ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: ETHNIC IDENTITY AND INTERGROUP PERCEPTIONS AMONG POST-SOVIET YOUTH Erjan Kurbanov, Doctor of Philosophy, 1998 Dissertation directed by: Professor John P. Robinson Department of Sociology This research examines theoretical concepts of ethnic identity using survey data from probability samples of about 13,000 youth from 11 countries of the former Soviet Union (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Russia, and Ukraine). The focus is on the combined impact of different micro and macro factors on ethnic attitudes and perceptions during a period of rapid social change. The dependent variable is ethnic distinctiveness, which describes a group member's distancing of themselves from other ethnic groups, an important consequence of ethnic identity. The variable was measured through evaluations of six personal characteristics of ethnic majority and minority groups in each country. The continuous nature of this variable allows detailed study of how ethnic micro factors (self-identification, parents' ethnic identity, ethnic language, level of interaction with outsiders), macro factors ( ethnic conflict and level of ethnic homogeneity at the national, sub-national, and micro levels), and other social factors (parents' education, religious strength, gender, and family income) affect ethnic distinctiveness. Due to the nested nature of the data, the analysis was J conducted on three levels--individual, sub-national, and national--using different techniques for each level. The results show that at the individual level, ethnic self-identification is the strongest predictor of ethnic distancing, followed by parents' ethnic identification and ethnic language; out-group interaction has only a weak effect. At the second level, the micro-level (school) ethnic homogeneity has the strongest effect, while the regional homogeneity effect is not significant. Both national-level variables (national conflict and homogeneity on the societal level) have strong effects on the dependent variable, while class variables (parents' education and family income) have no effect on ethnic distinctiveness (possibly a legacy of the egalitarian Soviet system). The original model which presumes that ethnic distancing is a product of the strength of ethnic identity, family ethnic background, and out-group interaction thus seems applicable mostly to societies (1) in which the majority and minority are significantly differentiated from each other, (2) where the minority is significantly large, and (3) where both groups are involved in a major ethno-social process. Thus, the study confirms that the individual ethnic processes of ethnic boundary formation are quite susceptible to the pervasive social dynamics of the larger society. ETHNIC IDENTITY AND INTERGROUP PERCEPTIONS AMONG POST-SOVIET YOUTH by Erjan Kurbanov Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1998 C l M \) Ut/ ,:..{ ·Sono\°J \ Advisory Committee: Professor John Robinson, Chair/ Advisor Professor Ted Gurr Professor Jerald Hage Professor V. Lee Hamilton Professor Barbara Meeker TABLE OF CONTENTS List ofTables ... .. ...... .... ....... ... ... ..... .... ...... ........... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .... .... .... ..... .... ..... ....... .... ...... iii List of Figures .. ...... .... ... .. ... ....... .... ... ................................. ... .......... .......... ................... .. v CHAPTER l : BACKGROUND ............ ..... ... ... ...... ........ .. .... .. ..... ..... .. .... ....... ... ............. 1 Research Goals ..... .... .... ..... ........... ....... .... ........... .... .. ..... .. ................................. .... .. ...... 1 Ethnic Relations in the Soviet Union and Post-Soviet States .. .... ......................... ..... .. .... 2 Theoretical Background .. ............... ...... .... .......... .. ... ... .......... .. .... .... .. ......... ............. .... 11 Ethnic Identity in Sociological Perspective ..... ..... .......... ............. ... ....... ...... .... .... .... ..... 12 CHAPTER 2: l\1ETHODS, CONCEPTS AND l\1EASUREJ\1ENT .......... ... ............. ... 27 Conceptualization ... .. .. ........ ... .... ..................... ....... .... .. .. ....... .. ......... ........................... 31 Operationalization ....... ..... .... .. ..... .. .... .. .. ..... ... .. ............ ..... .. ...... ...... ... ... ............ ........... 36 Hypotheses ......... ........ ..... ............................. .................... ... .. ... ........ ...... ... .. .... .. ..... .... 40 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS .. ... .... ....... ..... .. .. ..... .... ... ........ .. ...... ...... ........................ .... ..... 