SELF-IDENTIFICATION OF PEOPLE FROM THE IMMIGRANT RUSSIAN ENVIRONMENT IN GERMANY: THE EXAMPLE OF BERLIN
Abstract
Researchers are increasingly interested in how migrants perceive themselves in a new environment for them, but issues of identity and belonging are becoming more complex in a modern pluralistic society. Germany is a special case as the government has implemented several resettlement programs, thus singling out certain groups on its own. The article examines how Russian-speaking immigrants in Berlin identify themselves and whether their self-identification is influenced by the presence of programs that provide various conditions for inclusion in German society.
The main results showed a variety of types of self-identification. However, there was no strong impact of the programs. A sufficiently high importance of the social circle, citizenship, and, most importantly, the urban environment for building a model of self-identification was revealed.
References
2. Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London, New York, Verso, 1991.
3.Appadurai, A. 1996. Here and now. In: Arjun Appadurai, Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization, pp. 1-23.
4.Bahrt F. The Social Organisation of Cultural Differences, Universitetforlaget, 1969.
5.Berry J. W. Immigration, Acculturation, and Adaptation Applied Psychology: An International Review, 1997.46 (1). p.5-68.
6.Brubaker R. and Kim J. Transborder Membership Politics in Germany and Korea. Archives européennes de sociologie/Eu ro pe an Journal of Sociology 2011, 52(1), p. 21-75.
7.Brubaker R., Ethnicity without Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004.
8.Brück-Klingberg A., Burkert C., Seibert H., Wapler H. Spätaussiedler mit höherer Bildung sind öfter arbeitslos, Bundesagentur für Arbeit, IAB Kurzbericht Ausgabe, (8), 2007.
9.Castiglioni I. and Bennett. M.J. Building Capacity for Intercultural Citizenship. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2018, 6, 229-241.
10. Eidheim H. When Ethnic Identity is Social Stigma / Bahrt Frederik, The Social Organisation of Cultural Differences, Universitetforlaget, 1969, p.39-53/
11. Entrikin J.N. The Betweenness of Place. Towards a Geography of Modernity. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991.
12. Eriksen T. H. What is anthropology? Pluto Press, 2004.
13. Kassis W., Panagiotidis J., Heller P. „Ich würde nicht in eine Wohngegend mit vielen Russlanddeutschen ziehen“. Stehen soziale Vorurteile gegen Russlanddeutsche in engem Zusammenhang mit Ausländerfeindlichkeit und Dominanzorientierung? Jahrbuch des BKGE 24, 2016, p. 335 – 355.
14. Kaya, A. 2002. “Aesthetics of Diaspora: Contemporary Minstrels in Turkish Berlin,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(1), p. 43-62
15. Massey D. S., Nancy A. Denton. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1993.
16. Panagiotidis J. Geschichte der Russlanddeutschen ab Mitte der 1980er Jahre, URL:http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/russla nddeutsche/249842/geschichte-der-russlanddeutschenab-mitte-der-1980er-jahre
17. Panagiotidis J. In Postsowjetische Migranten Deutschland Perspektiven auf eine heterogene „Diaspora“Aussiedlung Beheimatung Politische Teilhabe (APuZ) 11–12, 2017.
18. Portes A., Zhou M. The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1993.
CC BY-ND
A work licensed in this way allows the following:
1. The freedom to use and perform the work: The licensee must be allowed to make any use, private or public, of the work.
2. The freedom to study the work and apply the information: The licensee must be allowed to examine the work and to use the knowledge gained from the work in any way. The license may not, for example, restrict "reverse engineering."
2. The freedom to redistribute copies: Copies may be sold, swapped or given away for free, in the same form as the original.
