Regional Identity and Constructive Regionalization in the North Caucasus: Group Perceptions and Nuances from Inside the Region
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Regional Identity and Constructive Regionalization in the North Caucasus: Group Perceptions and Nuances from Inside the Region By ©2017 Austen Thelen Submitted to the graduate degree program in geography and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ________________________________ Chairperson: Shannon O’Lear, Ph. D. ________________________________ Barney Warf, Ph. D. ________________________________ Stephen Egbert, Ph. D. ________________________________ Alexander C. Diener, Ph. D. ________________________________ Mariya Y. Omelicheva, Ph. D. Date Defended: December 14, 2016 The Dissertation Committee for Austen Thelen certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Regional Identity and Constructive Regionalization in the North Caucasus: Group Perceptions and Nuances from Inside the Region ________________________________ Chairperson Shannon O’Lear, Ph. D. Date approved: January 20, 2017 ii Abstract The North Caucasus region of Russia is certainly one of the world’s most ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse. The region’s landscapes reflect legacies of Russian imperialism and Soviet rule, along with contemporary Russian federal administration. The North Caucasus also constitutes a zone of religious transition between Christianity and Islam. These qualities, all of which may potentially serve as markers of identity among the region’s local population, have long constituted a challenge for ethnic Russian, and/or Russian state dominance, and thus have promoted state-led efforts and policies (namely “ethno-federalism” and “federal district reform”) that attempt to achieve a cohesive sense of regional identity for the North Caucasus. This dissertation examines empirical understandings and perceptions of regional and territorial identity as expressed through the collective experiences, attitudes, and opinions of young adults in the contemporary North Caucasus. The project aims to investigate how “the region” ranks among other identity markers of North Caucasus’s many ethno-national and socio-cultural groups, recognize how residents of the region understand it in terms of territorial composition and meaning, and discern any nuances among the population regarding the use of regional policy by the Russian state so as to influence perceptions and discourses on identity, security, and economic development (efforts which I term “constructive regionalization”). The research methodology includes analysis of survey data, as well as a GIS- based cognitive mapping exercise, to indicate statistically significant differences of opinion on the importance of identity markers and their territorial salience. These differences are explained via qualitative interview data gained directly from participants in the field. iii Acknowledgements I need to thank many people for their unyielding help and support, which I have received not only throughout the dissertation process, but throughout my entire education. First and foremost, thank you to my wife Anna for her patience and unwavering dedication to our life, our daughter, and ultimately to my success and career. I acknowledge the many personal sacrifices that she has made on my behalf. I want to say thank you to two professors who were inspirational to me in the formative years of my education at Michigan State University: Dr. Kyle Evered from the Department of Geography and Dr. Jason Merrill from the Department of Slavic, Germanic and African Languages. Thank you for inspiring me to focus on Eurasia, and for giving me the confidence and helping me achieve the skills necessary to work in the field. To all of my professors at the University of Kansas, thank you so much for your dedication and for all of your inspiring work. Thank you to my advisor Dr. Shannon O’Lear for patiently guiding me through this process, for always encouraging me to be a creative and innovative researcher, and above all for helping me to develop the research skills, ethics, and confidence that I now enjoy. I could not have been successful without her help, advice, and support. Thank you to Dr. Barney Warf for being truly inspirational, and for guiding me to an understanding of the real importance of geography, both inside and outside of academia. Because of him, I will be not only be a life-long geographer, but a life-long advocate for geography and for the causes that our discipline seeks to champion. Thank you to Dr. Stephen Egbert for all of the time and patience dedicated to me and my development as a scholar, and especially for all of the long conversations we had. Because of him and his passion for collaborative research and understanding, I have learned what it means to be true to one’s self iv and convictions in the pursuit of scholarship. Thank you to Dr. Alexander C. Diener for being a wonderful example for young scholars working on Eurasia. Although our paths crossed only for a short time at KU, the advice he provided me, based on his own life, experiences, and insights into our field of study, has proved to be extremely beneficial for me in my career thus far. Thank you to Dr. Mariya Y. Omelechiva for her leadership and for her willingness to support me throughout my entire time in grad school. She is really a great example for aspiring graduate students who have international focus and aspirations, and she helped me very much in my approach and confidence in studying Russia. I want to say thank you to a committee member who unfortunately will not get to see me complete this journey, as he was taken from us much too soon: Dr. Alexander Tsiovkh. There is no doubt that Dr. Tsiovkh will always be remembered by the students he influenced. His teaching and guidance were instrumental in my development as a student, and as an educator. The lesson I will remember most from Dr. Tsiovkh is the importance of language and cultural competence in regional analysis, and that cultural understanding and empathy are both necessary for true and honest scholarship. Finally, I want to thank Taylor Tappan from the University of Kansas for his help in developing the GIS portions of this project. I also need to thank and acknowledge all of my friends and colleagues in Stavropol and throughout Russia. Without your interest, mutual curiosity, and appreciation for social science research, this project would not have been possible. v Table of Contents Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………………..i Acceptance Page…………………………………………………………………………………..ii Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………...iii Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………….iv Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………vi List of Figures and Tables…………………………………………………………………………x Chapter I: Introduction, Background, and Project Goals…………………………………….1 Constructive Regionalization and the Importance of Regional Identity…………………..2 The Case in Question: The North Caucasus………………………………………………5 Stavropol’s Importance ………………………………………………………………….10 Potential Impact………………………………………………………………………….14 Chapter II: Theory……………………………………………………………………………..17 Scale……………………………………………………………………………………...18 Territoriality……………………………………………………………………………...20 Identity and Place………………………………………………………………………...24 Discourse, Production of Knowledge, and Critical Geopolitics…………………………30 Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Cognition………………………………………………37 Chapter III: Regional Background and Stavropol's Role in Russia's Historical Geography………………………………………………………………………………………41 The Soviet Period and Its Ethno-Territorial Legacy..........................................................44 Contemporary Issues: Demographics and Socio-Cultural groups……………………….47 Russia's Post-Soviet Ethno-Federalism………………………………………………….53 Federal District Reform, Regional Consolidation, and the State's ethnic Russian Agenda...............................................................................................................................58 Chapter IV: Methodology and Data…………………………………………………………..65 Research Question 1………………………....…………………………………………..66 Research Question 2……………………………………………………………………..66 Research Question 3……………………………………………………………………..66 Research Question 4……………………………………………………………………..66 The Datasets and Data Collection...................................................................…...............68 Sampling Methods……………………………………………………………………….69 vi Survey Data........................................................................................................................71 Survey Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………….79 Participatory Mapping Data……………………………………………………………...82 Analysis of Participatory Mapping Data…………………………………………………84 Map 1: Native Language Salience……………………………………………………….88 Map 2: Territorial Extents of North Caucasus Region…………………………………..89 Map 3: Salience of Religion …………………………………………………………….90 Map 4: Perceived Practice of National Traditions……………………………………….90 Interview Data……………………………………………………………………………91 Analysis of Interview Data………………………………………………………………93 Positionality, Personal Bias, and Limitations……………………………………………95 Chapter V: Results and Analysis from Survey Data…………………………………………97 Significant Differences in Identity Preferences between Independent Variable Categories………………………………………………………………………………104 Significant Differences in Identity Preferences between Ethnic Russians and Non- Russian Participants…………………………………………………………………….104 Significant Differences in Identity Preferences between Native Russian Speakers and Native Speakers of Other Languages…………………………………………………...109