Ethnic Self-Categorization of the Russian-Speaking Population in Latvia

Abstract

The paper discusses the peculiarities of self-categorisation of Russian-speaking population as an ethnic minority in Latvia. The author considers categorisation as a cognitive process for classification of objects and phenomena into separate groups (categories). The article shows the institutional factors of reproduction of categorization and self-categorization of the Russian population of Latvia as a subordinate ethnic minority. At the same time, the issue of Russians as one indigenous people of Latvia is being discussed. The article examines the question of the extent to which the self-categorisation of Russians as an ethnic minority is reproduced in the younger generation of this ethnic group. In 2000 and in 2019, the author of the article conducted a survey of students studying in Russian in three private universities in Riga, to find out the evolution of this self-categorisation. The data of the study show that in the perception of young Russian respondents, Latvian society is stratified into Latvians and ethnic minorities, whose identities have different social weight in the country. The data of the study show that the narrative form of respondents is most often associated with identification with these groups, but not with Latvian citizens or residents.

1. Introduction

Latvia is a country where the ethno-cultural diversity of the population is a long-term historical and even political phenomenon. Since the 18th century, with the inclusion of the Latvian lands into the Russian Empire, and especially in the 20th century, during the period when Latvia was part of the Soviet Union, the share of the Russian population in the multi-ethnic diversity has increased significantly. And in modern independent Latvia, the share of Russians is about a quarter of the country’s population. In addition, Latvia is characterized by a high percentage of representatives of other ethnic groups (Belarusians, Ukrainians, Jews, Poles, etc.), for whom Russian is also their native language. This fact significantly increases the proportion of the Russian-speaking population in the ethnic palette of Latvia. At the same time, according to the Constitution and other legislative acts, the dominant socio-political discourse, Latvia is a Latvian national state, which, at the same time, proclaims the right to preserve ethnic and cultural identity to ethnic minorities. True, the scope of the Russian language in the social life of Latvia is sharply narrowed. According to the Constitution, national identity in Latvia can be built only on the basis of the Latvian language and culture, only Latvian is the state language, into which the education system of ethnic minorities is also fully translated. At the same time, the extremely insignificant representation of the Russian population in the socially prestigious spheres of public life, politics, business, culture, science, and art is also visible. This is accompanied by an extremely low interest on the part of the political elite and the media to discuss problems that concern the Russian population and ethnic minorities in general. In such a situation, which can be characterized as the subordination of the Russian population in relation to ethnic Latvians, it is important for researchers and public figures to understand the peculiarities of the ethnic self-categorization of the Russian-speaking population of Latvia. The author adheres to the notion that in the conditions of a clearly manifested ethno-social stratification for Russians as an ethnic minority in Latvia, ethno-cultural markers of self-categorization (Russian language, culture, features of historical experience, memory, etc.) are very closely intertwined with markers that characterize the social positions of Russians as a subordinated minority, which is characterized by perceptions of underestimated life chances in comparison with the life chances of Latvians. To confirm this hypothesis, the author conducted sociological studies of the narrative practices of Russian students in Riga in 2000 and 2019, the materials of which confirmed this interpretation of the ethnic self-categorization of the Russian-speaking population of Latvia. Moreover, in 2019, the self-categorization of Russian young people as a subordinate ethnic minority only intensified compared to 2000. The data of these studies confirmed the fact of increasing skepticism in the Russian environment regarding their official categorization as an ethnic minority, since the existing norms and practices of not protecting the interests of ethnic minorities do not imply full inclusion in social, political and economic life in Latvia. Therefore, it is no coincidence that among the representatives of the Russian public there is an interest in self-categorization as “one of the indigenous peoples” of Latvia. However, such ideas do not find support in the Latvian environment.

2. Self-categorization of an ethnic minority in the context of ethno-social stratification and the space of life chances

Social self-categorization is the process of attributing oneself to one or another social, including ethnic, group [1, 2]. The most important condition for ethnic self-categorization is the ethnic differentiation of society, which permeates all its spheres and directly affects the nature of the distribution of social capital between different ethnic groups. P. Berger and T. Luckmann see in the established social institutions of society the most important resource for constructing social categorization and social identity [3]. The source of ethnic categorization and self-categorization is the features of the mechanisms of inclusion/exclusion in large social and civil communities [4]. Mechanisms of social exclusion in relation to ethnic minorities, realizing the dichotomy “we/they”, prevent their access to membership in prestigious social roles and statuses, increasing the marginalization of these groups in society and, according to I. M. Young, their social and political impotence [5].

