FINAL REPORT TONATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H

TITLE :

Ethnic Relations in the USSR :

Interviews wit h

Soviet German Emigrant s

AUTHOR : Rasma Karklins

CONTRACTOR :

The University of Chicag o

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR :

Professor Alexandre Bennigsen

PROJECT DIRECTOR :

Dr . Rasma Karklin s

COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER :

620- 1

DATE :

May 31, 198 0

The work leading to this report was supported in whole or in part fro mfunds provided by the National Council for Soviet and East Europea nResearch .

Ethnic Relations in the USSR :

Interviews with Soviet German Emigrant s

Executive Summar y

The research described in this report is based on two hundred systematicoral interviews with former Soviet citizens who emigrated to West Germany i n1979 . The project focuses on various aspects of ethnicity in the Sovie tUnion : interethnic relations in social institutions and communal life, pattern sof linguistic behavior and its implications, and respondent perceptions ofdecision-making and ethnic power in non-Russian republics .

In our interviews the Soviet German emigrants have a dual role ; theyare both respondents and informants . In regard to the latter role, it wa sfound that the interviewees could relate many observations important t ounderstanding developments in the contemporary Soviet Union . Some of themost pertinent findings concern differentiated trends in nationality powerin the various non-Russian republics and the continued role of Islam as abarrier to national integration in the USSR . 1

In this final report, a major emphasis is put on exploring ethni cinteraction within Soviet integrative institutions such as schools and highe reducational establishments, the Komsomol, the place of work, and the armedforces . The impact of ethnicity in each of these is measured comparatively ,and comparisons are also made with the role of ethnicity in informal rela-tionships .

The main conclusion is that ethnic integration is affected by a multi-tude of factors and differs significantly according to social sphere andinstitutional context . Thus one finds that the role of the Komsomol i ninterethnic relations is minimal, if not to say non-existent, The mai nexplanation provided by our respondents was that it is an "empty organiza-tion" which only collects dues and goes through certain rituals withou tconcretely affecting its members ; organizational activities are minimal .It should be noted that this image is derived from those respondents wh owere Komsomol members themselves .

This view of the Komsomol differs from that frequently held by Wester nobservers of the USSR . It is conceivable that in this case our finding i sinfluenced by the special characteristics of our sample, such as relativelylow educational and occupational status . However, it also reflects condi-tions in the provinces, which generally are studied less intensively than th ecentral cities and areas of the USSR . Regional differentiation certainly i ssignificant in a country as large as the Soviet Union and our finding aboutthe Komsomol is one example of this .

While our research suggests that the integrative role of the Komsomo lis minimal, the same cannot be said for the armed forces . Although linguisti c

i

i i

and communal differentiation persist and have a certain impact in thi ssphere as well, the general ethnic experience during military service hasbeen an integrative one for most respondents exposed to it . Comparisons t oexperiences at work and in educational institutions suggest that this i sclosely related to specific institutional arrangements and the total lackof individual choice . Being a member of functionally oriented multi-ethni ccollectives has a socializing effect, and while a degree of individua lchoice of collective appears to be possible at places of work, this is no tthe case in the military . In institutional terms, it is significant tha tthere is no segregation into special national units, and that no sub-section sexist within which a language other than Russian is used . Such a subdivisionis encountered in the case of many higher educational institutions, and asa result overall social integration appears hampered in this sphere, althoug hit is considerable within the Russian language institutions attended by our

respondents .

Ethnicity has a considerable impact on work relationships . Besides atendency towards personal ethnic preferences in regard to co-workers andsupervisors, a variety of functional factors play a role . Among these, themost important are language knowledge and behavior, work traditions an dfinancial rewards, as well as the specific ethnic mix of a work collectiv eand broader environment .

Language knowledge and behavior is an especially important facto raffecting ethnic relations in the Soviet Union and certainly should b estudied much more systematically . Commonality of language--or the lack o fit--influences work relationships, interaction in the armed forces, involve-ment in political organizations such as the Komsomol, as well as communa lrelations . While the knowledge of Russian is of key importance within pre -dominantly Russian environments, local languages play a crucial role withi nenvironments dominated by non-Russians .

Of all the areas studied, personal and communal life is the one mos taffected by ethnic diversity . This is true for our respondents themselves ,as well as for their neighbors, co-workers, etc . Besides our data on friend-ship patterns, intermarriage, and the role of religion and traditions, thi sis also illustrated by the terms used for different nationalities, especiall y

in the differentiation between "blacks " and "whites " (see verbatim quotes i nreport) .

Expressions and examples used by respondents were found to be highl ysuggestive and our research findings are therefore reported both in the for mof quoting responses as well as statistical summaries and cross-tabulations .Thus, this study has tried to keep a sensitive balance between the quantita-tive and qualitative approach to social research .

In light of the relatively small number of people interviewed (twohundred), and in light of the limited scope of our one-year study, many o f

the findings must be regarded as tentative . Nevertheless, it appears possibl eto draw the following general conclusions :

1 . Personal and communal integration in the Soviet Union is considerabl y

influenced by ethnic barriers ;

iii

2. Integration is relatively smooth within social institutions such asthe armed forces and Russian language educational institutions but i shampered within certain contexts at places of work ;

3. Political integration as analyzed in our report on perceptions ofnationality power in various non-Russian union republics is highly ambiguou sand there are important regional differences .

LIST OF TABLES v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

I .

COMMUNAL AM) PERSONAL RELATIONS 7

1. The Ethnic Composition of Environments 7

2. Ethnicity and Friendship Patterns 8

3. Intermarriage 12

4. The Role of Religion in Ethnic Interaction 15

II .

THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 1 9

1. Language Knowledge, Use, and Behavior 1 9

2. General Educational Experiences 2 4

3. Higher Educational Institutions 29

III . ETHNICITY AND THE WORKPLACE 36

1. Occupational Profile of Respondents 3 6

2. Factors Influencing Ethnic Preferences at Work 3 6

IV .

INTEGRATIVE INSTITUTIONS 5 4

1. The Komsomol 5 4

2. The Armed Forces 5 7

iv

CONCLUSION 7 0

NOTES 7 3

APPENDIX 7 5

LIST OF TABLES

1. Ethnic Composition of Respondents' Last Place of Residence i nthe USSR 7

2. Nationality of Personal Friends 9

3. Friendship Patterns of Soviet Germans According to Ethni cEnvironment 1 0

4. Friendships with Republic Nationals, According to LanguageKnowledge 11

5. Attitudes towards Marriage between Germans and Loca lNon-Russians 1 2

6 .

Attitudes towards Marriage between Germans and Russians

1 3

7. Ethnic Composition of Congregations 16

8. Language Use of Soviet Germans Claiming German Native Language 2 0

9. Knowledge of Russian, by Age Groups 2 1

10. Knowledge of Republic Language, in Percent 2 2

11. Length of Time Respondents Lived in Union-Republic from Whic hThey Emigrated 2 3

12. Context in Which Republic Language Was Learned 2 3

13. Education According to Age, in Percent 2 4

14. Schools Attended by Respondents, According to Language o fInstruction 26

15. Respondents ' Exposure to the Study of German at School . . . .

2 7

16. Ethnic Composition of Educational Institution Attended . . . .

3 1

17. Friends in Higher Educational Institutions, According toEthnic Environment 3 2

18. Influence of Multi-Ethnicity on Interaction within Work Groups .

39

19. Evaluations of Multi-Ethnic Work Groups According to Type o fMono-Ethnic Group Respondent Worked in 40

v

20. "Would You Yourself Have Preferred Co-Workers of a Specifi cNationality? " 40

21. Ethnic Preference Regarding Co-Workers, Differing Mono-Ethni cWork Groups 4 1

22. Language Skill and Evaluation of Multi-Ethnic Work Group sin the Baltic Republics 45

23. Language Skill and Ethnic Preference of Co-Workers in th eBaltic Republics 4 7

24. Language Skill and Ethnic Preference of Supervisor in Non-Russian Republics 48

25. Ethnic Preference Regarding Supervisor and Co-Workers 49

26. Ethnic Preference Regarding Supervisor in Non-RussianRepublics 50

27. Ethnic Preference in Regard to Work Supervisors : Respondents 'Evaluation of Preference of Co-Workers 5 1

28. Ethnic Preference in Regard to Work Supervisors : Respondents 'Personal Attitude 5 1

29. Ethnicity of Friends During Military Service and in General .

6 8

30. Ethnic Composition of Respondents ' Last Place of Residence i nthe USSR 7 5

vi

INTRODUCTION

This project has aimed at bringing a new perspective to the Wester n

scholarly study of ethnic relations in the USSR by means of interviews wit h

recent emigrants from the Soviet Union . While the tool of survey researc h

has in the past been used by Soviet ethnologists and sociologists, Western

scholars have been hampered in such attempts : the new Soviet emigration wave

presents new opportunities . Our research was conducted among ethnic German s

who emigrated from the USSR to West Germany in 1979. Having been disperse d

all over the Soviet Union since World War II, the Soviet Germans--descendant s

of old time German colonists of Russia--have lived in a broad variety o f

locations and thus are especially suited for a comparative inquiry abou t

ethnic relations in the USSR . In order to limit the impact of secondar y

impressions received in the West, all interviews were conducted within th e

first four weeks after respondents had arrived in West Germany . As a result ,

memories about experiences in the Soviet Union were very fresh and many

respondents still used the present tense when talking about life there ; the

term "we" was also used very much . Altogether, two hundred systematically

structured oral interviews were conducted .

Even though standardized questions

were asked in a given sequence, efforts were made to approximate a natura l

flow of conversation as closely as possible . Thus, open-ended question s

were alternated with closed-ended ones . Also, in order not to submerge the

richness of communication possible in oral interviews, voluntary additions

provided by respondents were not cut off if they related to our topic broadl y

conceived .

In those instances where pre-coded responses could not be checked off ,

statements were recorded verbatim . As a result, we have accumulated a larg e

1

2

number of respondent quotes many of which are cited in this report as wel l

as in the interim reports . Although in some cases the grammar was changed ,

no attempts were made to change the style of quotes in order to communicat e

individual comments as directly as possible . However, a certain loss o f

" flavor " was sometimes unavoidable in light of translation difficultie s

(interviews were conducted in either German or Russian, depending on whic h

language the respondent knew best) .

1 . Sample Design . A stratified random sample was drawn from th e

emigrants arriving in one of the German processing centers between February

and September 1979 . Some stratification of the sample was necessary to accom-

modate our research goals ; specific criteria for over- and undersampling cer-

tain groups of people were :

a . Age : Persons under age forty-four were deliberately over -

sampled to make up two-thirds of our total sample in order to secure a respon -

dent population which has in most cases grown up in the post-Stalin Sovie t

Union and is therefore bound to relate experiences formed in this more recen t

era . The main reason for this emphasis is due to our research focus o n

contemporary Soviet society, but certain factors relating to the specifics o f

the Soviet German experience also played a role .

Thus, individuals who are older than forty-four years are especiall y

likely to reflect various specifically Soviet German experiences which have

inhibited their integration into overall Soviet society and therefore mak e

them less able to serve as respondents to questions such as ours . Fo r

example, virtually all of these older people (born before 1936) have attende d

schools where instruction was carried out in German and therefore canno t

relate experiences in multi-ethnic schools . As a result of changing Soviet

3

cultural policies and other factors, the younger generation differs in thi s

regard, as well as in many others .

For purposes of internal data comparison, three age groups were spec-

ified each of which contains a roughly equal number of respondents : th e

youngest group (age group I) consists of respondents who were born between

1948 and 1959 and who were between twenty and thirty-one years old at th e

time of the interview . This latter group consists of individuals who starte d

school in 1954 and later, i .e . who have grown up entirely in the post-Stali n

era . Age group II consists of individuals born between 1936 and 1947 wh o

were between thirty-two and forty-three years old when interviewed ; and ag e

group III represents respondents aged over forty-three .

b. Geographic Origin : Groups of emigrants were also over-or under -

sampled depending on their last residence in the USSR . For reasons of stud y

design it was important to obtain a certain geographic distribution among

respondents ; as specified in the proposal we hoped to interview one hundre d

respondents who had lived in Kazakhstan and Central Asia, and fifty each wh o

had lived in the RSFSR and the Baltic republics . Unfortunately this rati o

could only be approximated, since the respondent pool from the RSFSR and th e

Baltic area was not large enough at the time of our interviewing effort . On

the other hand, we encountered a sudden influx of emigrants from Kazakhstan

and as a result, the latter are still overrepresented in our sample, while the

former are still underrepresented, which is of some consequence in the testin g

of various hypotheses, especially those assuming that variance in geographi c

and ethnic environment makes for variance in basic types of ethnic interaction

in Soviet society .

c. Sex and Religion : Since there is a natural tendency for women

4

to be overrepresented in the older age group, slight adjustments in sample

selection were made in order to avoid a predominantly female sample in the

older age group . Similarly, slight adjustments had to be made in the case o f

religion . There were many Baptists and Mennonites among our respondent poo l

and since they tend to have especially large families, some undersampling ha d

to be undertaken in order to avoid a weighting of our sample through thes e

two factors i .e . we tried to always interview just one individual pe r

family .

2 . Non-Interviews and Refusals . Besides assurances about the anon-

ymous character of the interviews, care was taken to explain to potentia l

respondents that participation was entirely voluntary . In fact, sixteen

individuals did not want to participate (8%) ; this refusal rate is very simila r

to the one encountered in general survey research in the West and is no t

regarded to constitute a methodological problem . In some cases no explanation s

were made for refusing to be interviewed, in others prospective respondent s

argued that they did not have time, which was convincing in a few individual

cases of women with numerous small children . Several respondents specifie d

that they were afraid to be interviewed because they still had relatives in

the USSR who might be penalized as a consequence . Assurances about anonymity

and the scholarly character of the study were unsuccessful in these case s

with one respondent saying "we have already suffered too much and cannot tak e

risks . "

There were seven cases of non-interviews (3 .5%), which represen t

instances where people could not be contacted, as well as several instance s

where prospective respondents turned out to be handicapped and therefore no t

available for interviewing . The latter includes one deaf and three retarde d

persons .

