Abstract
This paper addresses the question of the boundary construction mechanism between different ethnic groups in Georgia. It demonstrates the duality of boundary construction strategies that operate distinctively in the public and private domains of life. By exploring this substantive issue, I utilize relatively new theoretical perspectives in the study of interethnic boundary construction by concentrating on its multilevel operational character. Drawing on rich data sources within a mixed method approach, I provide empirical evidence concerning how ethnic and national codes of identity are negotiated and combined in everyday interethnic settings. The analyses focus on three ethnic groups residing in the Republic of Georgia – Georgians, Armenians, and Azerbaijanis.
Highlights
What mostly characterises ethnic boundary theory is its linearity
As crucial organizing categories of social and everyday life, public and private normative order create a unique basis for dual boundary construction processes
Both of these normative orders produce a space for the reinterpretation and modification of each symbolic code of identity that defines the lines of interethnic boundaries
Summary
What mostly characterises ethnic boundary theory is its linearity. In almost all theoretical models, which explore the mechanism of ethnic boundary construction, the main question is directed at the set of factors defining the ethnic closure. The fact that each boundary defining factor itself does not function identically in the micro and macro, as well as the private and public spheres of life, and that the logic of the boundary making mechanism is essentially dual. The ethnic boundary lines, that are conserved and maintained in the private sphere, simultaneously can become eliminated in the public domain This multilevel operational feature of the boundary construction mechanism provides new perspectives in the study of ethnicity. The private/public operational structure as a conceptual framework can be useful to understand the complex logic of the ethnic boundary construction mechanism in everyday life. As mentioned above, this issue has been underestimated by scholars of ethnic boundary theory. Though after the 1990s, there was a significant decline in the minority ethnic groups, so that in 2014 the minorities represented 15% of the whole population, comprised of 6.27% Azeris, 4.53% Armenians and 0,71% Russians
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