The relevance of understanding the processes of ethnic categorization increases in multi-ethnic societies, where at the official, including the legislative level, as well as in the public consciousness, there is a long-term and stable consolidation of the division of society into a national majority and ethnic minorities. Thus, for ethnic self-categorization, both markers of ethnic identity (common historical origin, culture, language, religious beliefs shared by members of an ethnic group) turn out to be relevant [6]), and markers of ethno-stratification identity that characterize the most common social positions occupied by representatives of ethnic groups in the system of power in society [7]. As the practice of multi-ethnic states shows, where differences in the functional roles of the identities of the ethno-national majority and ethnic minorities are constantly accentuated in socio-political life, ethno-cultural and ethno-stratification markers can smoothly flow into each other [8].

For ethnic minorities, self-categorization is particularly sensitive to markers characterizing the position of these groups in the system of ethno-social stratification and life chances [9]. This correlation is especially relevant for those ethnic minorities that are poorly represented in the structures of state power, in socially prestigious activities and professions, and in relation to whose ethnocultural identity the dominant ethnopolitical discourse implements exclusion practices. In such a situation, representatives of ethnic minorities significantly actualize the dichotomy “we - they” in their ethnic self-categorization [10].

3. Social and political factors stimulating self-categorization of the Russian population as an ethnic minority in Latvia

The geographical proximity of Latvia to Russia and mainly its entry into the Russian Empire from the beginning of the 18th century, and then the USSR, contributed to the emergence on its territory of a large group of the Russian population and representatives of other ethno-cultural groups for whom the Russian language was or became native. The materials of the first All-Russian population census (1897) indicate that 231.2 thousand Russians, or 12% of its population, lived in the current territory of Latvia, and more than 300 thousand before the First World War. Moreover, the Russian population of Riga, the largest city in the Baltics, in this period was approximately 100 thousand people, or 20% of all citizens [11]. During the years of independent Latvia (1918–1940), although the number of the Russian population decreased to 206.5 thousand (1935), it was the largest ethnic minority in the country (10.6%) [12]. The largest number of the Russian population falls on the last years of the existence of Latvia in the USSR (1940–1991), which was mainly caused by migration from its regions. In 1989, 905.5 thousand Russians lived in Latvia, or 34.0% of its population [13].

During the independence of Latvia (since 1991), the number of its Russian population has decreased by about two due to emigration, as well as negative demographic growth. At the beginning of 2022, 454.4 thousand Russians lived in Latvia, which accounted for 24.2% of the total population of the country, and their share in the population of the five largest cities is: in Riga 35.7%, in Daugavpils - 47.8%, in Liepaja - 27.2%, in Jelgava – 24.9%, in Jurmala – 32.6% [13]. The high proportion of the Russian population in the largest cities of Latvia, as well as in Latgale, where Russian Old Believers settled already in the 17th century, as well as priority identification based on the Russian language and Russian culture, also led to the reproduction of the most important structural elements of their collective ethno-cultural identity [14, 15].

Among all the largest ethnic groups in Latvia - Latvians, Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians and Poles, constituting 94.9% of the total population only for Latvians and Russians is the native language of their ethnic group. For Latvian Latvians, the mother tongue is Latvian in 95.7% of cases, for Russians, Russian - 94.5% of cases, for Ukrainians, Ukrainian - in 27.2%, for Poles, Polish - in 19.4%, for Belarusians, Belarusian - in 18.8%. Only Latvians and Russians, compared to other large ethnic groups in Latvia (with the exception of the Roma), are characterized by marriages mainly with partners of their own nationality [16].

