Sub-ethnic differentiations of Russian ethnic groups: the case of Kalmyks and Tuvans

• Published in: Novye issledovaniâ Tuvy no. 2
• Main Authors: Chimiza K. Lamazhaa, Lyudmila V. Namrueva
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Russian
• Published: Novye Issledovaniâ Tuvy 01.06.2018
• Subjects: архаизация; калмыки; Калмыкия; клановость; российские этносы; субэтническая идентичность; субэтнические группы; субэтнические дифференциации; Тува; тувинцы
• ISSN: 2079-8482
• DOI: 10.25178/nit.2018.2.11

The article examines the issue of the differential processes and events in the ethnosocial lives of Russia’s regions. These processes and events, stemming from the complexity of indigenous populations, can be termed ‘sub-ethnic differentations’, which, in their turn, can appear in declarative or non-declarative forms. In this article, the authors focus on sub-ethnic differentiations within the contemporary Kalmyk and Tuvan ethnicities. A quick glance at the ethnogenesis of both Kalmyks and Tuvans explains the complex structure of these ethnicities. The social structures of both societies rested upon patrilineal clans, where all relatives of one’s father comprise a settlement (hoton or aal). Kinship, clan identities, knowledge of your relatives and genealogy was extremely important. However, the internal structure of an ethnicity was more complex and did not limit itself to clans, especially among Kalmyks. The events of the 20th century have had contradictory impact on the ethnosocial processes, but definitely failed to fully transform the basic social structures of both ethnicities. For a number of decades, proud display of belonging to a kinship group has been seen as an element of ‘parochial thinking’, but the clan identity never lost its edge. Declarative forms of sub-ethnic differentiations can be found in events, public attributions and talks, or indeed any other activity openly acknowledged by its subject as a form of revival of ethnic culture. In this context, clan groups are accepted as an integral part of traditional culture. Non-declarative forms, in contrast, reveal themselves without lofty goals. They are used in the field of everyday social and ethnic relations, especially when an economic or political issue has to be addressed by a group of interconnected individuals. The sociodemographic and migration-related regional processes as such do not indicate any physical split within an ethnicity, which would have predicted its future collapse and the arrival of new entities. On the contrary, increasing urbanization, the out-migration from the countryside and other interethnic issues arise where various kinship groups which had been living separately now flock to the same area. The authors believe that accentuating the issue of ethnicities’ internal complexity, as well as acknowledging the presents of composite kinship groups, will help actualize the role of ethnicity in contemporary society.