Abstract
This article shows that inter-ethnic relations create consequences in strengthening the ethno-cultural heterogeneity of society, in ethnic enclavization, in the growth of inter-ethnic tension, demonstrated in various conflicts. The authors show that the apparent reason for refusal from the inter-ethnic relations management is the negation of inter-ethnic tension, more precisely— its transference into the discourse of cultural differences. Evaluating the ethnic conflict atmosphere in Russian society, as well as identifying ways to optimize the ethnic relations, requires no recognition of the Russian ethnic practices specialness. It is important to understand the comparability of Germany and the United States’ experience, aiming at identifying the boundaries of introduction of management models based on the constructivism positions in the Russian society. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s4p87
Highlights
It is problematic to say that there is a query on the models of ethnic processes management in the United States and Germany, because the American society is concerned about the racial and ethnic relations and migration flows, while the migration problem and the ethnic Germans reintegration are essential for Germany
The apparent reason for the refusal to manage inter-ethnic relations is the negation of inter-ethnic tension, more precisely, its transference into the discourse of cultural differences
Noting that the inter-ethnic relations management does not include the state of conflict absence as an ultimate goal explicitly, we can say that management is mainly treated as an integration into the civil society
Summary
It is problematic to say that there is a query on the models of ethnic processes management in the United States and Germany, because the American society is concerned about the racial and ethnic relations and migration flows, while the migration problem and the ethnic Germans reintegration are essential for Germany.the inter-ethnic relations affect the strengthening of social ethno-cultural heterogeneity, ethnic enclavization, the growth of inter-ethnic tension, demonstrated in conflicts, often veiled with allegedly cultural and religious differences.It is obvious that under the prevailing constructivist approach, which denies any "suspicions" in primordialism, interethnic processes management is presented beyond institutionalization, the establishment of governance structures and the emphasis is on the free choice of identity. The inter-ethnic relations affect the strengthening of social ethno-cultural heterogeneity, ethnic enclavization, the growth of inter-ethnic tension, demonstrated in conflicts, often veiled with allegedly cultural and religious differences. In the situation when the identity is declared to have a key role in interethnic relations and variability and ambivalence are attributed to it, the problem of inter-ethnic processes management is conceived in the discourses of decentralization, initiative groups of citizens or cultural traditions consolidation. The apparent reason for the refusal to manage inter-ethnic relations is the negation of inter-ethnic tension, more precisely, its transference into the discourse of cultural differences. The control objects are not ethnic communities but ethno-cultural groups that are constructed and reconstructed during the conflict or cooperation in the society. An integral element in the study of ethnicity becomes the preventive nature of ethno-nationalism, the desire to make a positive scenario of constructing a political nation, which includes integration on the basis of common civil virtues
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