The categorization of Russians as a ethnic minority is very clearly manifested in the peculiarities of their political consciousness and behavior. This is due to the extremely low representation of Russians among the Latvian political elite, the highest state bureaucracy, the scientific and expert community, which can be qualified as the operation of ethnic exclusion mechanisms. Since 1991, only one person of Russian origin, Maria Golubeva, has been Minister of the Interior for less than one year as a representative of the Development/For! party [17]. Nil Ushakov in the period 2009–2019 was the mayor of Riga. But among the advisers to the Prime Minister [18], among the nineteen heads of departments and departments of government departments, there is no one with a Russian name and surname [19]. There is not a single Russian among the rectors of all sixteen state universities, academies and higher schools. The proportional participation of ethnic minorities in Latvia is realized mainly in the leadership of private universities, where five out of eleven rectors are only representatives of these ethnic groups [20]. There are practically no Russians in the leadership of big business in Latvia either. Among the top 20 taxpaying businesses in 2019, ethnic minorities were CEOs of only one company, which ranked last on the list, and among the top 60 companies, only six (BERLAT GRUPA, SIA; GREIS, SIA; GREIS loģistika, SIA; Accenture Latvijas filiāle; LIVIKO, SIA; BITE Latvija, SIA) [21].

Given the enormous attention of the international community to the problems of preserving the identity of indigenous peoples, in terms of the collective consciousness of the Russian population of Latvia, self-categorization as one of the indigenous peoples of Latvia also resonates. In Latvian science, including in works written by Russian scientists themselves, the term national (or ethnic) minority is mainly used in relation to Russians in Latvia [3, 22, 23, 24, 25]. The categorization of the Russian population of Latvia as an ethnic minority is extremely important for the legitimation of the collective identity of this ethnic group in the conditions of a multi-ethnic and multicultural society in Latvia. The Constitution defines Latvia as a “nation state” with “ethnic (national) minorities” [26]. Recognition of the Latvian language as the only state language at the same time coexists with the right of ethnic minorities to use their native languages ​​and develop their culture in private and public life. Within the framework of legal guarantees for ethnic minorities, Latvian Russians since 1991 have been able to create a system of non-governmental organizations, political parties, educational institutions, including higher education, the development of scientific, publishing, journalistic activities, etc. These forms of institutionalization of the collective identity of the Russian ethnic minority are an important channel integration into the Latvian society without threatening the interests of the Latvian language and culture [27].

However, it cannot be said that the categorization of Russians in Latvia as an ethnic minority is shared by the entire scientific community and experts. Particularly great disagreements on this issue are found in the political consciousness, which offers alternative forms of ethnic categorization. The main objections to the legitimacy of categorizing the Russian population of Latvia as an ethnic minority can be summarized as follows:

1. “Statistical” objection. Latvian Russians are too large a population group, especially in big cities. This objection is most often found among Russians, for whom the political mobilization of this ethnic group is important;

2. “Historical” objection. Russians appeared on the territory of modern Latvia long before the formation of the Latvian state in 1918 and even long before the very term “Latvia” appeared. It is among the adherents of this objection that the categorization of the Russians of Latvia as one of its indigenous peoples is most often encountered;

3. “Legal and political” objection. Most of the modern Russian population of Latvia appeared during the incorporation of its territory into the Russian Empire and the USSR. This is what caused the mass migration of Russians to Latvia. Thus, Russians in Latvia cannot in any way be regarded as such traditional national minorities as the Basques of France and Spain, the Lusatian Serbs of Germany, etc. to Latvia. This view is very common among Latvian illiberal and nationalist circles.

4. The concepts of “indigenous peoples” and “ethnic minorities” in international law and the experience of the Republic of Latvia (1991: 2022)

The adopted United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) contains a description of a whole system of individual and collective rights of people belonging to indigenous peoples [28]. However, there is no definition of “indigenous peoples” in this document. The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues reveals the modern understanding of the term “indigenous peoples”, which includes a sign of individual self-identification and its recognition as a community, a special language, culture, religion, historical connection with the pre-colonial period, non-dominant status in society, etc. [29]. The World Bank also provides a detailed enumeration of the characteristics of indigenous peoples, which indicate the difference between their collective identity and the majority of the country’s population, commitment to their native languages, traditions, leaders, and connection to their land. At the same time, such peoples are characterized by a sense of danger associated with a reduction in their life opportunities, including the lack of their official recognition by the state [30].