5

3 . Hypotheses and Research Design . The primary hypothesis of ou r

study--basically confirmed by the results--is that the "ethnic scene " in the

Soviet Union is by no means homogeneous and that one has to distinguis h

between a variety of cases, contexts, and differentiated trends . Among the

multitude of points one could discuss and research in order to clarify thi s

thesis, the following four foci were selected for our study :

a. Ethnic relations differ according to social sphere and institu-

tional context . Personal and communal interaction is much more strongl y

influenced by ethnicity than interaction within a general social context suc h

as work . In addition, the impact of ethnicity is influenced by the specific s

of institutional settings such as those provided by educational institutions ,

the armed forces, or political organizations such as the Komsomol . Since

our research was guided by these assumptions, the findings reported here ar e

outlined accordingly .

b. Ethnic relations, processes and trends differ according to th e

republic of the USSR in which they occur . These differences are related t o

a variety of historical, cultural, economic, and demographic factors, or--

more broadly--to the differences between the major nations whose names ar e

used to designate the fifteen union republics . Since the Soviet German s

basically are "the same " no matter in which republic they have lived, the

study of their experiences is a way to highlight republic-related distinctions ;

for this reason our data are frequently tabulated according to individual

republics or regions .

c. Ethnic relations and processes differ according to the specifi c

ethnic composition of an environment, it matters whether a particular nation-

ality constitutes a numerical majority, or whether there is an "international-

6

ist" mix (for a more detailed exposition, see below), In order to tes t

whether the ethnic composition of environment indeed constitutes an "inde-

pendent " variable, data are frequently cross-tabulated accordingly .

d . Ethnic relations are strongly influenced by linguistic facility ,

although this influence differs from one type of environment to another .

Interview research with emigrants poses many special problems, one o f

the primary ones being the question of " representativeness " of results . For

this reason attempts were made to draw from other sources as well, and com-

parisons are made to the results of survey research undertaken by Sovie t

ethno-sociologists . On the other hand it should be noted that the respondent s

in our study served in a dual role, both as " respondents " and as " informants . "

In the latter instance the interviewees were addressed as observants of the

behavior of others, for example, their non-German neighbors or co-workers .

Although observations of this type certainly cannot be used as an exclusiv e

source of information, they have proven to be highly suggestive . In thos e

instances, on the other hand, where replies refer to the German interviewee s

themselves, an attempt is made to show that valuable insights may be obtaine d

by examining instances of internal variance in the data, Nevertheless, an y

conclusions drawn must remain tentative, even more so in light of the siz e

of our sample . Even though two-hundred respondents constitute a respectabl e

sample, it is insufficient for many of the more ambitious statistical analyses .

I . COMMUNAL AND PERSONAL RELATIONS

1 . The Ethnic Composition of Environment s

As already indicated, this study has assumed that differing ethnic en-

vironments are associated with specific patterns of ethnic interaction an d

perceptions of nationality processes . The notion of " ethnic environment, " al-

though actually implying all kinds of qualitative differences, is here define d

quantitatively, in terms of the numerical ratio of ethnic groups . For the

purposes of this study, we distinguish between four distinct types of ethni c

environments : the one in which Russians constitute a majority ; the one in whic h

an indigenous nationality such as the Kirgiz or Estonians form a majority ; the

one in which a non-indigenous group forms a majority--in our case the Germans ;

and the one in which no ethnic group forms a numerical majority and we thu s

find a mixed internationalist environment . Table 1 enumerates the distribution

found among our respondent population :

TABLE 1

ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF RESPONDENTS ' LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN THE USSR

Dominant Nationalit y

Republic (I) German (II) Russian (III) Mixed (IV )

Entire USSR

33 .4%

14 .5%

17%

34 .7% (100% )

By Regions *

Kazakhstan (n = 70)

16%

24%

4%

56%

(100% )

Central Asia (n = 38)

22

21

8

49

(100% )

Baltic (n = 37)

86

-

12

2

(100% )

Other** (n = 21)

54

-

5

31

(100% )

RSFSR*** (n = 34) 6*** 12 67 15 (100% )*For individual republics, see table 30 in the appendix .

**Includes Moldavia ( n= 14), Ukraine ( n= 5), Belorussia (n-l) and Georgia (n=1) .***This represents two respondents who lived in places with a Karelian and Osse tmajority, respectively .

7

8

One should add that the ethnic composition of each responden t ' s last place o f

residence in the USSR was established by asking each respondent to list th e

nationalities who lived there, and provide an approximate percentage rate .

In the case of villages, kolkhozes, and small towns, there was no other way t o

obtain data on ethnic composition since no such census data are available .

In the case of larger cities for which official Soviet census are available ,

it was nevertheless deemed to be more pertinent to rely on the perception o f

the individual respondent since no city is homogeneous and a particula r

neighborhood would be most relevant .

One might be surprised that a certain number of Soviet Germans stil l

live in places where they form a majority . This can be explained by two

factors . First, even though the old all-German villages in the Volga area ,

the Ukraine, and the Caucasus, were dissolved in the course of World War II ,

most of the ones located in the RSFSR (around Orenburg, Omsk, and in th e

Altai) and those in Central Asia and Kazakhstan, remained . Secondly, some

of these old colonies have seen a new influx of Germans since the releas e

from forced settlement areas in 1955 and in other cases new centers wer e

formed in the course of spontaneous internal migration, or as remains o f

forced settlement areas (e .g . Tselinograd, Karaganda) .

Nevertheless, the predominantly German places of residence form a

minority . Most of our respondents have lived in environments where the y

were in close contact with other nationalities . We will have to inquir e

whether and how the human interaction differs according to type of environment .

2 . Ethnicity and Friendship Pattern s

Relatively early in the interview schedule respondents were aske d

about the nationality of their personal friends . Taking into account the

9

ethnic composition of the general environments the respondents lived in th e

USSR (see table 1) a surprisingly large percentage specified that they had

only or mostly German friends . In light of the relatively strong linguistic

Russification of the younger generation (see table 9) it is also notabl e

that so few had mostly Russian friends, although one should add that many

of those classified as having ethnically "mixed " friends had at least some

Russian friends, as well as others . The percentage of those who had associ-

ated primarily with local non-Russians is also very low :

TABLE 2

NATIONALITY OF PERSONAL FRIENDS

Nationality Entire Centra lof Friends USSR

KazakhstanAsia

Baltic Other* RSFS R

(n = 200) (n = 70) (n = 38) (n = 37) (n = 21) (n = 34 )

MostlyGermans 45 .5% 48 .5% 45% 51% 52% 29 %

Mixed 41 41 .5 42 38 38 44

MostlyRussians 8 .5 8 .5 8 - 5 2 1

Mostly Loca lNon-Russians 3 1 .5 - 11 - 3**

No Friends 2 - 5 - 5 3

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

*Includes Moldavia (n=14), Ukraine ( n= 5), Belorussia (n=1) and Georgia (n=1) .

**One respondent with Osset friends .

Although no specific explanations were asked for, several respondent s

volunteered statements about the ethnic element in friendship choices . Thus

one young man who stated that all his personal friends were Germans, made

this comment : "Well, you see, it is quite possible to be good colleagues a t

work, but in order to be a firend there has to be something more one has i n

1 0

common than just work . . . . One needs common interests, and that wasn ' t the

case " (#166)* . When specifically asked about friends of a nationality othe r

than German or Russian several other respondents replied with "a few, at

work, " which does not really suggest close personal friendships . Some

other comments suggest that personal trust, or religious ties are importan t

in the selection of friends : "My friends were mostly Germans . There are

many nationalities who stick together more ; as human beings the nationalitie s

are good, but not as friends .

. . One trusts Germans more, the other s

would not keep everything to themselves, there would be talk" (#3) . Some

of the strongly religious persons indicated that their personal friendship s

were formed within their religious congregation and in those cases wher e

the latter included both Germans and Russians several said that "we kep t

to each other as believers . "

We have hypothesized that the composition of the general ethni c

environment affects ethnic relations, and this thesis is at least partl y

confirmed by a cross-tabulation of friendship profiles according to ethni c

environments :

TABLE 3

FRIENDSHIP PATTERNS OF SOVIET GERMANS ACCORDING TO ETHNIC ENVIRONMEN T

Ethnic Composition of Last Place o fPersonal

Total Residence in USSRFriends

(n = 196) I (Republic) II (German) III (Russian) IV (Mixed )

MostlyGermans

31

37%

20%

12%

21%

100 %

MostlyRussians

17

15

1.2

47

26

100%

Mostly Loca lNon-Russians 6

85

-

17

-

100%

MixedNationality 82 27 12 17 44 100 %

*The number serves to identify each respondent in the research files ,Quotes indicate verbatim replies translated from German or Russian .

11

As Table 3 illustrates, each specified type of ethnic environment i s

most closely associated with respondents having friends with a correspondin g

ethnic background i .e ., the highest percentage of those with friends of a

local nationality can be found among those who lived in an environment wher e

the locals formed the majority, the highest percentage of those with mostly

German friends come from places with a predominantly German population, an d

the same basic tendency also holds true for the predominantly Russian and th e

ethnically mixed environments .

We have also argued that there are indications that knowledge o f

specific languages has something to do with ethnic interaction, and in thi s

regard the knowledge of the local republic languages and its relationship

to friendships with local nationals is most interesting . Although the gen-

eral score for respondents with local language knowledge is rather low (com-

pare table 10) one can find a rather close association with friendship choice s

as a look at the cross-tabulation in table 4 reveals . A good knowledge o f

the local language correlates very closely with the variable "has indigenous

friends," i .e ., while 79% of those respondents with a good knowledge of th e

local language had close or loose friendships with republic nationals, this

is true for only 32% of those with a limited language skill, and of 25% with

none .

TABLE 4

FRIENDSHIPS WITH REPUBLIC NATIONALS, ACCORDING TO LANGUAGE KNOWLEDG E

Type of Friendship with Locals*Respondent Knows Local Language

Close Loose NoneWell

A Littl e

Not at All

n = 19

n = 22

n =105

37 %

5

3

42 %2 7

22

21 %

68

75

*Evaluations are based on replies to the question "what nationality wereyour personal friends ." If a respondent mentioned friends of a local nation-ality only as an afterthought, these friendships were categorized as " loose . "

12

3 . Intermarriag e

To measure personal and communal ties even more, our interview s

included several questions on intermarriage, which is frequently considere d

as a useful indicator of general communal attitudes and relations . Two

separate questions were asked about attitudes towards intermarriage, th e

first focusing on attitudes towards marriage between Germans and th e

respective republic nationality, and the second concerning marriag e

between Germans and Russians . In both cases a majority stated that the y

regarded such marriages as undesirable, but the rejection of intermarriag e

with Russians was somewhat less pronounced : while 74% thought marriage o f

Germans to Russians undesirable, 82% thought so in case of Germans marry-

ing members of the local nationality . It is important to note, however ,

that differences are made in regard to various local nationalities ;

rejection of intermarriage is highest in regard to Kazakhs and Centra l

Asians, but considerably lower in the case of Balts, Moldavians, or non -

Russians living in the RSFSR . 4

TABLE 5

ATTITUDES TOWARDS MARRIAGE BETWEEN GERMANS AND LOCAL NON-RUSSIAN S

Central Moldavians* Non-RussiansTotal Kazakhs Balts

n = 192 n = 70 Asiansn = 35

and Others in RSFS Rn= 36 n= 21 n= 3 0

Reject 82% 94% 92% 74% 67% 60 %

NoDifference 18% 6% 8% 26% 33% 40%

*All positive replies in this group relate to Moldavians (n = 14) ; theothers included are Ukrainians (n = 5), one Belorussian and one Georgian .

While attitudes towards intermarriage with various non-Russia n

13

groups vary according to group and place of residence, attitudes toward s

marriage with Russians are strongly consistent no matter where the Germa n

respondents lived--with one crucial exception . Those Germans who lived i n

the Russian Federal Republic reject intermarriage with Russians to a

considerably lower degree than do Germans who lived in non-Russian area s

(see table 6) . This suggests that within the RSFSR tendencies toward s

assimilation and integration are considerably heightened .

TABLE 6

ATTITUDES TOWARDS MARRIAGE BETWEEN GERMANS AND RUSSIANS

Last Residence in

Central MoldaviaTotal Kazakhstan Asia Baltic and Other RSFS R

n = 196 n = 70 n = 36 n = 35 n= 21 n = 34

Reject 74% 79% 81% 80% 76% 53 %

NoDifference 26% 21% 19% 20% 24% 47%

In ethnic relations actual interaction is just as important a s

are attitudes . Therefore, respondents were asked whether any of thei r

closest relatives, i .e . a son or daughter, brother or sister, had marrie d

a non-German . In thirty-four percent of the cases this had happened, an d

among these three-fourths were marriages of Germans to Russians . Among

the non-Russians, there were six Ukrainians, four Balts, three Kazakhs, *

two Jews, one Moldavian, and one Buryat who was listed as Russian in he r

*In all three cases Kazakh men had married German women ; one of theKazakhs involved had a German stepmother . Both Kazakh and German wer eused as the family languages (1182) .

14

passport . When asked about the non-German spouses ' integration into thei r

family, a majority (70%) called it normal, or positive . Of those givin g

negative evaluations many mentioned divorce or serious marital strife a s

the cause, and many also mentioned the non-German spouses rejection of th e

use of the German language in the family . In several cases a Russian

wife had kept her own family name .

It appears pertinent to examine the relationship between attitude s

towards intermarriage and actual experience with intermarriage within th e

immediate family . One finds that even though a majority of the individuals

who had a non-German member of the family had a good or normal relationshi p

with them, basic attitudes towards intermarriage were hardly affected :

while 76% of respondents with no Russian in-laws rejected intermarriag e

with Russians, rejection was 70% among those who had Russian in-laws . I f

one compares the subsamples further, one does find that it matters whethe r

the experience with the in-laws was negative or positive, but the overal l

difference is still relatively small . The same tendencies appea r

in regard to intermarriage with non-Russians, but our numbers in this cas e

are too small to allow meaningful evaluation .

It is furthermore interesting to note, that twenty-three of ou r

respondents (11 .5% of the total sample) themselves had married non-Germans .

