IMAGE OF UKRAINE AS AN ENEMY IN THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF RUSSIAN CITIZENS
https://doi.org/10.18384/2224-0209-2022-1-1105
Abstract
Aim. To reveal the elements of the image of the enemy in the image of Ukraine as it exists in the minds of the citizens of the Russian Federation.
Methodology. The article is based on the results of sociological studies of the image of foreign countries in the consciousness of Russian citizens. The data were obtained during the empirical research conducted in 2018–2019 by the Department of Sociology and Psychology of Politics, Faculty of Political Science, Moscow State University. To interpret the obtained data obtained, qualitative and quantitative research methods were used (focused semi-standardized interviews and coding of the data obtained).
Results. The study has shown that the image of Ukraine in the minds of the Russians indeed contains components of the image of the enemy to a large degree. At the same time, the Russians predominantly see the ruling elites and state structures of Ukraine as the enemy rather than the people of Ukraine. There is a heightened sense of danger from Ukraine, of geopolitical nature as well as a threat to Russian national identity. At the same time, the geopolitical threat in minds of the Russians is indirect rather than direct, and comes not so much from Ukraine itself, but from its status as a kind of “conductor” and catalyst of the threat from larger Western players. The threat to national identity is rooted in a sense of cultural and historical closeness to the people of Ukraine and the tendency of Russian citizens to equate the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Due to these factors, Ukraine’s turn towards an anti-Russian vector and the anti-Russian political discourse that has grown out of it are perceived rather negatively by the Russians.
Research implications. The results of this research are of practical importance, since they contribute to the academic understanding of the image of the “evil other” that exists in the consciousness of the Russians, the importance of which for the national identity of Russian citizens has greatly increased in the recent years. This article supplies the academic understanding of the processes of the formation and transformation of the Russian national identity, which is currently unfolding. The questions related to strengthening its foundations are now of particular importance at the level of discourse of Russian political elites.
About the Author
E. Novakovskiy
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Evgeniy A. Novakovskiy – Postgraduate Student, Department of Sociology and Psychology of Politics
119991, Moscow, Lomonosovsky prosp. 27 korp.4
References
1. Evgenyeva T. V., Usmanova Z. R. [“Ours” and “Others”: Images of Foreign States in the Context of the Perception of Russia by its own Citizens]. In: Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 12: Politicheskie nauki [Moscow University Bulletin. Series 12: Political science], 2018, no. 2, pp. 57–75.
2. Selezneva A. V., Smulkina N. V. [Political and psychological features of Slavic countries’ perception by Russian citizens]. In: Zhurnal Frontirnykh Issledovanii [Journal of Frontier Studies], 2020, no. 4 (20), pp. 209–236.
3. Shestopal E. B., Smul’kina N. V. [Factors of political perception of postSoviet countries in contemporary Russian society]. In: Polis. Politicheskie issledovaniya [Polis. Political Studies], 2018, no. 1, pp. 26–44.
4. Shestopal E. B., Smulkina N. V., Morozikova I. V. [Comparative analysis of one’s own images in Russian regions]. In: Sravnitel’naya politika [Comparative Politics Russia], 2019, no. 10 (3), pp. 74–94.
5. Abric J. C. A Structural approach to social representations. In: Deaux K., Philogene G. Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions. Oxford, Blackwell, 2001, pp. 621–631.
6. Allport G.W. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, Addison-Wesley, 1954. 537 p.
7. Helbling M., Reeskens T., Wright M. The mobilization of identities: a study on the relationship between elite rhetoric and public opinion on national identity in developed democracies. In: Nations and Nationalism, 2016, no. 22 (4), pp. 744–767. DOI:10.1111/nana.12235
8. Hewstone M., Rubin M., Willis H. Intergroup Bias. In: Annual Review of Psychology, 2002, no. 53, pp. 575–604.
9. Hogg M., Terry D., White K. A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory. In: Social Psychology Quarterly, 1995, vol. 58, iss. 4, pp. 255–269.
10. Tajfel H. Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982. 546 p.
11. Tajfel H., Turner J. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: Worchel S., Austin W. G. Psychology of Intergroup Relation. Chicago, Nelson Hall Publishers, 1986, pp. 7–24.
12. Feinstein Y., Bonikowski B. Nationalist narratives and anti-Immigrant attitudes: exceptionalism and collective victimhood in contemporary Israel. In: Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2019, no 47 (3), pp. 1–21. DOI:10.1080/1369183X.2019.1620596
Review
Views:
561
Email this article 