The term “indigenous peoples” is quite actively used in the scientific and socio-political discourse in Latvia. In scientific articles, this term has been assigned to Livs, representatives of the Finno-Ugric language family, now numbering 170 people [31, 32, 33]. In the Constitution, it is the Livs, along with the Latvians, that are recognized as an ethnic group that forms the identity of Latvia [26]. Some representatives of the Latgalian community, as well as Russian publicists in Latvia, also consider Latgalians as an indigenous (“independent”) people of Eastern Latvia [34, 35]. There were even attempts by the opposition party “Consent Center” to induce the Latvian Parliament to recognize the Latgalians, along with the Livs, as the indigenous people of Latvia [36]. Such perceptions are supported by research data in Latgale, which show a very high proportion of people who indicated their Latgalian identity (27.0%) and belonging to the Latgalian language (21.1%) [37].

Many features that characterize indigenous peoples (originality of language, culture, traditions, areas of traditional residence), as well as their rights to protect and reproduce their individual and collective identity, inadmissibility of discrimination against them by the state and society, largely coincide with the features national minorities contained in the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995) of the Council of Europe [38].

If the categorization “indigenous people” in relation to the Russian population is not officially accepted in Latvia, then the categorization “national (ethnic) minority” is usually applied. However, the application of this categorization in relation to the entire non-Latvian population is connected with the directions of nation-building in Latvia, which is not completed. In Latvia, at the state level, as a “normative” model of nation-building, the achievement of the goal is recognized, when “the Latvian language and cultural space form the basis of national identity, which strengthens belonging to the nation and the Latvian state. Therefore, maintaining and strengthening the position of the Latvian language and cultural space is a priority for the long-term development of Latvia” [39]. As the political history of Latvia since 1991 shows, this stated goal has not yet been achieved, and its implementation is expected by 2030.

The preamble to the Constitution of Latvia (2014) guarantees the rights of ethnic minorities to preserve their identity. At the same time, it is said that there are “Latvian nation” and ethnic minorities in the country, which, along with the Latvians, constitute the “people of Latvia” [26]. Thus, the categorization of “ethnic minorities” is excluded from the national identity, and the identities of ethnic minorities are subordinated to the identity of the Latvians. Other important ethno-political documents also emphasize the idea of differences in the socio-political value of the identity of Latvians and representatives of ethnic minorities. In the “Citizenship Law” (1994), only Latvians are automatically recognized as citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, as representatives of the “state nation” (valstsnācija) and autochthonous Livs [40]. The “Declaration on the Occupation of Latvia” (1996) speaks of “the need to eliminate the consequences of the occupation”, which included “hundreds of thousands of migrants”, with the help of which “the leadership of the USSR ... sought to destroy the identity of the people of Latvia” [41]. The “Law on the State Language” (1992, 1999) fixes the varying degree of responsibility of the state in relation to the Latvian language (“preservation, protection and development”) and ethnic minority languages (“the right to use the mother tongue”) and “expanding the influence of the Latvian language ..., to stimulate the fastest integration of society” [42]. The “Education Law” (1998) defines Latvian as the language of education in state, municipal and private educational institutions, while retaining the right to use ethnic minority languages ​​in pre-school and primary schools that implement ministry-approved “ethnic minority education programs” [43].

In various social integration programs (2000, 2011) adopted by the government of Latvia since the early 2000s, ethnic minorities, primarily the Russian population, regardless of legal status (citizens of the Republic of Latvia or its permanent residents) are considered as only an object of the state integration policy. According to these documents, in the field of their education, it is necessary to achieve the existence of a “stable environment of the Latvian language”, and the goal of the integration policy is to preserve the “Latvian language, cultural and national identity, European democratic values, a unique cultural space” without mentioning the interests of ethnic minorities in the development of their ethno-cultural identity [44, 45]. In fact, the principle of asymmetry is being implemented in the socio-political value of the Latvian identity and the identity of ethnic minorities.