Nevertheless, rejection of intermarriage was still considerable even in

this group : 46% thought that marriages of Germans to Russians were unde-

sirable, and 58% thought that marriages of Germans to local nationalit y

members were undesirable . The larger percentage in the latter case can be

explained by four individuals who thought that marriage to Russians was oka y

(having Russian spouses themselves), but that intermarriage with locals (in

15

all cases Muslims) was undesirable . Our group includes a reverse case a s

well : one person with a Karelian spouse thought that intermarriage wit h

Karelians was fine, but not desirable in the case of Russians .

In sum, one finds that in some cases positive experiences had led

to or underlined positive attitudes towards intermarriage--the same applyin g

to negative experiences reinforcing negative attitudes--but there are als o

instances when experience has had no perceptible influence on attitudes .

One may thus conclude that although the occurrence of intermarriag e

alters attitudes towards it to some degree, this tendency is by no mean s

one-directional or overwhelming .

Clearly, intermarriage with non-Germans was rejected by a majorit y

of our Soviet-German emigrant respondents . " Each nation should stay wit h

its own peopl e " was the most typical comment explaining negative attitude s

towards intermarriage, and many people also mentioned that mixed marriage s

sooner or later encountered special difficulties . Others pointed out tha t

in many cases intermarriage was also rejected by the non-Germans, th e

rejection of intermarriage being especially strong among Soviet Muslims ?

4 . The Role of Religion in Ethnic Interaction

As a group, the Soviet German emigrants are characterized by a

rather strong religiosity ; in our sample, 39 .5% were highly religious, 24 %

to some degree, and only 36 .5% had no religious affiliation .* Many of the

strongly religious persons are Baptists and Mennonites, but there are also

many Lutherans and Catholics . In light of the relatively high percentag e

*Religiosity was measured by church attendance

Persons who partic-ipated in services at least once a week are defined as highly religious ,those who did so occasionally constitute the second category and personswho never attended church constitute the third group .

16

of religious persons among our respondents it is important to inquire abou t

the effects of this factor on communal life and ethnic relations .

It is clear both from general comments made by the religious respon -

dents as well as by our summary data on the ethnic composition of congre-

gations that their religious group affiliation is a crucial link with othe r

Germans . As table 7 indicates, the religious group was in a majority o f

cases composed primarily of other Germans :

TABLE 7

ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF CONGREGATIONS *

N %

Mostly German 78 6 1Mostly Russian 8 7Mixed Russian-German 13 1 0Mostly Local Non-Russian 6 5No Data 22 1 7

Total 100 100

* Included are both registered andunregistered congregations .

In those instances in which the congregation was formed mostly by othe r

Germans, the language used in services was German in most cases (som e

Russian language services might be held for the younger people, or i n

order to attract non-German members) . Since otherwise there are few

opportunities to use the German language in an organized social setting ,

this is a rather important factor in the maintenance of a German ethni c

identity . This is also evident from a look at those cases where th e

congregations were mostly formed by Russians, or were mixed Russian an d

German (usually Baptist) . Here one finds that the Russian language is

predominantly used in services, and this has a noticeable impact on languag e

1 7

facility and perceptions of other groups (i .e . some of these respondents

mentioned that they had both Russian and German friends " from the congre-

gation, " etc .) .

One should also consider the possible impact of religion on ethnic

interaction between Soviet Germans and Balts . Since quite a few of the

Germans are Lutherans or Catholics, and since there also are many Lutheran s

among Estonians and Latvians, and many Catholics among Lithuanians, one

could assume that religion forms a special tie among the Germans and Balts .

However, in the case of the Soviet Germans interviewed, questions about

their religious affiliation reveal that only one person had close ties t o

a Baltic religious congregation, and seven more had rather loose ties . 6

Altogether, these persons constitute just twenty-two percent of the tota l

sample of respondents who lived in the Baltic republics and one thus has

to conclude that in its organized form religion does not form a significan t

bond of communality between the Soviet Germans and the Balts, which is no t

to say that it might not have an undetermined psychological role ,

In the case of Germans living in Central Asia and Kazakhstan, one

may note a slight reciprocal " love prejudice" between our respondents an d

Muslims in regards to religion and traditional customs . It is very inter-

esting that although the religions differ, both sides show appreciation an d

a certain tolerance for the other . Thus, several respondents made a poin t

of relating that the " locals" differ from Russians in being more toleran t

towards German religious activity, including such communal aspects a s

organized large weddings where the entire congregation participates . To

cite some examples : " the Kazakhs and Turks didn ' t interfere so much i n

our religion as the Russian communists --they too, believe in God " (#132

18

from Issyk, Kazakhstan) ; " the Kazakhs authorities close their eyes towards

our faith--we erected a large tent during the Thanksgiving celebration--

they passed as if they didn ' t see anything .

. In our . , . police

there were only Kazakhs, they didn ' t do anything unless they were sen t

[and then they explained] ' we were given an order, ' but they acted ver y

superficially, very constrained, without hate compared to the Russians--

the Russian authorities are worse " (#91, Dzetesai, Kazakhstan) . Although

it was not possible to test this aspect more systematically, comment s

like these suggest that religiosity--even if it involves a different faith- -

may have a positive influence on ethnic perceptions and interactions ; we

found that there is some evidence not only for Muslims being understandin g

towards German religious activity, but that religious Germans similarly ten d

to be more perceptive in regard to the influence of Islam on the life o f

their Muslim cohabitants than are non-religious Germans . 7

II . THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION S

1 . Language Knowledge, Use, and Behavio r

In the course of the study it emerged that language is one of the

most crucial aspects affecting ethnic relations . Some of the basic find-

ings will be presented here, but further references and comments ca n

be found in the various sections focusing on specific spheres of socia l

interaction .

Linguistic facility and usage in the USSR is interesting in regar d

to all the languages encountered, but within our context three basi c

languages should be considered : 1) the native language of the specifi c

ethnic group (i .e . German in our case) ; 2) Russian ; 3) the language o f

the republic nationality specifically referred to .

a . Native Language . In our interviews we asked the same question

asked in the Soviet census : "What is your native language? " An over-

whelming majority (191 out of 196) stated that it was German, 8 with the

other individuals claiming Russian . However, if one compares thes e

results to findings about actual language behavior and facility, one find s

that the claim of a specific native language is hardly a reliable indi-

cator of either . Since language use within the family is especially closel y

linked to a definition of native language, and since the overall pattern

in terms of generational differences overlaps with that of languag e

knowledge, the data provided in table 8 may be taken as indicative :

19

20

TABLE 8

LANGUAGE USE OF SOVIET GERMANS CLAIMING GERMAN NATIVE LANGUAG E

Language UsedWith Parent s

n = 191

With Spous e

n = 148

With Children

n = 13 4

Only German 78 .5% 50% 32 .8%

Both Germanand Russian 13 .1% 2 ;7 29 .9 %

Only Russian 8 .4% 29% 37 .3%

Totals 100% 100% 100%

The data* clearly indicate that "native language " is by no means alway s

identical with the language used in family conversations . In the case o f

the Soviet Germans it also shows a tendency of Russian being used increas-

ingly with each following generation .

Since the category "native language " is a major datum found in

Soviet census data this finding is of interest to anybody using the m

in interpretations of ethnic processes in the USSR . Our research indi-

cates that " native language " is an ambiguous category which, at least i n

certain cases, is less an indicator of actual linguistic ability or usag e

than a psychological measure indicating self-perception . For many of our

*One should note that the data for this table are also based onthe self-evaluation of respondents and it is the impression of theinterviewers that there was a tendency for the respondents to overrat etheir actual use of German . There were several respondents who sai dthat they spoke German to their children, but in fact used Russian i nthe hearing of the interviewer .

2 1

respondents the statement that their native language is German represented

a way of asserting their ethnic identity ,

b . Knowledge of Russian . Respondents were asked how well they knew

Russian : very well, well, medium well, badly, or very badly . A self-

evaluation of this kind certainly is not a very exact measure, but it was

deemed to be adequate for our purpose, i .e . to obtain a rough measure of

the degree to which a linguistic barrier might exist in this regard . The

summary results show that only twenty-one percent of our respondents cate-

gorized themselves in the last three categories . This percentage would

probably have been higher if we had not oversampled the younger age

groups . As table 9 indicates, age is very closely associated with knowl-

edge of Russian :

TABLE 9

KNOWLEDGE OF RUSSIAN, BY AGE GROUP S

Age Group

Knowledge of RussianTotal

(n=200) I II III(n=75) (n=62) (n=63 )

Very Good or Good 79% 99% 89% 54%

Medium Good 15% 1% 11% 27 %

Bad 4 .5% - - 14 %

Very Bad 1 .5% - 5 %

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100%

As will be outlined in the next section, age is very closely associated with spe-

cific types of schooling, i .e . all of the persons attending school before 193 7

2 2

attended German language schools, and after that date, most attended Russia n

language schools . This factor therefore goes a long way in explaining the

above pattern of language knowledge . Additionally, the ethnic composition

of environments matters ; of the forty--two respondents who had a limite d

knowledge of Russian, 11 (26%) lived in places where Germans constitute d

the majority, and another 10 (24%) came from places where a republic nat-

ionality constituted a majority . However, this only reflects the las t

place of residence, one can safely assume that just about all of the olde r

respondents have lived in predominantly German villages or towns sometim e

in the past .

c . Knowledge of Union-Republic Languages .

The knowledge of republic languages generally is very low, althoug h

there are significant differences according to republic and region :

TABLE 10

KNOWLEDGE OF REPUBLIC LANGUAGE, IN PERCEN T

Respondent Knows Language o fRespective Non-Russia nRepublic Nationalit y

Well A Little Not At Al l

Entire USSR (n=166) 12 17,5 70 .5 100 %

Kazakhstan (n=70) 4 6 90 100%

Central Asia (n=38) 8 16 76 100%

Baltic (n=37) 30 30 40 100%

Other* (n=21) 14 14 72 100%

*Includes Moldavia ( n= 14), the Ukraine ( n= 5), Belorussia (n= 1) andGeorgia (n= 1) .

The differences can not be explained by the length of time respondent s

2 3

have lived in specific republics, since on the average respondents ha d

lived longer in Kazakhstan and Central Asia than in the other non-Russia n

republics :

TABLE 1 1

LENGTH OF TIME RESPONDENTS LIVED IN UNION-REPUBLIC FROMWHICH THEY EMIGRATE D

Republics Average Duration of Residenc e

RSFS R

Kazakhstan and Central Asi a

Baltic

Other

23 .2 years

19 . 1

11 . 5

10 .1

How else can we explain the regional differences in the knowledge of loca l

languages? A certain indication can be found in the way respondents wh o

knew a local language had acquired this knowledge . When asked about this ,

a variety of contexts were mentioned, and mentioned at different frequencies :

TABLE 1 2

CONTEXT IN WHICH REPUBLIC LANGUAGE WAS LEARNED

Context Mentioned by Respondents

Frequency Mentione d

Lived Among Republic Nationals

21 cases

At Work

12 case s

Language Instruction at Educational

10 case sInstitutio n

These results match the findings cited in the section on schools .

It is rather intriguing to find that formal instruction in republi c

languages has a comparatively minor role in the actual acquiring of linguisti c

facility, with contacts at work and in general life being more important .

2 4

2 . General Educational Experiences

The educational experience of our respondents is pertinent to the subjec t

matter in three ways : a) the general level of education attained tends t o

be associated with certain experiences ; b) the language of instruction a s

well as languages studied has an impact on linguistic facility and behavior ;

c) the ethnic composition of educational institutions has influence o n

friendship patterns .

a . The general educational level of our respondents is low, an d

would be even lower if we had not oversampled the younger age groups (see intro-

duction) .

As table 13 illustrates, a majority of fifty-four percent o f

our respondents had attended school for less than nine years . As the same

table illustrates, level of education is very closely associated with age :

while most (54%) of the younger respondents have nine to twelve years o f

schooling, a majority (51%) of the respondents in the second age group hav e

attended school for five to eight years, and the oldest age group has th e

largest percentage (47%) of attended school for less than five years . Among

these, four individuals had never attended school .

TABLE 1 3

EDUCATION ACCORDING TO AGE, IN PERCENT

Number of Years

Totalof Schooling

(n=200)

Respondent s ' Ag e

18-32 Years 33-34 Years Over 43 Years(n=75) (n=62) (n=63 )

0-4 (Category I)

20

% 16% 47%

5-8

(Category II)

34

% 19% 51% 35 %

9-11

(Category III)

27,5% 54% 15% 8%

12 and More(Category IV)

18 .5% 27% 18% 10%

Totals

100% 100% 100% 100%

2 5

Since so very few of our respondents fall into the category o f

persons having a higher education, it is not fruitful to examine ou r

general data in terms of possible variation of general ethnic attitudes

according to level of education . The general literature on ethnic atti-

tudes and interaction has found that one can find interesting difference s

according to educational level--and this has also been found in certain

ethno-sociological studies in the USS R1--but our data do not lend themselve s

for such inquiry . However, certain tentative conclusions can be made abou t

the ethnic experiences in higher educational institutions as such (se e

below) .

b . As to the primary and secondary schools attended by respondents ,

one finds a very clear pattern closely related to historical events . Thus ,

all those persons attending school before 1937 attended German languag e

schools where the entire student body consisted of Germans . This relate s

to the historical fact that until the mid-thirties education in the nativ e

language was available in all of the so-called " German colonies at the

Volga, in the Ukraine, Siberia, the Caucasus, etc . After 1936, thes e

schools changed to Russian or the respective republic language (in most o f

our cases Ukrainian) . Since then, schools in which the language of instruc-

tion is German have not been available to the German population of th e

USSR, and one thus finds that just about all of the Soviet Germans attend-

ing school after 1937 have attended Russian language schools (table 14) .

The case of those respondents who studied in German languag e

schools is rather straightforward and requires little comment, excep t

maybe for the rather obvious one that these respondents are those wh o

generally know German best, and have a relatively weak knowledge of Russian .

