Mass resettlements of the Belarusian peasants on the territory of Siberia in the second half of 19th - the beginning of 20th centuries became the cause of developing of new forms of ethnocultural identity among them. At the time of migrations, the national identity of most of the Belarusian peasants hasn't been formed yet. Instead, their regional and local identity has originally dominated. Migrants from the same region have tried to create their own micro-communities in Siberia. This trend can be well seen in the existence of a number of Siberian villages of streets or areas where people only from certain places of exit lived. In the territory of the most part of an agricultural zone of Siberia the names "cheldon" and "samokhod" had a wide use. The first word was used to refer to the Russian old residents of Siberia whose ancestors settled down there in the 17–18th centuries. The second one was used, as a rule, for peasant-migrants of the end of 19the – the beginning of 20th centuries. A few models of resettlement of the Belarusian peasants-migrants have developed in Siberia. The cluster of villages where migrants got married and kept compatriot community for many years was the most stable of them. Villages with mixed ethnocultural structure and farms (“khutor”) were less sustainable patterns of resettlement. The ethnic identity of the Belarusian migrants has begun to be formed in 1920s, but due to assimilation processes, in the second half of the 20th century its value gradually began to decrease. Now the majority of the forms of ethnocultural identity considered in the article has relic manifestations and don't play any noticeable role in everyday life of the villages founded by the Belarusian migrants in Siberia. Despite it, studying of ethnocultural identity of resettlement communities doesn't lose its relevance as it gives a chance to get a complete and objective impression about their social and cultural features as well as sources, interactions and transformation of some components of their traditional culture. Based on the research results, it is possible to make a conclusion that each local community has its own individual dominating components of ethnocultural identity which are in process of continuous transformations. An important role in it was played by a world outlook dichotomy "us vs. them", acting as the main source of formation and preservation of any form of identity. At the same time, it extends to different hierarchical levels of ethnocultural identity, treating not only interactions of migrants and their external ethnocultural environment, but also internal structure of resettlement communities. Therefore, it can be considered as manifestation of a universal social and psychological need of local communities of different scale.
Read full abstract