5. Programs of Latvia’s political parties on the place of ethnic minorities in nation-building

In 2004, the Latvian Saeima (parliament) ratified the General Convention of the Council of Europe for the Protection of National Minorities, which laid important legal grounds for recognizing the identities of these population groups as one of the legitimate forms of Latvian national identity. This created the prerequisites for taking into account the interests of ethnic minorities in the democratized process of nation-building. However, neither before the ratification of this Convention and Latvia’s accession to the European Union in 2004, nor after any of the political parties expressing the interests of ethnic minorities to one degree or another, was invited to the ruling coalition. And this despite the fact that from 2011 to this day, the faction of the Social Democratic Party “Consent”, which is supported mainly by Russian-speaking citizens, is the largest in the Saeima.

The programs of some political parties of the ruling coalition (“New Unity” and “Who Owns the State”) do not even mention the existence of ethnic minorities in Latvia [46, 47]. At the same time, in the program of the radical “National Association”, which is part of the government coalition, the native language of the Russian population of Latvia is mentioned in a negative connotation [48]. The election program of the Union of Greens and Peasants, which is in opposition, for which the Latvian voter votes, has recently begun to include a provision on the need to respect the right of ethnic minorities to preserve their language and culture [49]. In the party programs of the government’s New Conservative Party and the Development/For! states the need for the state to create conditions for “the inclusion of ethnic minorities in the Latvian language, culture, worldview while preserving their language and culture.” But in general, ethnic minorities are seen as social groups that need to be actively included in the space of the “Latvian language, culture and worldview” [50]. Or, in some variation, it is proposed “to provide all children with education in the Latvian language and the opportunity to master part of the educational material bilingually in the languages ​​of ethnic minorities and EU languages” [51]. The presence in the program documents of the two government parties of some provisions on the preservation of the identity of ethnic minorities can be seen as a step forward compared to the situation before the elections of the current 13th Seimas (2018), in which all government parties did not mention in their programs the presence of ethnic minorities in the country. But in general, it is fair to say that the leading political parties proceed from the idea of ​​nation-building in Latvia as an unfinished process that needs to achieve the linguistic homogeneity of the public space.

The Social Democratic Party “Consent” proceeds from the idea of ​​the need to ensure a more worthy place for ethnic minorities in nation-building than is happening now. This party in its program emphasizes the group ethno-cultural values ​​of this part of the population (the need for “teaching the languages ​​of traditional ethnic minorities in Latvia within the framework of the education system”, “the use of ethnic minority languages in communication with state and local government institutions in places where minorities live traditionally or in a significant amount, for the application of the norms of the General Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in full and the withdrawal of reservations (declarations) made during the ratification of the convention.” the presence of ethnic minorities in the country [52] was mentioned. Only a serious loss of support for the Russian-speaking voter in the Seimas elections in 2018 at the level of political declarations increased the emphasis on the interests of the Russian-speaking population. In particular, “Consent” advocated the introduction of “optional programs in the native language in metropolitan schools of ethnic minorities” [53]. In addition to “Consent” the party “Russian Union of Latvia” also focuses on the interests of ethnic minorities. The program of this party proclaims the achievement of an official status for the Russian language, state guarantees for Russian schools and schools of ethnic minorities in general [54]. But the Russian Union has not been represented in the Seimas since 2010.

A significant place among the agents of nation-building is occupied not only by nationalist and radical parties, but also by public organizations, the media, whose representatives consider any independence of the Russian-speaking parties and the orientation of the political views of the Russian population that do not fit into the nationalist canon as “national betrayal” [55, 56]. Some politicians propose to liquidate the largest party of the parliament “Consent”, which is voted mainly by Russian-speaking citizens [57]. Information stuffing of extremely Russophobic content is regularly made [58, 59]. Moreover, xenophobia began to spread to the ethnonym “Russians” itself. In 2020, a discussion revived in the Latvian segment of the Internet whether this concept should be considered a curse [60]. Within the framework of this interpretation, the widespread interpretation of the “loyalty” of ethnic minorities to the state also fits in, in the content of which nationalist politicians “forget” to include a mention of the constitution, which contains articles on the guarantee of the Latvian state to respect human rights, including the rights of ethnic minorities [61]. The impossibility of combining Latvian patriotism and adherence to Soviet values ​​is emphasized. One of the driving factors for the growth of the Russian population’s skepticism towards their official categorization as an ethnic minority is associated with the rejection of the categorization of Russians as “foreigners” (cittautieši), which is widespread in a significant segment of the Latvian socio-political consciousness, including some scientific publications [62].