2 6

TABLE 14

SCHOOLS ATTENDED BY RESPONDENTS, ACCORDING TO LANGUAGE OF INSTRUCTIO N

Number of Cases

In Percen t

Russian Language School AttendedAfter 1945

150

76 %

Republic-Language School AttendedAfter 1945*

3

1 .5 %

Russian Language School Attende d1937-45

1

0 .5 %

Ukrainian Language School AttendedPost-1936

5

3 %

German Language School AttendedPost-1937**

6

3 %

German Language School AttendedBefore 1937

31

1 6 %

Totals

196

100%

*Two cases from Lithuania, one from Latvia

**Includes one unusual case of a German village school in Odessa regio ncontinuing German language instruction during 1938-1940 . The othe rcases relate to schooling under German occupational authority durin gWorld War II .

The case of those respondents who have attended Russian language school s

is more complex . In itself, the fact of having attended such a schoo l

implies a good knowledge of Russian . However, one should keep in min d

that many individuals in the medium or older age group attended schoo l

for a few years only . In addition, replies to another question in our inter -

view schedule reveal that approximately half of those who attended Russia n

language schools had serious difficulties with learning this languag e

during the first years of schooling . In many cases, a German child entere d

a Russian language grade school without knowing any Russian at all and th e

quality and speed of the learning process differs considerably from case t o

case .

2 7

On the other hand, one cannot assume that a person who attended a

Russian language school has had no formal instruction in German . Sinc e

German is one of the important world languages, most pupils in the USSR

can study it as a foreign language, and as can be seen in table 15, a

large number of our respondents have taken advantage of this opportunity .

The study of German as a foreign language typically was begun in the 5t h

grade, and most of the younger German emigrants who have some German

reading and writing skill have attained it in these courses . A significant ,

but much smaller, percentage, have studied German " as a mother tongue "

starting with grade two or three . These special courses are offered i n

certain schools with a large number of German students . It would b e

worthwhile to study the availability of these courses throughout th e

various areas of the USSR which have a significant German population ,

but this task goes beyond the scope of this report .

TABLE 15

RESPONDENTS' EXPOSURE TO THE STUDY OF GERMAN AT SCHOOL *

Students Attending Russian or Republic Number of%

Language Schools After 1945 Students

Studied German as a Foreign Language 99 64 %

Studied German as a Mother Tongue 10 4 %

Did Not Study German at All 45 29 %

Totals 154 100%

*See also table 14 .

It is a basic hypothesis of this study--considerably confirmed by it s

results--that the knowledge of particular languages and their use i s

2 8

closely linked to differing patterns in interethnic relations . There-

fore, we asked our respondents whether they had studied any of th e

republic languages or literatures in school . In a small number of case s

(four) individuals had had a course in Kazakh literature, in Russian .

In another forty-eight cases, respondents had studied the republic

language, mostly Kazakh (28 cases), or another Central Asian languag e

(11), with individual persons studying Moldavian (2) or Lithuanian (1) ,

or Ukrainian in the pre-war Ukraine (5) . Since the latter cases ar e

relatively few, they will be disregarded in the analysis below .

A closer examination of those cases where respondents had studie d

a Central Asian language in school yields rather suggestive results .

Thus we find that although a total of thirty-nine respondents had studie d

these languages in school, a total of only sixteen respondents ha d

claimed knowledge of these same languages in response to an earlie r

question on the interview schedule asking about language knowledge .

Since even among these, some had learned the language on their own, on e

can only conclude that the study of these languages in schools was highl y

ineffective . There are, however, two other important factors which emerge

from replies to additional questioning of those respondents who had ha d

instruction in Central Asian languages . In response to the question ho w

they had liked studying the particular language, two-thirds (26) replie d

that they disliked it, and in response to a further question as to whethe r

they ever used this language outside of school, three fourths (30) sai d

that they hadn ' t . To quote : "we didn't study for this course " (#98) ;

" there was no attempt to teach the Kazakh language in a serious way" (#30) ;

"one doesn't need this language [Tadzhik], at work all papers were in

2 9

Russian" (#181) ; " there was no need to know this language " (#117) . As t o

two differing experiences : "Yes . good, I liked to study it [Kirgiz] . .

Yes, [I used it] at work, the older Kirgiz do not understand any Russia n "

(#109) ; "when one lives there [Kazakhstan] it is good when one knows thei r

language a little " (#41) .

Our findings suggest that in most cases the teaching of the republi c

languages is ineffective in Central Asia and Kazakhstan, and most non -

indigenous students regard it as unnecessary and unappealing . In those

instances where experiences differ, the language was studied or use d

because it responded to a functional need . Nobody mentioned that knowledg e

of the local language was important for positive interethnic relations ,

although this point was made in other contexts (see below) .

3 . Higher Educational Institution s

The project ' s results in regard to the impact of the nationalit y

factor in higher educational institutions are disappointing . The mai n

reason for this is the simple fact that one can find very few individual s

with a higher education among the Soviet German emigrants . In thos e

instances where an institution of higher learning was attended, stud y

results nevertheless also prove to be rather meager insofar as inter -

ethnic contact was negligible in many cases . While this "negative "

result appears disappointing at first, it proves of interest at a second

glance, since we find that higher educational institutions are less

" integrative " than one might assume, i .e ., contact with non-Russians

appears to be limited by an arrangement according to which republi c

nationals frequently attend separate courses or separate institution s

where instruction is provided in the local republic language . This is

30

especially true for the Baltic republics, but applies to other places as

well .

In our sample a total of thirty-seven individuals were categorize d

as having a degree of higher education, defined as twelve or more year s

of formal schooling . However, the quantity and quality of this highe r

schooling differs from case to case and is rather unimpressive on th e

average . Thus one finds that only twelve of our respondents had attende d

universities and the other twenty-five respondents categorized as havin g

some degree of higher education attended various types of tekhnikumi . Also ,

a considerable number attended evening or correspondence courses . Thus ,

exactly half of the respondents who attended universities fall into thi s

category (four took correspondence courses and two took evening courses) ,

as well as 35% of those who attended tekhnikumi (nine respondents wer e

enrolled in evening programs, and two in correspondence courses) . Espec-

ially in regard to correspondence courses, questions about interethni c

relations do not really apply .

However, as already indicated, interethnic contact has also bee n

limited by the general arrangements and practices affecting institution s

of higher learning . In the non-Russian republics higher education gen-

erally is available both in Russian and in the respective local language .

However, not one person in our sample had attended courses in the latter- -

absolutely all of our respondents had studied in Russian . This by itsel f

limits the exposure to interethnic contact since the non-Russian locals

tend to seek instruction in their native language . However, since paralle l

classes in Russian and the republic language are frequently taught withi n

the same institution, it was originally assumed that we would at least

3 1

encounter a considerable number of respondents with this type of experi-

ence, but it turned out that these cases were rare as well . As a result ,

we could only study multiethnicity as it applies to students of differen t

ethnic backgrounds studying together in an educational establishment with

Russian as the language of instruction .

An examination of the ethnic composition of the student body of th e

educational institutions attended by our respondents (table 16) shows that ,

in fact, Russians dominated in most cases . In all of the other cases no

one ethnic group had a numerical majority, i .e ., the ethnic environmen t

was mixed " internationalist" :

TABLE 1 6

ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION ATTENDE D

Composition of Student Body

Mostly Russian Mixed, No Majorit y

Kazakhstan (n = 10) 50% 50% 100%

Central Asia (n = 9) 89 11 100%

Baltic

(n = 3) 100 - 100%

Moldavia (n = 1) - 100 100%

RSFSR (n = 14) 64% 36% 100%

Total

(n = 37) 68% 32% 100%

Thus we find that even though a majority of our respondent s

attended educational institutions in the non-Russian republics they ha d

little possibility to interact with republic nationals within this context .

This is also reflected in the pattern of friendships formed at these insti-

tutions (table 17) . Although one can note a slight tendency to seek ou t

other Germans, this is not true in regard to republic nationals . Generally ,

3 2

the data shown in table 17 suggest that the ethnic composition of the respec-

tive institutions had a considerable impact on the choice of friends . On

several occasions respondents made a point of mentioning that friendship s

had emerged within a functional context : "My friend was a Russian from th e

countryside who was renting a room from us " (#59) ; "My friend was a Russian

neighbor, we travelled to school together " (#53) ; or else "My friends wer e

all who happened to be my roommates : two Russians, one Ukrainian, two Germans "

(#158) . Several times one could also hear the explanation " there were n o

other Germans there, I was the only one, so my friends were Russians " (#134 ,

and others) implying that Germans would have been preferred as friends i f

there had been any .

TABLE 17

FRIENDS IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ,ACCORDING TO ETHNIC ENVIRONMENT

Composition of Student Bod yNationality of Friends

Mostly Russian(n = 25)

Mixed, No Majorit y(n = 12 )

Mostly Republic Nationality - -

Mostly German 8% 8%

Mostly Russian 68% 17%

Mixed, No Majority 12% 34 %

No Friends, or No Reply 12% 41%

Total 100% 100%

Respondents were asked to characterize the relations between student s

of different nationality both in their educational institution as well a s

in the city they lived in . In both instances the great majority of

responses (over 80%) indicated that relations were non-problematic . The

typical response was rather short, just noting " relations were normal, " o r

3 3

" relations were good . " Some individuals made short explanations such a s

"when one is studying, nationality doesn ' t make any difference, all have

the same goal, to study " (#25) ; and " I didn ' t notice anything, everybody

was only thinking about exams . " Some others indicated in their commen t

that this relationship does not apply all the time : " That was okay, where -

ever there are only whites, it's okay" (#1, Frunze) ; " Relations were

friendly . . . . It's impossible for any conflicts to arise, but in the

shops, in the city, a Kirgiz will let another Kirgiz go ahead when stand-

ing in line" (#59) ; " In those times [1920 and 1930s] no differences wer e

made" (#134) .

As indicated, only 18 percent of the responses mention some problem

at the specific institution, and only 14 percent mention some general prob-

lem in the relations between students of various ethnicity . While thes e

percentages are very low, one should remember that in a majority of cases

non-Russians were present at the respective institutions only in smal l

numbers . In those instances where relations were characterized as unusua l

most referred to students of a certain nationality keeping to themselves .

In one interesting case a respondent from the Udmurt region of the RSFS R

described relations like this : "The Tatars know how to get along well with

other people . . . . The Udmurts, however, are looked down upon " (#153) . In

regard to characterizations of general relations between students, thre e

comments should be cited : " In Latvia one finds more quarrelling among

students " (#130) ; "Nowadays there constantly are conflicts between Russian s

and Kazakhs, especially among the students" (#21) ; "Everyone looks down o n

the Kirgiz, they are the most backward, dumb, dirty" (#59) .

Since the latter remark is phrased in strongly pejorative terms it

3 4

is worthwhile to note that comments about the "backwardness " of Kazakhs or

Central Asians were by no means infrequent and appear to be characteristi c

of a certain segment of the "white " population of the USSR . One indication

of this can be found in certain replies to the question asked of all respon-

dents who had attended some institution of higher learning, i .e ., " Do yo u

think that all students were treated equally, or was any group privileged? "

While a majority (66 percent) replied that all students were treate d

equally, 12 (34 percent) noted that some differences were made . Among the

latter, two-thirds mentioned nationality . Of these eight respondents, only

one said that a nationality was disfavored--i .e ., Udmurts in the RSFSR--with

all others stating that the respective republic nationality was favored .

Some said so in general terms, "the group of students from the republic--

they had unwritten privileges : (1/19) ; " Estonians are favored " (#32) ; bu t

others specified how and why students were favored : " The Kirgiz have a harder

time studying, and therefore are helped more, so that they can graduate .

. More is required from the Russian students . . . we accept that, th e

Russians as well, everybody knows that the Kirgiz have a harder time study -

ing . .

. They speak Kirgiz among themselves, and when instruction is i n

Russian, they don't understand as well " (#1, Frunze) . There was anothe r

respondent who mentioned that when somebody knows Russian very badly he i s

let through exams easier (#173) ; and a similar reply said, that generall y

no difference is made " except for the blacks, they [the instructors] as k

less of them, because they know that they are less gifted" (1/144) . The

latter quote again illustrates the statement made at the beginning of thi s

paragraph .

Of course specific students can be favored or disfavored for reason s

other than nationality as well, but only four respondents mentioned examples .

35

Thus, two respondents said that politics mattered, i .e ., one thought tha t

children of party members were privileged (#114), and another one thought

that this was generally true for Komsomol members (#79) . Two other respon-

dents mentioned that believers were treated worse than other students (#117 ,

#130) . In sum, one finds that favoritism due to ethnic criteria is the on e

factor cited most frequently which is even more interesting if one remember s

that a majority of our respondents had attended institutions where Russians

formed the majority of the student body . This finding corresponds rathe r

well, however, with the findings in regard to favoritism in universit y

admissions . 9

III . ETHNICITY AND THE WORKPLACE

1. Occupational Profile of Respondent s

Before going into a discussion of ethnicity at the workplace, a

short general characterization of the occupational background of the sampl e

is in order . If one excludes persons who never have had a job (invalids ,

students who just finished school, and housewives, a total of 12 individual s

or 6 percent of the sample), one finds that 61% of our total sample wer e

blue-collar workers, and 39% were white-collar personnel . The most fre-

quently encountered white-collar occupations were those of nurse or cler k

(9 cases each), engineer (7 cases), and bookkeepers and accountants (6 cases) .

Among persons with blue-collar jobs, the largest number were either kolkho z

or factory workers (16 cases each), truck-, bus-, or taxi-drivers (13 cases) ,

cleaning women (8 cases), and various types of construction workers . With

very few exceptions all respondents had worked in their regular job righ t

up to the moment of emigration . Nevertheless, a number of respondents ha d

been retired or jobless for several years before emigration, and thi s

decreases the number of total respondents in this section . The numbe r

decreases even further in relationship to individual questions which di d

not apply to certain respondents .