43 Descriptive Findings on General Inter-Group Perceptions ... ..... ............... .. ... .... ... .... .... 43 Effect of Macro and Micro Factors on Ethnic Distinctiveness ... .. .... ... ...... ........ ..... ..... .. 49 CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ... .. ..... .. ... ....... .............. ... .... ...... ..... 71 ENDNOTES .... ... .. ..... ........ ... ............ ..... .... ..... .. ........ .... ... .. .. .. ..... .. ...... ..... ......... .......... 79 APPEND IX ..... ... .. ........ .. ..... ........ ................... .... .... ... ... ..... .. .. .... ..... ..... .. ........ .... ........ 83 REFERENCES .......... ..... .... .... .. ... ......... ........ ....... ..... .... .... ... ... ...... ..... ........ ... .......... .... 87 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Ethnic Distribution in the Union Republics of the USSR in 1989 ... ..... .. .... ..... ... 3 Table 2: Extent of Ethnic Conflicts in the .Former Soviet Union ........ ..... ..... .. .... ............ 7 Table 3: Classification of the Research Traditions in the Study oflnter-group Relations .. ......... .. ................ .......... ........... ... ........ ....... ..... ........... .. .... ... ........ 13 Tabie 4: Sample Ethnic Distribution .. ............. .. .. ...... ...... ... .... ......... .. ..... .. ... ... ..... ........ 31 Table 5: Ethnic Perceptions of High School Students ..... .......... .. ... .... ......... .... .. ... .. ... ... 44 Table 6: Comparison of Reciprocal Ratings of Russian and Titular Ethnic Group .. ... ... 46 Table 7: Ethnic Concerns Of Students in Ukraine .. ...... .. ........... ...... .. .. .......... ... ..... ... .... 4 7 Table 8: Individual Level ANOVA Results .... ...... ... ......... ............. ......... ...... ........ ....... 51 Table 9: Individual Level MCA Results .. ..... .. .. ... ... ... ... .. .. ... .... .. ............ ..... ................ .. 52 Table IO: Comparison of Ethnic Distinctiveness Variable by Homogeneity Levels ... .... 54 Table 11 : HLM Analysis the School and Regional Homogeneity Effects .......... ...... ...... 56 Table 12: ANOV A MCA Results for Russia ... ..... ... ......... ...... ... .... ... ...... ....... ... .... .. ... ... 57 Table 13 : ANOV A-MCA Results for Ukraine .. ....... ...... ... ..... .... ........... .... .. .. ...... ......... 59 Table 14: ANOVA-MCA Results for Belorus ... ...... .. .... .. ... .... .. ....... .... ... .. ... .. ..... .. .. .... 59 Table 15: ANOV A-MCA Results for Latvia ....... ... ... .... ........ ... ... ..... .... ............. ...... ..... 60 Table 16: ANOVA-MCA Results for Moldova ...................... ...... ... .... ... ........ ............. 61 Table 17: ANOVA-MCA Results for Kazakstan ......... .. ....... ... ... ................ .. ... .... ... .. ... 62 Table 18: ANOVA-MCA Results fo r Kyrgyzstan .. ...... ... .... .. .... .............. .... ....... .. .... .... 62 Table 19: ANOVA-MCA Results for Tajikistan .. ... ..... .. ... .. ..... ... ..... ..... ........ ............... 63 Table 20:ANOVA-MCA Results for Georgia ..... .......... .. .... ... ... ... .... ........ .. .......... .. ..... 64 Table 21 : ANOV A-MCA Results for Armenia ...... ... ... .. .. .. .. ......... .... .. ...... .. ... .. ..... ..... .. 64 Table 22: ANOV A-MCA Results for Azerbaijan .. .... ....... ... .... ..... ... ... .................. ........ 65 Table 23 : Significance oflndividual Level Factors Across Countries' Samples ... .. ... .... 66 Ill Table 24: Comparison of Model Factors Significant Across Countries' Samples .. .. ..... 67 Table 25: Effects oflndependent Variables on Ethnic Distinctiveness ....... .. ............ · .... 73 IV LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Model of Processes .... ... .............. .. ... .... .... .. ..... ........ ....... .. ........ ........ ... ..... ... 35 V CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND Research Goals This dissertation examines the process and consequences of ethnic identification using data on ethnic relations gathered from high school students in the former Soviet Union. The research is based on secondary analysis of survey data from probability samples of about 13,000 youth in the eleven countries of the former Soviet Uni on (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belorus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvi a, Russia, Tajikistan, and Ukraine). The dependent variable is ethnic di stinctiveness, which describes the group members' distancing of themselves from other ethnic groups, one of the most important consequences of ethnic identity. Such distancing of an ethnic group from others on a social continuum is a crucial element in social identity. Indeed, the greater the distance, the more ethnic group members feel different from others and the more ethnicity becomes