6. Materials of sociological research

The author of the article in 2000 and 2019 conducted a survey of students studying in Russian in three private higher education institutions in Riga. Taking into account the significant time gap in the study, the tasks were also set to determine to what extent the needs of self-categorization of Russian-speaking youth as an ethnic minority are reproduced in discursive practices for a sufficiently long period of time, as well as the extent to which continuity in such self-categorization is characteristic of the respondents of 2000, who lived about half of their lives in conditions of the USSR and among respondents in 2019 who were born in independent Latvia. In 2000, 68 respondents were interviewed, in 2019–2075. The gender characteristics of the respondents, citizenship, self-assessment of the level of knowledge of the Latvian language, as well as their attitude towards the prospects of linking their future life with Latvia are presented in Table 1.

Characteristics of respondents	2000	2019
Citizenship
Citizens of the Republic of Latvia	29	65
Permanent resident of the Republic of Latvia	37	5
Citizens of other states	1	5
No answer	1	—
Self-assessment of the level of knowledge of the Latvian language
Excellent level	8	9
Intermediate level	27	46
Weak level	31	17
I do not speak Latvian language	—	3
No answer	2	—
The desire to connect their future life with Latvia
“I certainly do” and “most likely I do”	20	44
“Most likely I do not” and “I do not”	7	21
Have not yet decided whether they will continue to live in Latvia	40	10
	1	—

Table 1.

Some objective and subjective characteristics of the respondents.

The students were asked to answer one question in free written form “How do you imagine the future of ethnicminorities and languages in Latvia?”. The very wording of the question for the respondents did not at all imply the need to directly categorize themselves as representatives of various national-political or ethnic communities, for example, with “citizens of Latvia”, “permanent residents of Latvia”, “Latvians”, with representatives of ethnic minorities. However, through the content of the individual discourses of the respondents, one can determine how much the most frequently occurring (normative) descriptions and assessments of the ethno-political and ethno-social reality in Latvia and the place of ethnic minorities in it, which are specific to the consciousness of the Russian and Russian-speaking population of Latvia, turn out to be in demand in them. Given the large volume and diversity of opinions expressed, their content was grouped on a scale of assessments in the range “the future of ethnic minorities and their languages depends mainly on their own individual efforts” to “state ethnic policy and existing political institutions do not imply the full preservation of national minorities and their languages “. In general, the distribution of representations of respondents in 2000 and 2019 is presented in Table 2.

	2000	2019
1. The future of ethnic languages and minorities depends mainly on the individual efforts of representatives of these groups of the Latvian population, on personal needs to preserve their native language, family traditions for preserving the Russian language, on the ability of the person himself to link the preservation of his identity with integration into Latvian society.	16	13
2. The future of national languages and minorities depends mainly on the large proportion of representatives of these groups in the population of Latvia; in addition, a large number of immigrants from other countries arriving in Latvia will objectively lead to an increase in ethno-cultural diversity.	17	10
3. The existing state ethnic policy, established political institutions, as well as poor relations between Russians and Latvians do not imply the full preservation of ethnic minorities and their languages.	34	48
4. Other	1	4
Total	70	75

Table 2.

Assessment of the future of ethnic minorities and their languages in Latvia.