2. Factors Influencing Ethnic Preferences at Work

As is true for ethnicity in general, a large range of questions ca n

be asked about ethnicity in the working environment, but by necessity a

certain selection has to be made . In light of our hypotheses about the rol e

of the ethnic composition of environments, questions were asked in order t o

36

3 7

establish some basic facts about the ethnic composition of places of work ,

as well as specific work collectives, Then several questions were aske d

about the role of nationality in relationships at work . Since Soviet sociol-

ogists have published material on surveys asking people whether the nationalit y

of co-workers and supervisors made any difference to them, the same topic wa s

strongly emphasized in our interviews in order to secure some data for com-

parisons . Originally it was hoped that we could phrase some of these

questions in exactly the same way as done by Soviet scholars, but this unfor-

tunately turned out to be impossible . Not all of them report the exac t

formulation of questions, they differ among each other in formulations ,

and sometimes formulations that are used are problematic in light of methodo-

logical criteria established in the West.10 Thus, one cannot attempt t o

compare results of Soviet surveys and Western surveys in detail ; neverthe-

less, it is interesting to compare the broad conclusions and internal vari-

ance .

One such very broad comparison that can be amde concerns variance

between attitudes towards intermarriage and attitudes towards co-workers

and supervisors of different nationality . In various ethno-sociologica l

studies Soviet survey researchers have found that the percentage of indi-

viduals who view that the nationality of co-workers and supervisors i s

insignificant is usually considerably larger than the percentage of peopl e

regarding nationality to be insignificant in marriage, The percentage dif-

ference cited in various studies fluctuates, but the average is aroun d

twenty percentage points . 11 Interestingly, the same range of difference was

found in our survey : while an average of eighteen to twenty-six percent o f

the German respondents thought that nationality was insignificant for

3 8

marriage, fifty-five percent thought that it did not matter in regard t o

co-workers, and sixty-five percent thought that it made no difference in

regard to supervisors . 12 One should add, that although the range of differ-

ence found is comparable to the one found in Soviet surveys, the percentage

values as such differ, i .e . the percentage of " internationalist " attitude s

reported in Soviet studies is much higher than in ours .

Clearly, ethnicity is perceived to be significantly more importan t

in the personal and familial sphere than in work relationships . Neverthe-

less, our survey found that to a significant percentage of respondents ,

ethnicity did also play a role on the job . Why? What reasons are mentione d

by the respondents themselves, and what conclusions can we draw on th e

basis of cross-tabulations of individual variables? A closer look at ou r

data suggests that besides a human tendency to have personal ethnic pref-

erences--especially in regard to one's own national group--, a variety o f

" functional " reasons play a role . Among these, the most important are lan-

guage knowledge and behavior, work traditions and financial rewards, as

well as the specific ethnic mix of a work collective and broader environment .

A first indication of this is provided if we examine why certai n

respondents perceive that the multi ethnic composition of a work collective

does have significance and others think that it doesn't . Cross-tabulatio n

of individual responses with other variables suggest that responses are

associated with the actual experiences respondents have had . These experi-

ences differ ; and the first difference becomes evident in a closer examinatio n

of the role of the concrete experience of having worked in multi- or mono -

ethnic work group at the last place of work . As can be seen in table 18 ,

individuals who have worked in multi-ethnic collectives generally are less

3 9

likely to perceive that multi-ethnicity has a negative influence on interac-

tion than is the case for individuals who have worked in mono-ethnic collec-

tives (the latter is defined as a group where all, or nearly all, members

belong to one nationality) . This would imply that experience with multi -

ethnicity has an "integrative " influence . However, the category "mono-ethni c "

collective actually subsumes three distinctive types of collectives--o r

TABLE 1 8

INFLUENCE OF MULTI-ETHNICITY ON INTERACTION WITHIN WORK GROUPS *

Evaluation of TotalType of Collective in Which Respondent Worke d

Multi-ethnicity (n = 132)Mono-ethnic Multi-ethnic Worked Alone(n = 59) (n = 58) (n = 15 )

No Difference 64% 58% 72% 60%

Negative Influence 31 37 23 40

Positive Influence 5 5 5 -

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100%

*The question was : " Scientists here in the West and also in the Sovie tUnion frequently study the interaction in multi-ethnic work collectives ;--what is your experience, does the multi-ethnic composition of a work grouphave any influence, and if so, is this influence positive or negative? "

' environments ' as mentioned before--i .e ., one in which Russians hold the

numerical majority, a second in which a republic nationality holds th e

majority, and a third where this is true for Germans . A tabulation of ou r

data according to these three environments shows that in fact, collectives

that are dominated by either Russians or republic nationals generate nearly

exactly the same percentage of statements that multi-ethnicity makes no

difference, as do multi-ethnic collectives (table 19), with the one big

exception being collectives that are dominated by Germans .

The findings are very similar in regard to a follow-up questio n

40

asked after the general evaluation of multi-ethnic collectives, i .e ., "would

you yourself have preferred co-workers of a specific nationality? " Again the

percentage of those replying with " no difference" is larger among respondent s

who have worked in multi-ethnic collectives (table 20), and a subdivision o f

the mono-ethnic collectives according to dominant nationality (table 21) als o

shows a pattern similar to the one evident in its corresponding table (table 19) .

TABLE 1 9

EVALUATIONS OF MULTI-ETHNIC WORK GROUPS ACCORDING TO TYP EOF MONO-ETHNIC GROUP RESPONDENT WORKED IN

Dominant Nationality in Work Collectiv eEvaluation o f

Multi-Ethnicity German Russian Native(n = 17) (n = 27) (n = 15 )

No Difference 24% 70% 73 %

Negative Influence 70 22 2 7

Positive Influence 6 8 -

Totals 100% 100% 100 %

TABLE 20

"WOULD YOU YOURSELF HAVE PREFERRED CO-WORKER SOF A SPECIFIC NATIONALITY? "

Type of Collective in Which Respondent Worke dResponse Total

(n = 136) Mono-ethnic Multi-ethnic Worked Alone(n = 58) (n = 59) (n = 19 )

No Difference 55% 53% 63% 42 %

Yes 45 57 37 5 8

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100%

We thus find that the respondents most likely to have persona l

preferences in co-workers and most likely to evaluate multi-ethnic wor k

41

TABLE 2 1

ETHNIC PREFERENCE REGARDING CO-WORKERS, DIFFERIN GMONO-ETHNIC WORK GROUP S

Dominant Nationality in Work Collectiv eEvaluation o f

Multi-Ethnicity German Russian Native(n = 17) (n = 26) (n = 15 )

No Difference 29% 50% 60%

Personal Preference 71 50 40

Totals 100% 100% 100%

collectives negatively are those who have worked in collectives in which a

majority or all were Germans . The first striking aspect of this finding i s

the strong overlap or personal preference and actual work experience : does

this mean that the experience of having worked in a German brigade cause d

these evaluations, or is it the other way around, i .e . can we assume tha t

persons with certain attitudes and experiences will seek out work groups i n

which Germans dominate? At this point we cannot answer this question, bu t

if the latter is true it would be an intriguing example of autonomous behav-

ior and group formation in the working environment .

It should be interjected here that a great majority of respondents

expressing specific preferences in their co-workers preferred other German s

(for exact data, see below table 25) . The explanations given vary and i t

is by no means possible to categorize all--or even a majority--as attitudinal .

Functional reasons relating to smooth interaction within the group an d

" getting the job done " were cited surprisingly often . One of the factors

cited is the advantage of having a common language (more about the role o f

existing or non-existing language barriers below), Another frequentl y

42

mentioned and most intriguing reason for personal preferences in co-worker s

(mostly other Germans) or in generally negative evaluations of multi-ethni c

work collectives focuses on differences in earnings . It was said tha t

because Germans work harder, the brigades in which they dominate earn more :

" There are German construction brigades, and they earn mor e " (#144) ; "There

were three of us working together, but our pay was calculated together an d

we didn ' t want to take any lazy blacks (in our group) " (#144) ; " There are

quarrels about earnings if it (brigade) is mixed " (#186) . The practice o f

calculating earnings on the basis of the performance of brigades rathe r

than individual achievement apparently can lead to strife or negative per-

ceptions about other ethnic groups, although the reverse also can be true ,

i .e . some nationalities may be perceived especially well if they work well .

The Germans themselves mentioned this and thought that their industriousnes s

improved attitudes towards them, but one should interview members of othe r

nationalities about this .

There were other at least partly " functional " explanations of dif-

fering evaluations of mixed work groups . Some respondents explained thei r

negative evaluations of multi-ethnic work groups by stating that work goe s

smoother among people of one nationality : " If one has to help each othe r

with the work then it isn't the same anymore [in a mixed group] " (#156) ;

"When it is mixed, it is worse both in work and in discipline, everybod y

tries to put blame on others" (#35) . It was also mentioned that ethni c

rivalries, differential behavior patterns, and differences in work ethi c

play a role . To cite just one example : " There is some quarrelling, somebod y

always thinks that he knows more . .

. The Tadzhik women have a baby onc e

a year--don ' t work, take leaves " (#69),

4 3

Of course preferences in co-workers were frequently also explaine d

by individual reasons such as better understanding, or the reverse, but i t

appears that tangible reasons such as the ones cited above should be studie d

more closely, especially since they are very rarely mentioned in comparabl e

Soviet studies which tend to focus more on the personal-attitudinal side o f

interethnic relations at the place of work .

As to the impact of the ethnic composition of respondents' wor k

collectives, no differentiation of mono- or multi-ethnic collectives is

made in the published results of Soviet surveys . However, some surveys d o

examine the role of the ethnic composition of the larger environmen t

basically arguing that more negative attitudes are associated with homoge-

neous environments, or rather environments in which a non-Russian nationalit y

has the great majority . However, this conclusion is methodologically doubt-

ful in the case of Kholmogorov, 13 and at least partially doubtful in th e

case of Arutiunian . Thus the latter differentiates between ethnicall y

homogeneous Tatar villages and ethnically homogeneous Russian villages, an d

finds that ethnic attitudes are more positive in the latter . Curiously ,

this is said to apply both to Tatars and Russians, implying that a Russia n

dominated environment is more " integrative " in any case . 14 There is jus t

one exception, mentioned in another source : in the case of members of th e

Tatar intelligentsia negative or indefinite ethnic attitudes are higher

among those living in Russian villages than among those living in Tata r

villages . l5

If we compare these results to ours as they relate to work collective s

of varying ethnic composition, we find certain divergences . First, we dif-

ferentiate between three types of ethnic environments, not two, i .e . while

44

the Soviet studies differentiate between " homogeneous " environments dominate d

by Russians or an indigenous group (Tatars), and in our case a third type- -

dominance by an extraterritorial group (Germans)--is found . From the poin t

of view of the Germans, only the latter environment is " native, " both the

Russians or republic-dominated environments are "foreign . " It is importan t

to recognize that although within their native environment, German attitude s

and evaluations tend to be more ethnocentric, there is no notable differenc e

in regard to the degree of German " integrative " perceptions in Russian o r

republic dominated environments, or if anything, the republic environmen t

is slightly more integrative than the Russian one (see tables 19 and 21) .

The study of an ethnic group such as the Soviet Germans is mos t

interesting precisely because it offers the opportunity to compare finding s

in a variety of ethnic environments, not just one or two . The same applie s

to the role of language . For the Germans who have lived in environment s

dominated by indigenous non-Russians it has been relevant not only whethe r

they knew their own native language and Russian, but also whether they kne w

the local language . More specifically, it appears that knowledge of th e

local language is more important in some areas'-such as the Baltic republic s

--than in others, but we can not test this thesis adequately at this tim e

since it stands our sample from the Baltic republics is too heavily weighte d

towards predominantly native environments, with the other republics havin g

too few cases in the appropriate " cell " (compare tables 1 and 10) ,

Therefore, some of the statistical illustrations of the influence o f

language of interactions within the context of work will focus only on the

Baltic sub-sample--although it should be emphasized that this sample too i s

too small to allow more than tentative conclusions, Nevertheless, certain

45

suggestive points emerge . Thus one can note the role of language barrier s

if one examines the association between language skill and specific evalua-

tions of multi-ethnicity influencing interaction within work collective s

(table 22) . It is evident that persons who do not know the local language ,

or know it only a little, are much more likely to evaluate it negatively

than people with a good knowledge of the local language .

TABLE 2 2

LANGUAGE SKILL AND EVALUATION O F MULTI-ETHNICWORK GROUPS IN THE BALTIC REPUBLIC S

Respondent Knows Local Languag eEvaluation of Total

Multi-Ethnicity (n = 24) Well A Little Not at Al l(n = 8) (n = 6) (n = 10 )

No Difference 54% 75% 50% 40 %

Negative Influence 38 12 50 5 0

Positive Influence 4 - - 10

Don't Know 4 13 - -

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100%

The role of language knowledge in the interaction in multi-ethni c

work collectives can be further illustrated by various comments provided b y

the respondents in elaborations to their response to the two questions abou t

the role of ethnicity in work . Thus, the lack of a common language was cite d

as one of the primary reasons for negative evaluations of the multi-ethni c

composition of work collectives : " Negative, if you don't know their language "

(#80) ; "When I was working one shift with Moldavians only, they spoke in

their language, I remained on the side " (#84) ; " It is bad, I don ' t understand

any Latvian, and they don ' t understand German " (#118), or " If one doesn ' t

understand the language, one sits alone " (#70) . In the case of the respondent s

4 6

who had lived in the Baltic especially many respondents volunteered state-

ments that some knowledge of the local language was crucial for effectiv e

and friendly interaction . It was pointed out that many Latvians, Lithuanians ,

and Estonians do not speak Russian well, or do not want to use it ; a truck-

driver who lived in Latvia explained, " there was one boss who always said ,

if one lives in Latvia, then one should learn Latvian " (#119) .

The importance of existing or non-existing language barriers i s

furthermore evident from comments made by several respondents who had no

personal preference in regards to co-workers, or who generally thought tha t

multi-ethnicity of work collectives was of little significance but explaine d

it with " there was no difference, everyone spoke Russian " (#23, #58, #62 ,

#98) . When asked about their personal preferences in co-workers, quite a

few mentioned that they preferred Germans--and in some instances Russians- -

because of the commonality of language .

