UDC

Authors

Abstract

Increasing immigration is one of the demographic characteristics of modern Russia. It is accompanied by transformation of the ethnic structure of migration flows, namely by the increased migration of ethnic groups not typical of the region. These circumstances raise the question of how the relationships between the cultural majority and immigrants, as well as other cultural groups, are to be built up in order to prevent racist and xenophobic attitudes and to ensure a peaceful and tolerant environment in the Russian regions. The article dwells on the deliberative model of multiculturalism as a policy best suited to establishing an intercultural dialogue. In the first part of the article, the advantages, key principles and mechanisms of implementation of this model are named. The main advantage of the deliberative model is providing an open dialogue in the public sphere of civil society aimed to establish mutual understanding and respect between different cultures. The key principle of this model implementation is a two-level approach to understanding the political process: it includes establishing a dialogue not only between different cultures at the level of civil society, but also between cultural groups and public authorities. In the second part, the authors, using the example of the Arkhangelsk Region, show that some elements of deliberative multiculturalism can be introduced and, what is more, has already been partially implemented in Russia. To prove that, the authors examine the work of the regional public organization “Council of Nationalities of the City of Arkhangelsk and Arkhangelsk Region”, which just in a few years has built up a constructive relationship with the authorities of the Arkhangelsk Region, in line with the two-level approach to understanding the political process. In the final section, the authors discuss whether the experience of the Arkhangelsk Region in establishing an intercultural dialogue corresponds to the ideas of deliberative multiculturalism and suggest further directions for the development of this model.

Keywords

References

1. Politika integratsii migrantov v Rossii: vyzovy, potentsialy, riski: rabochaya tetrad’ (RSMD) [Integration Policy for Migrants in Russia: Challenges and Potential Risks: Workbook (RIAC)]. Moscow, 2013. 34 p.
   
2. Vishnevskiy A. Novaya rol’ migratsii v demograficheskom razvitii Rossii [The New Role of Migration in Russian Demographic Development]. Available at: http://russiancouncil.ru/inner/?id_4=1752#top (accessed 5 January 2015).
   
3. Zayonchkovskaya Zh. Migratsiya v sovremennoy Rossii [Migration in Modern Russia]. Available at: http://russiancouncil. ru/inner/?id_4=1714#top (accessed 5 January 2015).
   
4. Kymlicka W. The Essentialist Critique of Multiculturalism. Available at: www.raison-publique.fr/IMG/pdf/Kymlicka. Essentialist_critique_of_multiculturalism (accessed 5 January 2015).
   
5. Van de Vijver F.J.R., Breugelmans S.M., Schalk-Soekar S.R.G. Multiculturalism: Construct Validity and Stability. Int. J. Intercult. Relat., 2008, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 93–104.
   
6. Kukathas Ch. Teoreticheskie osnovy mul’tikul’turalizma [Theoretical Foundations of Multiculturalism]. Available at: http://www.inliberty.ru/library/study/327/ (accessed 1 December 2014).
   
7. Benhabib S. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton University Press, 2002 (Russ. ed.: Benkhabib S. Prityazanie kul’tury. Ravenstvo i raznoobrazie v global’nuyu eru. Moscow, 2003).
   
8. Habermas J. Die Einbeziehung des Anderen. Studien zur politischen Theorie. 1996 (Russ. ed.: Khabermas Yu. Vovlechenie drugogo. Ocherki politicheskoy teorii. St. Petersburg, 2008).
   
9. Habermas J. Three Normative Models of Democracy. Democratic and Constitutional Theory Today, 1994, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–10.
   
10. Gekchyan M.L. Vvodnoe slovo Predsedatelya [Opening Speech of the Chairman]. Sovet natsional’nostey goroda Arkhangel’ska i Arkhangel’skoy oblasti. Yubileynyy vypusk [The Council of Nationalities of the City of Arkhangelsk and Arkhangelsk Region. Anniversary Edition]. Arkhangelsk, 2011, pp. 2–3.
    
11. Stanulevich V.I. Iskat’ puti nashey mnogonatsional’noy strany [Looking for Ways in Our Multinational State]. Sovet natsional’nostey goroda Arkhangel’ska i Arkhangel’skoy oblasti. Yubileynyy vypusk [The Council of Nationalities of the City of Arkhangelsk and Arkhangelsk Region. Anniversary Edition]. Arkhangelsk, 2011, p. 16.
    
12. “Edinyy mir” sobiraet druzey [“Ediny mir” Brings Together Its Friends]. Edinyy mir, 2006, no. 3. Available at: www. arhpress.ru/edinmir/2006/3/14/7.shtml (accessed 5 January 2015).
    
13. Shekhonina V.A. Opyt vzaimodeystviya organov gosudarstvennoy vlasti Arkhangel’skoy oblasti i obshchestvennykh ob”edineniy [Experience of Cooperation Between the Government of the Arkhangelsk Region and Non-Governmental Organizations]. Etnokul’turnye tekhnologii profilaktiki ekstremizma i ksenofobii: materialy mezhregion. seminara [Ethnocultural Means of Preventing Extremism and Xenophobia: Proc. Interreg. Seminar]. Vologda, 2009, pp. 87–92.