The overwhelming majority of descriptions speak of a close connection between the future of ethnic minorities and the current direction of state ethnic policy (primarily policies in the field of citizenship, education, language), as well as with a large proportion of these ethnic groups in the population of Latvia (51 such descriptions in 2000 and 58 - in 2019). The consciousness of the respondents is extremely concentrated on the external, both institutional and demographic circumstances of their self-categorization as ethnic minorities. While the individual and collective capabilities of the ethnic minorities themselves are not considered as the main guarantee to preserve their language and identity, and therefore to preserve themselves as full-fledged ethno-cultural groups in Latvia (16 descriptions in 2000 and 13 in 2019). Respondents are more inclined to consider their reference ethnic groups as a subordinate element of the system of ethno-social stratification and the institutionalized system of power. Moreover, in 2019, compared to 2000, the proportion of respondents who were critical of state ethnic policy even increased (48 and 34 descriptions, respectively). In 2000, respondents gave more detailed answers to the proposed question than in 2019. So, the average number of words of the five most voluminous narratives in 2000 was 451 words, while in 2019 it was only 94 words. More detailed essays in 2000 contained a multifaceted description of the conditions for the existence of the Russian population of Latvia, as well as their identity as a multi-layered phenomenon, where ethnic elements are intertwined with general civil ones. In 2019, there is practically no trace of this extended discourse. The main focus is on emphasizing one’s identity: “we are national minorities.” This is the reserve of group, cultural markers that should determine adaptive strategies for respondents and the construction of civic identity, based on the priority of preserving their ethnic core.

7. Categorization of Russians as the “indigenous people” of Latvia

The marginalization of the collective interests and collective ethno-cultural identity of the Russian population in the dominant socio-political discourse and political practices stimulates the growth of skepticism among a part of this ethnic group to look for alternatives to the categorization of the non-Latvian population as ethnic minorities stated in the legislation. Categorization as one of the indigenous peoples of Latvia is seen by some representatives of the Russian public as such an alternative, especially in a situation where international law contains more guarantees for the preservation of ethno-cultural identity than is provided for in international law relating to the interests of ethnic minorities.

It cannot be said that self-categorization of the Russian population of Latvia is recognized as an official term in the programs of political parties focused on protecting the interests of this ethnic group. However, in the program of the “Russian Union of Latvia” party, one can find a number of terms for categorizing the Russian population, which go beyond the officially accepted concept of “ethnic minority” in relation to the non-Latvian population. This party has a positive attitude towards the categorization of Russians as an ethnic minority of the country, but at the same time stands for “recognition of the existence of two main linguistic communities in the country - Latvian and Russian”, for “the establishment of Russian cultural autonomy in Latvia” [63].

The categorization of Russians as the “indigenous people” of Latvia can be found in the statements of some representatives of Russian public organizations in Latvia, publicists and journalists. A detailed motivation for the legitimacy of using such a categorization of the Russian population was proposed in 2017 by the chairman of the public organization “Union of Citizens and Non-Citizens” Vladimir Sokolov. In his opinion, the use of such a term is possible, since Russians lived on the territory of Latvia even before the formation of Latvian statehood in 1918. And the need to categorize Russians in Latvia as one of its indigenous peoples is dictated by the lack of full-fledged guarantees from the state to preserve the Russian language, whose status in Latvia, according to Sokolov, is “politically repressed” [64].

The idea of Russians as one of the indigenous peoples of Latvia is promoted on the current website of the “Association of the Indigenous Russian-Speaking People of Latvia” [65]. At the same time, the most important sign of the categorization of Russians as an indigenous people is seen in the presence in this group of a large number of citizens of Latvia who received such a status not as a result of naturalization, but by their origin, as descendants of citizens of the Republic of Lithuania in 1918–1940 [66].

Representatives of the Association of Indigenous Russian-Speaking People of Latvia (as an organization of indigenous people) regularly participate in significant UN events - the annual sessions of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the annual sessions of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Latvian publicist and public figure Vlad Bogov, speaking at the 7th session of the UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Geneva, 2014), linked the need to consider the Russian population of Latvia as its indigenous people due to the fact that the Russian language is recognized in Latvia only like a foreign one. Bogov’s speech stated that “the leadership of Latvia, formed mainly from representatives of the Latvian-speaking people and defending only their interests, is consistently implementing plans to build a single nation in Latvia based on a single Latvian language and culture. To this end, a policy of forced assimilation and integration is being pursued” [67]. V. Bogov also made a report at the meeting of the 14th session of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues at the United Nations Headquarters (2015). In his opinion, the approximate number of indigenous Russian-speaking people is at least 140,000 people - 8% of the total population of Latvia and 50% of the number of Russian-speaking inhabitants of Latvia who have the right to vote. In this case, the representatives of this people include those Russian-speaking people who received citizenship of Latvia without naturalization, “by blood” (“by inheritance”), which is in fact the recognition by the state (Latvia) of the existence of the indigenous Russian-speaking people inhabiting the territory of this country [68].