The latter point is underlined for the case of local language knowl-

edge if we examine table 23 . Clearly, knowledge of the republic language i s

associated with a more positive attitude towards co-workers of the indigenou s

nationality, in this case the Balts . It is furthermore interesting to com-

pare the data in tables 22 and 23, since it highlights the distinctive con -

tent of the two questions . While in the case of a general evaluation a

majority of persons with a good knowledge of the local language thought tha t

multi-ethnicity of a work group made no difference, personal ethnic pref-

erences regarding co-workers were expressed in most instances when the ques-

tion focused on personal attitudes . This suggests that--at least in some

cases--multi-ethnicity was evaluated positively because it did coincide wit h

personal preferences . On the other hand, one finds that among those respondents

4 7

who did not know the local languages at all, the percentage of people wit h

personal preferences in co-workers is smaller than the percentage stating

a negative perception of multi-ethnic work collectives . In this case neg-

ative evaluations of multi-ethnic collectives clearly relate less to persona l

preferences than to language problems .

TABLE 23

LANGUAGE SKILL AND ETHNIC PREFERENCE O FCO-WORKERS IN THE BALTIC REPUBLIC S

Respondent Knows Local Language

Preference Total(n = 24)

Well A Little Not At All(n = 8) (n =

7) (n = 9 )

None 54%

37 .5% 72% 56 %

Other Germans 25

25 14 3 3

Local Balts 13

37 .5 - -

Russians 4

- - 1 1

Germans or Russians 4

- 14

Totals 100%

100% 100% 100%

In sum, our data suggest that commonality of language--or the

absence of language barriers--is a significant factor influencing persona l

preferences in regard to co-workers and in regard to differing evaluation s

of interaction within multi-ethnic work collectives . It appears interesting

to compare these findings to the findings of comparable ethno-sociologica l

studies undertaken in the USSR, but unfortunately this is possible only to

a very limited degree . Kholmogorov ' s data on attitudes towards multi -

ethnic work groups in Latvia are not cross-tabulated with language skill--

although he does mention in passing that many respondents with negative

attitudes cited language differences as a factor 16--and in other studies th e

4 8

emphasis is always placed on the knowledge of Russian . Nevertheless, one

might draw a parallel between our cases and those instances where Sovie t

scholars studied the role of language knowledge in a strongly Russian environ-

ment . In studies of Tatars in the RSFSR it was found that persons who do no t

know Russian are most likely to state that the nationality of their co-worker s

and superiors does make a difference to them . Individuals who knew Russian

said so less frequently . 17 If one interprets this result to imply something

not about the knowledge of Russian per se, but rather about the role of th e

knowledge of the language of the people who form a majority in an environ-

ment, then these findings match the findings of our survey, since we foun d

that within a context in which local Balts dominate numerically, knowledg e

of the relevant Baltic language is the key to better ethnic interaction .

Our findings are supported by a further check about the role o f

language knowledge, this time in regard to ethnic preferences in regard t o

superiors . Our data show that among those who have some or a good knowledg e

of the respective local language the tendency to prefer native bosses i s

higher than among those who do not know the language :

TABLE 2 4

LANGUAGE SKILL AND ETHNIC PREFERENCE OF SUPERVISOR* IN NON-RUSSIAN REPUBLIC S

Respondent Knows Local Languag ePreference

Well(n = 24)

A Little(n = 18)

Not at Al l(n = 89 )

None 46% 61% 65 %

Other Germans 21 - 20

Locals 33 22 1 1

Russians - 17 4

Totals 100% 100% 100%

*Ethnic preference was measured by the question : " If it had been possibl efor you to choose your immediate superior, would you have preferred a specifi cnationality, or wouldn ' t it have made any difference to you? "

4 9

Generally, however, it is interesting to note that there are certai n

differences between ethnic preferences expressed in regard to supervisors an d

those expressed in regard to co-workers . The first notable difference i s

that the number of respondents preferring Russian bosses is extremely low ,

and that the percentage of persons preferring German bosses is also relatively

low if one compares the percentage to the one regarding co-workers (table 25) .

In contrast, one finds that the number of persons preferring native bosses

TABLE 2 5

ETHNIC PREFERENCE REGARDING SUPERVISOR AND CO-WORKER S

Preference Supervisor Co-Worker s(n = 159) (n = 136 )

None 65% 55 %

Germans 20 3 9

Republic Nationals 12 2

Russians 3 2

All, Except Locals - 2

is higher than the one preferring native co-workers . Unfortunately the

explanations voluntarily provided by respondents are too vague or incon-

sistent to allow any suggestion of reasons . A cross-tabulation of dat a

suggests, however, that this may be a case where positive interactio n

experience has enhanced positive perceptions of other ethnic groups .

Table 26 clearly suggests that those persons who had had a republic nationa l

as their supervisors were more inclined to prefer a local boss, whereas

others tended to state that the nationality of their boss made no difference :

50

TABLE 2 6

ETHNIC PREFERENCE REGARDING SUPERVISO RIN NON-RUSSIAN REPUBLIC S

Nationality of Respondent s ' Last Superviso rPreference

Local(n = 44)

Non-Loca l(n = 89 )

None 52% 67 %

Local 29 5

German 17 2 5

Russian 3 3

Total 100% 100%

The primary purpose of examining the summary replies provided by ou r

German respondents about their own experiences and attitudes regarding th e

ethnic factor within the working environment was to investigate a number o f

general variables that appear to play a role . The following discussion wil l

focus more on the data provided by the interviewees in their role as observers ,

i .e . the focus will be on the interaction between nationalities other than

the Soviet Germans .

After the Soviet Germans had been asked whether they themselve s

preferred persons of a certain nationality as supervisors, a follow-up ques -

tion asked, "Do you think that it made any difference to the others at you r

place of work who their superiors were?" As can be seen in table 27, man y

thought that this was the case, but the pattern varies somewhat in regard

to individual republics . The most noticeable variation can be observed i n

the case of the Baltic republics which represent the only instance in whic h

a majority of respondents thought that the nationality of the superviso r

5 1

TABLE 2 7

ETHNIC PREFERENCE IN REGARD TO WORK SUPERVISORS : RESPONDENTS 'EVALUATION OF PREFERENCE OF CO-WORKER S

Tota l(n = 136)

Kazakhstan andCentral Asia

Baltic

MoldaviaRSFS R

(n =25) and Other

(n = 21 )(n = 74) (n = 16 )

Specific Nationalit yIs Preferred 37% 35% 56% 38% 24%

No Difference 51 53 32 56 6 2

Don't Know 12 12 12 6 1 4

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

TABLE 2 8

ETHNIC PREFERENCE IN REGARD TO WORK SUPERVISORS :RESPONDENTS ' PERSONAL ATTITUDE

Total(n = 159)

Kazakhstan andCentral Asia

BalticMoldavia

RSFSR(n =

27) and Other(n = 26 )

(n = 89) (n = 17 )

Specific Nationalit yIs Preferred 35% 35% 41% 53% 19 %

No Difference 65 65 59 47 8 1

Don ' t Know

Totals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

made a difference to their non--German co-workers (both indigenous Balts ,

Russians, and others) . This variance might be explained by either a n

inherent difference in the overall context of the republics themselves, o r

else by differences related to the specifics of the situation experience d

by the respondents . As to the latter, one should recall at this point tha t

5 2

the Baltic cases are somewhat "atypical " within our general sample in tha t

a majority of respondents lived in environments in which the indigenou s

nations constituted a numerical majority . Thus, it appears that this specific

"ethnic mix " may explain the atypical response pattern . Unfortunately our

sample is too small to allow " controlling for " this one variable .

If one furthermore compares the ethnic preferences regarding super-

visors as they relate to the Soviet Germans themselves and as they relate t o

their co-workers, one again notes certain divergences from the overal l

pattern . Thus, the Germans who lived in the Baltic republics personall y

come rather close to the average percentage of respondents saying that they

do or do not prefer supervisors with a certain background . This suggest s

that in this instance the Soviet Germans are more " internationalist" in

their outlook than their non-Russian and Russian colleagues . In the cas e

of Moldavia, however, the reverse is true . In light of the small number o f

cases, any explanation must remain tentative, but it is possible that the

difference in this case can be explained by the fact that most respondent s

had lived in Moldavia for a much shorter period than in other republics, an d

therefore felt comparatively less at ease with indigenous supervisors . Mos t

of those who preferred specific bosses preferred Germans, or else Russians .

Many of the respondents who stated that the ethnic background o f

supervisors did make a difference to their co-workers provided explanation s

for this phenomenon . Among these explanations one finds several major points .

According to the first, each nationality prefers a boss of its own background ,

typical comments being, "Lithuanians would prefer Lithuanians, and Russian s

would prefer Russian s " (#100), or "of course everybody wants their own" (##167) .

Another respondent related this experience : " Our boss was a Ukrainian . The

5 3

Kazakhs didn ' t like him, but they liked the Kazakh [who was boss before] .

When the Ukrainian was boss, the Russians would come to work on Sundays [t o

fulfill the plan], but when the Kazakh was boss, the Muslims came to work o n

Sundays" (#82) .

The second point coincides with several statements made before whe n

the Germans commented on their own preferences in regard to co-workers and

supervisors, i .e . language was pinpointed as a major reason for preferences ,

especially in the Baltic area . Thus, a lorry driver who had lived in Latvi a

said : " If a Russian is the boss, one has to speak in Russian " (#119), and

another respondent said that Russians prefer to have a Russian boss "becaus e

they do not understand the Latvian language " (#130) .

A further basic category of explanations focused on colleagues pre-

ferring a boss of their nationality because " it is their native country . "

This reply underlines the perception of an indigenous republic nationalit y

having special rights and strivings within their republic, a point that was

also frequently encountered in replies to other questions in our interview

schedule . 18 However, the RSFSR is perceived as being somewhat a specia l

case in this regard, which was noted by one respondent commenting on the

prevalence of non-Russians aspiring to have supervisors of their own nationa l

background : " In Russia there is no difference ; it is different in Kirgizia ,

there they want their own, in Estonia too, but in the RSFSR it doesn' t

matter" (#168) .

IV . INTEGRATIVE INSTITUTION S

1 . The Komsomo l

The possibilities of studying interethnic relations within th e

Komsomol were considerably limited by the fact that a large majority of the

Soviet German emigrants interviewed had not been members of it (85%, n - 197) .

Even those who had been members usually had joined without real interest .

The main thrust of comments on the Komsomol suggest that it does not play a

serious role in the life of many young people in the USSR, and is regarded a s

an "empty organization . " This image of the Komsomol differs from that fre-

quently held by Western observers of the USSR, and this is likely to b e

influenced by the special characteristics of our sample, i .e ., it reflects

conditions in the "provinces , " among people with a relatively low educational

and occupational status, and among individuals with a special ethnic reli-

gious profile . Nevertheless, this finding suggests that more comprehensiv e

follow-up studies could yield new insights about this aspect of life in th e

contemporary Soviet Union .

Among those respondents who had not been members of the Komsomol ,

most (63%) just stated the fact in response to our question, and did not ad d

any comments . Among those who provided explanations, religion was mentione d

most frequently (19%) . Most specified that it was impossible to be both i n

the Komsomol and a believer, and in one intriguing case the responden t

compared this attitude to that of the Muslims : " I wasn't in the Komsomo l

because I am a believer . We cannot serve two masters at the same time, bu t

they [Turkmens] are able to do both--believe and be in the part y " (#71) . The

second important reason, although mentioned less frequently than religion

54

5 5

(6%), concerns the early wish to emigrate, i .e ., " I knew that we would emi-

grate, and then this makes difficulties (#116) . Some (5%) also mentione d

that there was no point in joining the Komsomol, that it only cost money ,

and a few stated that they didn't join because of their nationality . Among

the latter were some who felt rejected, i .e ., "Germans are stepchildren, "

and there were others who didn ' t want to join on their own, because " Germans

usually didn't join .

Among those who had joined the Komsomol (29 respondents) and who di d

specify their reasons, the largest percentage (45%) stated that they had

joined because everybody else was doing so, i .e ., all their peers . Some

specified that they conformed without thinking much about it, and other s

thay they did not want to stick out . The latter point was made to imply

that it would be uncomfortable to do so, i .e ., " everybody joined, so I di d

too . . . . If one doesn ' t join one is hassled all the time " (#32) ; " I was

the best student, everybody joined, so I had to as well--otherwise every-

body would have looked at me strangely " (#114) . The second largest grou p

(28%) mentioned that they had been more or less coerced to join " I was

forced to join during military service, they require that 100% are members

of the Komsomol . A Chinese and I were the only ones who weren ' t members ,

so on May 9th they simply gave us membership cards witout us learning th e

by-laws, or anything" (#94) ; "I was pestered about it when I was in the

army, they sent me to train as a sergeant " (#82) . Two respondents eac h

mentioned that they had joined either because of a personal wish to do so ,

or because they expected specific benefits from joining . Of the latter ,

one mentioned that she expected to have better educational opportunities ,

and one that one was treated better while serving in the military if one

5 6

was a Komsomol . Among the two respondents joining out of conviction on e

said "at that time I didn ' t dream yet about Germany, that was in sevent h

grade, and then I was still a patrio t " (#153) and the other " everybody at

school joined and it gave me pride to be a member of the Komsomo l" (#154) .

Since the low percentage of respondents who had been members of the

Komsomol already became evident during the interview pre-tests, only a

few questions on this topic were included in the final version of the inter -

view protocol . One of these concerned the "activists " in the Komsomol ,

i .e ., we asked who were the persons most eager to take charge . No clear

profile emerged from the responses, and only a few respondents mentione d

nationality in this context . Among those who did, most stated that Russian s

usually are the most active members . One respondent added the intriguin g

remark : "Of course the Russians [are most active], they can get along muc h

better because of the language ; the Kirgiz do not know Russian" (#60) . Thi s

comment draws attention to the role of language use within the Komsomol ,

i .e ., the active involvement of non-Russians may be hampered by the preva-

lence of the Russian language in the formal meetings . When asked about th e

language in which meetings were held, not one of our respondents mentione d

a language other than Russian, although quite a few had lived in the non -

Russian republics and the membership was of mixed nationality in man y

cases . However, when asked about the languages that the members of thei r

Komsomol group used in conversations among themselves, 52% said that lan-

guages other than Russian were used as well . It appears that this contras t

between individual language behavior and language use in formal meeting s

can be rather consequential and deserves more intensive study .

