SOVIET JEWISH IMMIGRANTS: A STUDY IN ETHNIC IDENTITY A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Anthropology University of Houston In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Barbara E. Liss December 1978 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Sol Brownstein, executive director of the Jew­ ish Family Service, Houston, Texas, for allowing me to interview the agency's immigrant clients. Also, I want to thank Ms. Barbara Meistrich, the social worker at the Jewish Family Service who first introduced me to the immigrant community and took a great interest in the study. SOVIET JEWISH IMMIGRANTS: A STUDY IN ETHNIC IDENTITY An Abstract of a Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Anthropology University of Houston In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts By Barbara E. Liss December 1978 iv ABSTRACT A definition of ethnic identity as proposed by Barth and modified by Levy is presented. A group of twenty-three Soviet Jews, recently resettled in Houston, Texas, was investigated to determine whether they fulfill the requirements of ethnic identity as defined in this study. A description of Soviet Jews and an historical overview from before the 1917 Rev­ olution through contemporary times show the cultural changes that have occurred in Soviet Jewish life. Informal interviews with the immigrants provide the data for the evaluation of their ethnic identity. The data show that the Soviet Jews in this study have an ethnic identity as defined, based on the features of ascription and adoption of cultural symbols that are socially effective. v CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................... 1 Chapter I. THE CONCEPT OF ETHNIC IDENTITY ............ 3 Narroll's Definition Barth's Revision Literature Review of the Concept of Ethnic Identity Definition of Ethnic Identity Used in Study II. METHODS.................................... 16 Problem of the Closed Society Two Approaches to the Investi­ gation III. THE SOVIET JEWS............................ 23 Characteristics of the Subgroups The Soviet Jewish Migrant IV. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND .................... 32 Overview Before the Revolution of 1917 Lenin and the Jews 1917-1924 Stalin and the Jews 1924-1953 Krushchev and the Jews 1953-1964 Brezhnev and the Jews 1964- Implications of the Emigration Issue and the Jewish Question V. DATA PRESENTATION.......................... 54 Self-Ascription or Ascription Variable Cultural Forms—a Standard for Behavior Strategy and the Corporate Group vi VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS................ 69 Discussion of Data Conclusions LITERATURE CITED ............................... 87 vii INTRODUCTION The intention of this research is to put forth a definition of ethnic identity based on a modified ver­ sion of Barth's model and to investigate a unique group in the terms of this definition. The concept of ethnic identity will provide the framework in which to analyze whether the conditions of ethnic identity do or do not obtain for this particular group. In the past the study of ethnic groups primarily focused on the analysis of the shared cultural forms of the group members. The implications of this approach are that discrete boundaries separate one group from another and that an ethnic group is definable by a cul­ tural history that is continuous. This older ideal of ethnic identity, as that which distinguished one tribe from another, was useful when such populations were rel­ atively isolated from one another. In the contemporary world of intercommunication and movement of people from one place to another, this approach is no longer satis­ factory. When we look at ethnic groups that have emerged in the twentieth century, the flaws in such an analysis become evident. Ethnic groups in the modern world represent constructions of identity that are more dependent on cognitive, strategy-employing approaches 1 2 to group identification than on the culture-bearing aspects of cultural continuity. We see around us trans­ actions among groups that make the ethnic group a form of social organization. The area of concern for the groups is. What will be socially effective? The new identity of the ethnic group as described in the literature is based on a cognitive construction for both the individual and the group that uses tradi­ tional cultural symbols to define the group. Why and how people use such symbols is an important area of investigation if we are to understand what is going on in group interactions. This paper has two objectives. The first objec­ tive is to define the diacritica of the contemporary ethnic group. This will not be a new definition of ethnic identity, but, instead, an expansion of ideas already discussed in the literature of the ethnic group. The second objective of the study is to examine members of a group that historically and traditionally demon­ strated the