Национально-культурные организации в этнической и мигрантской инфраструктуре сибирского города (на примере Томска и Иркутска)

Abstract

The article explores one of the major points of contradiction in the interests and roles of Siberian urban actors with regard to so-called ‘national-cultural’ organizations (natsional'no-kul'turnye organizatsii, NKO, also known as natsional'no-kul'turnye avtonomii, NKA), ‘national-cultural’ associations, centers, foundations, etc., all of which are ethnic organizations. Specifically, it looks into why and how these organizations have become the centre of intersecting ethnic and migration discourses, what is their role and place in the urban infrastructure being created and used by migrants coming to Siberian cities, and how the relations between the state and national-cultural organizations formed at the regional level. Carried out in the Siberian urban centres of Tomsk and Irkutsk, our 30-year research into these questions (including thorough research methods such as observation, engagement in public events and public and advisory council meetings, interview and survey, analysis of documents and other materials released by national-cultural organizations as well as by the mass media) has enabled us to determine what place national-cultural organizations occupy in the migrant infrastructure of the two cities and to establish what kind of relations there is between these organizations and migrants from countries of the same ethnic origin – paternalistic or the one that allows leaders and activists from these organizations build their own social capital. The study of 2018 and 2019 – in-depth interviews and surveys held in Tomsk and Irkutsk – resulted in a substantial correction of the research results we had obtained in a few years prior to it. It revealed that the role migrants play in the local national-cultural organizations is not that of full members, rather, they act as an object of patronage on the part of the local ethnic elite deeply integrated into the host society (or ethnic activist groups that position themselves as such). In fact, the (social, economic and legal) support of these organizations provided to migrants is insignificant, and only a small number of migrants participate in cultural events organized by the local NKOs. Thus, these NKOs can hardly be seen as an element of the migrant infrastructure or an asset facilitating adaptation of migrants in these cities. It also became clear that migrants’ ties with their ‘historical homeland’/home countries, which the local national-cultural organizations take advantage of in sustaining their activities as well as the status of their leaders, often result in the issue of ‘conflicting loyalties’, especially when home countries actively conduct diasporic politics toward this category of their citizens abroad.