Representatives of the Russian public also resort to the self-categorization of “indigenous people” in polemics with representatives of political power. For example, this happened at a rally of many thousands near the Presidential Palace of parents, public activists, teachers, journalists who gathered in response to the approval by the President of Latvia Raimonds Vejonis (2018) of amendments to the Law on Education, according to which education in public and private schools of national minorities will soon be be held only in Latvian, and Russian-speaking students will be allowed to study in their native language only Russian language and literature. At this rally, the mother of one boy compared education in Latvia to a blow to the head with an ax - tough, rude and the strongest survive: “I have nowhere to go, my ancestors have lived on this land for centuries. I do not believe that we can be crushed here. We are a third of the population of Latvia, it is unacceptable to put up with the humiliation and infringement of our rights! If the store refuses to speak Russian with me, I turn around and go to another place. We must force them to reckon with us, we are the same indigenous people of Latvia as the Latvians!” [69]. At the Youth Country Conference of Russian Compatriots in Latvia (2019), Margarita Dragile, representing the international youth organization “Prospects for Russian Youth”, said: “We are Russian citizens of Latvia, the same indigenous people as the titular population. My great-grandfather, for example, was the governor-general of the city of Riga! Why should I leave here or have a limited list of rights? But now November 2019 is on the calendar, and there is no more Russian education in our country” [70].

As can be seen from the speeches of some representatives of Russian public organizations, the results of the 2012 referendum on amendments to the Constitution, making Russian the second state language are the immediate stimulus for turning to the categorization “Russian indigenous people of Latvia”. The results of the referendum showed that the majority of Latvian citizens - 74.8% were against granting Russian the status of a second state language, only 24.9% of those who participated in the vote supported this initiative [71]. Thus, the referendum demonstrated the split of society along ethno-linguistic lines, because the proportion of people who supported the initiative to grant the Russian language the status of the second state language in Latvia roughly corresponds to the proportion of Russian-speaking citizens in Latvian society.

If we turn to the content of social networks in the Russian-speaking segment of Latvia, we can find the following arguments in favor of self-categorization by Russians as one of the indigenous peoples of Latvia:

1. The categorization “national minority” implies a subordinate status in relation to the Latvians as a national majority, which in real life turns into a narrowing of life chances for Russians, their “second-class” character;

2. Categorization of Russians as one of the indigenous peoples of Latvia, along with Latvians, will help to institutionalize equal life chances for Latvians and the Russian population.

Here is a characteristic statement of one of the initiators of the discussion on social networks about the value of categorizing Russians as one of the indigenous peoples of Latvia: “Well, how long can you mock us, call us some kind of “ethnic minority”? We are not a ethnic minority, but the indigenous inhabitants of Latvia, we have exactly the same rights to this land as the Latvians. Today’s Saeima and the government of Latvia have committed a form of genocide against us, forbid us to speak our native language, humiliate and insult us in every possible way, take away our Motherland. And we follow their lead, silently put up with the situation of second-class people. Latvians are not masters in Latvia, they are just one of the peoples living in this territory. We are not an “ethnic minority”, but “the indigenous people of Latvia of non-Latvian nationality” [72].

8. Conclusion

The Russian population of Latvia is characterized by self-categorization as an ethnic minority of this country. However, as the analysis of the dominant socio-political discourse shows, the formed political practices, such categorization is associated not so much with additional opportunities for the preservation and development of their collective ethno-cultural identity, which is provided for by international law, but with the subordinated status of the Russian population in comparison with the status of ethnic Latvians. It is no coincidence, therefore, that in terms of the consciousness of the Russian population of Latvia, skepis is spreading in relation to the positive possibilities of the status of an ethnic minority within the framework of the people of Latvia. Such skepticism leads a part of the Russian population to turn to the possibilities of categorization as one of the indigenous peoples of Latvia, given that international law attaches great importance to respecting the rights of these groups of society. However, in the scientific community, such attempts to self-categorize the Russian population of Latvia as its indigenous people do not meet with understanding.