culture-bearing attributes of the old "tribal" ethnic group. The Jewish people of pre-Soviet Russia constituted such a group. Today, in the Soviet Union these people generally have lost their traditional cultural symbols. Do they constitute an ethnic group according to the revised definition? I will try to answer this question using a small sample of Soviet Jewish immigrants who have recently resettled in Houston, Texas. CHAPTER I THE CONCEPT OF ETHNIC IDENTITY Narroll’s Definition The term "ethnic group" as presented by Narroll (1964) was at one time generally accepted as the mean­ ingful definition. The criteria used by Narroll to define the ethnic group were the following: 1) it was biologically self-perpetuating; 2) it shared fundamental cultural values that were expressed in unified cultural forms; 3) it shared a language; and 4) it had a member­ ship which identified itself and was identified by others as constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order. The ascribed identity of the group resulted from an ancestry which shared cul­ tural values. The cultural forms were seen as particu­ lar behavioral traits, customs and patterns that embod­ ied the values and frequently created a social boundary around the group. At one time Narroll’s description was generally representative of many of the groups that were studied by anthropologists. Narroll’s definition is part of what Bennett (1975) calls the "old ethnicity." Although the substance of some of Narroll’s characteristics are 3 4 of value, the frame of reference is that a shared cul­ ture is the salient feature of the ethnic group. Barth's Revision It is Barth's (1969) revised definition that transformed the idea of ethnic identity into a cogni­ tive and behavioral-strategy frame. Barth views ethnic identity as a component of social participation. It is his rethinking in the study of ethnic groups that lays the groundwork for what has been called the "new eth­ nicity," and it is Barth's concept that provides the baseline for the definition that will be used in this paper. Barth believes that Narroll's definition of the ethnic group is too narrow to explain the phenomenon of ethnic identity in present day society and culture. Narroll's definition is of the ideal type and does not represent the ethnic group in the contemporary real world. Barth thinks that Narroll's concept of the eth­ nic group suffers from preconceived ideas of the signif­ icant factors in the origin, structure, and function of these groups. Furthermore, Barth is critical of the assumption that there are discrete boundaries around the group, for this implies that ethnic groups develop their cultural and social forms in relative isolation and can be described as separate entities. Finally, Narroll's emphasis on the idea of a shared common culture 5 places too much importance on cultural continuity, on the analysis of culture, rather than on ethnic organiza­ tion. For Barth, the sharing of a common culture is the result of the ethnic group, not its definitional charac­ teristic. Barth's emphasis is not on the cultural, but on what is socially effective. The ethnic group is a form of social organization. It is Narroll's criterion of self-ascription or ascription by others that Barth views as the critical fea­ ture of the ethnic group. By emphasizing ascription as the critical element, we can better understand how the identity of the group is maintained. The characteristic of self-ascription or ascription by others provides the boundary that defines the group. This boundary mainte­ nance among groups is Barth's main subject of inquiry. The boundary is a social one. It depends upon who is perceived to be "inside" and who is "outside" the group. Even though cultural features that define the boundary may change and the cultural characteristics of the mem­ bers within the group may become transformed, what re­ mains is the social identification of who is considered as part of the group and who is not. Membership in the group does not depend on how similar members may appear to be. What is significant is the individual's percep­ tion of belonging to a particular group. Barth's main concern is with the "marking off," the way social boundaries are maintained. He states. 6 "If a group maintains its identity when members inter­ act with others, this entails criteria for determining membership and ways of signalling membership and exclu­ sion" (1969 p.15). Within the boundary of the ethnic group is the prescription for behavior. Barth asserts that "ethnic groups only persist as significant units if they imply marked difference in behavior, i.e., per­ sisting cultural differences" (1969 pp.15-16). There­ fore, ethnic identity also delineates the kinds of roles a person may play, what statuses he may assume in group interactions. In Barth's analysis of inter-ethnic relations he focuses on what is needed to make ethnic distinctions emerge in a particular area.