In order to get some notion of the direct influence of Komsomol

57

membership on ethnic relations all respondents who had been members of th e

Komsomol were asked : "Do you think that the Komsomol contributed to a n

improvement of understanding between various nationalities? " Twenty-one

percent of the respondents replied in an affirmative manner, another twenty -

one percent did not reply or said that they didn't know, and fifty-eigh t

percent replied with a "No . " While few explained their evaluation, i t

appears that the main reason for the negative evaluations can be found i n

the generally low level of serious activity within the framework of the

Komsomol . Thus, one of the respondents explained his "no" by adding tha t

" there weren't any activities, they only collected membership dues " (#32) ,

and another one said that " it [the Komsomol] isn ' t made for that--eithe r

culture or human contacts " (#77) . Of those respondents who gave a posi-

tive evaluation, none mentioned specific activities or experiences the y

were thinking of, but made more general statements such as "well, I assume

it helped" (#165), or "one generally didn ' t feel any difference among the

nationalities " (#97 from Tiraspol, Moldavia) ; or "we were all friendly with

each other" (#41) . Thus even these replies indicate that the Komsomo l

does not play a noticeable role in this regard .

2 . The Armed Forces

While our findings suggest that the integrative role of the Komsomo l

is minimal, the same cannot be said for the armed forces . Although we

found that communal and linguistic differentiation has a major impact i n

this particular sphere as well, the general ethnic experience during mili-

tary service has been an integrative one for most respondents . It appear s

that this is closely related to the various institutional arrangements, a s

well as to the socializing effect of participation in multi-ethnic groups

5 8

that are much less susceptible to individual influences than work collectives ,

All male respondents who were younger than forty were asked whethe r

they had served in the Soviet armed forces, and if so, a number of question s

were posed about the role of ethnicity within this context . It emerge d

that--compared to educational institutions for example--the study of ethnicit y

is rather fruitful in this area since formally this is just about the mos t

integrated Soviet institution . There is no segregation into special nationa l

units, and no sub-sections exist within which a language other than Russian

is used, as is the case in education . Therefore, respondents such as the

Soviet German emigrants have had comparatively much contact with othe r

nationalists in this sphere and are able to relate their experiences .

Again, one of our first objectives was to try to measure the ethni c

composition of this particular social environment . Respondents were aske d

to estimate the percentage ratios of various nationalities represented i n

their units ; this emerged as relatively easy in those instances when on e

group--the Russians in all our cases--formed a numerical majority of 6 0

percent or more, In those cases where no one nationality formed th e

majority respondents frequently were unable to specify percentages and als o

stated that they were unable to always tell the nationalities apart . Thus :

"There were too many nationalities, I don't know" (#34) ; "There were 1 7

nationalities altogether " (#121) ; " There were Kirgiz--the blacks .

, . We

don ' t know who is who, Kirgiz, or something else " (#100) ; " All blacks

together, about 35 percent " (#119) ; "There were about 30 percent blacks--

I couldn ' t tell them apart " (#16) ; " There were Muslims--Kazakhs, Uzbeks ,

Turkmens " (#82) ; "There were 80 percent Russians--when we say Russians, w e

also mean Ukrainians and Belorussians, we don ' t differentiate among them,

5 9

only by their name s'' (#144) ; " Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians were 7 0

percent altogether " (#158) .

It is well-known that within the Soviet armed forces ethnic mixing

does not only affect the national groups, but also the territorial assign-

ments . Thus we did not encounter a single case in which a republi c

nationality had had the numerical majority within a unit stationed in the

respective republic—or, for that matter, stationed anywhere else . The one

important exception, of course, is constituted by the Russians, althoug h

even here one finds indications of a considerable mixing . Thus, exactly

two-thirds of our respondents had been stationed in the RSFSR, but of thes e

twenty-four cases only thirteen reported that Russians had formed th e

numerical majority in their unit, with ten others indicating that thei r

unit had had an ethnically mixed composition in which no one nationality

dominated (the one remaining respondent replied with " I don ' t know " ) . In

the case of respondents who had been stationed in other republics, tw o

were serving in entirely mixed units in the Ukraine, and one each in Belo-

russia, Latvia and Kazakhstan . In addition, we encountered seven respon-

dents who had served in predominantly Russian units (i .e ., two in Turk-

menistan, two in Kazakhstan, two in the Ukraine, and one in Georgia) .

Having established the basic ethnic environments, the other inter -

view questions about experiences during military service focused on two

main areas : language use and inter-ethnic relations, and ethnic strati-

fication . In both areas the thrust of the replies suggests that the inte-

grative impact of the Soviet military is rather strong and that the mani-

festations of ethnic differentiation that can be observed relate primarily

to the personal and communal sphere .

6 0

Turning first to the question of ethnic stratification, the finding s

in response to two questions are pertinent . The first question asked whethe r

soldiers of a specific nationality were preferred in selections for more

responsible tasks or special training courses . Among our thirty-si x

respondents, 58% replied with "No, " 8% gave no answer, and 36% gave som e

type of affirmative answer . Among these (eleven respondents) three said

that Germans would not be assigned to rocketbases or other more secret units ,

several stressed that 'black s " frequently are assigned to guard units (MVD) ,

and several others thought that Russians are chosen for more responsibl e

positions, although there was one respondent who said the opposite : "They

take Russians less frequently, prefer the others who have more of a n

ingrained tendency towards the service . . . . The Khokhol [Ukrainian] i s

proud to be a sergeant . .

. Those from the Baltic, and other nationalities ,

also want that more " (#144) . Some said that non-Russians were more fre-

quently assigned to construction units, but this was not stressed ver y

strongly with some respondents mentioning other criteria for service i n

these units such as bad health, low level of education, a criminal tendency ,

or strong religious belief .

The other question in this area asked about the nationality o f

sergeants and whether the respondent though that nationality played a rol e

in the promotion to sergeant . The typical response was no, there was n o

difference, " with additional comments such as "I was a sergeant myself, " or

" education is decisive . " Not one of the respondents indicated that selection s

were made on the basis of nationality, the one exception being self-selection ,

i .e ., some respondents indicated that certain persons were more eager t o

become sergeants and as a result would also be chosen more frequently .

6 1

Several mentioned that this was true for Ukrainians, but one also mentione d

Caucasians and another one said " those are mostly Germans .

, whoever

knows how to command, nationality doesn ' t play a role ; there was also a

Turkmen" (#82) . The point about Germans appears to be well taken sinc e

quite a few of our respondents appear to have been in that role (we did no t

ask about this, but quite a few volunteered the information) . There is one

more comment which was volunteered in this context and deserves to b e

quoted : " No, in the army everybody is equal . . . . There are punishments fo r

making ethnic slurs . .

. If anybody had called me a fascist I would hav e

thrown my draft card on the table and said 'if I am a fascist, send me t o

the FRG'" (#52) .

The situation differs in regard to officers, although here we only

asked about the nationality of superior officers in respondents ' units .

Eight percent mentioned only Russians, seventy-five percent mentioned mostl y

Russians, and seventeen percent mentioned a variety of nationals . Overall ,

there clearly is a predominance of Russians . Several points should b e

added, however . Thus one respondent said that he couldn't really tell o f

what nationality his officers were ; "They spoke Russian, and looked lik e

them . . . but just try to ask about it " (#52) . Here one should recall tha t

some respondents generally could not, or did not, distinguish betwee n

Russians, Belorussians, and Ukrainians . It is also possible that miscon-

ceptions about the ethnic background of certain persons arise if the person s

speak Russian fluently . Thus in one case "there was a Latvian officer, bu t

he had become like a Russian ; .

he wanted to get ahead " (#119) . In sum ,

it appears that nationality does play a role in the selection of officers ,

although there are exceptions as well, thus several respondents said that

6 2

that men who wanted that kind of career could have it, and one responden t

specified : " In Kazakhstan there are Kazakh officers as well ; I too was

offered the chance to go to officers training, but I didn ' t want to--on e

serves twenty-five years and then doesn't have a profession " (#121) .

In regards to the second area of interest, a number of questions

were asked about ethnic relations and language behavior . The overall

analysis of the replies suggests a certain parallelity of basic tendencies ;

one obtains the impression that in terms of its institutional effectivenes s

and internal workings the armed forces are integrative, while communa l

and linguistic differentiation persists in terms of the soldiers' inter -

personal relationships . One must assume that the latter has a certai n

impact on the former, but the particulars require a much broader stud y

than the present one .

The impression of communal and linguistic differentiation i n

personal relationships emerges from two questions . The first was "did th e

soldiers of any specific nationality stick together, for example durin g

off-duty time? " A majority of seventy-five percent replied in an affir-

mative manner, frequently saying "each nationality kept with its own, " or

enumerating several groups present in the specific unit . This grouping

during leisure time was regarded as natural : " The Kirgiz kept to themselves ,

and the Uzbeks, everybody . During off-duty time everyone keeps togethe r

[with their own], it isn ' t international as they write ; a human being is a

human being and to each his own are closer " (#168) . Of those who negate d

the question, the most intriguing comment was that soldiers tend to stick

together more according to the particular year they enter the service .

Apparently there is a pattern according to which the older soldiers harass

63

the new ones, but even here nationality intervenes at least in some occasions :

" Of course the black nation kept together . The Russians ridicule thei r

first-year soldiers, harass them, but the Kazakhs defend their young draftees .

. The Kazakhs and Tatars always stand one for the other, go on furloug h

together " (#61) .

The second question asked whether soldiers conversed in language s

other than Russian . Eighty-nine percent of our sample said yes, which i s

rather notable if one remembers that many respondents had served in units

where Russians formed the numerical majority and the non-Russians thus wer e

not very numerous . However, persons of specific nationality apparentl y

seek each other out and systematically converse in their own native languages .

This appears to be prevalent among all non-Russians . No one nationality

was singled out in the comments, except for those instances where only

certain nationals were present in a unit : " There were thirteen nationalities ,

each conversed in their own language " (#75) ; "We as well . . , and the

Muslims ; the Russians object that they don't understand anything" (#82) ;

"The Kirgiz speak Kirgiz in their free time, there are Kirgiz who do no t

know Russian" (#109) ; ' The Uzbeks know Russian badly, then the Russians

make fun of them, and then there is a fight" (#121) ; "Everybody [speaks ]

their own, the Uzbeks among themselves always, even if there are Russian s

there .

. We whites can't do that, that would be impolite, the cultur e

doesn't allow it . .

. It is accepted in the case of the blacks, not i n

the case of whites" (#168) .

Interestingly enough, the use of native languages occasionally als o

spills over into on-duty conversations : "Armenians, Azeri, Georgians ,

Kazakhs, Moldavians--they speak in their own languages among themselves,

64

at work as well as in their free time" (#58) ; "The Lithuanians--and it di d

happen that they used it during duty hours as well" (#30) ; "Yes, . . no t

only in their free time, also ask each other questions, those who have bee n

in the service for a longer time already--but after a year they lear n" (#173) .

A few comments about the general role of langauge knowledge an d

attitudes should be interjected here . From the findings just outlined, i t

is quite clear that non-Russians in the military forces use their nativ e

languages widely during their off-duty time, and sometimes also on-duty .

From other sources, such as the Soviet census data, it is evident that a

considerable number of non-Russians do not know the Russian language very

well, and since youths from all regions and social strata are drafted int o

the armed forces, one may presume that this factor plays some role there .

For this reason we included the question " does it matter that some soldiers

speak little Russian, or is that of little importance? " in our intervie w

schedule . Responses can be categorized into three groups ; thirty-two

percent of respondents who had served in the military said that it mattere d

considerably, thirty-five percent thought that it mattered somewhat, and

twenty-five percent said that it was of no consequence . Among the latter ,

typical comments were : "There one doesn't need to talk much " (#168) o r

"One learns very quickly what is needed" (#16) . Those who saw some problem s

made comments such as these : " The Kirgiz had difficulties, but they learne d

[Russian] from each other . . . there were no courses " (#109) ; "For about

half a year they play the fool, as if they don ' t understand anything, bu t

then they learn" (#163) : " It is more difficult at the beginning, but by the

end of the service, they know it" (#156) .

Some comments about linguistic difficulties were : The Kazakhs and

65

Armenians know Russian very badly, but they don't yield, [they] are takin g

the upper hand " (#61) ; " There was an Uzbek about whom it was said that h e

didn ' t want to speak Russian and pretended not knowing it . I taught him

' say mina, ' but he ' Nina'

. . I try to explain to him that that is a girl ' s

name, but nothing .

. He was transferred to the kitchen crew" (#82) ;

"Yes, somebody who doesn't understand isn't going to be sent to work with

radar or the telegraph . However, the majority only pretend that they don' t

know it [Russian] " (#94) ; "Of course it matters, there are more conflict s

because of those who don't know the language " (#31) ; "The Kirgiz and

Kazakhs can speak it only very badly when they come into the army .

There are general difficulties because they know it so badly, one has t o

explain everything ; that takes much time and frequently he doesn ' t carry

out what was asked of him" (#173) .

One interesting aspect of some of these comments is the apparen t

perception among some non-Muslims that Kirgiz, Kazakhs, et al ., only preten d

to not know Russian . This suggests that language behavior is associate d

with a certain attitudinal outlook which remains unarticulated in othe r

ways . More study of this problem is indicated, since from our data it i s

impossible to say whether the phenomenon expresses certain ethnic attitudes

of the Muslims, or unwillingnesses to be an effective part of the arme d

forces, or pure lazyness, or what . It could, of course, also represent a

misconception of the non-Russians who might just think that the Muslim s

pretend not to understand Russian when they indeed don't .

This leads us to the question about the general state of ethni c

relations within the military context, a question which is rather difficul t

to answer within the limited scope of our study . A tentative reply may be

66

based on the results of the first question asked in this sub-section of th e

interview protocol, i .e ., "do you think that serving in the military streng-

thens mutual understanding among the nationalities? " Sixty-four percen t

replied in an affirmative manner, twenty-eight percent in a negative one ,

with the rest not replying at all (two respondents) . Of those who replie d

affirmatively most made a short comment about the general integrative effec t

of the service experience : "You are in a group together, are trained together "

(#60) ; "Yes, we all ate from the same pot, we had to be unified " (#16) ; "Yes ,

in the army a command is a command, there one doesn ' t look at nationality "

(#27) ; "One goes together through all difficulties " (#158) ; "You work to-

gether, get to know each other . . . .Some know Russian badly, [but] lear n

it in two years " (#159) ; "You meet very many, find some friends " (#58) ;

" In the service all are unified . . . . They turn towards the Russian cul-

ture " (#173) ; "Mostly yes, it is different only in those cases where ther e

are many Russians, or many from the Caucasus, then there might be som e

disunity, but in general the Russian army is very strong, there are many

polit-workers ; those always see to it that nothing happens . . ." (#144) .

