations in contemporary Russia: new forms of political and social contention

Much existing analysis of Russian state–society relations focuses on public, active forms of contention such as the “opposition” and protest movements. There is need for a more holistic perspective which adds study of a range of overt, “co-opted”, and hidden forms of interaction to this focus on public contention. A theoretical and empirical basis for understanding state–society relations in todays Russia involves broadening the concept of “contentious politics” to include models of “consentful” as well as “dissentful” contention. A diffused model of contentious politics can situate claim-making along the axes of consentful and dissentful motivations, and compliant and contentious behaviours.

Identity and Integration of Russian Speakers in the Baltic States: A Framework for Analysis

Abstract Following a review of current scholarship on identity and integration patterns of Russian speakers in the Baltic states, this article proposes an analytical framework to help understand current trends. Rogers Brubakers widely employed triadic nexus is expanded to demonstrate why a form of Russian-speaking identity has been emerging, but has failed to become fully consolidated, and why significant integration has occurred structurally but not identificationally. By enumerating the subfields of political, economic, and cultural ‘stances’ and ‘representations’ the model helps to understand the complicated integration processes of minority groups that possess complex relationships with ‘external homelands’, ‘nationalizing states’ and ‘international organizations’. Ultimately, it is argued that socio-economic factors largely reduce the capacity for a consolidated identity; political factors have a moderate tendency to reduce this capacity, whereas cultural factors generally increase the potential for a consolidated group identity.

Exploring Russian-speaking identity from below: the case of Latvia

Recent research on the acculturation strategies of Russian speakers in Latvia has demonstrated that there is a high level of support for integration (identifying with both Latvian and Russian cultures) compared to marginalization, separation, or assimilation. However, a number of researchers have also highlighted the negative impact of top-down narratives and discourses produced by the countrys politicians and journalists. These discourses, it is argued, hamper the integration process by creating incompatible identity positions between ‘Russian-speakers’ and ‘Latvians’. Accordingly, this research turns to focus group interviews with Russian speakers in Latvia in order to uncover the nuances of their identity-forming processes, their relations with the respective Russian and Latvian states, and their acculturation strategies, which are commonly overlooked in top-down accounts. Based on the analysis of the qualitative data it will be argued that there is great potential for an integrated, yet culturally distinct Latvian-Russian identity in Latvia.

History, conflicting collective memories, and national identities: how Latvia's Russian-speakers are learning to remember

The literature on collective memories in the Baltic states often stresses the irreconcilable division between Russian and Baltic official interpretations of the Second World War. This paper seeks to challenge this popular notion of two polemic collective memories – “Latvian” and “Russian”. While there is evidence that Latvias Russian-speakers are heavily influenced by Russian cultural and political discourses, I will argue that the actual positions taken up by Russian-speakers are more nuanced than a crude Latvian–Russian dichotomy would suggest. Based on survey data collected at the site of the 2011 Victory Day celebrations in Riga, this paper points to the germane existence of a partial “democratization of history” among Latvias Russian-speakers, typified by an increasing willingness to countenance and take stock of alternative views of history. Through an examination of the data it will be argued that such tentative steps towards a democratization of history are most visible among the younger cohort of Russian-speakers, whose collective memory-myths have been tempered by their dual habitation of the Latvian, as well as Russian, mythscapes. In order to more fully understand this process both bottom-up and top-down pressures will be examined.

Synthesis and conflict: Russian-speakers' discursive response to Latvia's nationalising state

Abstract Based on media discourse analysis, this article addresses the construction of Russian-speaking identity in Latvia from a discourse-theoretical approach. Through a focus on the discursive elements of identity formation it will be argued that public projections of Russian-speaking identity are both a counter-reaction to, and a synthesis with, constructed ‘Latvian’, ‘Russian’ and ‘European’ identities and discourses. It will be shown that although Latvias Russian-speaking identity is often constructed negatively, in opposition to the Latvian state and the Latvian ‘Other’, it is now increasingly premised upon an acceptance of various Latvian narratives and discourses which are enabling the emergence of amore positive Latvian–Russian identity.

The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Post-Soviet Space: Language, Politics and Identity

IN RECENT YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN SUSTAINED ACADEMIC AND political scrutiny of externally located ‘kinsfolk’: that is, groups of individuals located outside of a nominally national ‘kin-state’, and over whom the state in question lays claim to various forms of symbolic and/or legal jurisdiction (Duvold 2015; Pogonyi 2017). Academically, this literature is often nestled within broader, critical discussion of contemporary nations and nationalisms (Agarin & Karolewski 2015), with scholars noting ‘the increasingly transnational character of global migration flows, cultural networks and socio-political practices’ (Smith & Bakker 2008, p. 3). Often premised on the assumption that globalisation has the capacity to erode traditional borders, these transnational developments have spurred significant research interest into kin-state policies across the globe. These policies are typically enacted by states to construct diasporic identities that create strong bonds of identity between co-ethnics and their supposedly external homeland (Stjepanovi c 2015, p. 144). The kinsfolk question is consequently salient for the foreign policy actions of self-designating external homelands, but can also be heavily securitised by states that house groups of individuals who have the potential to be ‘diasporised’. Owing to the scale of its potentially diasporic kinsfolk, the Russian Federation stands out globally as a significant agent of kin-state nationalism. Indeed, in recent years the Russian authorities have directed substantial resources towards kin-state activities, even codifying Russian-speaking ‘compatriots’ as central elements of the country’s assertive foreign policy (Grigas 2016, pp. 57–93). While much has been written on Russia’s politicisation of Russian speakers in its so-called ‘near abroad’ (Cheskin 2016; Grigas 2016; Duvold 2015; Schulze 2018), the essays in this volume place greater emphasis on the exploration of trends within the various communities of Russian speakers themselves. In this endeavour, we are influenced by Rogers Brubaker, who admonishes us to think of a diaspora as ‘a category of practice ... used to make claims’; diaspora, he goes on to say ‘does not so much describe the world as seek to remake it’ (Brubaker 2005, p. 12). This special issue consequently investigates trends in how ‘Russian

Responses to Timofey Agarin’s review of Russian Speakers in Post-Soviet Latvia (JBS 47/2)

Review Editor’s note: Ammon Cheskin requested a right of reply to a review of his book in JBS and, after deliberation, I have chosen to grant this opportunity. As such situations arise so rarely, I have also invited another scholar to give an informed second opinion on both the published review, and the book itself. This was done in the spirit of open scholarly debate. Timofey Agarin has seen Cheskin’s response and stands by the assessment given in his review. Matthew Kott