Of those who negated the proposition most commented in terms of a

specific ethnic problem : "No, it gets even worse . . . . The Russians ar e

more on top . . . . Before that I too thought that all are equal in th e

service the way they tell it to you, but it isn ' t " (#168) ; "You learn t o

know each other, but not to understand each other . . . . The Kazakhs wer e

usually regarded as much lower [beings], generally the blacks " (#18) ; "Th e

Russians and Germans did not get along with the Asians ; one gets angry ,

they pretend to be fools, don't want to work, one has to do their work--we

beat them up, that helped " (#94) ; "No, in our place there were Armenians,

6 7

Georgians, Khokhols, Russians, Germans, and there were always quarrels, dis-

harmony . The Armenians want to separate from the Russians, the Georgian s

regard themselves as a higher race " (#31) ; "No, conflicts occur . The

Armenians and Tatars keep in groups . The Russians keep with the German s

and Ukrainians, are more unified " (#93) ; "No . It shows who has lived i n

what society . The nationalities stick together " (#61) . One should add

that respondents giving such negative evaluations tended to have served i n

units with a strongly mixed ethnic composition, but the sample is too smal l

to allow statistically valid conclusions ,

The results of one more question should be reported and this tim e

the question focused on the Soviet German respondents themselves, i .e . ,

they were asked about the nationality of their own friends during militar y

service . The largest group (47 percent) mentioned friends of varyin g

nationality, while thirty-one percent had mostly Russian friends and the

rest had friends of a republic nationality (14 percent) or other Germans

(8 percent) . A cross-tabulation of these data with other variables turn s

out to be most intriguing in regard to a comparison with the general friend-

ship pattern of these same young men, Although this particular sub-sampl e

is relatively small (n = 36), one finds a certain pattern which suggest s

that friendships formed within the special institutional context of mili-

tary service are related in rather specific ways to friendship choices i n

a general social context . In forty-two percent of the cases (fifteen )

there is a direct overlap and the same ethnic profile of friends pertain s

(for specifics see table 29) . In those cases where there is no overlap ,

one nevertheless finds a very strong tendency towards specific friendshi p

choices : those who had mostly German friends in general life had the very

6 8

TABLE 2 9

ETHNICITY OF FRIENDS DURING MILITARY SERVICE AND IN GENERAL

Ethnic Profile of Friends in Genera l

Mostly Mostly Republi cMixed

Germans Russians Nationals

9 8 - -

- 3 - -

8 1 1 -

3 - - 2

21

1

2

strong tendency (eight out of nine) to choose an ethnically mixed group o f

friends in the service, while those who had a mixed group of friends in

general life had the very strong tendency (eight of twelve) to choos e

Russians as their friends during service . This suggests a basic tendency

for people who personally prefer friends of their own nationality to choos e

an "international " group of friends if the former are unavailable, and for

people who generally have a mixed group of friends to choose mostly

Russian friends in an environment where the latter dominate .

There is one additional point of interest . Anong those who ha d

an ethnically mixed group of friends in general life we encountered thre e

who had kept together with Kazakhs or Kirgiz during their military service :

" I had Kirgiz friends there, we were from the same kolkhoz .

I looked

for them, we were from the same place and it was very interesting whe n

someone received a letter " (#109) ; "With Kazakhs, we were from the sam e

place, I knew the m" (1121) ; "If he is your zemlijak, then even if he is a

Ethnicity of Friend sDuring Militar y

Servic e

Mixed

Mostly German

Mostly Russian s

Republic National s

No Reply

Total Cases

6 9

Turk, you stick together with him" (#163) . This notion of a special tie o f

friendship being based on a common place of origin emerging within th e

context of a new and " foreign " environment suggests that under certain spec-

ial conditions new factors begin to influence ethnic relations . This sug-

gestion should be followed up with research focusing on this one aspec t

since its implications are quite significant .

CONCLUSION S

In this report we have outlined all those aspects of research that

were aimed at identifying specific factors influencing ethnic relations i n

the USSR . Thus, we hypothesized at the outset that the varied ethnic com-

position of social environments has a major impact on differential pattern s

of interaction, and that the same is true for varied patterns of languag e

knowledge and behavior . Both these hypotheses were supported by at leas t

some of our findings and a more extended and systematic study should be

undertaken along these lines . This appears especially crucial in light o f

projections analysts hope to make about propsective ethnic changes in th e

USSR . Since the ethnic environments in the USSR are changing--mostly du e

to differing birthrates among the nationalities--and since aggregate data

on this as well as on changes in linguistic identities are available from

Soviet censuses, such further study could serve as the basis for buildin g

models for interpreting the meaning of changes in these aggregate data ove r

time .

Language knowledge and behavior deserve especially much additiona l

study since this is an aspect also emphasized in Soviet social research ,

ideology, and changing ethnic politics . Our findings confirm the underly-

ing assumption that language is a major variable in changing nationality

relations and ethnic integration in the USSR . However, while Soviet researc h

and policy focuses on the increased emphasis on Russian as the " language o f

interethnic communication, " the research reported on here suggests that the

language of republic nationalities has a key role in social contexts i n

70

7 1

which the republic nationality dominates . The main point is that commonality

of language is a major factor in ethnic relations, and this commonality can

apply to various languages .

Closely linked to this is our broader finding that lack of ethni c

integration or negative attitudes towards multi-ethnicity are associate d

with " functional " problems such as language barriers and cannot simply b e

dismissed as attitudinal phenomena . This emerged especially clearly in thos e

instances where functional needs and tasks formed the basis of multi-ethni c

interaction, which is the case at places of work and during service in the

armed forces . In these spheres of life people concentrate on "getting the

job done " and ethnic identity as such plays a secondary role unless th e

beforementioned functional problems interfere . In contrast, our study sug-

gests that ethnic identity plays a considerable role in the personal and

communal sphere, where there is a strong tendency for everybody to keep t o

people of their own nationality . This is not to say that there are no

exceptions, or divergences in the case of specific groups . 19

In general, one can summarize our findings by saying that in dis-

cussing interethnic relations one has to clearly differentiate betwee n

contexts and spheres of life . In the personal and communal sphere, inter-

action tends to focus on co-nationals ; whereas relations are rather inte-

grated--if somewhat neutral--within the working environment and withi n

specific institutional contexts such as the armed forces . Even here, how-

ever, functional problems do have an impact, and one finds that relation s

become more particularistic again once relations move into the more persona l

sphere, such as is-the case during off-duty time in the military .

Findings such as the latter fit very well with propositions found in

7 2

general comparative social research . It therefore appears promising t o

pursue the themes addressed in our study further . A certain tentativenes s

of our research was assumed from the outset, even more so since it was on e

of the tasks of the project to explore the degree to which a topic o f

interest such as ethnic relations in the USSR can be studied by means o f

survey research among emigrants . It appears that this method is indeed ver y

promising and that a larger study based on a larger sample, more ambitiou s

methodology and statistical analysis, and most of all, more manpower, would

provide new insights not available otherwise .

NOTES

1.

See interim reports submitted on this project ; Rasma Karklins, "Islam :How Strong is it in the Soviet Union? Inquiry based on Oral Interviews wit hSoviet Germans Repatriated from Central Asia in 1979 , " Cahiers du Monde russ e

et sovietique XXI (1), Jan .-Mar ., 1980 ; in press ; ibid ., " NationalityPower in Soviet Republics, " submitted for publication ; ibid ., "A ResearchNote on the Soviet Census 1979, " Soviet Studies, July, 1980, in press .

2. This study has grown out of a pilot-study undertaken by R . Karklins in1978 with the support of the Nationalities project of AAASS, and as a post -doctoral fellow of the Slavic Area Committee, The University of Chicago .

3.

The procedures followed are those recommended by standard manuals o ninterviewing such as Manual of Procedures for Hiring and Training Interviewers ,published by the National Opinion Research Center, The University of Chicago ,

September 1972 .

4.

For a similar finding in interviews with both German and Baltic emigrant sfrom the USSR, see Juozas A . Kazlas, " Social Distance Among Ethnic Groups, "in Nationality Group Survival in Multi-Ethnic States, ed . Edward Allwort h(New York : Praeger, 1977), pp . 228-255 .

5.

See Karklins, " Islam . . .

op . cit ., pp . 15-17 .

6.

Among these eight cases, there are two Lutherans who lived in Latvi aand attended special German language services held by Latvian pastors ; onecase of a Baptist living in Latvia and having a small number of Latviansamong her German Baptist congregation (on a Latvian kolkhoz) ; three Lutheran swho participated in the services of mixed German-Lithuanian congregations i nthe Memel area, and two Catholics participated in general Catholic servicesheld in Lithuania .

7.

Karklins, " Islam . . . ," op . cit .

8.

It is interesting to note that several respondents cited a particula rGerman dialect as their mother tongue . On the problem of dialects and theuse of archaic terms by the emigrants see Rasma Karklins, " Interviews mi tdeutschen Spätaussiedlern aus der Sowjetunion , " Berichte d es Bundesinstitutsfür ostwissenschaftliche and internationale Studien No . 42, 1978, pp . 24-26 .

9.

See Karklins, " Nationality Power, " interim report, op . cit. pp. 20-27.

10. The questions used by Kholmogorov--although not reported in detail- -appear especially problematic . Thus, when asking about the effect of multi -ethnicity of the work force, he asks about two factors at once, i .e . theeffect of a multinational composition upon work and interpersonal relations .Compare A . I . Kholmogorov, Internatsional ' nye cherty sovetskikh natsii . (Na

materialakh konkretno-sotsiologicheskikh issledovanii v Pribaltike) . (Moscow :

Mysl, 1970), pp . 168-70 . The study has been translated as A . I . Kholmogorov ,International Traits of Soviet Nations (Based on Data of Concrete Sociologica l

7 3

7 4

a

Research in the Baltic Area) and published in Soviet Sociology XI, no . 3/ 4and XII, no . 1 .

11. See, for example, Iurii V . Arutiunian, "Konkretno-sotsiologischesko eissledovanie natsional ' nykh otnoshenii, " Voprosy filosofii, No . 12, 1969 ,pp . 129-39, especially tables 2 and 3 ; L . M. Drobizheva, "Sotsian ' no-kul ' turnyeosobennosti lichnosti i natsional ' nye ustanovki (po materialam issledovani iv Tatarskoi ASSR), Sovetskaia etnografiia No . 3, 1971, pp . 3-15, table 5 .While these two studies report on Tatars and Russians, a study of fou rdifferent non-Russian groups living in Western Siberia also found that thepercentage of those having a positive attitude towards mixed marriages wasconsistently smaller than the percentage who believe that multi-ethnicit yof a work collective has no significance . The percentage difference rangedbetween nine and forty-six percent . N . A . Tomilov, " Sovremmenn ' ie etnicheski eprotsessy v yuzhnoi i srednei polose zapadnoi Sibiri, " Sovetskaia etnografii aNo . 4 (1978), pp . 9-20, p . 15 . A Western survey also undertaken with Sovie tGerman emigrants also found that attitudes of acceptance or rejection towar dindividual ethnic groups vary significantly according to social context .Juozas A. Kazlas, " Social Distance Among Ethnic Groups, " op . cit .

12. See also table 25 .

13. According to the data shown in Kholmogorov, op . cit ., p . 174, Khol-mogorov ' s case is partially valid only if one looks at the column showin gpercentages of negative attitudes . If one examines the columns showing "noanswers " and positive attitudes, the conclusion no longer fits . Thus, thelowest percentage of openly expressed positive attitudes towards multi -national work forces applies to Daugavpils, which is one of the most hetero-geneous cities of Latvia .

14. Iurii V . Arutiunian, Sotsial ' noe i natsional ' noe, Opyt etnosotsiolo-gicheskikh issledovanii po materialam Tatarskoi ASSR (Moscow : Nauka, 1973) ,p . 283 .

15. Arutiunian, Voprosy filosofii, op . cit ., p . 138 .

16. Kholmogorov, op . cit ., p . 170 .

17. Arutiunian, op . cit ., table 2 .

18. For some of the most pertinent results see Karklins, "NationalityPower in Soviet Republics, " op . cit .

19. Thus there are indications that attitudes towards intermarriage diffe rsignificantly from group to group . A relatively low percentage of Jew sobjected to intermarriage in one study of ethnicity in the Baltic area .See Jeffrey A . Ross, "Interethnic Relations and Jewish Marginality in th eSoviet Baltic, " Journal of Baltic Studies IX, no . 4 (Winter 1978) : 360-2 .This study is also based on interviews with emigrants .

APPENDIX

TABLE 30

ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF RESPONDENTS ' LAST PLACE OF RESIDENCE IN THE USS R

Entire USSR

Dominant Nationalit y

Republic (I)

German (II)

Russian (III )

33 .4%

14 .5%

17 %

By Republics

Mixed (IV )

34 .7%

(100% )

Estonia (n = 8) 100% - - - (100% )

Latvia (n = 9) 72 - 28 - (100% )

Lithuania (n = 20) 87 - 10 3 (100% )

Moldavia (n = 14) 54 7 - 39 (100% )

Ukraine (n = 5) 80 - - 20 (100% )

Belorussia (n = 1) 100* - - - (100% )

Georgia (n = 1) 100 - - - (100% )

Usbekistan (n = 1) - - - 100 (100% )

Turkmenistan (n = 1) 100 - - - (100% )

Tadzhikistan (n = 10) 40 - - 60 (100% )

Kirgizia (n - 26) 13 31 12 44 (100% )

Kazakhstan (n = 70) 16 24 4 56 (100% )

RSFSR** (n = 34) 6** 12 67 15 (100%)

*A village with a majority of Polish inhabitants .

**This represents two respondents who lived in places with a Karelian and Osse tmajority ; respectively .

7 5